Futureworld (1976)

I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Simply Perfect

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

Westworld is one of my favourite sci-fi films. When I heard there was a sequel, I rushed to track it down convinced it couldn't be that bad a film. What I wanted to see in this film were more robots, and more great action scenes but what I actually saw was quite different. Here are my complaints: Two bland lead characters about whom I couldn't care less. The man was too smarmy and smooth and seemed to be suspicious the whole time. I wanted to see someone who was surprised the resort was bad to add some suspense. The woman was annoying as well and the way the man kept calling her "Socks", ugh what a horrible nick name for someone he barely knows.Harry. Harry is some sort of mechanic who lives in the basement with his pet robot who has no face (one of the few robots we see). His character is unbelievable and he's portrayed as some sort of nincompoop.The evil scientist and the ludicrous conspiracy. There's some sort of evil scientist who wants to replace every world leader with a clone (not a robot but actual clones) so that the world will not shut down the resort. Words cannot express the sheer cartoonishness of this plot: it's completely nonsensical.Where are the robots? The only robots we see are all the workers who are robots whom we only know to be robots because they either say "I'm programmed for blah-de-blah etc..." or because our bland hero says they are. We aren't treated to much of the inner-circuitry at all. There is a cameo from Yul Brynner but it's in a dream sequence and absolutely forgettable.Yes there's a machine that can record dreams and our hero perversely watches a dream described as a fantasy lover or something.The ending. We're supposed to be kept in suspense by not knowing whether the clones or the real versions of the two lead characters got away at the end but I knew the real ones had won. We're then treated to the hero giving the mad scientist the middle finger and that's the end. Why didn't the scientist go after them?This film is nothing like the original and seems to be an amalgamation of various 1970s sci-fi clichés such as cloning, dream sequences, space, mad scientists and ridiculous conspiracies.The special effects are terribly outdated. The original didn't need that good effects because the acting and directing were so good. The cloning machine, the dream machine and the horrid chess set sequence are all examples of this.I absolutely detest this film because it offered so much promise and it sullies the original so much.

Futureworld is the sequel to Michael Crichton's 1973 Westworld, which is the better of the two film by a considerable degree. That said, Futureworld is a good film in itself, if the first half is a little slow(especially for modern viewers, I'm sure). Chuck Browning(Peter Fonda), and Tracey Ballard(Blythe Danner) are investigative reporters who get a tip that something seriously amiss at Futureworld, their source being killed before he can fully deliver his goods to them.Taking a "vacation" there themselves, the two enjoy some of the park's attractions while investigating, including holographic chess, as well as a device Danner uses which is able to record one's dream. This is where Yul Brynner's Gunfighter from the Westworld shows up in Tracey's dream in a silent cameo although he is given some top billing.In time, the duo learns that the DELOS Corporation is replacing various important figures with duplicates, and eliminating the human originals, not overly original even in 1976. Star Trek had used the plot some years before for example, but the idea is well-handled. These duplicates would appear to be closer to genuine androids than more-simple robots with biological elements in their design.I did find the handguns used unusual, as they seem to fire something closer to an "energy bullet) than normal bullets.Of course, our pair finally escapes, and reveals this plot at the end.I wouldn't call Futureworld one of the best 1970s science fiction films, but it is certainly a good one which raises some other points I haven't mentioned here, and issues as well. Anybody who enjoys sci-fi films form the 1970s will like this one, although I agree that Peter Fonda was often rather bland in his earlier films.

Despite the Guest appearance of the great Yul Brynner, this film was a poor followup to the classic WESTWORLD.It is actually a real shame as the overall story is very good.The film featured many firsts for films and should always get credit for that... Its the first film ever where I have ever seen the "middle finger" salute before the 1990's when it became part of our general culture.Some excellent ideas were allowed to slip and sadly a wonderful twist disappeared without a trace...But despite all of this, it is a worthy follow up given its age.Sequels are rarely as good as the original... and time has took its toll on this one. It should have served as warning to those planning sequels as what NOT to do...Overall the story is good, but there is not as much fun or action as the original. Worth a look if for nothing other than nostalgia.Maybe if the rumours prove true about a Westworld remake, someone might see the potential with this one as well... Great ideas that never made the mark... Such a shame!But the building blocks are there for a fantastic remake!

THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN DREADED SPOILERS! Having just watched this on Amazon Instant Video (And no they didn't pay me for that free advertisement but I'll sell out cheap! :D ) my perspective is as fresh as my frustration that what turned out to be the last film in the franchise (Funny how a bad entry can do that) didn't end things on a satisfactory note. Since I don't know which you'd prefer first between the good & bad news in my review title anymore than the filmmakers apparently knew how to make a good sequel, I'll arbitrarily choose the good. (I'm an optimist, what can I say?) The music is quite good. Blythe Danner is quite good here as is instantly recognizable baddie John Ryan (Ever notice how most bad guys aren't the most handsome devils in the world of movies? And good guys are always handsome? But I digress.). Also I give them points for recognizing that they NEEDED to bring back Yul Brynner for the sequel.To start off with the bad though whatever points I give for them realizing that they needed Yul Brynner are COMPLETELY negated by the fact they waste him utterly in this made for TV movie looking follow up. He was a virtually unstoppable killing machine in "Westworld", the inspiration for Michael Meyers (John Carpenter has admitted this) & The Terminator as well! Brynner was as The Gunslinger a complete & total BAD ASS! And how do they use him here in his last film? (Tragic when a great actor goes out on a stinker. Reminds me of Raul Julia's last movie being "Streetfighter".) They make him some kind of a Harlequin romance novel fantasy for Blythe Danner's character to get all hot & bothered about!!! I kept WAITING for them to introduce him into the movie thinking "When he shows up it's finally gonna get good!" only to see the aforementioned hippie dippy dream-time sex fantasy sequence! Their misuse of the STAR of this franchise, made all the more sad by it being his last film, was an EPIC FAILURE. I'm not saying that to satisfy me they needed to have him doing exactly what he did in the first one, running & gunning down good guys left & right, but why couldn't they have turned it around & had the good guys use him as their secret weapon when all seemed lost? If you've already seen this imagine how cool it would have been if The Gunslinger showed up at a "We're screwed now!"" moment blowing away his fellow robots with reckless abandon! THAT was what this film needed! But I digress again.Back to what's wrong with "Futureworld".In a word. Fonda. In two words. Peter Fonda.To say that the acting of Peter Fonda in this film was lifeless would be an insult to the dead. It would have been much more believable if they would have revealed that the character that we thought that we knew him as had in fact been a robot throughout the entire film and at least THEN we could have an excuse other than Fonda taking too many drugs in his life or just never bothering to hone his craft because with his name he didn't need to. He's a blight on this movie. Not that it'd be winning any Oscars without him mind you but he didn't do it any favors starring in it either. Makes you appreciate Blythe Danner's talent that much more though. Ultimately what we have here is a sequel that failed for the same reason that most sequels fail. They just didn't try hard enough to make a good film.