sddavis63 If you can set aside the scientific implausibilities (or impossibilities) that abound in this movie, you can appreciate it from a number of angles. I first saw it many years ago and just watched it again - and still found it touching and relevant. Timothy Hutton starred as Sheppard - part of a scientific team in the Arctic who discover something frozen in the Arctic ice, and eventually discover that it's a Neanderthal who was somehow trapped there perhaps 40000 years ago. Intending to thaw him out and cut him up and ship various parts of his body around the world for study, the team is shocked when the Iceman comes to life. Played superbly by John Lone, the Iceman is alone, afraid and bewildered by the strange surroundings in which he finds himself, and the team basically continues to see him as a science project for lack of a better way to describe it - a specimen to be studied. But Sheppard sees him as a man and tries to understand him, communicate with him and befriend him. The interaction between the two came across as authentic, and the bond between them was believable. The viewer bonds with the Iceman too - or, if you don't, there's something wrong with you. The viewer starts to see him as a person; starts to sympathize with his plight. This is definitely a movie that pulls you in successfully.It's also a movie that - while dated in many ways - does have a strange relevance to today's world. We're not likely to ever find a frozen Neanderthal and bring him back to life. Even Otzi the Iceman (who was frozen in ice only 5000 years ago is most definitely dead and not coming back.) But there are scientists who think they can bring back extinct species like mammoths, and some speculation that eventually someone might try to bring back a Neanderthal (notwithstanding that most of us aside from Africans already have Neanderthal DNA in our bodies.) Watching this movie and thinking about that possibility - I started to wonder. Should we? Even if we could? What sort of life would we give to the poor creature? Would we treat it as a human, or would we treat it as a lab rat, subjecting it to never ending experiments and tests and studies? Would we be Sheppard - or would we be everybody else? I suspect I know the answer to that.Maybe it's best to leave the Neanderthals where they are - buried deep in our own DNA. (7/10)

851222 Greetings from Lithuania."Iceman" (1984) is a great movie. Great movie combines many great things, and "Iceman" is a great Great movie. The story is very intriguing and superbly told. Acting was very good by everyone involved specially by John Lone. He simply gets his best performance (and i saw "The Last Emperor") in this gem - it is superb role but don't judge of it's premise - this is a character trough the movie - it is a great performance. I also loved the very realistic and scientific approach in this movie - no aliens and "mambo-jumbo" stuff - if this could happened - it would have played just like that in this way. The outcome is very satisfying and realistic.Overall, "Iceman" is a great little movie on all accounts. It is highly involving - one of those rare movies that i wish it would have lasted longer. If you haven't seen it - do your self a favor and find this gem - it is great movie.

choralman22000 The opening credits are as boring as any I can ever remember seeing...ever. Flying the block of ice from the place of its discovery to the lab, which seemed to be taking place in real time, was....how can I say this and be reasonably nice about it....it was BORING!!The story concept is, by far, not new. The acting is, at best, horrible. There seems to be almost no continuity to the story line.The musical soundtrack...well...let's say this movie might have done better as a silent film.Please don't waste your time viewing this. Timothy Hutton is pathetic, as is Danny Glover. The, "Iceman" himself would, hopefully, today be done with CGI.This film might have a place in a course in film school where it could be used as a wonderful example of how NOT to make a movie.At least with, "Plan Nine From Outer Space" it was so bad that it was at least funny. "Iceman" offers no socially redeeming values, let alone any value as a film.

Lucian Wischik A prehistoric man from 20 to 40 thousand years ago is found frozen in a block of arctic ice. A research team find him, manage to bring him back to life, and try to figure out how to interact with him.The performances feel genuine. The first dynamic is between the scientists who want to chop up his body and learn its biochemistry to better humankind vs those who want to study his habits and interact with him. The second dynamic is between the iceman and the ethnographer who gains his trust and friendship.All the time I was watching it, I was angry at the ham-fisted incompetence of the researchers. Sure, I know, this is a movie and so the scriptwriters put in bumbling incompetence to push the plot forward. But just imagine if it a prehistoric man really were brought to life. It would be such a marvellous opportunity for interaction and learning, and even a halfway competent research team would make something better of it.So, all the time, I was angry at the scriptwriters for cheating humanity and the iceman of this chance, and this didn't leave space to enjoy the film. 5/10.