Wizard-8 After watching "The Illustrated Man", I did a little research on it, and discovered that writer Ray Bradbury - whose work was adapted for this movie - disliked this movie. Although I have not read any Bradbury, I think I can see where his dislike came from. The main problem with this movie is that it is often much too slow and more often than not lacks any serious bite. The first story (The Veldt) certainly suffers from those problems, coming across as really dull and having a so-called twist ending that's no surprise. The second story (The Long Rain) actually gets to a good start, but suffers from some confusing details as well as a frustrating ending. The third story (The Last Night Of The World) has a good idea, but like the first story suffers from a slow pace and a so-called twist ending that you'll predict long before it happens. The linking footage that connects the three stories is also too slow and long. Whether or not you're a Bradbury fan or not, more likely than not you'll be disappointed with this movie... unless you've ever wanted to see Rod Steiger do nudity.

Boba_Fett1138 Perhaps I was just expecting too much a different movie. I simply expected a good old fashioned, straight-forward, science-fiction thriller and not a 'talking', art-house like movie with deeper meanings and metaphors to it all.What I simply did not liked about the movie was the fact that it explains far too little. It would had been nice if the focused more on the audience as well that didn't read the book by Ray Bradbury, which this movie got based on. Guess that everything in this movie makes sense to those that have read the entire novel but those who only have seen the movie are being left mostly in the dark. It's a very confusing movie, not just because of its strange and unique concept but also due to its very disjointed story-telling. Basically you have one main plot-line and then also some small stories in them as well, that get told in flashbacks. It just doesn't really make the movie feel as one whole and makes the whole narrative confusing to follow. Add to that the fact that this movie explains very little about what's going on and you have one confusing movie.But I just couldn't hate this movie either. I'll admit that I didn't liked the movie much at first but in its last few minutes some of the puzzle pieces fell to its place and I could appreciate the entire movie better for its style and approach.Yes, it's an unique movie for sure, that obviously isn't just for everybody. I was quite surprised that this was an American production, since normally these type of quirky and original movies come from Britain, around that time.It has a good visual approach to it all, which makes this movie somewhat of a science-fiction period piece, that at times is being set far in the future. It's visual style and atmosphere seem appropriate for the movie and the story that it tried to tell. Yes, you can definitely describe its visual style and approach as art-house like. But it's still really foremost its story and the way that it gets told which makes this movie definitely not an accessible one to just everyone. It's definitely a movie you have to read into deeper and think about, long after a scene has ended. There are numerous moments that you just have no idea what is going but do make some more sense a couple of minutes later, as the story progresses more.It doesn't make this movie a much pleasant or great one to watch, at least not for me. I didn't hate this movie and I don't mind these type of movies either but the entire way this movie got handled and told didn't wanted me to watch it again, anytime soon.6/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Muldwych 'The Illustrated Man' shows how good a writer Ray Bradbury was, not to mention how his head was full of fascinating ideas. It shows this because the film is incredibly dated today, from the acting styles to the visions of the future we witness. And yet I remained engrossed throughout, because beneath the anachronisms and barmy notions lie the same powerful film that resonated with me as a child.A lot of the film has little to do with the title character, although Rod Steiger's menacing performance will never let you forget the man with all-over body tattoos that come to life if you stare too hard. Also, Steiger himself has multiple roles throughout, and he delivers them with a mix of the theatrical bellow and long-faced stoicism of the period, but they still have their impact. Meanwhile of greater interest are the short stories each tattoo reveals. Like Bradbury's 'The Martian Chronicles', this film is a collection of tales woven around a central premise. We view his fears about where human society is heading, thanks to the all-pervading intrusion of technology into our lives.I'm reminded of a Poe line - "without music or an intriguing idea, colour becomes pallor, man becomes carcass, home becomes catacomb, and the dead are but for a moment motionless". What becomes of the human soul when the machines take over? Add the all-embracing pallor and single-chrome fashion of a typical 1960s vision of the future, and you have a very bleak picture indeed. Yet that's how people saw things then (our guesses on things to come will look just as ridiculous soon enough), and the central theme, given how far we've progressed technologically in the interim, cannot be any less relevant. I'm glad our modern perspective yearns for more colour though - never mind technology killing our souls - the achromatic architecture would make anyone suicidal enough already.Sojourns into futurity do of course suggest sci-fi trappings. Even putting aside the fact that predictions of the future quickly become dated, Ray Bradbury was never scientifically accurate at the time he wrote his stories. In 'The Martian Chronicles' for example, it is possible to breathe on Mars, water flows through canals, and a few blasts from a rocket's engines can terraform the atmosphere. 'The Illustrated Man' takes the same liberties with reality. Yet to dismiss it because of nonsensical scientific premises is to miss the point. The settings are not more than fabulous window dressing - fantasy masquerading as sci-fi. It is the exploration of the human condition in each tale that Bradbury is concerned with, and they are timeless.As such, while time has not been entirely kind to this screen adaption of 'The Illustrated Man', its emotional core remains intact. The Bradbury flair for the weird and the wonderful is untarnished, and his thoughts still clear. You just need to take a good long look at a rainbow afterwards.

Lathe_of_Heaven It's interesting seeing the other comments on this movie; this is probably one of those films that polarizes people (Uh, I don't mean it makes them magnetic or anything, just people either really like it or really don't...) (cough) Anyway, as I was saying, the people who seem to like nice, tidy, non obscure, little 'Star Wars' like films, will not like this one much. And, quite fairly, it is honestly a matter of taste (bad : ) Just Kidding. No, this film is very dark, and heavy; and as one other reviewer quite accurately states, Rod Steiger's character is not very pleasant at all. But, that does fit the theme and mood of the movie. Remember, this is one of Ray Bradbury's darker, serious, less pretty books. Hey, the dude can be one of the most beautiful, allegorical, poetic writers on the planet; and he can write things that literally make your heart yearn for wind swept Autumn days with boys chasing each other through piles of golden leaves. Wow, that wasn't too bad : ) Anyway, you get the picture; this is NOT one of those.The little stories within the main story are chilling, serious, and have heavy elements of bad futures and horror. So, if you like your Science Fiction light, forget this. If you like it where it leaves you kind of like Harlan Ellison's stories do, then you'll love it.It just depends on how much of a wussy you are : ) No, just kidding;I like the sweet, fun stuff too.