Even though both Rod Serling and Ray Bradbury hated this film I did not and I always appreciate thought provoking science fiction. Todays shallow and unimaginative audiences seem to hate a film that makes you think but thats what good sci-fi does. Rod Steiger has his usual commanding performance and he is a bit much at times. Hostile and violent, its hard to feel sympathy for him. Robert Drivas is very good and at times the film belongs to him but these are fleeting moments as its always impossible to upstage Steiger. Claire Bloom is enchanting but I never really bought into her "Siren" character. I did enjoy the 3 stories even though number three was a little weak. I like the fact that this film is trying to be different. Watching Drivas stare at the illustrations (Don't call them tattoo's!) and then having the film drift into the story that each design is about to tell him I found very interesting. Its not great narrative but I appreciate the effort to be original. Steiger and Bloom were married at the time and it was the last year of their ten year union. Could they're problems have spilled out on screen during they're scenes? Maybe. Not a great film and certainly it wasn't told in a great way but I do appreciate a film that is thought provoking. Something that todays science fiction films lack completely!
56 Reviews
Dated, but the core still shines bright.
Muldwych19 September 2007
'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.
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.
The Illustrated Man
Scarecrow-8819 April 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Revered in some circles, displeased by others, this movie based on Ray Bradbury, will probably divide the audience. I have to admit I found the whole thing rather a chore because the character of Carl is immediately an asshole, a miser with "skin illustrations", from neck to toes, and if they are called tattoos he gets very angry. I envisioned Steiger was often on the verge of turning into the Incredible Hulk at any moment, the guy's Carl is so bursting at the seams with rage and seething with anger. He has a goal and that is to kill Claire Bloom's skin illustrator. Why you might ask Carl would wish to harm her? While looking to get laid, she desires of him to sit for her and receive the illustrations. What Carl doesn't realize before it is too late is that each illustration becomes alive to those who stare at them long enough. Three tales are brought to life, future events concerning characters played by the three principles, Rod Steiger, Claire Bloom, and Robert Drivas (who, for the most part, looks like a decent, well-tempered, effeminate young man undeserved of Carl's volcanic outbursts). Drivas plays Willie, a man traveling from New York City to California for a possible job in what looks like Depression Era America, in a midwestern type backwoods area with a lake. Drivas is "greeted" (if that is what you call it, more like rudely interrupted) by Carl who seems to be looking for coffee or food
maybe, just companionship, although he has a funny way of treating a fellow hitcher.
While talking, Willie begins to envision future tales, one where a married couple, in a muted white home with all the comforts technology could provide, in an equally bland marriage, trying to cope with a rebellious son and daughter who may be planning their demise (their nursery has a holographic mechanism that allows the children to go to fictional places like Africa or the Middle Ages, with an authenticity all too real), the second about a small space crew whose ship has crashed in a place where it always rains and dead tree limbs sprout in all directions as they try to find a functioning "sun dome" that can offer shelter, comfort, and warmth (but Steiger's Colonel is such a brute, commanding them to move forward despite the difficulties harassing their every step, that it leads to perilous, dire consequences), and the third concerns a vision by the Earth's remaining 2000 people, that nothingness would occur after one more day, that they have decided to "put to sleep" their children in order to keep them from experiencing the horror that might result from this (trusting a dream about his nothingness, Steiger agrees with the consensus while Bloom questions such a horrible decision to kill the children despite a dream envisioned by all in attendance).
The movie goes back and forth to Carl and Willie with the two addressing the power of Bloom's flesh artistry and what transpires as a result of one blank area of the tortured, tattooed illustrated man's back which can allow those who look a peek into the future proposing a possible fate. I found this movie experience wholly unpleasant, frustrating (the stories and characters just left me cold), and rather ultimately unsatisfying, because Carl (and the characters he portrays) is such a blistering cipher, with a mood and attitude so foul he's impossible to sympathize with, even though his reason for being so angry comes from Bloom's art on his body. That said, the film is photographed well and has bright spots from a technical standpoint. Certain to be a fan favorite for tattooists and those with an interest in body artistry.
While talking, Willie begins to envision future tales, one where a married couple, in a muted white home with all the comforts technology could provide, in an equally bland marriage, trying to cope with a rebellious son and daughter who may be planning their demise (their nursery has a holographic mechanism that allows the children to go to fictional places like Africa or the Middle Ages, with an authenticity all too real), the second about a small space crew whose ship has crashed in a place where it always rains and dead tree limbs sprout in all directions as they try to find a functioning "sun dome" that can offer shelter, comfort, and warmth (but Steiger's Colonel is such a brute, commanding them to move forward despite the difficulties harassing their every step, that it leads to perilous, dire consequences), and the third concerns a vision by the Earth's remaining 2000 people, that nothingness would occur after one more day, that they have decided to "put to sleep" their children in order to keep them from experiencing the horror that might result from this (trusting a dream about his nothingness, Steiger agrees with the consensus while Bloom questions such a horrible decision to kill the children despite a dream envisioned by all in attendance).
The movie goes back and forth to Carl and Willie with the two addressing the power of Bloom's flesh artistry and what transpires as a result of one blank area of the tortured, tattooed illustrated man's back which can allow those who look a peek into the future proposing a possible fate. I found this movie experience wholly unpleasant, frustrating (the stories and characters just left me cold), and rather ultimately unsatisfying, because Carl (and the characters he portrays) is such a blistering cipher, with a mood and attitude so foul he's impossible to sympathize with, even though his reason for being so angry comes from Bloom's art on his body. That said, the film is photographed well and has bright spots from a technical standpoint. Certain to be a fan favorite for tattooists and those with an interest in body artistry.
Ray Bradbury hates this movie, but I'm rather fond of it.
roarshock16 July 2000
Since most of this film consists of three independent tales it is not unlike watching The Twilight Zone or the Outer Limits on television, except that the source material is the very best possible, and Rod Steiger and Claire Bloom are two of the finest actors conceivable. And although this fragmentation causes the movie to lose the impact that a single feature length story might have had, all the tales, including the connecting story of the illustrated man himself, are bleak, despairing tales that have a cumulative quality. And that's what makes this movie so appealing and unusual. It has depth in directions that aren't often explored anymore and it does it with a simple elegance that you can't achieve with over-saturated special effects. "The Illustrated Man" isn't a masterpiece, or even great, but it is a film that is worth seeing. And in one instance it manages to improve on Bradbury. In his book he creates, then tosses away, the phrase "skin illustrations" with little effect. But a moment of Rod Steiger's rage found only in the movie will have you forever respecting those two words.
Didn't hate it but didn't loved it either...fortunately it got better toward the end.
Boba_Fett113820 August 2010
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.
6/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
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.
6/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
When Artistic Images Trump Reality: "The Illustrated Man"
xtine92621 April 2012
This intriguing 1969 fantasy is based on a Ray Bradbury novel of the same title. It unravels the story of two unlikely paths crossing on a hot, dusty trail, and features Rod Steiger as Will, the illustrated man, and a boyishly young Robert Drivas as Carl, who is subjected to Will's bizarre whims. The latter is hitching rides and walking to California to look for a job.
"They're not tattoos. They're skin illustrations. Don't you ever call them tattoos," Will barks at the younger man after exposing the full brunt of his body art to him. He admits to Will that a woman committed this heinous artistic act upon his body, and even though he didn't really want to end up covered in skin illustrations, he confesses that he did so to get "laid." Ouch. This tantalizing bit of trivia prompts a picture of a potentially painful sensual endeavor, depending on where the most recent skin illustration has been etched.
The seductive, sultry tattoo-creating female character, Felicia, is portrayed by Claire Bloom in this sci-fi-esque classic that ties the past and the future together through elaborate body art.
Some of the futuristic day-to-day life depictions in this three-star flick aren't far from today's technologies and philosophies. The hairdos and clothing worn in this 1969 interpretation of the "future" are also fairly accurate. Kudos to the costume and hair styling departments. Set-wise, these semi-sophisticated people of the future appear to live comfortably in an over-sized white bathroom at one point in this classic cinematic bedazzler.
The main character in "The Illustrated Man" lived in shame, self-conscious about the horrible, colorful notion of walking around covered from neck to feet in tattoos. How ironic that the opposite is true today. In fact, modern body art doesn't stop at the neck any longer. Certain brazen individuals even sport ink on their faces in the tattoo-laden world of this new millennium.
One can only wonder what the illustrated man would think of that?
"They're not tattoos. They're skin illustrations. Don't you ever call them tattoos," Will barks at the younger man after exposing the full brunt of his body art to him. He admits to Will that a woman committed this heinous artistic act upon his body, and even though he didn't really want to end up covered in skin illustrations, he confesses that he did so to get "laid." Ouch. This tantalizing bit of trivia prompts a picture of a potentially painful sensual endeavor, depending on where the most recent skin illustration has been etched.
The seductive, sultry tattoo-creating female character, Felicia, is portrayed by Claire Bloom in this sci-fi-esque classic that ties the past and the future together through elaborate body art.
Some of the futuristic day-to-day life depictions in this three-star flick aren't far from today's technologies and philosophies. The hairdos and clothing worn in this 1969 interpretation of the "future" are also fairly accurate. Kudos to the costume and hair styling departments. Set-wise, these semi-sophisticated people of the future appear to live comfortably in an over-sized white bathroom at one point in this classic cinematic bedazzler.
The main character in "The Illustrated Man" lived in shame, self-conscious about the horrible, colorful notion of walking around covered from neck to feet in tattoos. How ironic that the opposite is true today. In fact, modern body art doesn't stop at the neck any longer. Certain brazen individuals even sport ink on their faces in the tattoo-laden world of this new millennium.
One can only wonder what the illustrated man would think of that?
What movie are these people seeing? Certainly not this one.
whitesheik31 December 2006
The Illustrated Man is now on DVD - it's a reasonably okay transfer (the color is a little off, but not much), but as always people who "review" these things on the IMDb trumpet "misunderstood masterpiece" so often it's laughable. No, this film, which was a critical and box-office disaster, has not become a masterpiece in the intervening years - it's the same bad film it always was. Anyone who says (condescendingly, I might add) "It's for thinkers" clearly knows little about Mr. Bradbury, cinema, or thinking. The film has no sense of rhythm or pace, and it just sits there like a dead herring. Mr. Steiger is fine, so is Claire Bloom and Robert Drivas, but the script is bad, and the normally reliable Jack Smight seems hamstrung by the material.
Unsuccessful attempt to visualise Bradbury's fanciful stories
jamesrupert201413 November 2018
Rod Steiger is 'Carl', the titular character whose dermal illustrations come to life and tell three of Ray Bradbury's fanciful science-fiction short stories ('The Veldt', 'The Long Rain', 'The Last Night of the World'). Between the stories, Carl recounts to Willie, another drifter (Robert Drivas) how he came to be illustrated and why he wants to kill the artist (Claire Bloom). The vignettes (which also star Steiger and Bloom) are typical Bradbury: poetic fantasy with a thin veneer of science. The 'look' of the future in the first somewhat cryptic story is very dated and there isn't really much to the third story. The second tale, in which stranded astronauts try to survive on a planet of incessant, torrential rain is one of my favorites of Bradbury's short stories and (IMO) by far best of the three presented in this film. Bradbury is one of my favourite science fiction writers, but much of the appeal of his stories comes from his poetically descriptive and evocative style, which does not translate well to film ('The Martian Chronicles" (1980) being another example of a failed attempt to render his vision). The interludes with overbearing Carl bullying Willie, his captive audience, are not particularly interesting and Steiger especially is given to overacting. The cryptic backstory about the mysterious illustrator from the future goes nowhere, again reflecting the difficulty in translating Bradbury's fanciful prose to film, a more explicit medium.
Horrid...
banksiv22 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 10 ... only because I can't give a zero, or better yet, negative. The characters repeat the same statements over and over and over, the stories are completely butchered ("The Last Night of the World" isn't even recognizable - none of this crud about killing children or a 'World Forum' was in the actual story.) Couldn't they have replaced it with "The Man" or "The Fire Balloons" or any of the other stories? Two out of the three stories -about half the running time- were literally painful to watch.
You never see the illustrations move - the one thing you do see them do is a crappy superimposition effect. And using the stupid fire as a visual motif got annoying fast.
"Artiness" gone completely wrong.
Uuughhh.
You never see the illustrations move - the one thing you do see them do is a crappy superimposition effect. And using the stupid fire as a visual motif got annoying fast.
"Artiness" gone completely wrong.
Uuughhh.
The Illustrated Man
StevenKeys5 April 2023
Warner Brother's cinematic telling of Ray Bradbury's trio of weird tales that begins when a beautiful, bewitching artist of tele-porting tattoos (Claire Bloom) bamboozles a marsupial roustabout (Rod Steiger & Peke-the-pooch) into being a flesh-canvas for her "skin illustrations!" Directed by Jack Smight (Harper / The-Lonely TV), Illustrated co-stars Robert Drivas (Cool-Hand-Luke) as the unsuspecting passer-by who just can't stop gazing at Carl's beguiling body art, getting pulled into a different dimension and drama with each design. Critics cried foul (It is dark) but that ink won't sink as its images are intriguing and indelible. Give it a look-see, if you dare (3/4).
Overwrought
moonspinner5524 March 2001
Past-present-future collage adapted from Ray Bradbury's collection of stories centering on tattooed man's vendetta against the woman who covered his body with permanent artwork. Highly uneven and cold film, ultimately unsatisfying. Despite Rod Steiger's apparent lust for the ladies, there's an odd undercurrent of homo-eroticism running throughout (at one point, he grabs a young man and pulls him up off the ground, and it's a bit like a scene out of Steiger's "The Sergeant"). The picture isn't even well-made, with odd locations that don't help us to get our bearings and brackish cinematography. *1/2 from ****
Bradbury telling Bradbury
Hitchcoc23 March 2006
This is a set of chilling tales that come to life on the body of the title character. They are the vehicle. They express his pain and his despair. Once he is tattooed, he loses control of the effect of the stories. They are the stories. The one that has stayed with me the longest is the day after the end of the world tale, which has the saddest of conclusions. Some have even said this is a sick story. What would we do to prevent pain? What would we do to show our love? How could we go on with what we have done? These questions float over this episode. Ray Bradbury loves to take fantasy/scifi above the typical and integrate it with romance (not romantic love). He must have absorbed every ounce of his surroundings during his childhood. Here, Rod Steiger brings these tales to life and makes us think.
Ray Bradbury complex tales which became a cult movie!!!
elo-equipamentos13 October 2022
Let's faces it as an unscripted presentation, firstly non-linear story, also unsoundness in some points, the story stays adrift of mostly of time, but it as a Ray Bradbury tales which was adapted to big screen everybody got a strong interest dealing with so greatness writer, upon this worthwhile a look indeed.
The story starts when a strange old man called Carl (Rod Steiger) fully tattooed aside the small part behind his back, he meet quite randomly nearby a lake with a young guy Willie (Robert Drivas), actually Carl wants find out a house around where he knew a beauty woman named Felicia (Claire Bloom) who usually and strangely used to do a tattoo whenever they met, each one of them means something all this happened in the past, henceforth the story jumps into to the future in an implausible sequel of odd facts that unloading in endless overfall.
In some sense hard to be aware this picture got the cult status through time, due it draw attention of the cinephiles around the world, further it is a rare picture to find out easily, altogether it boosted the picture, although it isn't a movie to all tastes ,it may let down some unwary!!
Thanks for reading.
Resume:
First watch: 2022 / Source: DVD / How many: 1 / Rating: 7.
The story starts when a strange old man called Carl (Rod Steiger) fully tattooed aside the small part behind his back, he meet quite randomly nearby a lake with a young guy Willie (Robert Drivas), actually Carl wants find out a house around where he knew a beauty woman named Felicia (Claire Bloom) who usually and strangely used to do a tattoo whenever they met, each one of them means something all this happened in the past, henceforth the story jumps into to the future in an implausible sequel of odd facts that unloading in endless overfall.
In some sense hard to be aware this picture got the cult status through time, due it draw attention of the cinephiles around the world, further it is a rare picture to find out easily, altogether it boosted the picture, although it isn't a movie to all tastes ,it may let down some unwary!!
Thanks for reading.
Resume:
First watch: 2022 / Source: DVD / How many: 1 / Rating: 7.
trying to be Bradbury sci-fi horror
SnoopyStyle27 November 2022
Carl (Rod Steiger) encounters Willie (Robert Drivas) while they are both hoboing around. Willie is headed to California for a job. Carl seems to be an unstable grump covered with tattoos or what he calls, skin illustrations, which he got from the mysterious Felicia (Claire Bloom). Each tattoo tells a story of a future memory. As Willie stares at each one, a different story is revealed.
This is based on a 1951 Ray Bradbury book. It's got the early 70's sci-fi style. Back then, few people have full body tats. I do wonder how shocking it was back in the day. Going back to 1951, full body tattoos are relegated to Japanese gangsters and South Pacific natives. I'm guessing that Bradbury was inspired by people coming back from the Pacific war. The blank on Carl's back is way too obvious. Something is ready to go up there. It's too big. More generally, the pacing is too slow. The filmmaker is lingering with the story telling. Rod Steiger is acting in two speeds. Either he's too slow matching everyone else, or he is way too hyper in bombastic acting. As for the tattoos, there must be some way to bring in an element of body horror. This movie needs to heighten the horror. The sci-fi isn't that great either, but at least, the movie is trying. This movie feels undercooked.
This is based on a 1951 Ray Bradbury book. It's got the early 70's sci-fi style. Back then, few people have full body tats. I do wonder how shocking it was back in the day. Going back to 1951, full body tattoos are relegated to Japanese gangsters and South Pacific natives. I'm guessing that Bradbury was inspired by people coming back from the Pacific war. The blank on Carl's back is way too obvious. Something is ready to go up there. It's too big. More generally, the pacing is too slow. The filmmaker is lingering with the story telling. Rod Steiger is acting in two speeds. Either he's too slow matching everyone else, or he is way too hyper in bombastic acting. As for the tattoos, there must be some way to bring in an element of body horror. This movie needs to heighten the horror. The sci-fi isn't that great either, but at least, the movie is trying. This movie feels undercooked.
Not a classic, but not half-bad for a lot of reasons!
ES-III2 June 2003
From the opening scene, director Jack Smight (Damnation Alley, Midway, Airport 1975) exhibits an ability to `show' the story through cinematography and action rather instead of telling it through dialogue and actors viewers actually learn a lot before any single character really opens his/her mouth (a tribute to the mood of Ray Bradbury stories, perhaps). This story, which, like The Matrix, struggles with question of existence and the relationship between the real and the perceived, is based on a collection of Bradbury short-stories by the same title. Only three are selected here (including "The Last Night of the World," `The Long Rain,' and `The Veldt,' about a virtual reality play-room of `free involvement and instantaneous atmosphere'). All center around alternate realities, future occurrences, and imagined stories (you be the judge).. It all starts when carnival worker tuned cursed drifter Carl (Rod Steiger) meets up with transient Willie (Robert Drivas) and reveals his `skin illustrations' (don't ever call them tattoos). Unfortunately, Carl's beautiful artwork transmits realistic stories in paranormal emissions to whoever stares long enough, which gets the stories started. They're done in the tradition of The Twilight Zone, The Hitchhiker, Tales From the Crypt and The Outer Limits, only with more involvement from the narrator here. In a flashback, viewers learn about the artwork's origin as Carl arrives at Felicia's house. When we're introduced to him in the past, he's nothing more than a lowly bumpkin pitching tents for a traveling carnival. Horny, he sits under the needle only hoping for sexual gratification. Now, I understand the `tattooing' as an intimate and sexual metaphor here, albeit a `mystical' one, but why does this woman produce such beautiful artwork for free
and why doesn't Carl bleed from all the etching, which would takes months and months to complete? As they kiss, she utters, `Pain is part of anything good,' which further points to the edge of sadism the film carries. Steiger's performance of Carl throughout is a bit too vigorous much for me. I thought the film could have played better if the audience could feel more sympathy for his character, but the screenwriters obviously thought differently and had another agenda. As a result, Steiger is violent, gruff, and obnoxious, though a bit wiser and hardened after his altercation with Felicia (even the contrast between the Carl of the present and the Carl of the past is way overdone). Whatever the case, Felicia certainly gives Carl a new perspective and deeper insight (`Maybe she went back to the future
maybe 1000 years?' he laments). Outside of the hints to sadism, there's a lot of homoerotic content between Carl and Willie
unless it's just a clever ruse to get Carl's shirt off for most of the film. Creepy, nonetheless
unless you're into swinging stranger-hobos! I mean who parades around shirtless in front of strangers and owns a Pomeranian dog named Peke (as in `Pekinese'). I also liked Jerry Goldsmith's experimental electronica, and Steiger's costume in `The Long Rain' sequence. Playing a futuristic space-colonel, he looks like The Beast Rabban from Dune in his apocalyptic rippled-rubber suit!
The prologue and epilogue are telling . . .
Slammer0116 December 2011
Typically, I don't write reviews but thought I would give it a shot. The prologue and epilogue are telling . . when the woman narrates at the beginning of the film "Each person who tries to see beyond his own time, must face questions to which there cannot yet be proved answers . . " and then changes it at the end of the film to "Each person who tries to see beyond his own time, must face questions to which there cannot yet be absolute answers . ." look closely there is a difference. My sense is Bradbury, at the time his book was written (early 1950's), was wrestling with his own answers to the basic question of "What is the meaning of life?" The subtle change between the beginning and ending means something . . .proven vs absolute . . . to me this was an author clearly struggling with this central question . . since he's 91, let's hope he has it figured out now . . . :)
An "Illustrated" Injustice
EmperorNortonII31 May 2002
I have read and enjoyed "The Illustrated Man" by Ray Bradbury, a classic of science fiction literature. The movie version starring Rod Steiger left me disappointed. It simply does not do the book justice! The visual effects were only as good as was available at the time, and only three stories by Bradbury were showcased. My favorite story from the book was "The Other Shoe." I wonder if the racial element of that story might have been to controversial to include in the film version. If a movie were made of "The Illustrated Man" today, it could take full advantage of the special effects technology available. But, considering the number of stories in the famed anthology, perhaps a TV miniseries might be better.
Unsuccessful Adaptation.
AaronCapenBanner31 August 2013
Based on Ray Bradbury's novel about a mysterious tattooed man(played gruffly by Rod Steiger) who meets up with a young wanderer(played by Robert Drivas) who recounts to him the circumstances that led him to be covered in tattoos, and how he is pursuing the mysterious(time-traveling?) woman who did it to him(played by Claire Bloom).
The three tales adapted are: 'The Veldt' - Inconclusive and dull. 'The Long Rain' - The best of the three, but anticlimactic, & 'The Last Night Of The World' - Ineffective.
Stories work better in the book, but were three of many; why those in particular were chosen is unknown, but film does not do it justice. Despite having a melancholy air, the results are unsatisfying.
The three tales adapted are: 'The Veldt' - Inconclusive and dull. 'The Long Rain' - The best of the three, but anticlimactic, & 'The Last Night Of The World' - Ineffective.
Stories work better in the book, but were three of many; why those in particular were chosen is unknown, but film does not do it justice. Despite having a melancholy air, the results are unsatisfying.
Period Piece
crunchykitten29 September 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Lyrical language, though it may make for unforgettable literature, does not necessarily make for great movies. In the Sixties Ray Bradbury was America's premier fantasist, for excellent and unarguable reasons. All of the familiar adjectives used by his reviewers - lyrical, poetic, haunting, charming and etcetera- were (and are) true. He wrote GREAT fantasies, and we all, all of us who were his fans in the Sixties, we all wanted to see movies made from the stories. We looked forward to The Illustrated Man with huge and pleasurable anticipation. I don't believe that it occurred to any of us that our own, personal visualizations were not necessarily shared by all other readers. And certainly not, it turns out, by film makers.
Almost without exception, the screen adaptations of Bradbury's stories failed, to one degree or another. The Illustrated Man is probably the worst of the lot, excepting the dismal Twilight Zone segments. The script is bad, yes, but the design is worse - an ugly and dated "Sci-Fi" Hollywood modernism- unbelievable a decade before this movie was made, and laughable in 1969. Not surprisingly the best segments are those in which Steiger and Bloom are simply allowed to act their characters. And as other reviewers have pointed out, those scenes were hardly Oscar-bait.
Even so, it's worth watching- as a failed example. Fahrenheit 451 is just as bad, and even more turgid, if possible. The TV adaptation of The Martian Chronicles is much better, a real attempt at a faithful rendering. But the absolutely best Bradbury adaptation is the Disney film of Something Wicked This Way Comes, and those who dismiss it as a "kid movie" are, I think ignorant of Bradbury's work. It's just terrific.
Almost without exception, the screen adaptations of Bradbury's stories failed, to one degree or another. The Illustrated Man is probably the worst of the lot, excepting the dismal Twilight Zone segments. The script is bad, yes, but the design is worse - an ugly and dated "Sci-Fi" Hollywood modernism- unbelievable a decade before this movie was made, and laughable in 1969. Not surprisingly the best segments are those in which Steiger and Bloom are simply allowed to act their characters. And as other reviewers have pointed out, those scenes were hardly Oscar-bait.
Even so, it's worth watching- as a failed example. Fahrenheit 451 is just as bad, and even more turgid, if possible. The TV adaptation of The Martian Chronicles is much better, a real attempt at a faithful rendering. But the absolutely best Bradbury adaptation is the Disney film of Something Wicked This Way Comes, and those who dismiss it as a "kid movie" are, I think ignorant of Bradbury's work. It's just terrific.
Seems so insignificant..........
Panamint10 August 2007
This movie is just not very good. That's the bottom line, despite Ray Bradbury, former Oscar Winner Steiger, and some good cinematography. The sum total (only "1" star) does not equal the whole of its parts, which should add up to a high rating. I completely agree with the noted critic Roger Ebert's review in the Chicage Sun-Times of August 6, 1969, wherein he gave it 2 stars, noted its many flaws, and generally did not like this movie. His comments are interesting and insightful.
This is not the worst movie ever made- the acting is OK but like the rest of the movie the acting is just not good enough to accomplish anything of value.
I saw this movie in a theater in 1969 with some of the few people who saw it then. The theater was about 90% empty and was silent as a stone, except for possibly an occasional yawn. No one at the time seemed to care for it, it was not regarded as "artsy" or even notable sci-fi. It came and went quickly and was soon forgotten. I wish I could give it more than a 1 star rating because of the talent involved, but I can't help feeling the same as in 1969: Why? Why was such great talent and ability assembled to produce...this?
Try as I might, I still can't make a case for it even now, so many years after I (and Roger Ebert) first viewed it.
This is not the worst movie ever made- the acting is OK but like the rest of the movie the acting is just not good enough to accomplish anything of value.
I saw this movie in a theater in 1969 with some of the few people who saw it then. The theater was about 90% empty and was silent as a stone, except for possibly an occasional yawn. No one at the time seemed to care for it, it was not regarded as "artsy" or even notable sci-fi. It came and went quickly and was soon forgotten. I wish I could give it more than a 1 star rating because of the talent involved, but I can't help feeling the same as in 1969: Why? Why was such great talent and ability assembled to produce...this?
Try as I might, I still can't make a case for it even now, so many years after I (and Roger Ebert) first viewed it.
It's too bad that little screen light-weights such as "Dick . . .
oscaralbert19 November 2018
Warning: Spoilers
. . . Serling" are allowed to exercise their inherent tunnel vision and malign a Big Screen offering as prestigious as THE ILLUSTRATED MAN for being "among the worst movies ever made." If Mr. Serling had an imaginative bone in his brain, he would know that EVERY offering from the always eponymous Warner Bros. is carefully crafted by a team of experienced prognosticators to warn America of at least one upcoming Calamity, Catastrophe, Cataclysm, or Apocalypti. Anyone with an ounce of perception can easily see that THE ILLUSTRATED MAN warns We Americans of (The Then) Far Future of the Jonestown Massacre, the Waco Inferno, the Oklahoma City Federal Building Bombing, 9-11, Hurricanes Katrina, Harvey, and Maria, our wars in Iraq, Iran, Somalia, and Afghanistan, not to mention the international debacle when a Minnesota dentist murders Africa's favorite pet lion. Mr. Serling probably complained to his drama professor that the Rosetta Stone was lacking in "plot development." Generally speaking, small screens are infamous for molding small minds. That's why we're perhaps expecting too much from Generations X, Y, and Z.
Confusing
carflo24 October 2003
I gave this movie 4/10 - and I consider that generous. This movie is confusing - muddy even. It is an anthology and there is an implication that the stories come together to make a point. If there was a point, I never saw it. I truly love Ray Bardbury's writing. I respect Rod Steiger and Claire Bloom. Read the book. See Claire Bloom in The Haunting. See Rod Steiger in almost anything else - but don't waste your time on this mess.
An interesting and intriguing movie!
Ithiliensranger20 August 2005
The power of a movie is how well it sticks with you. This one I saw at a drive-in back in 1970, and though I only considered it average at the time, one scene stuck with me through the years. The setting in rural depression-era United States helps set the mood of the meeting of a young drifter and a hardened hobo.
Recently I acquired a used VHS tape of it and watched it through, and I remember why it stuck with me so well and so long. Not always well done, but yet it has power. The character Carl, well portrayed by the acting of Rod Steiger, starts to tell stories, and they take the young Willie, portrayed by Robert Drivas, on a wild mental ride that changes both their lives. I recommend it highly, and hope one day it will be out on DVD.
Recently I acquired a used VHS tape of it and watched it through, and I remember why it stuck with me so well and so long. Not always well done, but yet it has power. The character Carl, well portrayed by the acting of Rod Steiger, starts to tell stories, and they take the young Willie, portrayed by Robert Drivas, on a wild mental ride that changes both their lives. I recommend it highly, and hope one day it will be out on DVD.
Using futuristic backgrounds doesn't make a ponderous film Science Fiction.
misterfepo21 April 2012
I recently saw this on TCM April 19th, 2012. I haven't seen it in at least 20 years and wanted to see if I saw anything redeeming in it that I didn't notice before. There was absolutely nothing here to change my mind and it still is a ponderous film. Rod Steiger just wasn't right for the part and just because one uses futuristic backgrounds doesn't make a film science fiction. Science fiction can be in the past, present and obviously the future, but it's the idea that counts, the feeling. None of the stories offered any wonder, only depressing clichéd vignettes and endings. Even the "reality" portions of the film were torture to watch. So now I'm good until 2032!
Poor anthology film
Wizard-81 April 2014
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.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
