MovieChat Forums > Jonathan Livingston Seagull (1973) Discussion > Underrated movie

Underrated movie

posted 11 years ago by cryptical17
5 replies | jump to latest

Reading about all the negative reviews and press, I decided to see the movie for myself. I recently purchased the Korean dvd from ebay which doesn't contain any extras... just the movie in widescreen and monaural sound.

Like so many other movies before, I prefer to differ from the rest of the audiences and deem the movie "a great film." I found it enjoyable and entertaining on most every level. For one, the cinematography is first rate. Every shot of the landscape, the sky, the sun, the clouds are magnificent and worth the price of admission.

I enjoyed Jonathan's adventures, and sympathize with him when he's at odds with the elders of the flock. Things did get a bit complicated when he is introduced to the philosophical birds Maureen and Chiang. Since I'm not one for philosphy and enlightenment, I sort of got lost on their teachings. Nevertheless, Jonathan's story did captivate me, and I was involved in the story every step of the way.

What in the world is a "Metaphysical ripoff"??!! That's what Roger Ebert called this movie. What did he mean by that? Someone got to explain it to me. I found this movie harmless fun, and pleasing to the eye. The special effects were great too.

Neil Diamond's score is actually quite excellent, and I have the soundtrack now on my Ipod.

[–] IceboxMovies 11 years ago

The film is a masterpiece, and Ebert should consider revisiting it. He claims he walked out 45 minutes into the film, when in fact -- judging by his description of the scene he walked out on -- he actually walked out 20 minutes into it.

[–] PoppyTransfusion 10 years ago

What in the world is a "Metaphysical ripoff"??!! That's what Roger Ebert called this movie. What did he mean by that?

I haven't read bert's review so don't know the context of the phrase. It suggests that the film aspires to be metaphysical and is not. If that's the case then the criticism is of the book rather than the film. I found the novel a bit meh, so might sympathise with Ebert's sour expression regarding the film.

The distance is nothing. The first step is the hardest.

[–] JayGrinder 10 years ago

In the context of the original Ebert review it does make sense. Metaphysical in the sense that the film is attempting to present itself as a somewhat New Age styled philosophy lesson and rip-off in that he felt it wasn't worth the price of admission. My big problem with his review is that he admits that he walked out of the movie after forty-five minutes, which means he didn't even watch half of the movie. I personally feel that if a critic hasn't watched the whole picture they really shouldn't write a review, it just strikes me as very unprofessional. I used to work as a movie critic for a very small newspaper and I never wrote a review for a movie that I didn't bother watching in its entirety.

That said, I've never actually seen Jonathan Livingston Seagull, so I have no actual opinion of the film. But, I am a huge fan of the book, and several of Richard Bach's other books. Every professional review that I've read of the movie pretty much panned it, but I'd prefer to reach my own opinion, so I'll eventually get around to it.

I know it's been more than a year since the original post, but I figured I'd try to answer your question anyway. That and I just had to insert my opinion on the lack of professional behavior on the part of a critic that I always thought I admired.

[–] IceboxMovies 8 years ago

My big problem with his review is that he admits that he walked out of the movie after forty-five minutes, which means he didn't even watch half of the movie.

In fact, Ebert walked out about 20 minutes into the movie, since he says he walked out during the scene where Jonathan "drags himself onto flotsam."

That said, I've never actually seen Jonathan Livingston Seagull, so I have no actual opinion of the film. But, I am a huge fan of the book, and several of Richard Bach's other books. Every professional review that I've read of the movie pretty much panned it, but I'd prefer to reach my own opinion, so I'll eventually get around to it.

All I can say is: Watch the movie, and judge for yourself.

The reason why Richard didn't like the movie is because Hall Bartlett filmed some scenes which weren't in the book, which violated Richard's right to final cut. Critics didn't like the movie because they didn't like the original story to begin with. I think the film is amazing, just like the book.

[–] livrowland 9 years ago

I agree with you. I enjoyed the book and I enjoyed the movie, which I thought was a good effort at bringing it to life. I liked the music, I liked the photography. But it's a gentle, philosophical tale featuring seagulls. If critics were wanting blockbuster action, maybe they wouldn't like it :p