Iceman (1984) User Reviews

A One Lone Show

[dallasryan · 7/10 · 3 November 2012]

This is what I love about Movies back in the 80's and 90's, and really just older movies in general, you can see the difference. The difference is they didn't have the technology to make what they do today, which in actuality is usually too much! Therefore though, that's what people like, so that's what you get nowadays, tons of special effects with the same type of action, CGI, with little or no story. The older movies had better stories and were more clever about their action and special effects, and actually I preferred the not so fancy special effects, in my opinion, it kind of ruins a movie nowadays it seems because it's just too much CGI and too much action.

So with Iceman, this is a very thought driven movie. Lot's of crazy ideas/concepts being thrown out there. I'm not sure how John Lone didn't get nominated for any kind of awards here(I mean he's even academy award nomination worthy here as his portrayal as the Neandrathal Man).

It's truly a brilliant performance by Lone, and probably one of the best portrayals I've ever watched in a film of an actor playing a Neandrathal Man. Iceman is really worth a look just for John Lone's performance, it's a brilliant performance to watch. John Lone is an excellent actor, you won't even be able to believe that this is the same guy/actor from The Last Emperor.

a drastically underrated movie

[Mutakk · 7/10 · 20 November 2007]

People think Timothy Hutton didn't do any good movies after winning the Oscar for Ordinary People, but that's not true. Among other really good movies he's done are Q&A, Taps, Falcon & The Snowman, French Kiss, and Iceman, which is way better than you'd think it would be, considering the plot is so much like Encino Man. Scintists dig up a Neanderthal and thaw him out. Some want to study him, and one (Hutton, in a good performance) just wants to communicate with him. Most of the actors are good (Danny Glover has a small role) and the script isn't stupid. The Iceman comes off as a real person, not just a furry guy with a club. Like Quest For Fire, the guy is played as a primitive person, not just an ape.

The Iceman is played by John Lone (the bad guy in Year of the Dragon and the star of The Last Emperor), He almost unrecognizable under all the makeup, but his performance is right on the money, A lot of his acting is through body language, and its really good. He conveys many emotions with subtle and unsubtle movements. Again, this is underrated movie, and Mr. Lone should have gotten an Oscar of his own for his performance.

Warming sci-fi

[paul2001sw-1 · 7/10 · 11 May 2003]

Unusually intelligent sci-fi, about a group of polar researchers who discover a hibernating (and slightly too human-looking) Neanderthal. The scientists (predictably) just want to cut him up, but Tim Hutton plays the lone anthropologist who befriends him and teaches him how to sing along to Neil Young. At times the film (pre-CGI) seems dated in appearance, but its strength is not to underestimate the difference between the Neanderthal's world and our own, nor his capacity to deal with it. Good to see a sci-fi film that for once is more interested in substance than surface.

Underrated SF movie that stands the test of time

[karinrjeffrey · 19 August 2017]

I saw this again after many years, and was not disappointed. It's a well written, thoughtful SF film that doesn't insult the viewer's intelligence. John Lone is very moving as the bewildered hunter who is discovered by scientists. Timothy Hutton is credible as Shepherd, the compassionate scientist who connects with the Neanderthal, who he calls "Charlie". The film's portrayal of Charlie as a human being with a deeply spiritual side is strangely prescient, especially in light of recent discoveries about our own Neanderthal DNA. The scene where Shepherd and Charlie try to sing Neil Young's "Heart of Gold" is memorable and fun. This is a quietly effective film with a subtle message that doesn't beat you over the head with it.

A pity this one was forgotten

[KingProjector93 · 7/10 · 3 January 2015]

A group of scientists stumble upon a fully frozen Neanderthal, whose cells seem to have miraculous not been ravaged by the subzero temperatures and long term prison. It is these cells the scientists wish to harvest and study as a means of advancing cryogenics. Little do they know that their attempts revitalize the Neanderthal and in turn lead to an even bigger scientific, and personal, feat.

While it doesn't drastically stray from the 'fish out of water/unlikely friends' tropes, the usually comic Fred Schepsi actually pulls in a fairly decent sci-fi drama. Sure, some of the science here is a fairly sizeable stretch, but John Lone's outstanding and sympathetic performance as Charlie the Neanderthal easily carries to film. His simian movements, expressionistic grunting and the incredible make up utterly sell him in the role, and he completely vanishes into it. The rest of the cast include the likes of Timothy Bottoms, Lindsay Crouse, David Strathairn and Danny Glover as the various scientists, though Bottoms plays the main one who bonds with Charlie, and he does fine, being the typical 'nerd with a good heart' but Lone eclipses him.

The film also does a good job capturing the frigid and lonely landscapes of the Arctic region, with plenty of snow covered vistas, wide chasms and pastel blue skies, very much contrasting an ancient natural world with the tech of the science base. The score by Bruce Smeaton also captures a similar vibe, going for a very ethnic/tribal sound with plenty of woodwind, and comes off as both touching yet also complementary, and never too obnoxious or grand to upstage the story or the actual emotions. In fact, it actually reminded me a lot of Jerry Goldsmith's work.

Honestly, this is a pretty cut and dry affair; if you're looking for a moving little drama of clashing worlds with an incredible title performance, 'Iceman' is an easy recommend. However, suspension of disbelief may have to be pushed further to swallow its somewhat goofy premise and science.

Magnificent Human Story

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 10 October 2014]

Anthropologist Stanley Shephard (Timothy Hutton) is part of an arctic exploration team which discovers a frozen prehistoric man from 40,000 years ago. When they thaw out the Iceman (John Lone), they discover that they can revive him. It's a shock when he starts to wake and Stanley takes his surgical mask off to calm him down. They place him in the artificial enclosure which he finds out. Stanley tries to befriend and study the Iceman giving him the name of Charlie. Other scientists want to use him as a specimen to study how he is able to be revived after so many years. Stanley struggles to defend Charlie's rights and understand his world.

The science is suspect. Sure it's sci-fi but it's important if the movie wants to revive a Neanderthal man. Once the audience gets pass this, the movie is not really about the science but about humanity. It's about the struggle for Charlie's rights. It's about the connection between Stanley and Charlie. This is a magnificent human story and a poetic ending.

There's A Strange Relevance To This Movie

[sddavis63 · 7/10 · 29 January 2018]

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)

Music

[stopokingme · 7/10 · 10 August 2007]

I guess people either love or hate this movie. I liked it - no, it isn't perfect, no it doesn't manage to deal with the social issues they seem to want to hit, but it doesn't matter - its still enjoyable and touching. Now, what I wanted to talk about was the music. I'm sure some hated it, but I found it hauntingly beautiful and perfect for the subject.

See the film. It wont change your life (unless you have none), it gets hokey at times, much of the science is quite weak (though much stronger than 95% of the trash that comes out of Hollywood), but it is seriously touching for all its faults. See it, you will not regret it.

Endearing film but frustrating

[ljw1004 · 5/10 · 11 February 2011]

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.

Ice Ice Baby

[safenoe · 7/10 · 15 January 2024]

Australian director, Fred Schepisi, directed Iceman from 1984. It's hard to believe Iceman (not Ice Man) was released four decades ago, yes 40 years ago, and I remember seeing it on the small screen, yes television. John Lone, before he hit the big time in The Last Emperor, plays the title role.

I think Iceman raises key issues about life, mortality, death and also the ethics of bringing people back to life in this modern world where even people born into this world find it hard to cope and all.

Anyway, thirteen years Fred Schepisi was one of the co-directors of Fierce Creatures, a kind of "sequel" to A Fish Called Wanda.

Really? People liked this?

[patty-lamberti · 1/10 · 29 December 2010]

The screenwriter really got off easy writing this one - all the Iceman does is moan "Ugh...ahh,...oooh..." and inexplicably "Peter..." throughout the movie.

Some things to watch for (and watch it you should just for hilarity's sake...

The security system they have to contain the iceman is hilarious, even by 1980s standards.

And how exactly does Timothy Hutton figure out what the Iceman's major malfunction is after exchanging a few brief words with local Eskimos? If the helicopter annoys the Iceman so much, why do they keep flying it around him? Just use your snowmobiles, dudes.

And it's most shocking the Iceman doesn't drop dead considering all the stress he's under. Wouldn't his recently dethawed heart just kinda pitter patter out? I do wonder if Timothy Hutton got to keep that fur coat. It would really dazzle on the red carpet.

One of the great "science fiction" movies of the 1980s.

[rayb610 · 8/10 · 17 November 2009]

It's sad to read some of the "summaries" and comments here about "Iceman." Some people dismiss 1980s movies outright, and think the usually overblown, CGI dominated "science fiction" movies of the 21st century are better!?! That makes me laugh. "Iceman" is a fine, understated, thought-provoking (ooh, that might injure some viewers) movie of the first order, no matter the genre.

I like the previous comment about John Lone being unjustifiably denied an Oscar nomination for that year (1983) -- he should have not only been nominated as best supporting actor, he should have won. And I thought so at the time. (The winner was Jack Nicholson for his supporting role in "Terms of Endearment," a pleasant if lightweight performance for him.) The original screenplay; the excellent, evocative soundtrack by Bruce Smeaton, and perhaps even director Fred Schepisi should also have been nominated, though I can understand the votes for the winners in those categories.

Those who think this character is a "Neanderthal" have a problem with anthropological/archaeological logic. He is a migrating human ancestor from 40,000 years ago, primitive but quick to learn and ingenious -- yet very different from those who would be his modern descendants (though with traditional links), let alone those of us whose ancestors MUCH later migrated to North America. He led a very hard life before he was frozen and has a much different belief system.

As for the ending: Those who don't get it seem to lack a true sense of wonder and mystery ... or are more than a little dense.

What the hell happened in the 1980's?

[capescrod · 5/10 · 14 November 2007]

After explaining to my wife the silliness of this movie, she asked "why after 40000 years would he want to live just a little longer" That's the real funny thing about this movie, is you can't ask why - just roll with it, and grunt as much as possible. Seriously, why was there a bubble - what did the world do without biosphere nonsense - Why was the blonde doctor lady such a scaredy after leading the charge with all the cutting and the medicine - I also think that they could have given Danny Glover a better roll other than the tranquilizer happy security guard. Where did the helicopter come from, and what exactly were they going to do with the pilot while they were coming out of the aircraft? Again, just grunt and smile your terrible teeth smile.

Masterful film making.

[Blueghost · 8 December 2016]

If you want to know how to shoot a masterpiece, then watch this film. Not only is it well shot, but it's also has a lot of integrity for the material being shot.

As other reviews have mentioned this is a film about bringing a species of man from our past, into the present day world. How much animal is in us, as homo sapien sapiens, and how much humanity is in our distant cousins the Neanderthals. And if you watch this film, and watch the interests of each party, you will truly begin to wonder who has more humanity within themselves.

The film making style takes some liberties with presentation, and we get a sense that the editing glosses over some of the obvious clues that one of the main characters should pick up on in terms of his circumstances. But, if you can over look that, and accept the fact that the subject of the film is perhaps a bit dim witted in addition to being from a more primitive era in Earth's history, then you should be able to appreciate the "plausibility" of the film's premise.

There were arguable two great eras in film making. The 30s and 40s as one era, and the 80s, with spikes of greatness sprinkled in the 60s and 70s. And "Iceman" comes from that era in the 1980s when Hollywood was rediscovering itself after Lucas and Spielberg had reminded the dream factory of what films were supposed to be about. "Iceman" is a creation of that re-genesis, and in terms of a style and presentation of story, it truly shines.

If I had a complaint, and I'm not sure that I do, it's that I'm curious why the story necessitated a predominantly interior motif, as opposed to letting the story take place on location in a non-arctic environment. The film is rich as it is, but letting it take place elsewhere might have added a dimension to the film by allowing story possibilities. One wonders about these things.

The cast is perfect along with their performances, the location has a kind of stark magnificence (as a lot of sculptured ice and snow fields tend to have), and the lensing and lighting are both without flaw. My only regret is for the ending of the story itself. It is a tear-jerker.

The subject may not interest a lot of people, so buyer beware, but if you like excellent films, then do give Iceman a chance. At the time of this writing it is only currently available on regular 4:3 DVD format. Hopefully it'll see a bluray release someday.

Great story...bad movie...

[rps-2 · 6/10 · 15 September 2020]

It's great story line but a bad movie. Arctic scientists find the body of a 40,000 year old Neanderthal man in the ice and bring it back to life. OK. It's science-fiction with emphasis on the fiction! The snowy setting is intriguing and well photographed. But the whole thing collapses as the story line stumbles and stalls. The ending? Well, lets not give it away. But it's neither probable nor original. There is an excess of high tech jargon in the early scenes and endless rounds of two-way gibberish as the scientists try to communicate with their hairy guest. By the way, his name is Charlie.

Interesting film, but the ending should have been different

[Agent10 · 7/10 · 10 April 2005]

It's hard to judge some of these old 1980s movies due to the fact they tend to age badly. But then again, Iceman is still pretty decent after all of these years. While the story isn't terribly exciting, it is more or less a morality tale, a movie that more or less tells us to stay the heck out of nature's business.

Timothy Hutton had a pretty good little streak with this movie and Turk 182!, but like all movies from the 1980s, you either still enjoy them or you're completely embarrassed you ever watched them. I did like parts of he ending, but the last five minutes of the movie was the only reason why this movie didn't get a higher grade. When you think about it, this film also had a pretty solid cast.

Interesting enough

[hitchcockkelly · 6/10 · 26 January 2023]

John Lone's five-star performance makes this weak vehicle watchable. The premise of a man being revived after 40,000 years is compelling, and I'm not sure how else it could be played seriously. Still, the plot is pretty conventional. Timothy Hutton is the obligatory lone expert with the proper morals. He goes around saying, "What's happening? Why wasn't I told? We have no right to do that! I'm the only decent person in this movie!!!" Lindsay Crouse is his, "Yes, I want to do what's right, too, but my hands are tied" companion. (I would say love interest, but that avenue went completely unexplored.) Most of the rest of the characters are boors who think Hutton is a nut or are neutral and don't really give a fig what happens to Charlie the Neanderthal. The film is hampered by the realization that if a real, living, Neanderthal man was found, most of the people around him would be ethical professionals who'd practically sacrifice their lives for his welfare. "Iceman" would make an interesting double bill with "Encino Man".

Okay film but --

[htwhyppe-5 · 6/10 · 2 March 2020]

-- there's no way to talk about this film without mentioning the book "The Far Arena" which did it in far superior fashion -- of course, it's a book, you say, but more: Far Arena took a gladiator, froze him in ice, and thawed him out, only to put him in modern civilization. I won't reveal how it played out. Richard Ben Sapir wrote it and it is memorable.

you tarzan, me bored

[LovePythons · 4/10 · 22 November 2011]

Maybe it's unfair to pick at a movie made in the '80s but they did make some good ones back then, didn't they? The sound track is muddy, the visuals are gunky (except for the outdoor snow shots), and the acting is uninspiring. The philosophical ideas are old hat and predictable.

And the story? I admit I gave up after about 45 minutes. During the be-yuh -- bird! scene that went on forever. I truly am amazed that so many people have raved about this movie. I love Neanderthals and the snow and science/fiction, so why don't I love this movie? It's just not very good.

I kinda knew I was in trouble when they had that chunk of ice traveling cross country dangling from a helicopter a la Felini. Felini had a stature -- of David, I believe. This was a block of ice. So, a great movie is to this movie like Michaelangelo's David is to a giant block of ice. I hope that is not a spoiler.

Boring, dull, unnecessary

[scooter-70 · 1/10 · 20 October 2003]

I went to see this film based on the review by Siskel and Ebert; not only did I get duped, but I took some friends along, and had to spend the rest of the day profusely apologizing for making them sit through this pointless crap. After this, I never went to see a movie based solely on Siskel & Ebert's advice.

All but a case of massive generation gap

[organicsocial · 8/10 · 22 November 2008]

Man has always been curious about his origins and since the days of Darwin much effort have been done in tracing back the evolution of mankind to the final link where we as animals became self conscious and began advancing rapidly in terms of how much we have modified our macro biosphere in such short span of our existence.

This movie is definitive in putting the viewers in a situation where we find that we have made it extremely difficult to see things in its simple state and rather complicate it with all our cynicism and rationality. Being modern humans we like to believe that as we have gained more cranial volumes, have become more intelligent but fail miserably in explaining and bridging the differences of a few thousand years. The sense that Shepherd starts to develop in spite of all his efforts that Charlie the caveman would never actually be able to adapt to this world is the realization that the film portrays.

We find that with all our modern methods and abilities Shepherd does starts communicating to Charlie though in a vague way but still the actual situation could never be properly conveyed to Charlie. It's a classic example of generation gap where the newer generation wants to learn but fails to explain itself to older generation and the older generation is just afraid of the change. Moreover the surgical team is so mechanical that they just want to cut him up for analysis. They don't even consider Charlie a human but a relic, a living fossil.

This film has taken much care in addressing the topic as it is quite believable movie for such an impossible plot. It could have turned out as a jerky and plastic movie if it was not treated well on scientific and performance aspects. I don't know how many people have watched this movie but I must say it is pretty engrossing. The portrayal of a confused, depressed and angry caveman in modern world by John lone is very convincing and touching as well. This can rank among some of the best sci-fi movies of its era.

This is pseudoscience and the plot makes no sense

[JurijFedorov · 4/10 · 3 November 2021]

It sorta wanders from scene to scene never settling into any plot or point.

They discover a frozen man they call a Neanderthal, even though it's clearly Homo sapiens. The initial scenes are just fake science ramblings from researchers to fake a scientific setting. This is B movie stuff, impossible to get away with today in any movie with a budget higher than a million. The scientific observations remain on this pseudoscientific level. When the anthropology expert shows a video of a tribe he explains that those African people in the video cannot feel pain and that their skin cannot be harmed by fire. This is just to show what they think viewers will accept. No science here makes any sense. The expert also says that this Neanderthal is 40.000 years old. This is what he concludes while looking at him for just some seconds behind a thick wall of ice. Yet they visit a local Eskimo tribe nearby to ask them about a certain word the Neanderthal said and they have the same word for bird. They also have exactly the same religion as the Neanderthal with heaven and hell and a bird god. So we are supposed to believe that this word and religion somehow survived 40K years and that Eskimos have lived there for 40K? The timeline and locations are completely made up. Hell, his clothing makes no sense for such an extreme environment either. But I guess it could have been warmer back then.

They keep the Neanderthal in an enclosure with wild animals. At one point he finds his way out by pressing a door button. That's the great security they have! He kills a man in his escape attempt. Meanwhile they have pseudoscientific debates about what to do with him. Apparently no media knows about him being there, but when he kills a man they finally understand that they were too stupid to keep him there and want to put him on a plane - to somewhere. As they have all these debates they never conclude anything. They just scream and shout. We also never see who is in control or who decides what. They do various torture-like experiments on him at least so they don't consider him human. But the experiments they do would be very hard to do even on animals unless you apply for specific permits to torture animals for research. Random civil Americans being allowed to do torture-like experiments on a human is hard to imagine. They don't explain what they are doing or why. It's just done to show us that they are evil, yet they are not.

Everything here is just overly childish. The female lead is a horrible actress. She seemed to be a big star back then, but she is one of the worst actresses I have seen. And the various scenes make no sense either. At the end a helicopter is searching for him as the anthropologist kidnapped him. The helicopter then hovers right above his head and he grabs it. The helicopter soars into the air and instead of landing a passenger hands the Neanderthal his hand. His hand is a meter away so obviously it's impossible to grab onto. And either way landing the helicopter is by far safer. But this is how the movie ends. The Neanderthal lets go to commit suicide as he doesn't belong in our world. Nothing here made any type of scientific or moral sense. But it's a barely acceptable movie for kids I guess if they can handle boring adult stuff like this.

How bad can it get? Pretty bad!

[rharrisstoertz · 2/10 · 31 December 2020]

I signed up just to review this awful, very bad movie. So, Richard Scheib called it "knowingly well-informed on anthropology and biochemistry and never resorts to cheap cliche or hackneyed elements." Haha. It was the exact opposite. Especially cliched. And hackneyed. Every character was as utterly stereotyped as you can imagine, and not one character did one smart thing from start to finish. Even the nameless characters were predictably stupid, starting with the helicopter flying the payload 10 feet off the ground, and ending with ... well the helicopter again. And anthropology? Well the iceman looks and dresses like a Neanderthal, sort of, and acts like a mentally handicapped Cro-Magnon. They didn't manage one enlightened or enlightening moment with him. But this was 1984, so what was I expecting? I thought we would at least be treated to some cheesy scenes in a disco, but they didn't manage even that ... though it would have been a marked improvement over the cheesy "science" they did try to portray. And the acting was as pathetic as everything else. No development, no relationships, no interest, just sarcastic sniping and puffed up personalities. God, the 80s sucked, and this movie is everything we are glad we left behind. Typical scene here ... the anthropologist, introducing himself to the iceman for the first time. Does he hold up his empty hands? Offer food? Smile? Nope. He walks closer and closer and closer, robot-like, half-paralyzed with fear, and comes right into the guy's personal space, who predictably proceeds to attack him. A village idiot would act smarter than these people. Roger Ebert called it, "spellbinding storytelling". Pffft. I have never done a movie review before, I will never trust Ebert's reviews again, and it will be a long time before I want to watch another movie from this era. Oh, one slightly redeeming factor? They show an impressive array of outdated technology, styles, and manners ... definitely a period piece!

Makes, "Plan Nine From Outer Space" look like an Academy Award Winner

[choralman22000 · 1/10 · 8 April 2014]

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.