PUNTUACIÓN EN IMDb
5,8/10
3,6 mil
TU PUNTUACIÓN
Añade un argumento en tu idiomaIn 1930s, a psychotic drifter who's after the mystery woman who covered his whole body in illustrations that foresee distant future shows three of them (The Veldt, The Long Rain and The Last... Leer todoIn 1930s, a psychotic drifter who's after the mystery woman who covered his whole body in illustrations that foresee distant future shows three of them (The Veldt, The Long Rain and The Last Night of the World) to a mesmerized traveler.In 1930s, a psychotic drifter who's after the mystery woman who covered his whole body in illustrations that foresee distant future shows three of them (The Veldt, The Long Rain and The Last Night of the World) to a mesmerized traveler.
- Dirección
- Guión
- Reparto principal
- Premios
- 1 nominación en total
Reseñas destacadas
'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.
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.
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.
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!
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/
¿Sabías que...?
- CuriosidadesThe full-size crashed spaceship used in the second segment, "The Long Rain" is actually the spaceship used in El planeta de los simios (1968), Regreso al planeta de los simios (1970) and Huida del planeta de los simios (1971).
- PifiasDuring the opening credits (at 5 minutes into the film..at the "Screenplay by" credits), as the camera circles above the characters swimming, the helicopter shadow can be seen in the lower right corner as it circles.
- Créditos adicionalesWild animals affection-trained at Africa, U.S.A.
- ConexionesFeatured in Tattooed Steiger (1969)
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y añadir a tu lista para recibir recomendaciones personalizadas
- How long is The Illustrated Man?Con tecnología de Alexa
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- País de origen
- Idioma
- Títulos en diferentes países
- The Illustrated Man
- Localizaciones del rodaje
- Fox Creek Ranch, Hollister, California, Estados Unidos(filming-___location)
- Empresa productora
- Ver más compañías en los créditos en IMDbPro
- Duración1 hora 43 minutos
- Mezcla de sonido
- Relación de aspecto
- 2.35 : 1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugerir un cambio o añadir el contenido que falta

Principal laguna de datos
What is the Spanish language plot outline for El hombre ilustrado (1969)?
Responde