The Illustrated Man (1969)

Wow! Such a good movie.

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

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?

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

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.

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