Interesteg What makes it different from others?

SteinMo What a freaking movie. So many twists and turns. Absolutely intense from start to finish.

Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

one-nine-eighty A sequel to ¨Michael Chricton's "Westworld" which sees two reporters (Peter Fonda and Blythe Danner) enter to the new "Futureworld" theme park for adult holidays. It's run by powerful people (Arthur Hill and John P.Ryan) and serviced by robots that are turning against their programming and planning to take over the world. While I enjoyed this film I didn't find it as stimulating as "WestWorld", and as a continuation of the story that went before it I think it failed. To some extent it's the same story but just told from a different perspective. Good for nostalgia if you haven't watched "WestWorld" in a while but nothing special. Everything about the film, from acting to visuals was OK and not offensive, but it was just that and nothing special or too engaging. Still worth a watch for superfan's who may not have seen the original. I can only give this film a 6 out of 10 because it could have been soo much better but still works by itself.

jbar19 Take all of the bad cinematography of Made for TV movies, add some 1970s corporate paranoia, throw in some unrelated techno babble,add an evil scientist and cram in as many bad sound effects from Star Trek, Willy Wonka, Lost in Space and every bad scifi movie from the 1960s and viola, you have Futureworld.Im not even mentioning the silly special effects because Im sure they were pretty whiz-bang back in 1976. But the truth is you can have great Scifi without dating yourself with special effects. 1951's The Day The Earth Stood Still is a perfect example.Horribly predictable. Tortuously slow, has almost no relation to Westworld other than they both take place in the future and have pleasure robots. I love a bad movie, but this goes beyond bad.Some of the dialog is so bad you will laugh out loud.The Evil Corporate Executive with a gun discovers Peter Fonda on the phone. Evil Corporate Executive: "Put the phone down". Peter Fonda to Evil Corporate Executive: "You're a part of it?" Evil Corporate Executive: (LAUGHING) "Yes, of course I am!"Someone on IMDb gave this movie a glowing review so I watched it. Ugh.Logan's Run, made at the same time, has many flaws and has not aged very well, but it is still much better than this flick.

Mr-Fusion Aside from the total waste of Yul Brynner, there's not really anything egregious about FUTUREWORLD. It's just kinda half-assed. It does away with the terror-in-an-amusement-park fun of its predecessor in favor of a lukewarm mystery that frustratingly tiptoes along to an extremely silly payoff. It's what, an hour-forty? And it just doesn't move.I've seen much better from both Peter Fonda and Gwyneth Paltrow's mom. They have done sort of chemistry, I guess, but those are two hammy performances. But cheap is the name of the game here, and if it weren't such a slog, it might make for some cheesy fun. But as '70s dystopian sci-fi goes, this belongs with the dregs.4/10

ersinkdotcom Although "Futureworld" is considered by many to be a poor excuse for a sequel,it has its own cult followers.After the tragic deaths of several guests at the hands of robots in "Westworld," Delos decides to invite reporters Tracy and Chuck to the rebuilt resort. Delos representatives want to prove to the public that their new vactioning spots are completely safe and their robots are under control and harmless. As Tracy and Chuck investigate "Futureworld," they begin to suspect there's something sinister behind Delos' welcoming embrace.Judging "Futureworld" on its own merits, I found it to be a mildly entertaining slice of 1970's sci-fi. The movie's warnings against allowing machines and computers too much control and relying on them too heavily seems prophetic in hindsight. For 1976, I'm sure it felt fresh and was terrifying for a world that was just barely embracing electronics and the technology we take for granted today. Director Richard T. Heffron and writers George Schenck and Mayo Simon don't really do much more here besides expand on the concepts Michael Crichton came up with for "Westworld."The only actor to return from "Westworld" for this sequel is Yul Brenner. He isn't given much to do here. He basically walks around and has an awkward love scene with Blythe Danner. Honestly, it's uncomfortable to watch. Peter Fonda is great as a chauvinistic wisecracking 1970's reporter that could never get away with his treatment of Danner's character in modern times."Futureworld" is a fun and nostalgic journey back into the 1970s. Its interesting to see what the state of science fiction cinema was even a year before "Star Wars" breathed life into a dying genre. You'll not find any of the carefree advetnure and joy we found in "a Galaxy Far, Far Away" in the dystopic and doomed "Futureworld" of our making.