The Illustrated Man

1969 "Don't dare stare at the illustrated man."
5.8| 1h43m| PG| en
Details

A man who has a body almost completely covered in tattoos is searching for the woman who cursed him with the "skin illustrations". Each tattoo reveals a bizarre story, which is experienced by staring at the scene depicted. When the illustrated man meets a fellow tramp on the road a strange voyage begins.

Director

Producted By

SKM

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

All Prime Video Movies and TV Shows. Cancel anytime. Watch Now

Trailers & Clips

Also starring Robert Drivas

Reviews

SnoReptilePlenty Memorable, crazy movie
Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.
Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.
Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable
TheTerminatorsky I totally agree with Mr.Rod Serling, who had said "this is one of the worst movies ever made." Oh, not only is it bad, it bored me to death.I had no idea what was going on; from a lake to some futuristic house with a Star-Trek holodeck which makes a jungle and lions appear. Should not there be a safety level so that humans aren't eaten?! Then to some alien planet where the men try to get back to Earth; back to a tent where the parents kill their kids because all the men agreed to do so. Huh? Why does Carl allow the woman to tattoo him at all? And why specifically him? Why the need for the young hobo man at all? At the end the chase is on...
misterfepo I recently saw this on TCM April 19th, 2012. I haven't seen it in at least 20 years and wanted to see if I saw anything redeeming in it that I didn't notice before. There was absolutely nothing here to change my mind and it still is a ponderous film. Rod Steiger just wasn't right for the part and just because one uses futuristic backgrounds doesn't make a film science fiction. Science fiction can be in the past, present and obviously the future, but it's the idea that counts, the feeling. None of the stories offered any wonder, only depressing clichéd vignettes and endings. Even the "reality" portions of the film were torture to watch. So now I'm good until 2032!
thinker1691 Rad Bradbury is perhaps one of the most notable names in Science Fiction. Throughout his long and illustrious career, his books have not only made him an icon in many circles, but have also made him a household word. One such book which is required reading in college and sets the stage for many a live play, is " The Illustrated Man." Interesting as it is to read, it rises quickly from the pages of the novel onto the silver screen with the great talents of Rod Steiger, Claire Bloom and Robert Drivas. These three and their fellow Thespians combine to illuminate each of the fascinating tales literally embedded into the skin of a traveling roustabout. While his only purpose is to seek out and kill the woman who decorated his entire body with incredible and fascinating skin illustrations, we are warned not to stare at them. Each illustration 'comes alive' when we look too long and thus we are sent into the future by them. The movie is laden heavy with tragedy, conflict, mystery and intrigue and we cannot help but sympathize with Carl as he travels in search of his victim. I believe Bradbury would agree this is an excellent film. ****
Skragg To me, this is nearly the most underrated weird movie ever (and I say "weird movie" because it's hard to put into one of those subcategories). I've heard it said that audiences don't respond too well to most "anthology films" (though that's funny, because you always hear that audiences have such a bad attention span - I certainly do - and what kind of movie takes LESS of an attention span than THAT kind?). Of course, The Illustrated Man is an anthology film that doesn't even move in a straight line, like most others (Tales From The Crypt and so on). Instead of being three stories linked by one other, it's three stories linked by TWO others (Carl and Willie in the woods and Carl and Felicia in the house). So both of those things could go against it, though they shouldn't. (In some ways, it's almost the "2001" of that kind of movie, as far as being hard to "digest.") No one could make a tiny line sound incredibly significant like Rod Steiger, or be intimidating, or physically threatening, in such a BELIEVABLE way, and this film is full of those moments. And also, he goes from WARNING Robert Drivas about the illustrations, to ENJOYING the effect they're having on him. Drivas (in a helpless voice, because the pictures are "holding" him there) : What makes you think you can keep me here? / Steiger (smiling in an absolutely evil way) : What makes you think you can go? And of course, Claire Bloom was perfectly believable as the mysterious artist who seduces Carl into accepting what she does (when he seems surprised only after being HALF-COVERED with the pictures, you BELIEVE it). And Robert Drivas, whom I know from very few other things, was great as Willie, and as "Williams" in "The Long Rain." (Don Dubbins, who was in that story only, was also very good. He played another stranded spaceman in a Twlight Zone episode, and a trapped miner in a Kung Fu episode, oddly enough.) I only have a few complaints, and unfortunately, one isn't so small. "The Veldt", which is the longest of the three stories (though shorter than the "links," themselves), gets genuinely depressing in places. The original story was about the bad side of automation for one family, and had a "shock" kind of ending, but the film version was about an all-out "crumbling" marriage and "dysfunctional" family, and didn't completely go with the rest of the film. Also, at the very end of the movie (and this is my only partial spoiler), you see a character with his eye "closed over" like a boxer's (among other things), which is about the only gruesomeness in the whole film, and doesn't quite belong either. One reason I know how underrated it is, is how little effect it's had on "pop culture" - you don't (as far as I know) hear it referred to in documentaries on tattoos, comedy scenes about them, one-liners about them, serious criticism of them (and now more than ever, a REMOTELY well-known movie, all about THAT subject, WOULD be referred to). Also (though there would be "commercial" reasons for this), I've seen the outsides of countless "tattoo parlours", but I've never seen one called "Skin Illustrations." (You'd think that at least one Bradbury fan / tattoo artist would do that.) The only POSSIBLE, indirect reference I can think of was a "Barney Miller" episode, where an artist hated the word "parlour" and insisted on the word "studio." Anyway, it's no joke to say (as I think one person here did) that after knowing this film, in the back of your mind, at least, you might be a little afraid to even say the word "tattoos". Once you hear Rod Steiger say, "They're not tattoos, they're skin illustrations!!", it really stays with you.