I remember seeing this in 1980's on TV (cable or something). Even then (15-20 years after the film was shot) it looked still futuristic and almost nightmarish prophetic. The film definitely has its virtues and is very much worth seeing and though not perfect (hence 8 out of 10), it is excellent both as entertainment and as reflection on the human nature. Two points:
1) Don't be misled by the apparent ease and simplicity with which the characters are depicted sometimes and with which the movie starts -- upon a reflection, you may find that not all, that takes place in the movie, is graphically explained to the viewer, and that sometimes the viewer is expected to do their own thinking (and perhaps imagining) in order to connect the dots of the plot (e.g. take the character of Electra Brown and what causes her to say "Peter! Well, that's that!"). There is more to this film than a quick browsing through the scenes might reveal.
2) Several of the previous reviews have pointed out a lack of realism in the dressing of the characters and, perhaps, in their dancing (and in other aspects of their appearances), they point that people did not dress like that in the 60's neither did they dance like that. Well, I have a feeling (with no disrespect meant) that these reviews have missed a major point: the film is representing the future. The fact that today 1972 is in the past is irrelevant -- then, in 1967 this was in the future. The script was written in 1966, the film was made in 1967, but it depicts the 'future' -- 1972, which was still whole five years ahead. Given that in the 60's for five years the fashion, the way of life and the experience of the world for many people had changed quite radically, the common expectation and perception in 1966 were that the world in 1972 would be vastly different, the fashion would be different, the people would dance differently, perhaps even talk, walk and act differently than they were doing it in 1967. Year 1972 seemed so distant, given the rate of changes in the lives of many people in the 60's, that it would be in today's terms almost equivalent to perhaps 2072. For this reason, not only the director wanted to make the costumes very different from those worn in the 60's, but he had to -- because in the minds of the viewers he was depicting almost a distant future. For example note the talk about the landing on the moon -- in 1967 this was only a future possibility). As to my personal impression: I quite enjoyed it all -- the attempt to guess what people might be wearing in the future, what kind of a dance would become fashionable and even how people might one one day be booking their own holidays using computers (remember: in 1967 most people would only have seen a computer in another film, and even then that computer would have been shown to have a 'front panel' with switches toggled by a maniacal operator, cf. with what this movie shows for the 'distant' 1972: a QWERTY keyboard on which the character has to type the name of the destination. This was 'magic' in 1967.
Bottom line: thoroughly recommend this movie -- entertaining and thought-provoking, and simply fun to watch. What it says about the methods of the governments and certain organisations to deal with dangerous incidents seems to be so true to life, that since then it has been repeated in reality at least several times. In the beginning of the movie the 'Commander' tells the staff: "Keep your heads and pretend that nothing has happened". Weren't the staff at Tchernobyl and Fukushima power plants, or the Kursk submarine, asked to do the same, until it was no longer possible to hide the true extend of the events? And did not this approach cost human lives, prolong and worsen the disaster?
1) Don't be misled by the apparent ease and simplicity with which the characters are depicted sometimes and with which the movie starts -- upon a reflection, you may find that not all, that takes place in the movie, is graphically explained to the viewer, and that sometimes the viewer is expected to do their own thinking (and perhaps imagining) in order to connect the dots of the plot (e.g. take the character of Electra Brown and what causes her to say "Peter! Well, that's that!"). There is more to this film than a quick browsing through the scenes might reveal.
2) Several of the previous reviews have pointed out a lack of realism in the dressing of the characters and, perhaps, in their dancing (and in other aspects of their appearances), they point that people did not dress like that in the 60's neither did they dance like that. Well, I have a feeling (with no disrespect meant) that these reviews have missed a major point: the film is representing the future. The fact that today 1972 is in the past is irrelevant -- then, in 1967 this was in the future. The script was written in 1966, the film was made in 1967, but it depicts the 'future' -- 1972, which was still whole five years ahead. Given that in the 60's for five years the fashion, the way of life and the experience of the world for many people had changed quite radically, the common expectation and perception in 1966 were that the world in 1972 would be vastly different, the fashion would be different, the people would dance differently, perhaps even talk, walk and act differently than they were doing it in 1967. Year 1972 seemed so distant, given the rate of changes in the lives of many people in the 60's, that it would be in today's terms almost equivalent to perhaps 2072. For this reason, not only the director wanted to make the costumes very different from those worn in the 60's, but he had to -- because in the minds of the viewers he was depicting almost a distant future. For example note the talk about the landing on the moon -- in 1967 this was only a future possibility). As to my personal impression: I quite enjoyed it all -- the attempt to guess what people might be wearing in the future, what kind of a dance would become fashionable and even how people might one one day be booking their own holidays using computers (remember: in 1967 most people would only have seen a computer in another film, and even then that computer would have been shown to have a 'front panel' with switches toggled by a maniacal operator, cf. with what this movie shows for the 'distant' 1972: a QWERTY keyboard on which the character has to type the name of the destination. This was 'magic' in 1967.
Bottom line: thoroughly recommend this movie -- entertaining and thought-provoking, and simply fun to watch. What it says about the methods of the governments and certain organisations to deal with dangerous incidents seems to be so true to life, that since then it has been repeated in reality at least several times. In the beginning of the movie the 'Commander' tells the staff: "Keep your heads and pretend that nothing has happened". Weren't the staff at Tchernobyl and Fukushima power plants, or the Kursk submarine, asked to do the same, until it was no longer possible to hide the true extend of the events? And did not this approach cost human lives, prolong and worsen the disaster?