Jonathan Livingston Seagull (1973) User Reviews

It's a metaphor rather than a "seagull movie"

[Resonant1 · 7/10 · 23 February 2005]

If I was rating this movie back in 1973 when I saw the film in the theater on opening day, then it would have been a 10. Age does take it's toll on our opinions and we're 32 years down the line, hence my rating's decline from perfection.

One must keep in mind when viewing this film that if you expect it to be a Disney story about seagulls, then you are going to be gravely disappointed. In fact, Richard Bach, the writer, fought tooth and nail to prevent exactly that Disney influence in the face of a studio that wanted to add animated fake mouth movements over the photography of the seagulls.

The story is presented through the persona of seagulls, but it is NOT about seagulls. Like the book of the same name, the movie is actually a metaphor about people and life and the pursuit of learning and something better than "pack mentality". Those viewers who keep an eye toward those subtle metaphysical principles will recognize the jewel at the heart of the movie. Those viewers with no thought of higher principles or those looking for an animal movie may conversely wish they had never heard of it.

Alas, the movie studio seemed to be populated by the latter group. Ultimately infighting between Bach and the pro-mouth-movement studio honchos who wanted to retrofit the movie after its release resulted in the demise of the theatrical release within a few weeks of opening. Granted, there was a limited audience for the movie, but Bach didn't care since those who needed the message would find it and I personally think it would have lasted longer if left alone.

The photography is stunning and the soundtrack by Neil Diamond is stellar. Granted, by today's standards, both the movie and soundtrack are dated, but then so is anything made in the 70's.

When it came out originally I took everyone I knew to see it who was even slightly interested in such metaphors and all of them loved it. It remains to be one of my favorite movies in principle even today despite the dating.

If you are going to watch it today, just allocate two hours of your life that are free of constraints in which to relax and learn one small simple quiet lesson and then enjoy the spectacular scenery while you are doing it. If you can do that, you will love it.

Photography puts anything else to shame!

[jamesbond · 7/10 · 1 November 2000]

This film´s photography puts any other film´s to shame. How they managed to catch footage of the seagull at those altitudes is amazing. However, photography alone does not make a great movie. The novel is great and the film is almost a page for page filmatization of the book. However it is a tad long and one´s interest in the philosophical bird diminishes near the end. Younger viewers which perhaps are not as blasé as I may find it more enjoyable. For those of you who have not read the book; this is a must-see.

Great Music, Visuals But The Story Is Lame

[ccthemovieman-1 · 6/10 · 6 April 2006]

Great soundtrack, great visuals, somewhat confusing and disappointing storyline.

I always thought this was Neil Diamond's best work. He sang the soundtrack, and it's filled with great songs that he did exceptionally well.

The photography is beautiful and the scenes as mellow as you can find: a seagull gracefully gliding through the air surrounded by beautiful seascapes, sunsets, billowy clouds.....just magnificent scenery.

On the negative side is the usual New Age "look within yourself" theology. This is pure Secular Humanism. I say this because some people thought this was a Christian film and it is not. It only confuses people because there are analogies that could easily apply to Jesus, to the Pharisees and to Heaven itself. It was a bunch of mixed messages but author Richard Bach, from whose book this movie is based on, leaves no doubt near the end of the movie - or the screenwriters did, if they changed his book.

Still, a peaceful, calming movie that is unique.

Quite Original

[alturhao · 7/10 · 3 June 2002]

OK, so it's not a masterpiece, but it has its moments. At least it's quite original, which is a quality most people don't have... The shots with the seagulls are well achieved, as well the the natural landscapes. The dialogues are a bit basic and one can sense the difficulty of selecting passages from the book (which is magnificent) to put in the movie. It tends to be a little boring towards the end, but it's a one-of. I think everyone who likes movies should see it. As for the music... I think it's suited and powerful enough. BE is a very nice piece. See the movie. (6,5 / 10)

Oh wow. Wow. Wow.

[BandSAboutMovies · 3/10 · 26 February 2020]

For years, I've wanted to see this movie and it's eluded me. I shop at The Exchange stores often and the one in Monroeville had one of the Warner Archive burn on demand disks. I watched it like, well, a seagull for about a year. It was $12. Surely I wasn't going to spend so much money on Johnathan Livingston Seagull, long derided as one of the worst movies ever, one of only four movies that Roger Ebert would ever walk out on (the others are Caligula, The Statue and Tru Loved) and a movie I learned about from The Fifty Worst Films of All Time.

Yeah, I like pain. Bring it on, seagull.

Jonathan Livingston Seagull (James Franciscus) is trying to up his speed and break the 60 mile per hour barrier, but the Elders of his flock - hey there, Hal Holbrook's voice - shame him for even trying while Neil Diamond sings over his efforts.

He is now an outcast, flying alone, when he meets a series of mysterious seagulls who let him know that he is unique and should be proud. Johnathan becomes a mentor to the other birds who have no one to share their gifts with.

Juliet Mills plays Johnathan's love interest, who is known as The Girl. And Richard Crenna is in here too as our hero's father.

Director Hall Bartlett discovered the book when he was getting his haircut. Delaring, "I was born to make this movie," he won the property from author Richard Bach for $100,000 and half the profits, which makes me assume that the Bach's estate just got $6 from my DVD purchase and yet he still hasn't made all that much.

Yes, this was directed by the same man who made Zero Hour!

And yet, it barely made back its budget.

Maybe all the lawsuits helped.

Bach sued Paramount Pictures before the film's release because the movie was different than the book and the judge ordered Bartlett to revise the movie before it could be released. The major issue was a scene where a hawk (voiced by the director) attacks Johnathan.

Then, Neil Diamond sured because five minutes of his songs were cut. He also demanded the credit "Music and songs by Neil Diamond." Diamond "vowed never to get involved in a movie again unless I had complete control," then made The Jazz Singer seven years later.

Then director Ovady Julber sued, claiming that the movie stole from his 1936 film La Mer. There was no trial, as cultural use of the film had taken away any common-law copyright the movie had, which seems like a totally BS legal decision, but hey - I write about Spanish horror movies with lots of breasts and blood so the law is way out of my sphere of influence.

The opening credit of this film reads, "To the real Jonathan Livingston Seagull who lives within us all." I advise that this is the exact moment that you begin whatever substances you plan to get you through this.

As for Richard Bach, he met his second wife Leslie Parrish while making this movie, leaving his first wife - who typed all of his aviation books - and six children, not seeing them for many years. Beyond her production job, Parrish was responsible for the seagulls and had to keep them in her room at the Holiday Inn. When Bach and Bartlett started to fight, she was the mediator between them. Sadly, her credit for the movie was just a researcher, which seems like complete malarky.

Parish would play a major role in Bach's next two books, The Bridge Across Forever and One, which pwas all about Bach's concept of soulmates. They divorced in 1997, so maybe his theory wasn't so perfect. Who can say?

In 2014, there would be another chapter added to the book. Nobody thought to film that.

This is totally going to be the movie that I will use to chase people out of my house from now on. Except that, like all bad movies, I love it. I adore every second of this schmaltzy up with people movie that just had birds staring at the screen while actors try to make magic of the script. I look forward to many, many viewings of this movie along with many, many hangovers to follow.

Join me, won't you?

Really underrated movie adaptation of a famous novel

[Atreyu_II · 7/10 · 2 June 2010]

Not everyone may know the story of 'Jonathan Livingston Seagull'. But, if nothing else, at least many people certainly heard of it.

I like seagulls very much. They're such beautiful, elegant birds with a confident, even noble appearance. And they fly beautifully. A seagull's flight is one of the most graceful and fascinating things to see. As beautiful as they are, they're equally well known for their foul temperament...

One of the most different things about this movie is the fact that it has only birds (seagulls) on screen and no human characters at all. Plus, this is an animal movie different from the others. Instead of home pets, this one is about seagulls.

The story is about the title character, who is different from all the seagulls of his flock. Flying is his favorite thing. He flies with art and passion, but he dares to do things that other seagulls don't do, such as flying as high as possible (the more, the merrier - for him, sky is the limit) and flying in unusual speeds, as well as doing other "tricks" that other seagulls don't attempt. Of course that by being overambitious he's taking great risks...

Jonathan faces the reality of being different: his flock doesn't accept him and actually outcast him. However, that doesn't stop him from keep trying to learn and improve his flight skills so that he reaches what he is desperately trying to. And even though he later finds another flock which accepts him the way he is, he still loves his previous flock and wants to show them his talents.

This movie is certainly artistic when it comes to film-making. Besides the unique story (even if a bit lame), it has rich and gorgeous settings and landscapes, as well as a beautiful and relaxing musical score by Neil Diamond.

Doesn't take flight

[Wizard-8 · 7 March 2010]

If you examine the opening credits of the movie "Jonathan Livingston Seagull", you'll see that there is no mention of Richard Bach, who wrote the book that the movie is based on. Bach actually sued screenwriter/producer/director Hall Bartlett for (among other things) supposedly distorting his story, so Bach probably demanded his name be taken off the project. Seeing the movie, I can understand Bach's reaction. To be fair, the photography and camera-work in the movie are first rate, and the locations are well chosen as well. But despite its good look, the movie is a bore, a chore to sit through. There are long stretches of the movie when the movie comes to a standstill, with endless shots of seagulls flying around and around. The character of Jonathan is thin - we learn little about him, and he has less dialogue than you may think, despite being the central character. And all the dialogue the characters has feels random, like it's being made up as the movie is going along. The movie's "messages" feel heavy handed. As for Neil Diamond's score, while I have enjoyed a number of his songs in his past, the songs and background music here are far from his best work. Stick with the book.

Very Disappointing

[alfredsmith · 2/10 · 22 October 2019]

I read the book when the brilliant soundtrack album came out. I loved both the book and the soundtrack. Neil Diamond did an amazing job and even more amazing considering what he had to work with. Then a little later I saw the movie. I was expecting something quite incredible. Well it was incredible. Incredibly bad. It took all I had to stay awake. It was so boring and completely unengaging. Perhaps one of the worst movies I've ever seen. So the book 9/10, soundtrack 10/10 and the movie 2/10. Stay clear of this turkey, even if you're just curious. You'll be crushed at how pathetic it is.

A BEAUTIFUL FILM

[mntwister · 10/10 · 22 March 2003]

Sorry I disagree with some of the others here, this is one beautiful film, in story, photography, music. Neil Diamond's score is first rate, the the film is unlike any other made....beautiful and full of feeling. If you don't have a heart and hate beauty, skip it. If you do, don't miss it, it's really a work of art.

Graceful, Swirling, Majestic

[tim-764-291856 · 6/10 · 18 March 2012]

Here in England, the nearest we get to seagulls (we are an island) are ones who steal our fish and chips from our hands at the seaside, squawk and squall loudly and generally seen as a bit of a seaside urban nuisance.

We had the paperback novel in our household when I was young - I never read it but did dip into it every now and then and enjoyed the black & white photographs. So, a few decades on, the film.

I did wonder how it was going to be portrayed, how the birds would talk etc and am glad that it wasn't Disneyfied or animatronics grafted on (a bit before that development, I know). Used to some quite excellent wildlife programmes on TV these days, I was often aghast at the beauty of the imagery, that didn't try to be too close up and perfect but convey space, wonderment and awe.

Being British I did find the American voice artists not quite to my taste - somehow voices added to seagulls are different to ones added to Pixar cartoons, but I suppose that's because while Pixar is decidedly American, Jonathan Livingston Seagull is nation-less and international at the same time. Like the birds themselves; free to fly anywhere.

The story did make some sense but alas, did not grip me. Therefore I was glad that my DVD version didn't go beyond 90 mins or so, rather than the 120mins on some versions. The Neil Diamond soundtrack, alas was mono - how much better if it had been in stereo - was beautiful too, though not quite being able to pick out all the lyrics due to the not brilliant sound quality lessened its impact and enjoyment.

There are those that love and swear by their Jonathan Seagull, whatever format it's in. I'm less enamoured by the project but am glad that I watched and enjoyed this film.

Out of dated and failed attempt

[grandisdavid · 5/10 · 29 July 2004]

I truly worshiped this movie when I was a kid, I even had a giant poster of the seagull on the wall of my bedroom. But after having watched it recently, it seems out of dated, the photography is poor, even though it was pretty good for 1973, the music is too much on the foreground, and really not that great, may we say also out of dated? Some parts are terribly long and make you want to die instead of watching such a poor picture but the philosophy of Richard Bach is still lovely and endearing (even though not especially profound and quite fathomable), it is why I recommend henceforth the book instead. If only somebody like Jean-Jacques Annaud was willing to make a remake: The Bear and the recent Two Brothers, both excellent, proved more than convincingly his talent to shoot movies with animals and to make it interesting even without philosophy so how great would it be with! Unfortunately, Bartlett is not Annaud we must say, and the attempt of adaptation has failed.

One of the best films ever made?

[filmfrik · 10/10 · 3 July 2008]

I watched this movie at the cinema theater in 1975 or 1976. I loved it! Then i rented it on VHS back in the 80's, and thought it was one of the best films i'd ever seen. Now, i was so lucky to find it on DVD, with Norwegian subtitles (Not that they're really needed here, though). This is clearly a very different film. Very quiet and beautiful, and with Neil Diamonds beautiful songs, that match perfectly. If a film intends to mean anything, the audience needs time to think. In todays modern, fast, loud movies, you hardly get time to breath, lot less to stop and think. With this movie, however, you get plenty of time. And the quiet, beautiful scenes are a part of the message delivered: Take your time, live your life to the full, don't be afraid to try what hasn't been tried before, don't hesitate, and don't stress. And first and last: Don't just accept other people's "thruths". Go find out for yourself. If it works for you, it works! I rated this film 10/10, because it's not only a very good film, it's unique! There has never been another movie quite like it, and probably never will be. This is a brilliant masterpiece of a film.

Guano

[Ali_John_Catterall · 5/10 · 15 November 2009]

1973: Martha, a Californian housewife in her early thirties is married to Peter, CEO of a construction company. When flower power was in full bloom Martha and Peter concentrated on building a home and putting their daughters through private education. With Peter increasingly away on business, a restless Martha begins to feel there's something missing from her life; might those hippies have been onto something? One day, her old schoolfriend Susan drops by for coffee, clutching a copy of Kahil Gibran's 'The Prophet' and 'Jonathan Livingston Seagull', the latest publishing phenomenon.

"Why don't you take a swim in lake you?" smiles Susan, and leaves the books for Martha to ponder over. Days pass, until out of curiosity, Martha picks up the little blue book with the outline of a seagull on the cover. This Richard Bach fellow's topped the 'New York Times' bestseller lists for 38 weeks - a respectable writer. They've even made a movie of it. And Martha has always enjoyed nature documentaries. Whatever would Peter say? Oh phooey - for the first time in her 27 years, Martha is spreading her wings...

Dedicated to "the real Jonathan Livingston Seagull who lives within us all", this is an allegory for living one's life without fear, to "fly for the fun of it" and "learn what perfection really is". It's 'The Little Engine That Could' with feathers. Or Herman Hesse with a mouthful of herring.

Although the story was inspired by John H Livingston, a top American pilot of the 1920s and 1930s, Richard Bach (a new age forerunner to the likes of Deepak Chopra and Paulo Coelho) has denied he is the real author of the novel, merely acting as a conduit for some higher power; fortunately, there's not yet a legal precedent for robbing superior beings of their royalty cheques.

Whoever the writer, one cannot underestimate the impact the book had on the 'Me' generation, with its hodge-podge of Eastern philosophy and self-empowerment speak, later ridiculed by writer Beverley Byrne as "Horatio Alger doing Antoine De Saint-Exupéry" or "the Qur'an as translated by Bob Dylan".

Composed of fewer than 10,000 words, it broke all hardcover sales records (in fiction - and, tellingly, non-fiction) since 'Gone With The Wind', shifting more than a million copies in 1972 alone. 'Reader's Digest' published an abridged version, and Richard Harris won a Grammy in 1973 for his spoken-word album-of-the-book. Naturally, given its earning power, studio execs were inclined to jump all over it.

Shot in California (where else) and New Mexico for $1.5 million, and sporting a soundtrack by Neil Diamond, the film version concerns the education of the eponymous seagull, voiced by James Franciscus. Driven by a desire for limitless flight ("There's got to be more to life than fighting for fish heads!") and an embarrassment to his parents and his girlfriend, he is banished by the elder of his flock for flaunting the proscribed rules of speed and altitude.

He encounters two other outcasts who teach him to soar to a higher plane of existence, where dwell a flock of enlightened gulls, led by a wise old bird named Chiang who takes him under his wing. Under Chiang's tutelage Jonathan learns how to instantly 'jaunt' to anywhere in the universe. The secret is to "begin by knowing that you have already arrived". As Chiang explains, "Your whole body, from wingtip to wingtip is nothing more than your thought itself. Break the chains of your thought, and you break the chains of your body too."

Equipped with his teacher's parting words, "keep working on love", and with the knowledge that the soul can only be free through the ability to forgive and to pass on such wisdom, the beaky Messiah flies back to his flock to spread the word ("Listen, everybody! There's no limit to how high we can fly! We can dive for fish and never have to live on garbage again!") amassing supporters, until he flaps off again to God knows where.

As successful as Bach's novel was and is, the movie was a troubled production, which plummeted from the screen a few weeks after release in the face of almost uniformly terrible reviews. The serenely spiritual Bach ended up launching a suit against the producer (who initially wanted to graft Disney-style animated mouths on the seagulls) for not sticking to the letter of his book, and remains a non-fan of the film version.

Trouble is, given the sheer volume of philosophising at the expense of narrative, the decision to render everything in disembodied voice-over can become tiresome, and one's appreciation of the film may be fundamentally dictated by how many new age platitudes you can ingest without discomfort (or indeed giggling - "We don't go flying through rock till a little later in the programme"); similarly, how much sub-standard Neil Diamond you can take without feeling the urge to drive pencils deep into your ears.

With a melody invoking Elgar's 'Nimrod', and lyrics like "Lost on a painted sky, where the clouds are hung for the poet's eye", Diamond's overwrought title song 'Be' (which on release barely tickled the Top 40) recalls nothing so much as Engelbert Humperdinck's 'Lesbian Seagull' from Beavis And Butt-Head Do America.

Diamond, who also launched a suit against the producer, nevertheless saw his soundtrack album go double-platinum; the likes of 'Be' and 'Songbird' ("Seek out your harbour of light!") faring slightly better out of context. On the plus side, the movie's nature photography is sublime - the knowledge that the film employed various radio-controlled gliders (built by one Mark Smith of Escondido, California) standing in for the gulls, in no way detracting from the superb aerobatics on show.

Cynicism aside, there's also some pretty sound advice here - why shouldn't we attempt to "fly without limits", or strive to be the greatest seagulls we can possibly be? It's better than a face-full of rotten fish. Keep your beak up.

Cinematically, wonderful; other than that, not much else

[oloughlin_e · 19 October 2007]

The cinematography is truly amazing. The plot though, not so much. My husband commented that it was on his top 5 of most boring movies. The movie dragged along in several sections, and I would have chosen any one but Mr Franciscus to be the voice of Jonathan. He was a bit over the top and seemed to be trying much too hard to be a seagull. The music is wonderful, but I may be biased as I have been a Neil Diamond fan since the mid 60's, and have several copies of the the JLS soundtrack. The book is great, the music is great, so my suggestion would be to buy the soundtrack from Mr. Diamond and read the book while it is playing.

Awful, wrong-headed, avian-ccentric stinker

[fertilecelluloid · 1/10 · 7 February 2006]

Writer Richard Bach had guru status in the early 70's to early 80's and produced interesting work such as "Jonathan Livingston Seagull" and "Ilusions". His love was flying and he shared that love of being free and aloft with appreciative readers. It might have been a good idea on paper to turn "Seagull" into a film because, on actual film, it's awful. The book is pure philosophy and little narrative. Everything expressed is from the point of view of a bird. Unfortunately, so is the movie, and it is this literal interpretation of the book that renders the whole exercise so wrong-headed. There is nothing inherently terrible about a movie told from an animal's perspective -- "Watership Down" did it beautifully, as did "The Plague Dogs". What's terrible, though, is showing a standard issue seagull foraging for food and dashing across the sky while his "philosophy" on life is the voice-over. Since he is a real seagull, his lips don't move and he doesn't ever regard the camera with anything but indifference. The result is philosophy spouted in a peculiar void. On top of the film's structural and stylistic problems, the cinematography is lacklustre, the Neil Diamond songs are just silly, and the seagull is boring. No wonder the thing tanked.

Film makers can be so cruel

[crumpethead · 4/10 · 24 August 2011]

The first thing that struck me about this film is the extremely cruel way in which seagulls were treated in the making of this film. This film would never have been allowed to be made in the same way today. Many many scenes were probably "staged" at the expense of the life of a seagull or two. Birds with feathers saturated by seawater to the skin would find it difficult to recover. Similarly, how does the camera just happen to capture a fight scene between a seagull and a hawk without it being staged (eg seagull tethered so it can't escape etc). Seagulls released away from their natural habitat into a freezing, snow bound environment where they may not survive.

Cruel beyond belief

Good story decent movie

[terence-jones2 · 8/10 · 16 March 2007]

First off if you are reading this you will most definitely read the book of the same title.

The book doesn't translate well into film due to it's short length so there is a lot of padding out of Jonathon just flying around visiting different places but the visuals on show are very good. The animatronics (rememeber they didn't have CGI back in the 70's) are first class and it really does look like live seagulls.

The movie is probably about the right length though at 95 mins perhaps trimming by 10 mins would not have harmed it.

As you'll know it's a feelgood story about the quest to be a better gull and the importance of tolerance and forgiveness.

I was a bit disappointed that one of the KEY SPOKEN LINES in the book was omitted from the script. When the young Jonathon is asked by his mother why he doesn't eat and is all bone and feathers he replies "I don't mind being bone and feathers, Mum. I just want to know what i can do in the air and what i can't, that's all. I just want to know" Considering the key part of the book is that Jonathon forsakes the squabbles and feeding frenzy to learn how to fly properly i would say that line is a pretty important one.

Still it's a decent movie which is pleasant to watch.

The Ultimate Declaration of Narcissism from the "Me" Generation

[my_corpse_remains · 1/10 · 5 April 2007]

I won't bother to give a plot description because there is no plot and what little there is to say about what happens over the two unbearable hours this movie steals from the viewer's life has already been adequately covered in previous comments.

I'd like to give my perspective as a "Gen X"er who was shown this movie by his Baby Boomer father. I was 18 at the time and my father had dumped my mother for another woman 12 years prior. I was lucky to have a step-dad, because my old man put in the obligatory every-other-weekend like it was parole. He usually just left me with his wife, who hated my guts, while he worked overtime making six figures. She at least mailed the support checks, because when he dumped her, I quit seeing them.

When I was 16, he moved to Texas to avoid paying her support too, so him and I didn't talk for a couple of years. It took six months of refusing to take his calls to get a plane ticket and a week of his life. The trip was suppose to help us to reconcile and I hoped to get answers as to why up until now my existence had been some sort of thorn in his side.

I asked him the tough questions, the ones I'd asked myself my entire childhood. I was treated to a reluctant "sorry", some evasive non-answers and a lot of whining about how lousy his childhood was and it was everyone else's fault for his mistakes. Then one afternoon, he sat me down to watch "Jonathan Livingston Seagull", while he helped his girlfriend make dinner. He gave me a whole prep talk about it before. This movie was suppose to answer everything for me.

After watching this movie I accepted what I already knew. That my father was a narcissistic people-user who was incapable of doing anything for anyone if it somehow inconvenienced his life. There are great films out there about families who drift apart and reconcile; movies about people who realize the error of their ways and make amends with their past. Instead, I get shown a cheesy relic about a G- D- seagull who wants more out of life than helping his "family" survive.

Apparently, Jonathan is better than the other seagulls. They can catch fish heads for the flock while he finds new ways of flapping his wings. I mean, WTF? Apparently my father's idea of philosophy is meaningless double talk that wouldn't be fit for inclusion in the DVD extras of "Kung Fu". Read the quotes! Yes, do whatever you like, because freedom is "being" or happiness is not thinking about anyone else but yourself or something to that effect. Fly, fly away from the District Attorney. Explore new horizons where they can't garnish your paycheck.

My father has four kids and none of us keep in touch with him. Maybe he's leeching off some woman right now? Maybe he's homeless? I haven't talked to him in five years and I couldn't care less. I got sick of Jonathan Seagull asking to borrow my credit card so he could go fly off and "discover himself" over and over again. So to me this movie is about my father and every other self-romanticizing Baby Boomer with a Beamer, arthritis and grandkids he never sees. Maybe Greenpeace will be there for all the elderly seagulls who fly out to sea alone.

Astounding And Deep, And High Too!

[dungeonstudio · 8/10 · 15 March 2022]

My father had loved this movie when I was young, but wouldn't take me to see it. But he often refereed to it as I was growing up. Figuring it was a kids movie he took a little too much to heart with, I passed it off. Through the years though I heard the title referenced by film buffs as this cinematic 'holy grail' of sight and sound, and became intrigued. Finding it very rare and expensive to come across, I became even more intrigued. Thanks to the folks at Umbrella Entertainment, I was finally able to buy an affordable blu-ray finally. Starting off, it's a cinematic feast for the eyes. Wonderful vistas, and aerial shots following Jonathan through the skies. He's determined to fly faster than any gull has flown before, and nearly kills himself and other gulls in the process. The elders of his flock find him to be a radical not knowing his place and disrupting the balance of the accepted and is banished. Unfettered, Jonathan plans to venture further and faster than any gull has gone and show the elders what can and can't be possible. Figuring this would be 'The Little Engine That Could' story, I grew bored and fell asleep. It wasn't until after as I got listening to the commentary with the film did I learn that Jonathan dies by freezing to death, and is brought to a whole new realm of existence with other gulls that have 'gone beyond' the standard ways. So I watched the movie again fully, and was quite impressed! Not only is the movie well shot, and with a spiritual twist woven in. But the commentary lays out an incredible history of the incredible risks to make the movie to begin with, and the subsequent falling outs with all the creators thereafter. A gripping drama in itself when all told. So for all the work that went into it, concepts and ego's that nearly ended it before even being released, it's incredible any trace of it exists today! The dialog and characters could've used a little more humour and characters in places, as it's very dry throughout. And the Neil Diamond songs can be a bit overwhelming and melancholy as well. But for a movie that tells a story from the animals perspective, and following a flying one no less. I couldn't help but think this must've inspired Godrey Reggio for his Qatsi Trilogy, and no doubt countless other directors like Coppola to Scorcese to GO BIG around a small character. Sure, John Ford and Stanley Kubrick has done some great cinema photography in past. But this movie really tests the limits! Definitely a must see thoroughly at least once!

How did such an amazing book turn into THAT!?

[ellansir · 1/10 · 8 July 2005]

THis movie was... a huge waste of time. Jonathan Livingston Seagull, the book, should have been left alone. I'm sorry. It's not possible to transfer such a beautiful book to video format. This movie should be better known as "the ruthless murder of a beautiful book" They ruined it. Luckily, my love for the book took over and I have removed this awful movie from my memory. Otherwise it would have spoiled the story for me. I think the only good part was the sound track. Neil Diamond is a genius, but by no means managed to save it.

I would have to tell people not to see this movie if they want to save their views of Jonathan Livingston Seagull. RIchard Bach's message is something that can not be made visual.

I like the movie / its music, pictures & thoughts.

[greg0658 · 19 May 2002]

I also read the book, saw the movie on the big screen, have the soundtrack and got the VHS tape, which I watched again today. So I like the movie. I'm visiting the web today looking for a dvd release. Watching the movie in post 9/11/01 days - it has a renewed interest for me, as our days here on earth are again in question with world activities growing graver. As a photographer I like big screen and small screen movies that are picturesque. So "Dances with Wolves" is another favorite. I also like movies that move me, even to tears (that doesn't bother me), which this movie does, so "Old Yeller" is another favorite and this database hit the mark on what else I might like. I play piano and trumpet in band and have an appreciation for the instrumentation this movie soundtrack offers. I am Christian and the vocal soundtrack gets you thinking of this life and the afterlife. I enjoy Neil Diamond as a vocalist. I give the movie a rating of 9 out of 10. Nothing is perfect. In closing I was hoping to see this movie re-released soon on the big screen - or at least dvd - but with the comments in this database - I don't see an executive taking an option on that.

Reason #253 to hate the 1970s

[planktonrules · 1/10 · 21 July 2008]

JONATHAN LIVINGSTON SEAGULL is a film about a bird and his philosophical musings. As he flies about, he wonders if there's more to life than just eating fish heads, how high he can fly and is there some special purpose to life--all in a live-action two-hour film!

Yes, this is #253 of why you should hate the 1970s--right between the song "Muskrat Love" and Richard Nixon! Okay, there really is no such list--but if there was, this film would be on it! That's because this is a god-awful film that was actually embraced by "with it" people and made the book a huge best-seller and the film a must-see. And to make it worse, the film is so deadly serious and tries so hard to be philosophical--while all it really consists of is a seagull flying about as inane dialog blares on the screen. Could this get any worse?! Well, yes, because while the music does sound lovely, Neil Diamond also sings several songs that made "Heartlight" (sure to be included if there was a "reasons to hate the 1980s" list) seem hard-edged!

So what positive things do I have to say about the film? Well, the cinematography is lovely and must have been spectacular on the big screen. Also, when Neil Diamond isn't singing, the music is lovely. However, with two hours to the film, these reasons become irrelevant after just a few minutes as the rest is just a ponderous pile of....well,... guano. And the fact that so many once-respected actors LOVED the project and agreed to do voices for it is a testament to the power of mood altering drugs and hippie psychology!!

Harry Medved included this in his book "The Fifty Worst Films of All Time". While I have disagreed with some of his choices, I can heartily agree that this film merited, no DEMANDED, inclusion!

In summation, I'd rather eat glass than see it again! It's THAT bad!!!

An exercise in agonizing boredom.

[Sylvanhawke · 1/10 · 21 January 2008]

Jonathan Livingston Seagull has been one of my favorite books since I was very young. I have truly relished the imagery and spiritual message presented by this stunningly magical story, and looked eagerly forward to experiencing Jonathan's adventure on the big screen. This film was an atrocity. Rather than being a dedicated retelling of one of the most inspirational books ever written this ghastly farce presents itself as an embarrassing showcase for a dolorous soundtrack. I can see this film as having great appeal to hardcore Neil Diamond fans, especially those who appreciate his more pensive and solemn works, however, it completely misses the mark of painting the spirit of Richard Bach's brilliant masterpiece. Despite some stunning visuals this film has little merit. Absolutely horrific.

Review of my Fav Film.

[articuno-1 · 10/10 · 23 August 2007]

After getting the book as a Christmas present in 2005, I was so in love with the story that I decided I must also watch the film, exactly one year later the DVD arrived on my doorstep from Play.com.

First thing's first, I consider this to be one of my most favourite files, the reason I enjoy it is because to me it's very symbolic and the film includes all of my true loves; the sea, sky and gulls. I often warn people about this film before showing it to them because it's seriously a matter of personal taste. The average person probably wouldn't be interested in this.

I absolutely love the music and I now have the soundtrack, together with the beautiful photography, the nature scenes and gulls, I believe it was a work of art, a masterpiece. So deep.. I've now watched it about 20 times or more and still never bored of it!

Call me crazy but I cannot get enough this, I know the story inside out.. I know that it's a metaphor but the fact is, it's still based on gulls! That's what really makes it enjoyable for me, because I never get tired of watching birds, especially my beloved gulls..

The plot is simple, not confusing. Jonathan sees more to life than just fighting for fish all day long, he wants to learn how to master the gift of flight. (In real life, gulls and other birds actually do fly for fun.) He wants to take flying to new levels, he wants to reach the top (literally) and surpass everyone below, for they aren't thinking any further and don't even want to. Jonathan expands his knowledge on flight throughout life and beyond, meeting very few gulls like him and teaching others the joy of learning. It's inspirational because as the book suggests, Jonathan lives within us all and we can so easily relate to him wanting to do what he wants to do, and dealing with "peer pressure" almost, the other gulls put him down and tell him that his learning is wrong. This often happens to us in real life, some people are weak and go with the crowd while others continue to be themselves.

One thing about this film that eeks me, the fact that so many people compare it to a Christian's story.. about heaven and Jesus and all, but really those are the type of people who see the bible's story EVERYWHERE THEY LOOK. This is NOTHING to do with Christianity (if anything, the devil chanting at the end of the film shows that stereotypical Christians are discriminative, and you're better off NOT listening to their silly rules!)

Besides that, watching this film always brings me to life, like Jonathan, my passion is flying. I really cannot get enough of those beautiful flying parts and the whole thing is something I hold close to my heart.

OK I admit I may be a little biased because I'm absolutely gull crazy... I don't think there are any gull nuts who wouldn't enjoy this.

doesn't age well

[rvm-2 · 3/10 · 23 July 2000]

I liked the book when I was 9 or 10, when this movie came out - I was discovering allegory - but I seem to recall I was bored by the movie and put off by the music, even then. The nature shots are great, but everything is agonizingly too long, too heavy handed, and the Neil Diamond songs are about as grating as a flock of seagulls at 5 in the morning, and more pretentious. This movie is essentially a weak expression of the not-very-deep philosophies of the flower-power generation, and is best relegated to those days long ago when my big sister made tie-died shirts for me.