This was the worst movie I had ever seen. I saw it when it was released. It was just horrible. The sex scenes weren't a big deal at the time. Rae Dawn Chong was probably the only reason I didn't walk out.

Now that it's 2016, with all the sex and nudity on Netflix and other pay TV channels, along with most Charlotte Gainsberg "mainstream" movies containing scenes that can rival Deep Throat or any Italian and French XXX movie of the past 5 decades, ask that question. I think the US has caught up with European and Japanese adult cinema. But is this the world you wished for your children? Sure it is. Their moral breakdown is reflected in their electing Donald Trump.
Under our clothes, we are all naked! Breasts, genitals or buttocks is nudity.

I'm late, but
I rented this movie with 5-6 years old. I remember the guy of the video store asking me if I was sure about what I was getting because was renting a movie with no dialog.
I guess they did not care about the sex scenes.
With 11-12 years old I was asked about this movie by my teachers. By that point I had a copy because I loved the movie. We all watched it at the school.
I guess they did not care about the sex scenes.
What? They beep like prehistoric people? Yes. What is weird about it?

Upon its initial release,the critics loved this movie.I mean,adored it.It didnt make a dent in the box office,but that director had the halo effect for years with the critics because of it.Rae Dawn Chong,Tommy Chong's daughter was in it,and she got the benefit of the doubt as an actress because of it.
Jimmy
"1)There is a God,and 2)Im not him."

"I was curious as to how the film was received when it was released in '81. I think if it were released today, Americans would react harshly to the violent sex scenes. Just wondering if audiences were as sexually up-tight as they can be today."
My father took me to see this movie during its original cinematic release, back when I was 11 or 12 (I'm presently 41), and as I recall, the movie was considered a bit racy, and obviously went over better in some parts of the country than in others (I was then residing in the San Francisco Bay Area, where it was probably better received than nearly anywhere else), but regardless, I seem to recall that at the time, the film was held in high esteem as a serious, artistic effort in attempting to present paleo-lithic human existence in as realistic a manner as possible.

I remember seeing when I was 13 or something and we laughed at the sex scenes. Like the one where the guy just walks up behind and starts humping that cavewoman

This message has been deleted.

You have to remember 1981 was a very different time in American cinema. The old studios were being taken over by corporations. Jaws and Star Wars had created the frenzy of the summer blockbuster. Disco filled the pop radio scene. And the swinging 1960's counter culture were growing up to become yuppies. The drug use of the parents in 1982's Poltergeist barely shook people up back then.
As far as the sex scenes in Quest for Fire. Remember that less than a decade earlier the X rated Deep Throat was a huge hit, and even still played in some theaters by then. The late 1970's and early 1980's saw much of the the fruit of the 1960's sexual revolution. Slipping between bed sheets with perfect strangers wasn't considered nearly as taboo as it is today. Before A.I.D.S. the worst uncureable disease was herpies.
But times have changed. We now measure a films succsess with box office numbers. Back then blockbusters were very uncommon, and it was more of an experiment to get one to take shape. Now productions are much more involved, with marketing, studio executives, and all sorts of ninnies trying to shape a film into pleaseing as wide an audiance as possable. You can see this in action with Clan of the Cave Bear a few years laterThe general dumbing down lowest common denominator fluff studios now kick out in thier sleep.
Quest for Fire if released today would likely garner lots of unwanted attention from some very minor but vocal groups. Such groups are often very small, but quite capable of pushing the right buttons to get attention. And its all about selling thier message, the film (any film really) is just the stepping stone allowing them to climb ontop thier soapbox. And the media unfortunetly eats this up time and again

This message has been deleted.

By the way, the American Christian right was too busy that summer showing their indignation for MAKING LOVE and PERSONAL BEST to worry about theories of creation.

This message has been deleted.

This film was NOT a flop nor was it controversial at the time of release in the US. It was sold as if it was 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY and audiences responded as if it was PLANET OF THE APES.

This message has been deleted.

Back in the day, when it was released in 1991, QUEST FOR FIRE flopped hard in the USA. But it broke box-office records around the world.
"This are Nice shoes! Couldn't you afford some real Nike?"

This film was a field trip for my Grade 9 class in Canada and the only outcry was over the wide mix of hominids that where living at the same time. Criticaly it was pretty well recieved and most of the class enjoyed it (apart from a couple creationist students who had some major problems with it LOL). I need to see it again.
Mark
so this is it we are going to die

I don't understand the parental concerns. I watched this movie in science class in grade 6 (teacher explained the scientific inaccuracies) and I don't recall anyone being traumatised or any parents outraged at all. Sure, there is a rape scene, but if 12-year-olds ignore there is such a thing as rape in the world, then something's probably not quite alright in their education.
And to counter the rape, the main character finally learns the difference between having sex and making love.
How long is the notion going to prevail, that sex is inherently inmoral and knowledge of it unsuitable for minors?

"Those beliefs would be another "epic adventure of science fanatsy!" Get a clue: The bible is fiction. It's also an instrument of thought control."
The Atheistic cant and dogma you imbibe from the public education system and the dominant press are far more effective and relevant methods of thought control, within the context of contemporary Western society. The fact you can't see this indicates you aren't nearly as bright as you imagine yourself to be. And I suspect you bore others as much as you bore me.

"it's a beautifully made film that doesn't necessarily reflect our beliefs about early humanity"
Those beliefs would be another "epic adventure of science fanatsy!" Get a clue: The bible is fiction. It's also an instrument of thought control. Enjoy the phyilosophy, practice love and compassion, but recognize that the world would be a better place if an eleventh commandment said, "Though shalt go out and learn new things."
You haven't seen enough movies. All of life's riddles are answered in the movies.

The critics responded very favorably; Ebert & Maltin, for example, both gave it 3 1/2 stars (deservedly). Although it wasn't a blockbuster, it made $21 million in the US, which was a pretty decent amount in 1982; it was the 38th highest grossing film of that year (the 38th film in 2007 made about $70 million).
As for religious controversy, there really wasn't any. We Christians are sometimes pricky about things (way too prickly, really; a lot of Christian controversies are just much ado about nothing), but this really isn't one of those films. As far as those of us who are aware of this film are concerned, it's a beautifully made film that doesn't necessarily reflect our beliefs about early humanity, but is good storytelling. We don't let little kids, watch it, though, for obvious reasons.

This message has been deleted.

"But who cares what Ebert thinks?? I Agree with many of his views, sure he studied film etc, but in the end it's about entertainment and shame on those who have to be told "This is good" or "this is bad" for them to or not to enjoy a film.
It's all opinion and subjective"
Um, really? Do you have a better way to tell which movies are worth seeing than the opinion of an intelligent critic? I can't see every movie myself, nor do I want to. I read reviews so that I don't have to subject myself to moronic drivel. That doesn't mean that I see every movie that the critic recommends, but when he writes a nice synopsis, giving me an idea of what the movie is about, and gives some indication of the intelligence level put into the making of the film, I'd say I'm better off that reading the video jacket.

But who cares what Ebert thinks?? I Agree with many of his views, sure he studied film etc, but in the end it's about entertainment and shame on those who have to be told "This is good" or "this is bad" for them to or not to enjoy a film.
It's all opinion and subjective
It was well madeif you stop and think and try to imagine what Neanderthals OR pre-human man/humanoids etc, whatever you wanna call it; were like thousands of years ago, than this is it, or pretty darn close.

In reply to Valerie 1p's post
Adventis did!
Deckard, 2 63 54, I'm filed and monitored

"re-read ebert's review. He dug it and for obvious reasonsit's great."
Yes, I have a very vague recollection of seeing Siskel & Ebert review this film on the old "Sneak Previews" show, and as I recall they both liked it (Ebert perhaps even more than Siskel).