Initial Reactions upon release
-
du_man — 18 years ago(February 16, 2008 06:20 AM)
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. -
benthicexplorer — 18 years ago(February 26, 2008 05:31 PM)
"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. -
Caractacus23 — 13 years ago(July 21, 2012 01:46 AM)
"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. -
tufrix5858 — 17 years ago(September 15, 2008 09:28 PM)
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? -
combellack42 — 17 years ago(October 21, 2008 04:40 PM)
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 -
-
msw62703 — 17 years ago(April 11, 2008 11:14 PM)
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 -
Caractacus23 — 13 years ago(July 21, 2012 01:39 AM)
"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. -
bimsie99 — 13 years ago(November 19, 2012 09:41 PM)
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." -
ilon — 11 years ago(November 21, 2014 08:23 AM)
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? -
mldardar — 9 years ago(November 21, 2016 03:06 AM)
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. -
livinpozitive — 9 years ago(December 01, 2016 09:11 AM)
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.