Popular Mechanics:
Thirty-five years ago, a fantastic movie came out that starred four Hollywood legends, three of whom were Oscar winners. It was directed by one of the most important and influential visual artists in film history, and the plot foretold the invention of virtual reality decades ahead of its time. The script was written as a showcase for a new technology designed to change the way we see movies. One of the Hollywood legends died before the movie was finished, a mysterious death, and this ended up being her last movie.
And you’ve never heard of it.
Wood was in one of my favourite Christmas movies and the other participants in this film would have made it a must watch but, like most of us, I’ve never heard of it.
I watched this film many time as a kid. It was a staple on cable. Any Gen-Xer that had cable or hung out in a local video store probably saw this. Not nearly as obscure as this article is making it out to be. Good flick.
Yup – https://itunes.apple.com/us/movie/brainstorm-1983/id312023706
It’s smashing to see any early ’80s sci-fi movie get a deep dive, but to see the words “why have you never heard of this movie” attached is pretty horrible when you’ve loved it for decades and have seen it countless times.
Also, calling it a “Lost Sci-Fi Classic” when you can easily get it on DVD and Blu-Ray from Amazon is click-bait of the first order.
Brainstorm is on Netflix and the iTunes Store and has been for some time. Any fan of Natalie Wood or Christopher Walken knows this film exists.
I’d read about the problems that afflicted this movie at the time, both on the technical side and in the sadness connected with Natalie Wood’s death. The great Douglas Trumbull was ahead of his time in anticipating new ways to improve the moviegoing experience, and had to backtrack from those plans. And had to edit around the loss of his female lead.
Didn’t matter. I saw this in the theater and was very happy with it. The film’s heartfelt, emotional love story seemed to me a great way to introduce science fiction to someone who’d never been a fan, so I took my cousin to see it with me when I went back. She was impressed. I counted that as a win.
As his fallback, the movie’s MacGuffin gizmo provided a means for Trumbull to switch aspect ratios whenever we were being shown the gizmo’s POV. As I remember it, much of the film was in standard 4:3. But when someone had the headset on, it went full widescreen. Cable-tv viewers lost out on that.
“And you’ve never heard of it.”
What???
I have it in my Plex library (ripped from Blu-ray). I watched it when it was first released 30+ years ago but I’ve never heard of it???
This is not obscure film.
It worked for me.
Actually, “Natalie Wood” was the bait for me.
That everyone commenting here loves it doesn’t negate the fact that it was neither well-known nor a commercial success when it was released.
You can easily get a lot of movies in multiple formats. Doesn’t mean they’re all as well-known as tech nerds like us believe they are.
How it not well known when the article accepted as much that
A. It’s directed by one of the best visual effect of the time.
B. Natalie Wood drown before the film could finish, so the film got a big publicity then..
These 2 facts alone would make the film well known for people at the time, and it was.
You’ll have a point if you mean it’s not well known for movie goers ‘today’ but I still bet any film lovers will know about this film, especially sci-fi ones. It’s not obscure at all. I suspect the author made it to be only in an attempt to make himself appears cool. Now if he’s talking about Altered States he might have a point.
Film lovers are a relatively small part of the general population. And most of that population couldn’t care less about knowing one visual effects artist from another.
The movie got limited release in theaters and did not do well financially.
The article’s writer indulged in hyperbole, yes. Wood’s death generated some headlines, but did not result in much box office for the movie.
Sound like we’re agreeing with each other, don’t we? Because I have never said anything about how the movie doing financially, at the time or any time, only that the author “Indulged in big hyperbole” which you agree with.
Lost sci-fi movie? How lost it is when you can search on iTunes and pay to watch it instantly?..
How “lost” is anything that can be found by a search engine in seconds? I was disagreeing with the notion that this movie is (or was) “well-known.”
Easily being able to get a movie in multiple formats doesn’t suggest “lost” to me.
‘How lost is anything that can be found by a search engine in seconds’
Well, you can search for Ark of the Covenant but you can never see it for real, can you? That is “lost”.
This film even had a Laserdisc release. Yeah.. lost my a__!
‘I was disagreeing with the notion that this movie is (or was) “well known”’
At the time it was. How could it not? Need I repeat that it’s directed by one of the best visual effect creator of the time and one of the household name Hollywood star died while filming? (I was not a movie nerd back then and I still knew about it). Being well known has nothing to do with how it did finanacially at the theater at all. Otherwise Spielberg’s 1941 would be a major hit. Films can be well known, and flop. Your argument is just flawed.
Great film. I saw it on 80s cable TV (HBO or Cinemax) & was too young to understand who Natalie Wood was, but remember being totally blown away by the film.
“And you’ve never heard of it.”
… Maybe if you’re 25 or something?
I’m pretty sure I saw it in the theater, or if not, on HBO (back when that was How You Saw Movies You Didn’t See In The Theater).
I think “lost” there is meant to refer to not unavailability, but falling out of mindspace or importance.
(Which is fair, because I never think of it as being important or interesting.)
If you want to change the meaning of words to fit an argument, sure?