| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
From director J.J. Abrams comes the next installment in the Star Trek saga, Star Trek Into Darkness. See it at Cinemark theaters now and pre-order on Blu-ray, 3D Blu-ray, DVD, and the Exclusive Starfleet Phaser Gift Set. Shop Star Trek Into Darkness and more in the Star Trek Store. Learn more |
Frequently Bought Together
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
Special Features
None.
Editorial Reviews
Amazon.com
Welcome to Delos, the high-tech Disneyland for adults that Michael Crichton created for Westworld, a nifty science fiction thriller from 1973 that also marked the popular novelist's feature-film directorial debut. The movie is so named because the vacationing buddies who travel to Delos (James Brolin, Richard Benjamin) choose Westworld as their destination (the other choices being Roman World and Medieval World), where they are free to indulge their movie-inspired fantasies of the Wild West. From brothel beauties to black-hatted gunslingers (like the villain played by Yul Brynner), the place is populated by perfectly humanlike robots programmed and monitored to cater to every guest's fancy. But fun turns into abject horror when the robots--particularly Brynner's badman--begin to malfunction and Delos turns into an amusement park that's anything but amusing. Westworld has moments of camp and the look of a low-budget backlot production, but two decades before Crichton revamped his idea to create Jurassic Park, this movie made the most of its interesting and exciting premise. --Jeff Shannon
Product Description
Androids go haywire with guests at an adult theme park of the future. Written/directed by Michael Crichton.
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
87 of 89 people found the following review helpful
By MF Regan
Format:VHS Tape
I picked this film up about a week ago. I hadn't seen it since it premiered back in the 1970's. It made no impression on me whatsoever on that first viewing. Boy has time and its simplicity improved it, the second time around! This is a very timely film and I think people of all ages should take a look at it.
This film moves from humour to fantasy to horror almost seamlessly. And the funny thing is- the fact that Crichton didn't get caught up in atmosphere or look; he concentrated on two characters simply going to a future resort, however fantastic the idea seems, to release and experience what in fact become examples of some of the darkest pleasures or most violent impulses inside of all of us. It really presses the right buttons and asks questions about what we find fun or entertaining.
I don't want any review I write to spoil the films for the people yet to see the work so, let's just say- when the tables turn and 'we're on the receiving end ', there's a real numbing truth to what this film drives home. More so today then when it was released. Think of some of the 'reality based darkness' that now litters our airwaves and the unfortunate numbers who seem to be tuning in to watch it.
James Brolin really nails the 'who cares' feel his character needs. Richard Benjamin has to be the one who feels silly at first, then joins in with a sort of reckless abandon. And Yul Brynner is an example to everybody today (in acting, directing, effects and make-up ), of how you can scare the hell out of someone with a look, a smile and two small silver contact lens. (You'll know what I mean when you get to the scene). Benjamin really balances him from that point, having to portray the fear the new reality hits him with.
I won't do the Jurassic comparisons. I thought it when Jurassic came out but Jurassic was a rollercoaster ride. Westworld is the tale with the real bite.
I highly recommend this movie. It's an entertainment that quickly turns to a truth I think we all need to keep thinking about. What do we really find entertaining? Or more to the point... why?
This film moves from humour to fantasy to horror almost seamlessly. And the funny thing is- the fact that Crichton didn't get caught up in atmosphere or look; he concentrated on two characters simply going to a future resort, however fantastic the idea seems, to release and experience what in fact become examples of some of the darkest pleasures or most violent impulses inside of all of us. It really presses the right buttons and asks questions about what we find fun or entertaining.
I don't want any review I write to spoil the films for the people yet to see the work so, let's just say- when the tables turn and 'we're on the receiving end ', there's a real numbing truth to what this film drives home. More so today then when it was released. Think of some of the 'reality based darkness' that now litters our airwaves and the unfortunate numbers who seem to be tuning in to watch it.
James Brolin really nails the 'who cares' feel his character needs. Richard Benjamin has to be the one who feels silly at first, then joins in with a sort of reckless abandon. And Yul Brynner is an example to everybody today (in acting, directing, effects and make-up ), of how you can scare the hell out of someone with a look, a smile and two small silver contact lens. (You'll know what I mean when you get to the scene). Benjamin really balances him from that point, having to portray the fear the new reality hits him with.
I won't do the Jurassic comparisons. I thought it when Jurassic came out but Jurassic was a rollercoaster ride. Westworld is the tale with the real bite.
I highly recommend this movie. It's an entertainment that quickly turns to a truth I think we all need to keep thinking about. What do we really find entertaining? Or more to the point... why?
52 of 57 people found the following review helpful
By JLind555
Format:VHS Tape
"Westworld" is Michael Crichton's first foray into the theme-park-as-hell genre which he followed up more successfully in "Jurassic Park", but it's a very good film on its own. Here we have James Brolin and Richard Benjamin, two bored yuppies, starting their holiday in Delos, billed as the ultimate theme park, "where nothing can go wrong". Yeah, right. Customers pay through their noses to spend a vacation in one of three areas of the park: Romanworld, Medievalworld, and Westworld, where they can live out their fantasies and it's fun for all. Brolin and Benjamin choose Westworld (what American boy has never played cowboy at some time in his childhood?) and for a few days they have the time of their lives shooting up bad guys, starting barfights, and drawing a bead on deadly rattlesnakes. But it's all harmless fun and games -- everything's computerized, the bad guys, the ladies of easy virtue, even the rattlesnakes; and there's a state-of-the-art computer lab to keep everything running smoothly. Nothing to worry about...
...until the computers develop a virus that sends them off into a learning curve that screws everything up. The first hint that something might be amiss happens over in Medievalworld, when a robot harlot decides she is tired of being a sex object and smacks a customer across the face when he tries to seduce her. Meanwhile, back in Westworld, the bad-guy-in-black robot challenges Brolin and Benjamin to a gunfight, but instead of being shot dead as he is every night, the bad guy decides to turn the tables. Oh boy, maybe it's time to cut this vacation short... but that's easier said than done when all of the robots have gone berserk and start whacking not only the customers, but their programmers as well. Murphy's Law has proved itself once again with a vengeance. Is there any way out of this mess? See for yourself.
Brolin and Benjamin are fairly good in their respective roles, nothing to write home about; but what makes this movie special is Yul Brynner's terrific portrayal of the bad-guy-in-black; a soulless robot with the dead eyes of a killer. The special effects are interesting in that they show us how far special effects have come since this movie was made; this was strictly a low-budget film, but it's a lot of fun for all that. It's pure Crichtonian escapism.
28 of 31 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars
Welcome to Westworld, where concept science-fiction isn't just a fantasy
December 11, 2010
By Bryan Byrd
Format:DVD
This review is from the 2010 DVD re-release of the original film.
From the early to mid-'70's, there was a run of science-fiction films that seemed to be trying to break out of the pulp stereotype, and to address questions about where expanding technology and cultural changes from the '60's were leading us as a society. Generally speaking, the first 'Star Wars' film effectively canceled that trend for some time - during the '80's, most science-fiction retreated back into the adventure mold, or else confined itself to satire (Robocop) or to eccentrics (Terry Gilliam's brilliant Brazil). It would be interesting to know, if the theory of parallel universes is true, to what lengths the science-fiction field might have developed if it hadn't been altered in 1977, although it's possible that it had already reached a saturation point with these other themes. That may even have helped propel Lucas' efforts to greater heights than it would have reached otherwise - as vastly entertaining as 'Star Wars' was (and I saw it first-run in the theaters - it was mind-blowing at the time), it wasn't addressing any issues. It was escaping them.
So what's that load of hot air got to do with 'Westworld'? Not much, really, other than I have a fondness for the niche these films occupy in the broader genre of Science-Fiction film, and that a little context could help viewers who might not intuitively appreciate these films for what they are. And it's obvious that some people do not understand their charm - the recent remakes of Rollerball, Death Race 2000, and Planet of the Apes tell me that an inherent factor to the success of these types of films lay in the sensibilities of their times, and that modern filmmakers have effectively excised everything about them that made them worth watching in the first place. These aren't necessarily classic films we're talking about here - enjoyable though, yes - but apparently it's harder to lift them out of their time period and reinterpret them than it may have looked. Both 'Logan's Run' and 'Westworld' are slated for remakes around 2012 - we'll see if anyone learns anything from these other adaptation failures, but I'm not holding my breath.
So anyway - 'Westworld'. An amusement park where a handful of guests interact with an accurate recreation of either the old West of the American Frontier, medieval Europe, or ancient Rome - all populated with robots who are nearly indistinguishable from humans. The operative word here is 'fantasy' - each guest gets to live out his fantasy at whichever 'world' he or she feels will best cater to it. Most of the film focuses on two guests, Peter (Richard Benjamin), and John (James Brolin) as they kick back in Westworld, indulging in gunfights, bar brawls, and cathouse shenanigans. Everything to appease the inner child - at least, that is, until things start to go terribly wrong, and the machines who once were the playthings of humans begin to turn the tables.
Concept science-fiction or not, it's doubtful this film succeeds anywhere near as well as it does without Yul Brynner's relentless, unflappable gunslinger, who is positively a wet blanket on our vacationer's picnic. In fact, without Brynner, I think the film's plot holes are too overpowering to sustain it - they'll still need to be solved, either by suspension of belief or by willful ignorance, but at least the gunslinger helps take your mind off of them. Purportedly, Brynner's character was a major influence on James Cameron's 'Terminator' film, as well as several other iconic 'unstoppable' movie villians, and I think that's pretty easy to see after watching 'Westworld' again after several years. Almost everthing else in the film is above average to well done - Brolin and Benjamin are good in their roles, and the script didn't really call for any effects that were beyond the capabilities of the time - and if the parameters of the film's logic are accepted, it moves forward in a consistant manner and, I think, to a riveting conclusion. But the details concerning the operations of the park will likely be a hurdle for a lot of viewers - this is the type of film where, a few hours after watching, if you think too hard about some of the particulars, the structure of the story starts to fall apart.
There are a few other problems - mostly the childish infatuation the guests have for the sexual freedom of the park. These are robots that they are hopping into bed with, after all. But that is a product of the time it was made - it's part of what makes these types of films curious artifacts of a sort, and one that evidently gives remake directors fits. I will say that Michael Chrichton, who wrote and directed 'Westworld', did seem ahead of his time in at least one area, and that by intimating through one of the characters that the problems the park has with its technology is a 'virus'. I don't know if that terminology was in use in 1973 among computer users, but it seems like a very early use of it to me, if not the first. Ironically, if I were to imaging myself watching this film back then, I believe I would have thought it was a pretty ridiculous plot device. Shows what I know. But taken all together, with its flaws and all, I think of this as one of the better films in its niche, and very enjoyable.
I don't know what sort of priority a film like 'Westworld' has on blu-ray technology - if there is a remake in the next few years I'd imagine that's when we'll see it in blu. This 2010 release is fairly nice though, upscaled, although defects in the film are still apparent if you look for them. Aspect ratio is 2.35:1, and the only extras included are the trailer, English/French language options, and subtitles.
From the early to mid-'70's, there was a run of science-fiction films that seemed to be trying to break out of the pulp stereotype, and to address questions about where expanding technology and cultural changes from the '60's were leading us as a society. Generally speaking, the first 'Star Wars' film effectively canceled that trend for some time - during the '80's, most science-fiction retreated back into the adventure mold, or else confined itself to satire (Robocop) or to eccentrics (Terry Gilliam's brilliant Brazil). It would be interesting to know, if the theory of parallel universes is true, to what lengths the science-fiction field might have developed if it hadn't been altered in 1977, although it's possible that it had already reached a saturation point with these other themes. That may even have helped propel Lucas' efforts to greater heights than it would have reached otherwise - as vastly entertaining as 'Star Wars' was (and I saw it first-run in the theaters - it was mind-blowing at the time), it wasn't addressing any issues. It was escaping them.
So what's that load of hot air got to do with 'Westworld'? Not much, really, other than I have a fondness for the niche these films occupy in the broader genre of Science-Fiction film, and that a little context could help viewers who might not intuitively appreciate these films for what they are. And it's obvious that some people do not understand their charm - the recent remakes of Rollerball, Death Race 2000, and Planet of the Apes tell me that an inherent factor to the success of these types of films lay in the sensibilities of their times, and that modern filmmakers have effectively excised everything about them that made them worth watching in the first place. These aren't necessarily classic films we're talking about here - enjoyable though, yes - but apparently it's harder to lift them out of their time period and reinterpret them than it may have looked. Both 'Logan's Run' and 'Westworld' are slated for remakes around 2012 - we'll see if anyone learns anything from these other adaptation failures, but I'm not holding my breath.
So anyway - 'Westworld'. An amusement park where a handful of guests interact with an accurate recreation of either the old West of the American Frontier, medieval Europe, or ancient Rome - all populated with robots who are nearly indistinguishable from humans. The operative word here is 'fantasy' - each guest gets to live out his fantasy at whichever 'world' he or she feels will best cater to it. Most of the film focuses on two guests, Peter (Richard Benjamin), and John (James Brolin) as they kick back in Westworld, indulging in gunfights, bar brawls, and cathouse shenanigans. Everything to appease the inner child - at least, that is, until things start to go terribly wrong, and the machines who once were the playthings of humans begin to turn the tables.
Concept science-fiction or not, it's doubtful this film succeeds anywhere near as well as it does without Yul Brynner's relentless, unflappable gunslinger, who is positively a wet blanket on our vacationer's picnic. In fact, without Brynner, I think the film's plot holes are too overpowering to sustain it - they'll still need to be solved, either by suspension of belief or by willful ignorance, but at least the gunslinger helps take your mind off of them. Purportedly, Brynner's character was a major influence on James Cameron's 'Terminator' film, as well as several other iconic 'unstoppable' movie villians, and I think that's pretty easy to see after watching 'Westworld' again after several years. Almost everthing else in the film is above average to well done - Brolin and Benjamin are good in their roles, and the script didn't really call for any effects that were beyond the capabilities of the time - and if the parameters of the film's logic are accepted, it moves forward in a consistant manner and, I think, to a riveting conclusion. But the details concerning the operations of the park will likely be a hurdle for a lot of viewers - this is the type of film where, a few hours after watching, if you think too hard about some of the particulars, the structure of the story starts to fall apart.
There are a few other problems - mostly the childish infatuation the guests have for the sexual freedom of the park. These are robots that they are hopping into bed with, after all. But that is a product of the time it was made - it's part of what makes these types of films curious artifacts of a sort, and one that evidently gives remake directors fits. I will say that Michael Chrichton, who wrote and directed 'Westworld', did seem ahead of his time in at least one area, and that by intimating through one of the characters that the problems the park has with its technology is a 'virus'. I don't know if that terminology was in use in 1973 among computer users, but it seems like a very early use of it to me, if not the first. Ironically, if I were to imaging myself watching this film back then, I believe I would have thought it was a pretty ridiculous plot device. Shows what I know. But taken all together, with its flaws and all, I think of this as one of the better films in its niche, and very enjoyable.
I don't know what sort of priority a film like 'Westworld' has on blu-ray technology - if there is a remake in the next few years I'd imagine that's when we'll see it in blu. This 2010 release is fairly nice though, upscaled, although defects in the film are still apparent if you look for them. Aspect ratio is 2.35:1, and the only extras included are the trailer, English/French language options, and subtitles.
Most Recent Customer Reviews
5.0 out of 5 stars
West World
Michael Crichton at his best. Even though it is a bit tame by today's standards, it is still an excellent film, showcasing some of the earliest digitized effects on screen.
Published 3 hours ago by khzmk
4.0 out of 5 stars
Didn't think I'd like It
My husband wanted to watch this movie and I don't really go in for westerns very much, so I didn't have much hope for it. Read more
Published 10 hours ago by Amazon Annie
5.0 out of 5 stars
Westworld was great!
I am not a watcher of old movies, but Westworld is a grand exception. It holds characters played by lots of movie greats; chech the cast listing before you watch. Read more
Published 12 hours ago by Christy J. Wrenn
4.0 out of 5 stars
A good movie
I seen it on the prime and I never seen this movie so I thought I watch the movie. I like it a lot. I thought it was interesting and how things began to go wrong.
Published 1 day ago by THOMAS TEMPLETON
5.0 out of 5 stars
Great period film
This is a fun example of future-tech scifi.
For the novelty factor, it is the first film to implement digitized/pixilated images. Read more
For the novelty factor, it is the first film to implement digitized/pixilated images. Read more
Published 2 days ago by comedy makes me smile
3.0 out of 5 stars
Sci-fi 1970s style
Hokey, dated, and poorly done, "Westworld" can't make up its mind whether it is crude social satire, an awkward action film, or a very lame bit of science fiction. Read more
Published 3 days ago by Ramsey Campbell
5.0 out of 5 stars
Still one of my favorites
This is one of those movies I watched as kid and, being mesmorized by Yul Brynner's performance without knowing it, thought was a real time and place for a while. Read more
Published 4 days ago by StaceyW.
5.0 out of 5 stars
just fun
i first saw the movie when it firts released. When I saw it available for review on Amazon, I jumped at the chance again. Yul Brynner was terrific as the robot cowboy. Read more
Published 5 days ago by innosys
4.0 out of 5 stars
Fun and Different
Have to love this movie for Yul Brynner playing the gun slinger alone -- but it was a very creative idea for its day. Read more
Published 6 days ago by Beckers
3.0 out of 5 stars
I enjoyed it more when it was new
When I first saw Westworld it was on the big screen of a local theater. I really enjoyed it and particularly Benjamin (Portney's Complaint)
I didn't know Michael... Read more
I didn't know Michael... Read more
Published 6 days ago by Michael A. Rowley
