SnoopyStyle The year is 1985. It's been 2 years since the events in Westworld. The owners have spent $1.5 billion to rebuild the park and added Futureworld, a rocket space-based theme park. Newspaper reporter Chuck Browning (Peter Fonda) receives a tip but his informer fails to show up. He is teamed up with fame TV personality Tracy Ballard (Blythe Danner) to attend the park's reopening. Unbeknownst to them, something even more sinister is going on this time around.I like premise. It's a nice continuation from the original premise. It injects enough difference to be a compelling sequel. I don't really like how the premise is revealed. Essentially, it is revealed openly, all at once, and without any mystery or tension. There are ways to reveal it slowly, with mystery, and with shock. Being the more famous one, Tracy should be the obvious target. While investigating the park, Chuck could notice something different about Tracy and it could climax into finding the park's secret. That would be a more compelling way to tell this story. This is one of Yul Brynner's last roles. He has a few scenes in the second half as the voiceless robotic gunslinger. The first half builds up to the intriguing premise. After the reveal, the second half bogs down a bit.

mattbaxter72 (Spoilers for the movie Westworld. Though if you haven't seen that, heaven only knows why you're watching this).Back in the day, studios didn't really take sequels seriously. It wasn't uncommon for the stars, director and writers of a major hit to all jump ship from the sequel, leaving a bunch of second-stringers to pick up the slack, and the resulting product was almost always inferior. Even by those standards, though, Futureworld is a godawful mess. The plot doesn't really matter, and it's similar enough to Westworld anyway. So let's just list some of the more jaw-droppingly stupid moments in this mess:1) So they're just re-opening the resort, huh? After about 150 people died last time round. And people are just lining up to visit the place? Yeah, I don't see that happening in the real world, somehow.2) Apparently these events where a load of people died are so obscure in this universe that people need a refresher course in what happened, all of two years later.3) If you invite an investigative reporter to your theme park, you can't really act all surprised when he wants to investigate stuff.4) 'Meet me 10 minutes from now in the Hyatt'. On the 50th floor, no less, though Fonda doesn't specify where, in this enormous hotel, he wants to meet his source. He doesn't even ask where the source is calling from - he might have been in LA or Australia for all Fonda knew, but luckily he was at most a couple of minutes away from that hotel.5) Judging by how the bystanders react, a guy being stabbed to death in front of you is perfectly unremarkable.6) So, uh, you're just going to leave the ruins of Westworld like that, huh? Not clear up, or build over it or anything? You're even going to leave body parts lying around? That's just icky.7) The main bad guy is so nice and avuncular that he might as well have 'EVIL' written on his head in neon.8) Good lord, Blythe Danner is useless in this movie. I know it was the 1970s, and attitudes were different back then, but surely she could do something other than stand around and scream helplessly? 9) Yes, robot ninjas are an excellent way to get rid of those pesky reporters. 'Crusading reporters killed by rampaging robot ninjas' is a headline that'll make page 9, at best. No possibility of bad publicity there.10) Should I mention the dream sequence, or shall we just all look the other way in stunned embarrassment and pretend that none of that ever happened? That absurd sequence is the only time that the 'star' of this movie, Yul Brynner, appears in anything other than flashback footage. He didn't act again after this, and I don't blame him.11) Almost none of the movie takes place in actual Futureworld, and you'll see much more of air-conditioning ducts and boiler rooms than futuristic wonders. It's probably because they had a tighter budget this time around, leaving the whole thing looking very, very cheap. In short, this is not a good movie, and not even an entertainingly bad one. It's not unwatchably bad, but if you can get through without using the fast-forward button a couple of times, you're more patient than I am.

edwithmj Westworld is one of my favourite sci-fi films. When I heard there was a sequel, I rushed to track it down convinced it couldn't be that bad a film. What I wanted to see in this film were more robots, and more great action scenes but what I actually saw was quite different. Here are my complaints: Two bland lead characters about whom I couldn't care less. The man was too smarmy and smooth and seemed to be suspicious the whole time. I wanted to see someone who was surprised the resort was bad to add some suspense. The woman was annoying as well and the way the man kept calling her "Socks", ugh what a horrible nick name for someone he barely knows.Harry. Harry is some sort of mechanic who lives in the basement with his pet robot who has no face (one of the few robots we see). His character is unbelievable and he's portrayed as some sort of nincompoop.The evil scientist and the ludicrous conspiracy. There's some sort of evil scientist who wants to replace every world leader with a clone (not a robot but actual clones) so that the world will not shut down the resort. Words cannot express the sheer cartoonishness of this plot: it's completely nonsensical.Where are the robots? The only robots we see are all the workers who are robots whom we only know to be robots because they either say "I'm programmed for blah-de-blah etc..." or because our bland hero says they are. We aren't treated to much of the inner-circuitry at all. There is a cameo from Yul Brynner but it's in a dream sequence and absolutely forgettable.Yes there's a machine that can record dreams and our hero perversely watches a dream described as a fantasy lover or something.The ending. We're supposed to be kept in suspense by not knowing whether the clones or the real versions of the two lead characters got away at the end but I knew the real ones had won. We're then treated to the hero giving the mad scientist the middle finger and that's the end. Why didn't the scientist go after them?This film is nothing like the original and seems to be an amalgamation of various 1970s sci-fi clichés such as cloning, dream sequences, space, mad scientists and ridiculous conspiracies.The special effects are terribly outdated. The original didn't need that good effects because the acting and directing were so good. The cloning machine, the dream machine and the horrid chess set sequence are all examples of this.I absolutely detest this film because it offered so much promise and it sullies the original so much.

AaronCapenBanner Peter Fonda & Blythe Danner play two reporters who attend the re-opening of Delos, the amusement park that went haywire in the first film, resulting in many deaths. Fonda has been warned that there is still something wrong at Delos(He helped break the story of "Westworld" in the first place). Once inside, everything looks impressive and safe, but soon they discover that there are indeed sinister things going on, and with the help of a technician(played sympathetically by Stuart Margolin) are determined to expose a far-ranging conspiracy that threatens the country...Yul Brynner also returns(sort of) as the gunslinger.Quite interesting and entertaining sequel has some good ideas and nice direction by Richard T. Heffron, good performances, and a satisfying finale.