Jonathan Livingston Seagull (1973) Online

If I was rating this movie back in 1973 when I saw the film in the theater on opening day, then it would have been a 10. Age does take it's toll on our opinions and we're 32 years down the line, hence my rating's decline from perfection.

One must keep in mind when viewing this film that if you expect it to be a Disney story about seagulls, then you are going to be gravely disappointed. In fact, Richard Bach, the writer, fought tooth and nail to prevent exactly that Disney influence in the face of a studio that wanted to add animated fake mouth movements over the photography of the seagulls.

The story is presented through the persona of seagulls, but it is NOT about seagulls. Like the book of the same name, the movie is actually a metaphor about people and life and the pursuit of learning and something better than "pack mentality". Those viewers who keep an eye toward those subtle metaphysical principles will recognize the jewel at the heart of the movie. Those viewers with no thought of higher principles or those looking for an animal movie may conversely wish they had never heard of it.

Alas, the movie studio seemed to be populated by the latter group. Ultimately infighting between Bach and the pro-mouth-movement studio honchos who wanted to retrofit the movie after its release resulted in the demise of the theatrical release within a few weeks of opening. Granted, there was a limited audience for the movie, but Bach didn't care since those who needed the message would find it and I personally think it would have lasted longer if left alone.

The photography is stunning and the soundtrack by Neil Diamond is stellar. Granted, by today's standards, both the movie and soundtrack are dated, but then so is anything made in the 70's.

When it came out originally I took everyone I knew to see it who was even slightly interested in such metaphors and all of them loved it. It remains to be one of my favorite movies in principle even today despite the dating.

If you are going to watch it today, just allocate two hours of your life that are free of constraints in which to relax and learn one small simple quiet lesson and then enjoy the spectacular scenery while you are doing it. If you can do that, you will love it.

Sorry I disagree with some of the others here, this is one beautiful film, in story, photography, music. Neil Diamond's score is first rate, the the film is unlike any other made....beautiful and full of feeling. If you don't have a heart and hate beauty, skip it. If you do, don't miss it, it's really a work of art.

I watched this movie at the cinema theater in 1975 or 1976. I loved it! Then i rented it on VHS back in the 80's, and thought it was one of the best films i'd ever seen. Now, i was so lucky to find it on DVD, with Norwegian subtitles (Not that they're really needed here, though). This is clearly a very different film. Very quiet and beautiful, and with Neil Diamonds beautiful songs, that match perfectly. If a film intends to mean anything, the audience needs time to think. In todays modern, fast, loud movies, you hardly get time to breath, lot less to stop and think. With this movie, however, you get plenty of time. And the quiet, beautiful scenes are a part of the message delivered: Take your time, live your life to the full, don't be afraid to try what hasn't been tried before, don't hesitate, and don't stress. And first and last: Don't just accept other people's "thruths". Go find out for yourself. If it works for you, it works! I rated this film 10/10, because it's not only a very good film, it's unique! There has never been another movie quite like it, and probably never will be. This is a brilliant masterpiece of a film.

First off if you are reading this you will most definitely read the book of the same title.

The book doesn't translate well into film due to it's short length so there is a lot of padding out of Jonathon just flying around visiting different places but the visuals on show are very good. The animatronics (rememeber they didn't have CGI back in the 70's) are first class and it really does look like live seagulls.

The movie is probably about the right length though at 95 mins perhaps trimming by 10 mins would not have harmed it.

As you'll know it's a feelgood story about the quest to be a better gull and the importance of tolerance and forgiveness.

I was a bit disappointed that one of the KEY SPOKEN LINES in the book was omitted from the script. When the young Jonathon is asked by his mother why he doesn't eat and is all bone and feathers he replies "I don't mind being bone and feathers, Mum. I just want to know what i can do in the air and what i can't, that's all. I just want to know" Considering the key part of the book is that Jonathon forsakes the squabbles and feeding frenzy to learn how to fly properly i would say that line is a pretty important one.

Still it's a decent movie which is pleasant to watch.

OK, so it's not a masterpiece, but it has its moments. At least it's quite original, which is a quality most people don't have... The shots with the seagulls are well achieved, as well the the natural landscapes. The dialogues are a bit basic and one can sense the difficulty of selecting passages from the book (which is magnificent) to put in the movie. It tends to be a little boring towards the end, but it's a one-of. I think everyone who likes movies should see it. As for the music... I think it's suited and powerful enough. BE is a very nice piece. See the movie. (6,5 / 10)

This film´s photography puts any other film´s to shame. How they managed to catch footage of the seagull at those altitudes is amazing. However, photography alone does not make a great movie. The novel is great and the film is almost a page for page filmatization of the book. However it is a tad long and one´s interest in the philosophical bird diminishes near the end. Younger viewers which perhaps are not as blasé as I may find it more enjoyable. For those of you who have not read the book; this is a must-see.

Not everyone may know the story of 'Jonathan Livingston Seagull'. But, if nothing else, at least many people certainly heard of it.

I like seagulls very much. They're such beautiful, elegant birds with a confident, even noble appearance. And they fly beautifully. A seagull's flight is one of the most graceful and fascinating things to see. As beautiful as they are, they're equally well known for their foul temperament...

One of the most different things about this movie is the fact that it has only birds (seagulls) on screen and no human characters at all. Plus, this is an animal movie different from the others. Instead of home pets, this one is about seagulls.

The story is about the title character, who is different from all the seagulls of his flock. Flying is his favorite thing. He flies with art and passion, but he dares to do things that other seagulls don't do, such as flying as high as possible (the more, the merrier - for him, sky is the limit) and flying in unusual speeds, as well as doing other "tricks" that other seagulls don't attempt. Of course that by being overambitious he's taking great risks...

Jonathan faces the reality of being different: his flock doesn't accept him and actually outcast him. However, that doesn't stop him from keep trying to learn and improve his flight skills so that he reaches what he is desperately trying to. And even though he later finds another flock which accepts him the way he is, he still loves his previous flock and wants to show them his talents.

This movie is certainly artistic when it comes to film-making. Besides the unique story (even if a bit lame), it has rich and gorgeous settings and landscapes, as well as a beautiful and relaxing musical score by Neil Diamond.

What's it been...39 years. But having the CD brings it all back, and I played it four times this afternoon. The funny thing is I've never liked Neil Diamond. This work in my book is the one thing he's done worthy of the awards for it. Awful conceit about the man. When it came out, I raced after work to catch the early showing, and could hardly stand afterward for how completely moved I was. I knew it would go over like a lead balloon, and it did. It was gone in no time. But boy for us writers and lovers of music. If you have the least smidgen of philosophical spirituality, you will adore the movie, the book and the music. If you have mature children, preteens or teens with high ambition, they'll hug you for it, especially cut #7, Anthem, on the CD. The album back when had voluminous notes of how Diamond went to Hawaii and mulled months over how to best do the book justice. It was nominated or won for cinematography and editing, so you know already it was gorgeous. It brings tears of joy.

Great soundtrack, great visuals, somewhat confusing and disappointing storyline.

I always thought this was Neil Diamond's best work. He sang the soundtrack, and it's filled with great songs that he did exceptionally well.

The photography is beautiful and the scenes as mellow as you can find: a seagull gracefully gliding through the air surrounded by beautiful seascapes, sunsets, billowy clouds.....just magnificent scenery.

On the negative side is the usual New Age "look within yourself" theology. This is pure Secular Humanism. I say this because some people thought this was a Christian film and it is not. It only confuses people because there are analogies that could easily apply to Jesus, to the Pharisees and to Heaven itself. It was a bunch of mixed messages but author Richard Bach, from whose book this movie is based on, leaves no doubt near the end of the movie - or the screenwriters did, if they changed his book.

Still, a peaceful, calming movie that is unique.

After getting the book as a Christmas present in 2005, I was so in love with the story that I decided I must also watch the film, exactly one year later the DVD arrived on my doorstep from Play.com.

First thing's first, I consider this to be one of my most favourite files, the reason I enjoy it is because to me it's very symbolic and the film includes all of my true loves; the sea, sky and gulls. I often warn people about this film before showing it to them because it's seriously a matter of personal taste. The average person probably wouldn't be interested in this.

I absolutely love the music and I now have the soundtrack, together with the beautiful photography, the nature scenes and gulls, I believe it was a work of art, a masterpiece. So deep.. I've now watched it about 20 times or more and still never bored of it!

Call me crazy but I cannot get enough this, I know the story inside out.. I know that it's a metaphor but the fact is, it's still based on gulls! That's what really makes it enjoyable for me, because I never get tired of watching birds, especially my beloved gulls..

The plot is simple, not confusing. Jonathan sees more to life than just fighting for fish all day long, he wants to learn how to master the gift of flight. (In real life, gulls and other birds actually do fly for fun.) He wants to take flying to new levels, he wants to reach the top (literally) and surpass everyone below, for they aren't thinking any further and don't even want to. Jonathan expands his knowledge on flight throughout life and beyond, meeting very few gulls like him and teaching others the joy of learning. It's inspirational because as the book suggests, Jonathan lives within us all and we can so easily relate to him wanting to do what he wants to do, and dealing with "peer pressure" almost, the other gulls put him down and tell him that his learning is wrong. This often happens to us in real life, some people are weak and go with the crowd while others continue to be themselves.

One thing about this film that eeks me, the fact that so many people compare it to a Christian's story.. about heaven and Jesus and all, but really those are the type of people who see the bible's story EVERYWHERE THEY LOOK. This is NOTHING to do with Christianity (if anything, the devil chanting at the end of the film shows that stereotypical Christians are discriminative, and you're better off NOT listening to their silly rules!)

Besides that, watching this film always brings me to life, like Jonathan, my passion is flying. I really cannot get enough of those beautiful flying parts and the whole thing is something I hold close to my heart.

OK I admit I may be a little biased because I'm absolutely gull crazy... I don't think there are any gull nuts who wouldn't enjoy this.

For the first time ever in his career making movies, Hall Bartlett knew exactly what he was doing. He was adapting a best-selling novella by Richard Bach about a prophetic seagull, and he was going to turn it into a major motion picture. It was going to be an independently-financed film with as little studio interference as possible. And by the end of the ten-month shooting schedule, Bartlett had mortgaged his home and invested every last one of his savings into the film's $1.5 million budget; he was willing to do anything to make his dream project a reality. "I was born to make this movie," he declared. He was absolutely right. In his entire 30- year filmmaking career, Bartlett helmed a series of flops, misfires, close calls, small gems, and at least one masterpiece: Jonathan Livingston Seagull (1973).

The film was absolutely reviled when it came out. Reviews were terrible. Then there were the lawsuits. Richard Bach sued Bartlett when Bartlett refused to honor Bach's right to final cut. Neil Diamond threatened to sue Bartlett if he didn't incorporate more of the music from the soundtrack into the film; Diamond was also upset when composer Lee Holdridge requested to share credit with Diamond over the music. Ovady Julber, the director of 1936's La Mer, sued over suspicions that Bartlett's film might have plagiarized his work. And toes were stepped on. Associate Producer Leslie Parrish had worked hard to hire the crew members and help take care of the real seagulls being used for the production (these seagulls were trained by Ray Berwick and Gary Gero, and stored in a room in a Holiday Inn), but in the end, Bartlett demoted Parrish's credit from Associate Producer to "Researcher".

In spite of the tension which occurred behind the scenes, Jonathan Livingston Seagull belongs right up there with Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) as one of the great surrealist films released in the later half of the 20th century. It is a rich, liberated celebration of a writer/director's artistic sensibilities, free of any constricting narrative rules, enhanced with the help of the cinematography by helicopter photographer Jim Freeman and veteran cinematographer Jack Couffer (the latter of whom was hired after his impressive work on Walt Disney's True Life Adventure series). That Couffer's cinematography netted the film one of two Academy Award nominations is not surprising in the least: it remains one of the finest examples of natural footage ever captured on celluloid.

Neil Diamond and Lee Holdridge's score for the film has often been dismissed as "overbearing", but I've always begged to differ. Among the other songs used on the soundtrack, "Be" represents Jonathan's independence, while "Dear Father" epitomizes his self-doubt and "Skybird", his liberation. To me, the film's soundtrack remains exhilarating, and it is also a reminder of Hall Bartlett's often- overlooked talent for juxtaposing the right kind of music with his cinematic stories.

Jonathan Livingston Seagull was not embraced by critics or audiences, but I have a feeling that Bartlett himself always knew, deep down, that he had left the public with a masterpiece. Maybe he knew that he wouldn't live to see the film get the attention it deserved. Maybe he was aware that the film's mediocre reception would outlive him. After this film, he would only go on to make two films, The Children of Sanchez and Love is Forever. Neither was particularly impressive. But I wish he were alive to know how much I love this film. I wish he knew how much it has changed the way I look at movies. And I wish he knew how much I cherish the way he ends the picture with Jonathan's immortal closing monologue: "Look with your understanding. Find out what you already know. Use it, Fletcher. Teach it… show it forth. And you'll know the way to fly."

I was 6 and completely understood the movie from my heart. I cried at the life that was to be lived. That had touched my soul. Richard Bach has written wonderful books and I am grateful to have read them all. The movie is at a deeper level of just seagulls flying. Society is in all forms on this planet all having some form of struggle. At 6 yrs old reality had already touched my heart. I still have the book. I need to see the movie again. May compassion always be recognized and shared freely. hope this is enough lines to post well not sure what more to say I know I am not at 1000 words. To me I am grateful it was my 1st movie in a movie theater in 1973.

If you examine the opening credits of the movie "Jonathan Livingston Seagull", you'll see that there is no mention of Richard Bach, who wrote the book that the movie is based on. Bach actually sued screenwriter/producer/director Hall Bartlett for (among other things) supposedly distorting his story, so Bach probably demanded his name be taken off the project. Seeing the movie, I can understand Bach's reaction. To be fair, the photography and camera-work in the movie are first rate, and the locations are well chosen as well. But despite its good look, the movie is a bore, a chore to sit through. There are long stretches of the movie when the movie comes to a standstill, with endless shots of seagulls flying around and around. The character of Jonathan is thin - we learn little about him, and he has less dialogue than you may think, despite being the central character. And all the dialogue the characters has feels random, like it's being made up as the movie is going along. The movie's "messages" feel heavy handed. As for Neil Diamond's score, while I have enjoyed a number of his songs in his past, the songs and background music here are far from his best work. Stick with the book.

When I read the book I could not put it down until I finished it. So I thought that the movie would be just as good. I was wrong. Although not awful, it was no were near as good as the book. If you can rent the movie version and have totally nothing to do for two hours, go ahead and watch it. If not, get the book and you won't be sorry.

I also read the book, saw the movie on the big screen, have the soundtrack and got the VHS tape, which I watched again today. So I like the movie. I'm visiting the web today looking for a dvd release. Watching the movie in post 9/11/01 days - it has a renewed interest for me, as our days here on earth are again in question with world activities growing graver. As a photographer I like big screen and small screen movies that are picturesque. So "Dances with Wolves" is another favorite. I also like movies that move me, even to tears (that doesn't bother me), which this movie does, so "Old Yeller" is another favorite and this database hit the mark on what else I might like. I play piano and trumpet in band and have an appreciation for the instrumentation this movie soundtrack offers. I am Christian and the vocal soundtrack gets you thinking of this life and the afterlife. I enjoy Neil Diamond as a vocalist. I give the movie a rating of 9 out of 10. Nothing is perfect. In closing I was hoping to see this movie re-released soon on the big screen - or at least dvd - but with the comments in this database - I don't see an executive taking an option on that.

The cinematography is truly amazing. The plot though, not so much. My husband commented that it was on his top 5 of most boring movies. The movie dragged along in several sections, and I would have chosen any one but Mr Franciscus to be the voice of Jonathan. He was a bit over the top and seemed to be trying much too hard to be a seagull. The music is wonderful, but I may be biased as I have been a Neil Diamond fan since the mid 60's, and have several copies of the the JLS soundtrack. The book is great, the music is great, so my suggestion would be to buy the soundtrack from Mr. Diamond and read the book while it is playing.

The soundtrack album puts this film to shame. Neil Diamond is a musical genius no matter what people think. He is the top selling solo performer even to this day. People who don't like the music to this film have no taste and waste their time listening to the Rolling Stones or rap music all the time.

I truly worshiped this movie when I was a kid, I even had a giant poster of the seagull on the wall of my bedroom. But after having watched it recently, it seems out of dated, the photography is poor, even though it was pretty good for 1973, the music is too much on the foreground, and really not that great, may we say also out of dated? Some parts are terribly long and make you want to die instead of watching such a poor picture but the philosophy of Richard Bach is still lovely and endearing (even though not especially profound and quite fathomable), it is why I recommend henceforth the book instead. If only somebody like Jean-Jacques Annaud was willing to make a remake: The Bear and the recent Two Brothers, both excellent, proved more than convincingly his talent to shoot movies with animals and to make it interesting even without philosophy so how great would it be with! Unfortunately, Bartlett is not Annaud we must say, and the attempt of adaptation has failed.

Writer Richard Bach had guru status in the early 70's to early 80's and produced interesting work such as "Jonathan Livingston Seagull" and "Ilusions". His love was flying and he shared that love of being free and aloft with appreciative readers. It might have been a good idea on paper to turn "Seagull" into a film because, on actual film, it's awful. The book is pure philosophy and little narrative. Everything expressed is from the point of view of a bird. Unfortunately, so is the movie, and it is this literal interpretation of the book that renders the whole exercise so wrong-headed. There is nothing inherently terrible about a movie told from an animal's perspective -- "Watership Down" did it beautifully, as did "The Plague Dogs". What's terrible, though, is showing a standard issue seagull foraging for food and dashing across the sky while his "philosophy" on life is the voice-over. Since he is a real seagull, his lips don't move and he doesn't ever regard the camera with anything but indifference. The result is philosophy spouted in a peculiar void. On top of the film's structural and stylistic problems, the cinematography is lacklustre, the Neil Diamond songs are just silly, and the seagull is boring. No wonder the thing tanked.

JONATHAN LIVINGSTON SEAGULL is a film about a bird and his philosophical musings. As he flies about, he wonders if there's more to life than just eating fish heads, how high he can fly and is there some special purpose to life--all in a live-action two-hour film!

Yes, this is #253 of why you should hate the 1970s--right between the song "Muskrat Love" and Richard Nixon! Okay, there really is no such list--but if there was, this film would be on it! That's because this is a god-awful film that was actually embraced by "with it" people and made the book a huge best-seller and the film a must-see. And to make it worse, the film is so deadly serious and tries so hard to be philosophical--while all it really consists of is a seagull flying about as inane dialog blares on the screen. Could this get any worse?! Well, yes, because while the music does sound lovely, Neil Diamond also sings several songs that made "Heartlight" (sure to be included if there was a "reasons to hate the 1980s" list) seem hard-edged!

So what positive things do I have to say about the film? Well, the cinematography is lovely and must have been spectacular on the big screen. Also, when Neil Diamond isn't singing, the music is lovely. However, with two hours to the film, these reasons become irrelevant after just a few minutes as the rest is just a ponderous pile of....well,... guano. And the fact that so many once-respected actors LOVED the project and agreed to do voices for it is a testament to the power of mood altering drugs and hippie psychology!!

Harry Medved included this in his book "The Fifty Worst Films of All Time". While I have disagreed with some of his choices, I can heartily agree that this film merited, no DEMANDED, inclusion!

In summation, I'd rather eat glass than see it again! It's THAT bad!!!

I have never heard of the book nor this movie - until I was browsing in the local library and came across the DVD. Because of my devoted love and connection I have with Marine Life, The Sea and Animals in general, I thought that this was a 'feel good documentary' on seagulls.....HOW WRONG WAS I! Although this movie is metaphorically depicting 'human destructive and 'sheep-like nature' behavior, stepping outside oneself, becoming 'awakened within' becoming 'spiritually awakened' about 'the test and why we are here' to better ourselves and become at one with enlightenment; I felt nothing but heart-break. I cried and cried right throughout the whole movie. Not because 'I get it-the meaning of it' (I got it years ago) but because of the absolute disgusting deliberate animal cruelty right from the very beginning to the very end of the movie. HOW COULD SOMEONE DO SUCH A THING? IRONIC isn't it!!!! Reflective, the movie-makers of this film did exactly that! Just what humans should rise against...CRUELTY AND CONTROL! I hope I am incorrect. I hope someone out there can show me that 'every scene' in this movie where the seagulls shown were injured, dying, dead, frightened, confused, breathless, enduring unfamiliar terrain and weather extremities, battered and lifeless, and in dire straits of urgent veterinary medical attention was all fake!!! I will be contacting Ray Berwick and Gary Gero-Jim Callahan The Bird Trainers for the film AND Matthew Place The Bird Care Supervisor to see what results I get from them.

The main Seagull Animal Cruelty Scenes I am concerned about are: 1) Opening scene: Fishing Trawler offloads fish-waste scrapes 'for the birds' enticing them to squabble and fight for the food. Look closely there are 2 different species of birds - 1 silvergull (seagull) and 1 brown bird with a hook eagle-like beak; and it was this bird that kept stabbing the defenceless silvergull in the head, with blood spurting out-very graphic indeed, and then proceeded to grab and shake the silvergulls beak, either breaking the silvergulls neck or shaking it to death...this is not natural behavior of these 2 species of birds together.

2)Deliberately taking a silvergull out of its 'natural habitat' and forcing it to fly unnatural sky's: 3)The Dessert where HAWKS fly - The seagull was 'set upon and attacked' by a Hawk! 4)The Snow icy extremities - Showed shivering, alone, confused, lost and afraid! 5)Falling out of sky hitting the ocean knocking silvergull unconscious - showed the silvergull hitting the ocean so hard it split the silvergull's head including underwater scene where bird 'fought so hard' to bring itself back into consciousness but clearly under severe distress and injury. Filmmakers put drift crate (wood) to float past in order for the silvergull to 'with all its might-left resources' struggling to pull itself on top of crate, bleeding from head, feathers completely saturated and clearly battered and bruised; the silvergull's head was clearly uncoordinated wobbling from side to side, trying to keep it's head above the water from drowning. THE SILVERGULL WAS IN URGENT NEED OF VETERINARY ATTENTION.

6)Rubbish Tip Scene - one seagull had an obvious injured leg and right wing...then suddenly on a different 'edit cut' did not and could walk and fly uninjured...

7)Fletcher Colliding into the Cliff Face - I SCREAMED IN THIS SCENE...The filmmakers 'slowly filmed' the silvergulls' unintended death and smashing his head, wings and legs to death, tumbling down the cliff face...HOW COULD YOU????? If this scene is real the filmmakers involved should have been prosecuted and held accountable for every scene where 'all the seagulls' were injured, mistreated and killed by the highest legislation of Animal Cruelty.

OTHER QUESTIONS STILL REMAIN UNANSWERED: 1) Why did 'Jonathan' Seagull suddenly disappear one third way through the film...suddenly 'Jonathan' (black and white silvergull)is replaced with a different seagull...white body and orange brown wings. The NEW Jonathan is DISTINCTIVELY DIFFERENT SILVERGULL. What happened to 'Jonathan'? 2) Why was Jonathan on his own MAJORITY of the time? The DESSERT SCENE was disturbing and very upsetting as the silvergull was LEFT just standing on its own in unfamiliar terrain, no water, no food and no shelter AND subjected as an easy target for predators:snakes, hawks, reptiles, spiders, etc...THIS IS ANIMAL ABUSE! The helicopter slowly moved away showing the silvergull ALONE AND AFRAID! IF ANYBODY CAN ANSWER MY QUESTIONS ACCORDINGLY I'D APPRECIATE IT. I AM HOWEVER AM CONTACTING THE BIRD TRAINERS OF THIS FILM TO FIND OUT THE ANSWERS TO WHICH MYSELF AND OTHER CONCERNED VIEWERS ARE DEMANDING ANSWERS FOR THE MAKING OF THIS PROVOKATIVE FILM.

It's an amazing view. A seagull just like the other ones suddenly decides to be different and this difference would affect his life. he should now pay more cost for the different life he chose. Jonothan is just like the Christian saints and his guidances are so like the St. Francis's. I see a lot of similarities with this film (an obviously the novel it is derived from) with Kzantzakis novels.I am so happy to see such a film without any actors or actresses and only see a clan of seagulls.The music of the film is so fascinating and set perfectly on the film story.Another fact that i must mention here is the difficulty of photography, editing and directing of such a movie. It is just hunting the moments because you can see a lot of shots in this movie that i know it took too much time to have such a sight.

I've just re-watched this film yesterday when I'am almost 50 and I can say that "Juan Salvador Gaviota" is one of the best movies I've ever seen. And I can assure I've watched tons and tons of movies throughout my life. Photography is unbelievable. Also music from the Great Neil Diamond. The sequences of flight and the voice of seagulls. The depth of message. And it was made in 1973, when no digital effects were available... I recommend to everybody to see it. After much reflection, because life was presented to me, I understood that Juan Salvador Gaviota was, as the dedication of the book said, the film, the spirit that exists in each one of us and that to achieve perfection it only needs to be discovered.

Here in England, the nearest we get to seagulls (we are an island) are ones who steal our fish and chips from our hands at the seaside, squawk and squall loudly and generally seen as a bit of a seaside urban nuisance.

We had the paperback novel in our household when I was young - I never read it but did dip into it every now and then and enjoyed the black & white photographs. So, a few decades on, the film.

I did wonder how it was going to be portrayed, how the birds would talk etc and am glad that it wasn't Disneyfied or animatronics grafted on (a bit before that development, I know). Used to some quite excellent wildlife programmes on TV these days, I was often aghast at the beauty of the imagery, that didn't try to be too close up and perfect but convey space, wonderment and awe.

Being British I did find the American voice artists not quite to my taste - somehow voices added to seagulls are different to ones added to Pixar cartoons, but I suppose that's because while Pixar is decidedly American, Jonathan Livingston Seagull is nation-less and international at the same time. Like the birds themselves; free to fly anywhere.

The story did make some sense but alas, did not grip me. Therefore I was glad that my DVD version didn't go beyond 90 mins or so, rather than the 120mins on some versions. The Neil Diamond soundtrack, alas was mono - how much better if it had been in stereo - was beautiful too, though not quite being able to pick out all the lyrics due to the not brilliant sound quality lessened its impact and enjoyment.

There are those that love and swear by their Jonathan Seagull, whatever format it's in. I'm less enamoured by the project but am glad that I watched and enjoyed this film.

1973: Martha, a Californian housewife in her early thirties is married to Peter, CEO of a construction company. When flower power was in full bloom Martha and Peter concentrated on building a home and putting their daughters through private education. With Peter increasingly away on business, a restless Martha begins to feel there's something missing from her life; might those hippies have been onto something? One day, her old schoolfriend Susan drops by for coffee, clutching a copy of Kahil Gibran's 'The Prophet' and 'Jonathan Livingston Seagull', the latest publishing phenomenon.

"Why don't you take a swim in lake you?" smiles Susan, and leaves the books for Martha to ponder over. Days pass, until out of curiosity, Martha picks up the little blue book with the outline of a seagull on the cover. This Richard Bach fellow's topped the 'New York Times' bestseller lists for 38 weeks - a respectable writer. They've even made a movie of it. And Martha has always enjoyed nature documentaries. Whatever would Peter say? Oh phooey - for the first time in her 27 years, Martha is spreading her wings...

Dedicated to "the real Jonathan Livingston Seagull who lives within us all", this is an allegory for living one's life without fear, to "fly for the fun of it" and "learn what perfection really is". It's 'The Little Engine That Could' with feathers. Or Herman Hesse with a mouthful of herring.

Although the story was inspired by John H Livingston, a top American pilot of the 1920s and 1930s, Richard Bach (a new age forerunner to the likes of Deepak Chopra and Paulo Coelho) has denied he is the real author of the novel, merely acting as a conduit for some higher power; fortunately, there's not yet a legal precedent for robbing superior beings of their royalty cheques.

Whoever the writer, one cannot underestimate the impact the book had on the 'Me' generation, with its hodge-podge of Eastern philosophy and self-empowerment speak, later ridiculed by writer Beverley Byrne as "Horatio Alger doing Antoine De Saint-Exupéry" or "the Qur'an as translated by Bob Dylan".

Composed of fewer than 10,000 words, it broke all hardcover sales records (in fiction - and, tellingly, non-fiction) since 'Gone With The Wind', shifting more than a million copies in 1972 alone. 'Reader's Digest' published an abridged version, and Richard Harris won a Grammy in 1973 for his spoken-word album-of-the-book. Naturally, given its earning power, studio execs were inclined to jump all over it.

Shot in California (where else) and New Mexico for $1.5 million, and sporting a soundtrack by Neil Diamond, the film version concerns the education of the eponymous seagull, voiced by James Franciscus. Driven by a desire for limitless flight ("There's got to be more to life than fighting for fish heads!") and an embarrassment to his parents and his girlfriend, he is banished by the elder of his flock for flaunting the proscribed rules of speed and altitude.

He encounters two other outcasts who teach him to soar to a higher plane of existence, where dwell a flock of enlightened gulls, led by a wise old bird named Chiang who takes him under his wing. Under Chiang's tutelage Jonathan learns how to instantly 'jaunt' to anywhere in the universe. The secret is to "begin by knowing that you have already arrived". As Chiang explains, "Your whole body, from wingtip to wingtip is nothing more than your thought itself. Break the chains of your thought, and you break the chains of your body too."

Equipped with his teacher's parting words, "keep working on love", and with the knowledge that the soul can only be free through the ability to forgive and to pass on such wisdom, the beaky Messiah flies back to his flock to spread the word ("Listen, everybody! There's no limit to how high we can fly! We can dive for fish and never have to live on garbage again!") amassing supporters, until he flaps off again to God knows where.

As successful as Bach's novel was and is, the movie was a troubled production, which plummeted from the screen a few weeks after release in the face of almost uniformly terrible reviews. The serenely spiritual Bach ended up launching a suit against the producer (who initially wanted to graft Disney-style animated mouths on the seagulls) for not sticking to the letter of his book, and remains a non-fan of the film version.

Trouble is, given the sheer volume of philosophising at the expense of narrative, the decision to render everything in disembodied voice-over can become tiresome, and one's appreciation of the film may be fundamentally dictated by how many new age platitudes you can ingest without discomfort (or indeed giggling - "We don't go flying through rock till a little later in the programme"); similarly, how much sub-standard Neil Diamond you can take without feeling the urge to drive pencils deep into your ears.

With a melody invoking Elgar's 'Nimrod', and lyrics like "Lost on a painted sky, where the clouds are hung for the poet's eye", Diamond's overwrought title song 'Be' (which on release barely tickled the Top 40) recalls nothing so much as Engelbert Humperdinck's 'Lesbian Seagull' from Beavis And Butt-Head Do America.

Diamond, who also launched a suit against the producer, nevertheless saw his soundtrack album go double-platinum; the likes of 'Be' and 'Songbird' ("Seek out your harbour of light!") faring slightly better out of context. On the plus side, the movie's nature photography is sublime - the knowledge that the film employed various radio-controlled gliders (built by one Mark Smith of Escondido, California) standing in for the gulls, in no way detracting from the superb aerobatics on show.

Cynicism aside, there's also some pretty sound advice here - why shouldn't we attempt to "fly without limits", or strive to be the greatest seagulls we can possibly be? It's better than a face-full of rotten fish. Keep your beak up.