MovieChat Forums > Silent Running (1972) Discussion > This is a bad movie.

This is a bad movie.

posted 16 years ago by zee944
71 replies | jump to latest

This is bad movie.

1. The main character is an idiot. "He has a passion for..." - NO. If he supposed to have a passion, the movie should show the viewer what is the passion for actually. What's good in the object of the passion. Even when the character starts debating about it with his partners, he fails to say a sensible reason. "Look at that food! That's a crap! My natural food is good... because I've produced it in my garden" or "Destroying the nature is bad... because the young girls won't see the leaves of a tree" or something similar. Stupid.

2. The robots have feelings. Don't get me wrong, I like when robots seems to have feelings in a sci-fi, but the way it is portrayed in this movie is totally ridicoulos and mindless. Can you imagine a scene where the robot doesn't execute a command which would help repairing the other robot, BECAUSE he's worrying about the other robot so he want to be beside him instead? And these robots are not even made to be company for anyone. These are just labour workers, they don't even have the ability to talk or communicate. As bad as it gets.

3. The robots behaviour. So they have feelings, yet they didn't care about the astronauts killed off. One of them have seen the murder, but didn't do anything. Actually, the main character being an idiot I was awaiting for a plot turn where the robots will rebel against him. I've really believed this will be the peak of the movie. It never happened. Despite the lack of rebellion, a fair amount of times they didn't obey to the orders and wasn't explained why.

4. Bad visual effects. The walking robots are ridicoulos. No robots moves like this in a serious sci-fi. Even if you'd want a robot to have legs, at least do it right, and make it a little smoother. BTW, apart from having legs the robots doesn't even similar to humans, so what are the legs for at all? The surgery and poker scene with that crippled robot hands look ludicrous, too.

And the spaceship most times doesn't seem to move. It is essential in a sci-fi to move the stars or move the ship, else it would look as fake as it can be. And indeed. I can forgive the cheap-looking models but this is just an insulting frugality.

5. The solution. Big SPOILER here. The guy finds out the lack of the sun causes the decaying of the forests. So what does he do? He brings out his special ultraviolet-emissive bulbs to the forest and puts them into the pre-made sockets... easy as that. It's nice to see the place was THAT much prepared for this kind of situation.

6. The acting. Bruce Dern's performance was plain bad. In the argument scene in the kitchen he acted like a pouting 10-year-old kid. When he learns his forests will be destroyed he just gawks with no sign of emotions. When he learns he'll die he doesn't react either. When he buries somebody he didn't even like, he gets emotional and cries. He's crying because of the loss and not because he frightened what he has done or what will happen next day. These all would work if the character supposed to be a lunatic, but I'm afraid it wasn't the intention.

[–] Border_Ruffian 16 years ago

Yeah...

The writers were smoking dope and it doesn't make any sense. Movie made by tree-hugging hippies, etc, etc...yeah, yeah, all true...

...but it had top-of-the-line special effects for its time.

Remember it was 1972. No computer graphics.

[–] zee944 16 years ago

Honestly, I don't think so. The fans of the movie keeps telling that, but I doubt it. AFAIK it was a low budget movie. Dark Star (1974) had better effects, which was (I assume) a low budget movie, too. And it would be an insult to compare Silent Running with the 2001 (made in 1966, released in 1968), which had far, far better visual effects. So, no top-of-the-line special effects here.

[–] sonofagun 16 years ago

Dark Star had better effects? What were you smoking then? You think a beach ball with feet is better than the drones in this great film - good grief.

By the way, some of the special effects in 2001 you like so much were done by the director (Trumbull) of this film!

You just don't seem to have much appreciation or understanding of what goes into special effects work. Trumbull did a tremendous job on this film.

[–] esskayess 16 years ago

DARK STAR? You're comparing that piece of crap favorably to THIS? Why am I wasting time on the likes of you?

[–] zee944 16 years ago

Stay calm. I was talking about the special effects with spaceships. As far as I can recall, they're quite good for their age.

[–] bayowolf 11 years ago

I've always wondered why I have never seen "Dark Star". I just saw the trailer which is supposed to convince me to watch the movie. It convinced me alright...it convinced me that I made a wise decision in skipping that piece of crap.

~~Bayowolf
There's a difference between being frank... and being dick.

[–] black_derby_80 10 years ago

you might bear in mind, though, that the way trailers were made then and the way they're made now are considerably different. they always had a crappy voiceover and way too much exposition in old movie trailers.

"Cinema was made for fantasy, rather than normal types of stories." - Ray Harryhausen

[–] bayowolf 8 years ago

That's right: It was exactly the "too much exposition" that convinced me that it was a crappy movie.

~~Bayowolf
There's a difference between being frank... and being dick.

[–] clwowski 13 years ago

Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.

George Carlin

[–] yannickmessaoud 10 years ago

I was able to watch 15 minutes of dark star, hey put on some of that music that was just so awful.

[–] lbining 16 years ago

> When he buries somebody he didn't even like, he gets emotional and cries. He's crying because of the loss and not because he frightened what he has done or what will happen next day.

I think he was crying because he had killed another human being.

[–] laszlozoltan 16 years ago

no. you completely miss the point of the whole movie. you sound like a spoiled little brat that just wants to play with his toys. it is a movie about the ecology movement- to make people realize that if they continued polluting the planet the only safe place for nature would be in space, and that this future was far too soon, that if we don't change our ways we could not go to our graves with a clean conscience that we gave our children a clean and habitable planet, as we had been given. the movie is a very simple point; nothing else to say; it is like hemmingways the old man and the sea- it does not need or want great intergalactic space battles empires and such; nor does it need a team of science and technical advisors to work out whatever little kinks that you find bothersome in the story, because like I said- you completely miss the point of the movie- it is not star wars, it is hemmingway. perhaps in time you will gain some wisdom and return to some place you once knew only to find it has been completely destroyed by urban/ industrial/ economic development- then perhaps you will understand the true meaning of this film; because when you go back with your kids and find the woods that you loved or the lake you used to swim in but can no longer it will hurt you deep down within and you will understand why we need to be careful with our planet. that is the point of this movie, it is why simply told, you are wrong when you call this a bad movie because it is a great movie, and you lacked the wisdom to appreciate it (for now).

[–] YouKnowMyName68 16 years ago

Thank you, Laslozoltan.

What you see is not necessarily what you get,
Not trying is dying, keep trying unto death....

[–] zee944 16 years ago

So, basically what you're saying is: no matter how many stupid, ridicoulos or corny scenes are there in the movie, it's only the message what matters.

Thanks for pointing what was this movie all about. I would never figured that out.

Guess what, the intention is obvious for everyone, it's just a badly done flick. It doesn't even tell us reasons why is the nature important, it just states "it's important". (See point 1. in my previous post.) It should make the viewer feel for the nature even if he wouldn't care... but it's too dull to make anyone think about it who doesn't do it already.

"you sound like a spoiled little brat that just wants to play with his toys."

I hate to use same personal remark back, but it's so obvious I have to note it. Silent Running is your toy. I pointed out it's made of cheap plastic, and it's already broken. You're crying and insist to play with it hence it was made for it. I'm fine with it. Play with your broken toy.

[–] laszlozoltan 16 years ago

you'll see, when you grow up

[–] zee944 16 years ago

Smart response.

[–] laszlozoltan 16 years ago

ok let's see you critic, lethal weapon, the abyss, jackie chan, jakie chan, jackie chan- why don't you comment on the smurffs or something more appropiate to your age group ? clearly, silent running is well beyond your ken...that is not your fault, but you need to learn to appreciate things as they are instead of demanding more. you have to realize what a ground breaking movie this was to watch when it came out, and that it remains today. you will grow older and more appreciative of the basic message and importance of this film, and you will be able to look beyond the short-comings you cited- or perhaps not, if you continue to gorge on crap like lethal weapon 4. you need to broaden your mind and life experience. but you do not have coin to critise here.

[–] zee944 16 years ago

That's what I meant, mate. You had no arguments to my points I made about the movie, so you immediately went to personal attacks. That's what small-time people like you do.

By the way, pls point me out where I've written anything about the message of Jackie Chan movies. Thanks in advance.

[–] RIPRAW 16 years ago

[SPOILERS]

I watched it for the first time last night, and while I don't agree with all your points Zee, I can identify with most of them. I actually really liked the robots, one of the better things in the film. To say they don't walk like robots is a bit redundant. Who knows how robots will walk in the future? The Terminator doesn't walk like a 'robot'.

I do agree that I didn't quite understand what was going on when these robots stopped doing what they were told. Like you, I kept expecting them to turn on their master, but they never did. So what was the point? Was it just filler for a film with only one idea? Like the other poster said, the films sole purpose was to giive it's message - to warn us about what the future will hold if we carry on killing our planet. To me, this just isn't very profound. Maybe it was back then, but I highly doubt it. Surely there were loads of these hippy, save the planet flicks back then?

I did quite like the ending though. A sole robot left all by itself to tend to the forest for all eternity because of the mistakes we have made. Wall-e was clearly inspired by this film. In the end, the robot seemed more human than humans themselves. I guess this was the real point of the movie. That we shouldn't become complacent and do things that will dehumanise us.

To me it looks like one of those films you see in your childhood and will always love. I have nothing against that, I have some myself. While it has many flaws - the poor acting, the laughable hippy music, and the ropey special effects, it does does have some good points - primarily the ending.

[–] zee944 16 years ago

"To say they don't walk like robots is a bit redundant. Who knows how robots will walk in the future? The Terminator doesn't walk like a 'robot'."

Human engineers design and make the robots. We all know the physical laws, even on spaceships if artifical gravation is involved. These laws won't change. (At least, I hope so.) By what logic should these robots have this kind of unstable, complicated way of walking? It just seems extremly ineffective thus not believeable.

The robots in Terminator are totally different things. They're imitating the human body setup. They meant to move like humans.

[–] JPMerola 13 years ago

The way they moved was sooo unbelieveable.....

Zee, Are you aware that those robots moved the way the humans inside them moved. A (wo)man with no lower limbs walks that way. Are you saying that it doesn't work? Are you saying they weren't "imitating the human body setup"? Are you saying they didn't "move like humans"?

Google "Robot falls down stairs" Shorten the legs (for close ship surface repair), replace the arms (with more usable, interchangable tools arms) and scrap the anthropomorphic, yet useless head and it's the same look and especially, the same walk as the "Silent Running" robots (40 years later)!

Just like the robots in "Silent Running", "the robots in Terminator..." were actors playing robots!!!! Most actors have trouble not imitating the human body setup!

How old are you?

[–] laszlozoltan 16 years ago

I looked at your other postings to discover the kind of critic you are, where you come from. But my point remains, that you demand too much to appreciate the movie. You have indeed been spoiled by cgi effects that bring you tales of forgettable nonesense- no one is going to remember fantastic 4; but I remember going to the theater with a friend and seeing a movie about THE FUTURE and that is what I think you and yours are missing- an ability to suspend disbelief and rationale and let your immagination go. I apologize for the harsh tone; I'm afraid it just happens to rub off. but seriously, you need to be less critical of gifts and learn to appreciate things as they are. And I will add, you will one day go back to some place with your kids or loved ones and find it's been destroyed by industrialization/ commercialisim and perhaps you might then recall this is part of the message, and that is why this is a great movie.

[–] zee944 16 years ago

Forget my posts on Imdb, I've only registered to discuss JC movies here.

I'm not ruined by CGI. I prefer the good old movies where models were used instead of computers. One of my favorite sci-fi is 2001 (I assume I don't have to explain how great that movie is), which has no CGI at all. I rate it higher than The Abyss, which is by the way has similar message to Silent Running.

I made 6 complaints about the movie here, special effects was only one of them! If that would be my only problem, I wouldn't criticize the movie. Back to my original statement: you're basically saying "no matter how many stupid, ridicoulos or corny scenes are there in the movie, it's only the message what matters."

[–] laszlozoltan 16 years ago

watch an inconvient truth, then silent running...(remember silent running predated that by a quarter of a century)

[–] Mat_Nichol 16 years ago

Well said Laszlozoltan. People don't critic fight films due to their lack of a narrative or question their production values. They just ignore them and watch something else. Who could actually be bothered? Where would you start? How long would it take?

[–] surgecess 9 years ago

You sound like a man in a child's body.

__________
"Angels to some, demons to others..... Now you must come with us!"

[–] rothoehler 11 years ago

Well, I havn't seen this movie (but the Original Post by Zee has made me interested, more than all the fanposts), I just have to comment on the form discussion takes here.

I'm certainly not "spoiled by modern times CGI", in fact my favorite movies are still black and whites and even silents. But I recognize film as a optical medium, and the greatest film artists of all aeras used the best and most spectacular special effects they could muster (ever heard the name Méliès?). CGI is a natural developement from older forms of effects, and it is fully legitimate to use and pleasant to watch (in the sense of "cinematophilistic interesting", not of "cheaply distracting"), just as legitimate as the sepcial effects the director had used in this film (the quality of which I cannot judge).

So, Zee critsized the movie you all love, and the obviousely least of his points were the special effects. His main point was how the story as presented, expecially the dialogues, don't help to deliver the (very obvious) "message". The worth of nature or the dangers for it are (in his view) never explained, but just blantly stated. The main character, who is supposed to represent the message (he is the only one caring for "nature") and to serve as an identification figure, acts irritating, and is represented poorly by the leading actor (again, I can't judge this for myself, but it's a legit opinion of Zee and a valid point of critique which has nothing to do with anyone's "spoinling" by modern CGI).

This movie is made by (self-proclaimed) "intellectuals" for other "intellectuals". One would expect a civilized style of discussion on this board, and indeed, the wording an manners are all nice - no flames, no names...
But then again, seeing their precious piece of art criticized, people are quickliy falling in cheap cliches and pidgeonhole others in categories like "immature, loves modern CGI-packed action movies". Quite immature by itself!

I can't help but wonder your own age and education. might be interesting to compare it to Zee's.

[–] jeffreyurbach 12 years ago

Spot on laszlozoltan.

[–] mekroth_the_wise 16 years ago

the robots doesn't even similar to humans

With writing skills like that, you're really in no place to insult this brilliant movie. That Being said, I will now display your folly more clearly:

1. This movie is a character study. It displays a man who has been able to see the last beautiful remnants of the natural world, and has grown disgusted with his society's abolition of beauty. If you actually paid attention to the conversation, it clearly defines his "passion" without just slapping you in the face, treating you like a brain-damaged goat.

2. Again, if you had been paying attention, you would have noticed the scene where Huey, Dewey, and Louie are re-programmed.

3. The disobeying of orders: Computers glitch up. Have you ever used Windows Vista?

4. From the trivia section: The three drone robots Huey, Dewey, and Louie were operated by four multiple-amputee actors: Mark Persons, Steve Brown, Cheryl Sparks, and Larry Whisenhunt. Leave your complaints with them. In fact, you can PM Cheryl right here: http://www.imdb.com/user/ur16417654/boards/profile/ As for the surgery and card game, those were real robotics at work, so yes. Real robots actually do work that way.

It is essential in a sci-fi to move the stars or move the ship, else it would look as fake as it can be.

If we are talking realism here, then you are sorely mistaken. Stars are very far away from us some are so far away that their light takes billions of years to reach us. Even if you are moving through space (which the Earth does most of the time,) you will be unable to actually perceive the movement of the stars very well, if at all (depending on speed and proximity.) Also, I remember seeing the ship move across the screen quite a bit, so I will stress again: PAY ATTENTION.

5. Why the hell wouldn't a spaceship in a corporate, climate-controlled future have light-bulb sockets?

6. Again, this is a character study. Freeman Lowell is a three-dimensional character, and somewhat insane. He is not a stock bitch who will react in a predictable manner throughout the movie. Although, if you were to PAY THE *beep* ATTENTION, you would easily see that his actions are consistent with his character, and are meticulously planned. He was supposed to be a lunatic, and those who PAID ATTENTION easily figured that without the movie having to slap us in the face, treating us like a brain-damaged goat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URL9SXEXJHM
and watch the sequel

[–] zee944 16 years ago

With writing skills like that, you're really in no place to insult this brilliant movie.

You know there are people living outside the USA. Forgive me that English isn't my first language.

1. Then please tell me here what were Freeman sensible reasons for his passion.

2. I've noticed that. So after some soldering/re-programming (wasn't Freeman a biologist, by the way?) the labour worker robots became sentimental friends. Even if I accept that, that repairing scene with the emotional robot is way, way exaggarated. (EDIT: being the robots real... sure. Robots did the whole surgery on their own. Not people who remote controlled those robots as extensions of their arms, no. Robots did it. You can't be serious.)

3. No, I haven't. So you're saying it's computer fault, but they don't let the viewer actually know it's computer fault, it just happens, and nobody cares. Sorry, I don't think it was overthought by the creators. It's stupid.

4. You miss my point. The idea was bad to begin with. By what logic should robots have such an unstable, ineffective, overcomplicated way of moving?

If we are talking realism here, then you are sorely mistaken.

I'm talking about spectacles, not realism. 2001 was very realistic (probably the most realistic sci-fi of all time), yet they still made the ships look like moving. Before you'd start twisting my word, I didn't expect 2001-quality visual effects from Silent Running. They should've just use the basic idea. By the way, I've written "most times" in my original post as I've noticed the exceptions, so I'll stress: PAY ATTENTION.

5. OK. Then why WOULDN'T have Freeman thought about the light-bulbs earlier, if they're so obvious to have? He's even a biologist, and he let the forest decay for days... then suddenly discovers the pre-made sockets? Oh, come on.

[–] albelawson 16 years ago

It's probably not really worth getting as upset as you seem to be about it.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] leengee 13 years ago

This is bad movie. I disagree

1. The main character`s passion - perhaps it`s not obvious to you, but nature is assumed to be good, completely turning your back on it would, therefore, be not good. The movie (remembering when it was made) tells us that most of the world doesn`t give a crap about flora and fauna. Freeman was there because he wanted to be there, the rest are just earning their pay.

2. The robots have feelings. You seem to be saying you don`t mind this? Not sure what your point is here. Regarding communication, they absolutely communicate with each other. You mean they don`t speaka da english? You`re okay with R2D2?

3. The robots behaviour. So they have feelings, yet they didn't care about the astronauts killed off - Again I refer you to Star Wars. Was R2D2 concerned about Obi-Wan, his owner? Was C3PO concerned about his (it's?) creator?

4. Bad visual effects. The walking robots are ridicoulos - You really don't like the robots do you? They were apparently not intended to run marathons. Also, um, R2D2?

And the spaceship most times doesn't seem to move - ever ridden in a car? See how the things really close to you like telephone poles seem to whiz by and things far away, like mountains hardly seem to move at all? Now imagine that the mountains are actually billons and billions of miles away. It always annoyed me in Star Trek watching the stars zoom past the screen. Covering such immense unfathomable distances in the blink of an eye is what's ridiculous. These ships are barely moving anyway. You prefer spectacle to realism. Wait, what? Ginger over Marianne? Jennifer over Bailey?

5. The solution. Big SPOILER here. He was slowly moving away from the sun. Didn't occur to him. I'm gathering you were yelling "it's the sun you idiot" at the screen. It looked like autumn to me. Possibly he'd only ever seen nature in preserves like this and had no sense of the change of seasons. They had emergency lighting and a power source. Seems reasonable.

6. The acting. Bruce Dern's performance was plain bad - I think he was a bit of a lunatic, and I had no problem with his performance actually.

Disclosure - My parents took me to this movie when I was a kid. It was one of the first movies I remember seeing, because it made me think. It sparked my interest in the natural world and in Science Fiction, and has always stayed a favorite, mostly because of the lack of need for shiny objects and laser space battles. I always watched it when I found it on TV and was thrilled when I found the DVD. So, I'm bound to be biased.

"There's poo in there" - Zack

[–] YouKnowMyName68 13 years ago

'the robots doesn't even similar to humans'

You better wipe the saliva off of your console.

"You know, my name..."

[–] Billy_McAvoy 16 years ago

Well, this was a cheap made-for-TV movie of which mostly kids watched. I was one of those kids, and It deeply moved me when I was 7, but it doesn't stand the test of time. So in that context the OP's deep criticism seems somewhat over-the-top. I mean where does it end? Do we start bashing Charlie Chaplin's "City Lights" because of his ineffective use of dialog?

...Guess What S1m0ne! We have now entered an age where we can manufacture fraud faster than our ability to detect it

[–] zee944 16 years ago

Hey, I got you, but it isn't just about being technically outdated or having too many cliches. The movie is full of stupid, illogical scenes. It must have been bad already even in 1972. Would it have been a movie for the wide audience, I'm sure we wouldn't consider it a "classic" today. But being a sci-fi, somewhat popular because of the message, we see what happens.

So no, it's totally different thing to me than Chaplin's movies or other (deservedly...) classics.

Anyway, I'm no longer interested in criticising the movie. Have fun, everyone.

[–] daryl-b-t 13 years ago

(old thread for an old movie, oh well perhaps someone will be interested in the future... :)

"1. The main character is an idiot. "He has a passion for..." - NO. If he supposed to have a passion, the movie should show the viewer what is the passion for actually. What's good in the object of the passion. Even when the character starts debating about it with his partners, he fails to say a sensible reason. "Look at that food! That's a crap! My natural food is good... because I've produced it in my garden" or "Destroying the nature is bad... because the young girls won't see the leaves of a tree" or something similar. Stupid."

Okay it was the political truth of the day to espouse the superiority of natural things over synthetic, pretty much, well, just like it is today.

"2. The robots have feelings."

Not really, most of what you see is his attachment to the robots.

"3. The robots behaviour. So they have feelings, yet they didn't care about the astronauts killed off."

They are just machines, with programming, you can become attached to them and interact with them but they aren't human. Odd really because this was a movie espousing rather opposite values, that of the importance of our connection to the natural. Complex.

"4. Bad visual effects. The walking robots are ridicoulos. No robots moves like this in a serious sci-fi."

Now one does. I mean honestly that's not an argument. Have a look at the walking robots in existence and they are even more jerky. Legs at least allow them to walk over obstacles and up stairs.

"And the spaceship most times doesn't seem to move. It is essential in a sci-fi to move the stars or move the ship, else it would look as fake as it can be. And indeed. I can forgive the cheap-looking models but this is just an insulting frugality."

Creatively this was quite powerful. There are no close by objects to judge speed by so indeed distant objects would appear to be stationary. When the space shuttle is in orbit the earth looks almost stationary and that's relatively close. All those scenes in other scifi movies imply a camera position outside moving a little slower, if it was from a stationary point they'd flash past in a second, thus the shots in Silent Running you refer to are quite accurate and you could take them simply by space walking outside with a camera.

"5. The solution. Big SPOILER here. The guy finds out the lack of the sun causes the decaying of the forests. So what does he do? He brings out his special ultraviolet-emissive bulbs to the forest and puts them into the pre-made sockets... easy as that. It's nice to see the place was THAT much prepared for this kind of situation."

Seems reasonable, plants need light, provide artificial light sources in case needed, they'd be a real bunch of idiots to build a ship like that at enormous cost and not provide for light. Plot wise I think he was moving so slowly away from the Sun that light was diminishing without being obvious. Like it probably took months or years to get to that point.

"6. The acting. Bruce Dern's performance was plain bad. In the argument scene in the kitchen he acted like a pouting 10-year-old kid. When he learns his forests will be destroyed he just gawks with no sign of emotions. When he learns he'll die he doesn't react either. When he buries somebody he didn't even like, he gets emotional and cries. He's crying because of the loss and not because he frightened what he has done or what will happen next day. These all would work if the character supposed to be a lunatic, but I'm afraid it wasn't the intention."

Probably seemed okay back when made. Dated now.

[–] gorgsharpy 16 years ago

1. The main character is an idiot. "He has a passion for..." - NO. If he supposed to have a passion, the movie should show the viewer what is the passion for actually.

You are such a child of method acting.

2. The robots have feelings.

Remember Kubrick? No one blamed HIM for that.

[–] zee944 16 years ago

Remember Kubrick? No one blamed HIM for that.

Wrong. HAL didn't have feelings.

[–] gorgsharpy 16 years ago

what do you call this then

Daisy Daisy,
Give me your answer do!
I'm half crazy,
All for the love of you!
It won't be a stylish marriage,
I can't afford a carriage,
But you'll look sweet on the seat
Of a bicycle built for two !

you could argue that hal was designed to feel, maybe, but so were the three robots then and so are we as humans.

[–] zee944 16 years ago

No, I will not use the "designed to feel" reason. (Despite the fact it COULD be a good reason for HAL, and less so in this movie.)

*** SPOILER for 2001: The Space Odyssey ***
That was a song for testing the voice modules. Go to the 2001's board, and everybody who understood the movie in details can tell HAL didn't have feelings. You'll easily recognize those who really understood it, since they can explain its logic step by step. Quite complicated. HAL had his own, totally materialistic and logical reasons why he did everything. He was given controversial commands before the mission, and the "wrong" decisions made us believe he had feelings - until the final third of the movie. That's why it's a brillant movie.

[–] gorgsharpy 16 years ago

But what about our three friends, Huey, Dewey and Louie ... are they so different from HAL?

I have always loved Silent Running btw. Dern is such a Christoffer Walken-like character (from Deer Hunter). Once the rescue mission (De Niro) gets there, he has gone too far in his mind to ever go back. Besides I like the crazy ambiguous idealism, killing in order to save life. Dern is crazy, dying and fighting for a very good cause that cannot be won, but he can't see it. Saw it when I was 12 years. I also saw 2001 then, and you know, it just didn't impact in the same manner.

About 2001, I still today wonder what shutting down HAL and the whole rebirth end to 2001 really tells us. You can't stop developement and technology, so much is true. Maybe Kubrick says, if you don't watch out, machines may be superior to you. Or you shouldn't design too humanoid machines? Isn't Kubrick really too afraid of technology?

[–] shankmaker 13 years ago

As a ten year old who saw this at the cinema, I was enthralled with the special effects.

If you grew up during this period you can appreciate the movie better- today it does come off as a caricature of itself...the plot and acting are cliched...it's a product of the "new-ecology" early 70's.

The Joan Baez music really really doesn't help.

The effects look middling- but were good for their time. Trumball did a much better job with 2001 a few years earlier. The models clearly look like models here- not so much in 2001.

For a 1971 production there are some seeds of forward-looking ideas in sci-fi, and for that, the film remains important.

[–] Xeokym 13 years ago

2. The robots have feelings. Don't get me wrong, I like when robots seems to have feelings in a sci-fi, but the way it is portrayed in this movie is totally ridicoulos and mindless.

No, the robots DON'T have feelings. That is why it comes off as "mindless" & doesn't make sense to YOU.

...these robots are not even made to be company for anyone. These are just labour workers, they don't even have the ability to talk or communicate.

No DUH, that's why he reprograms them. You know, the part where he's got the microchips under the microscope & he's rewiring their behavior circuits?

The robots behaviour. So they have feelings, yet they didn't care about the astronauts killed off. One of them have seen the murder, but didn't do anything. Actually, the main character being an idiot I was awaiting for a plot turn where the robots will rebel against him. I've really believed this will be the peak of the movie. It never happened.

Man you are really obsessed with the robots. They didn't have feelings. Once you comprehend that, all your other issues with behavior cease to be issues. Why would the robots care about "murder," they don't comprehend "murder." They weren't programmed to "rebel," they were simple labor robots...as you have already pointed out!

Despite the lack of rebellion, a fair amount of times they didn't obey to the orders and wasn't explained why.

Why? Because they were about one generation away from an Atari 2600, that's why. They weren't particularly agile, or mental giants, in case you didn't notice.

Bad visual effects. The walking robots are ridicoulos. No robots moves like this in a serious sci-fi. Even if you'd want a robot to have legs, at least do it right, and make it a little smoother. BTW, apart from having legs the robots doesn't even similar to humans, so what are the legs for at all?

It was 1972 for crying out loud, what did you expect?! Here it is 2012, and we STILL don't have robots that can walk properly, and it's only been in the last 10 years that people have developed robots that can walk with any amount of success. And what are the legs for?! You really don't know? Because legs can work on ANY terrain, and go up & down stairs. Something wheels & even tank-like treads cannot do successfully. If legs were such a bad design, why do so many animals on the planet have them? LOL.

The surgery and poker scene with that crippled robot hands look ludicrous, too.

The poker scene occurred BEFORE Lowell ran into the robot, disabling it. The robot didn't have a crippled hand yet in the poker scene, you dunce.

As a ten year old who saw this at the cinema, I was enthralled with the special effects.

Someone in this thread said this movie was "made for TV." I was only 4 when this movie came out but I was sure it was a theatrical release.

If you grew up during this period you can appreciate the movie better- today it does come off as a caricature of itself...the plot and acting are cliched...it's a product of the "new-ecology" early 70's.

I agree with you entirely. Back then, it made me think. I wouldn't say I was blown away by the special effects, but I was impressed with all the spacey, futuristic stuff. If I look at the movie from today's perspective, it looks kind of flimsy, and it's got hippie-dippy tree-hugger sentiment oozing out of every crevice. I don't think it invalidates the movie entirely, though - it's a good depiction of people's attitudes at the time.

»«ëÕ|{¥(V)
I can't understand your crazy moon language.

[–] paul-273-129025 13 years ago

This film was ok but not the classic I was expecting. I really don't know why some people rate this film so highly. I think Moon took all the good elements of this film and turned it into something much better.

[–] laszlozoltan 12 years ago

respectfully, I have to disagree with your pronouncement. Moon was interesting and tinged with sadness, but it will be forgotten. Silent Running, on the other hand, will long stand as a harbinger of corporate insensitivity towards earths ecology, and inevitable consequences if we do not recognize their threat and work to keep that threat in check.