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.

[–] mitzibishi 12 years ago

The robots were pretty good. Probably influenced George Lucas for the R2 series of robots

[–] thepartydjz 12 years ago

The OP made a couple comments that just forced me to post, "It doesn't even tell us reasons why is the nature important" are you joking? Do you need an explanation as to why nature is important? My god you must be the most idiotic creature on the planet.

"Bruce Dern is just plain bad" Do you even know what serious acting is? He is a wonderful actor and one of the best of the 70's, apparently you weren't around then so you don't seem to get any of the mood, sentiment or meaning of this fantastic film.

This film was meant to be thought provoking, not to display amazing special effects or even to imitate technology in a realistic way. Understand that and you can retract every one of your comments.

Now go review a play station game.

[–] r-taylor13-848-416837 12 years ago

To be honest I stil enjoyed the film. But yeah I agree with basically everything you said. Especially some of the main characters pouty acting, the way the film tried to force us to thnk of the robots as these cute little beings, like dictatorship cinema, and hah, the ending. I am by no means a scientist, but I was watching thinking, surely it isn't because they aren't getting enough sun. That would be retarded... Sure enough though..

All that said, for some reason I still quite liked it. And as much I knew and was kind of annoyed at being coerced into liking the robots, it's hard to be against them. Like, go Dewey, you keep that *beep* going!

[–] DrakeStraw 12 years ago

I thought it was OK the first time I saw it. The second time was just not worth it and my mind wandered. I was doing crossword puzzles by the time it ended.

--
Drake

FYI

[spoiler][/spoiler]

[–] franzkabuki 12 years ago

The OP sure seems to know an awful lot about how robots are supposed to move "in serious movies". And he actually wants people to explain to him why is trying to save the last remnants of the world´s ecosystem a worthy idea...? Hm... going to be a difficult argument no doubt.

As for whether the movie is bad or not... well, it´s certainly far more corny and precious than absolutely necessary, and the worst offenders in these regards are probably the absolutely terrible mooings by Joan Baez on the soundtrack - what awful, banal hippy-dippy songs, dripping with sugary sentiment, and what a dreadful voice. Also, it probably wouldn´t have hurt if there was more happening in the story and perhaps more made of the fact that Dern´s lil ship almost ran into planet Saturn and spent the rest of the movie close by it. Rather lacklustre script as well as dialogue there.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] earthman34 12 years ago

You're wrong on every point. This is a classic movie of the era, and very innovative in a number of ways.

Bruce Dern was cast perfectly in this part. He has the right combination of intensity and introspection to bring the character to life. There's nothing wrong with his acting here at all.

The robots were meant to be seen as sympathetic characters. While you may think they're cheezy, what do you expect in 1972? This was long before the age of the sophisticated computerized robotics we have today. Putting actors inside costumes was the only way to pull it off. Do a little research, you'll find that most portrayals of robots in films either cast them as cute and friendly (Star Wars R2D2, etc.) or as threatening (Such as in Terminator, etc.)

Given how poor your judgment of this film is, I wonder what you consider a good film?

[–] Squeeealer 11 years ago

I have read through all five pages of comments, and I feel compelled to chime in since the OP has taken a bit of a beating.

***SPOILERS

Earlier this week I saw someone post this movie as one of the most underrated of all time. I checked out some reviews and was very excited to see this movie. I was totally in the mood for a hidden gem sci-fi movie. I had a good experience in this genre about ten years ago when I borrowed Soylent Green from the library. My point is that I was very open-minded and optimistic when starting this movie.

In all, I have to say I agree with the OP.

First is the horrible acting. It was extremely painful for me to watch. Dern constantly seemed to either have his eyes wide open like some lunatic (maybe he was supposed to be crazy?) or almost be sleepwalking and sleeptalking. It was a very bizarre portrayal, and I was surprised the other crew members were not alarmed at his erratic behavior.

Second, as has been pointed out several times, the sunlight issue was just ridiculous.

Third, where was the big takeaway from this movie? It had a big message that ecology is important, but that's it. Incredibly general, and it was extremely vague about WHY, in this vision of the future it was so important, or paint a picture of what a future without it would look like. Would the synthetic food eventually cause health problems? How did Earth produce oxygen without trees and plants? How did it change our daily lives? What did the Earth look like? We are more educated about how the world works now - I would think it would have been especially important back in 72.

Fourth, I kept waiting for there to be that twist at the end like with other sci-fi movies from the 70s. Like he gets beyond Saturn and lo & behold we have a whole civilization out there and the whole thing is a conspiracy. That's not a criticism necessarily, just a way I sabotaged my own enjoyment. I just kept thinking there must be some incredible thing at the end to tie this all together where all the weird stuff suddenly became "a-ha moments,", and it just never came (like with the aforementioned "Moon"). I think this movie had many missed opportunities.

Fifth, was just releasing the giant greenhouses manned with robots a solution? If so, why didn't they just do that to begin with? Feel free to tear me apart on this point if I've missed something.

Since so many people enjoy it, feel free to watch. But I hope my advice will let you allow yourself to fast forward through the intolerably slow parts or just quit and move on, which is ultimately my advice.

[–] Ddhandarah 11 years ago

Completely agree with you.

On top of it all, I found the film painfully boring because between Dern's character being virtually unlikeable and the vagueness of the environmentalist theme, nothing important actually happens. Dern's character, for me, was already unlikeable from his introduction due to his erratic and fanatic behavior and made infinitely more unlikeable when he murdered his crewmates. Made it very difficult for me to care about him. The film overstays its welcome then runs out of steam and just ends without tying up loose ends or a proper conclusion.

What baffles me even more is how fanatical the proponents of the film are on these message boards. I've seen the word "masterpiece" thrown around a whole lot, and this film is no where near close.

SEE YOU AT DA PAHTY, RICHTAH!

[–] gareth242000 11 years ago

No my friend, you have no taste and the film is a near masterpiece

[–] !!!deleted!!! (24175281) 11 years ago

I completely agree. This movie is horrible. It is one of these movies that you could almost guess dead on which decade it was made...and not because of the special effects or technology. But because it is so overtly 70's that it's completely hard to believe it takes place in any time but the 70's.

2001 is still quite timeless to this day and not only is 40+ years old we are 13 years past 2001 itself!

This movie is your typical 70's save the earth, American guilt, we are horrible people reminder movie.

The script is bad, the acting is barely passible (and I'm only saying that cause I like Bruce Dern in other movies) and the storyline is not only non existent.... it's more like an afterschool special or a 50's propaganda reel.

This is a horrible movie with no substance at all and I will only remember it for how pointless it was.

But maybe my argument is pointless because I also didn't care for Avatar and that seems to be wildly popular despite how boring and pointless it was.