Terrible Movie...
...even by 1973 standards. Not that that is any excuse. Anyone else think so?
You had me at 'Heil.'
No.
share
MovieChat Forums > Soylent Green (1973) Discussion > Terrible Movie...
No. Actually, I'd have to say its an amazing movie.
shareI think it's like one of those really long Twilight Zone episodes.... the ones where there's 20 minutes of story but they tried to get an hour long episode out of it. You just sit around for a very long time waiting for the payoff.
Soylent Green has about 40 minutes of story. Heston should have discovered the secret at that point, then spent the rest of the movie dealing with the repercussions. This would have made for a very good half hour Twilight Zone, but there just isn't 90 minutes worth of plot here.
Agree with this totally. Bit of a bore-a-thon.
"Worthington, we're being attacked by giant bats!"
Wow. I just watched the movie for the second time and thought that this is one of those rare films that are perfectly paced with nothing that I'd cut out.
shareSort of. There is so much wrong in Soylent Green that it is odd how enjoyable it ends up being. But the chemistry between Heston and Robinson is just uniquely treasurable.
I saw it in 1974, and again yesterday. It is more fun today because of the futuristic howlers: the girl plays pong on a console the size of a phone booth, for instance.
Something that didn't strike me in 1973 but is glaring today is the choreography of the stunts. Especially the two stunts that involve the wafer conveyor belt. Did that appear natural in 1973???
YES, this is a terrible movie from every possible angle! I know that 70s cinema never sucked this much! What was their budget, $10 ?? I've seen tv-shows with better production values. Hell those lame sci-fi flicks from the 50s have better production values. It looks like they just picked a cool cat from the streets to play the police chief, Charlton Heston macho-ism is soo lame, and what's with the clothes and the sets? And this is supposed to be one of the better sci-fi flicks around?
I mean did they even try here?
Did you guys get lost on the MESSAGE of the movie?
shareWhat about the message? What message is there that differs from all the other lame sci-fi flicks? It's just another "people beware or else this will happen!" Yeah right, highly unlikely. If you want me to be scared at least make sure to fill in the plotholes. This is on top of all one of the most unrealistic visions of the future.
And 43 years later after the introduction of soylent green..?..I would have checked some facts before I jump into any conclusions.
Here is one example if you have time to read it.
http://www.marketskeptics.com/2009/12/2010-food-crisis-for-dummies.html
Yeah, how's that prediction coming along, anyway? Will it be here by September?
Maybe next year, huh. That is, after Pres-uh-dent Training Wheels has another year to ruin things.
Conservatives shape policy to deal with reality. Libprogs reshape reality to match their policies.
this movie was good, they probably should have gone with someone more thoughtful and likable than Heston, but he was HUGE in the 60's/70's (Omega Man, Planet of the Apes series, Airport 19XX), ... have you seen Rollerball? not much story, only violence/big budget.
shareI happen to be among those who think SOYLENT GREEN is not only a good film, but a remarkable one that at times reaches for greatness, and even if it does not attain it, at least it tries. One of my favorite things about it is that Edward G Robinson, a great actor who was ailing and no doubt knew that this would be his finale performance, took that knowledge and used it to inform his characterization of Sol. And its effect on Heston is amazing; he literally brought out the actor in the man, who could often be frustratingly wooden; I don't think I have ever seen Heston actually cry real tears in any other movie and I thoroughly believe that was Robinson's influence.
Having said all that, is it really necessary for some of you to attack people with whom you disagree so viciously? There's an old saying: "One man's meat is another man's poison." Tastes differ. I know people who hate GONE WITH THE WIND, and I myself have taken some abuse on these forums because I do not happen to be a fan of Stanley Kubrick.
To each his own. If you must disagree, by all means do so, but for God's sake, be civil to one another.
Never mess with a middle-aged, Bipolar queen with AIDS and an attitude problem!
><
"I happen to be among those who think SOYLENT GREEN is not only a good film, but a remarkable one that at times reaches for greatness, and even if it does not attain it, at least it tries"
Indeed, it's something of a classic, and indeed Robinson (his last film, I believe) was wonderful. Harry Harrison was displeased with the adaptation, but nonetheless it was a great film.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free" - Goethe
"Indeed, it's something of a classic, and indeed Robinson (his last film, I believe) was wonderful. Harry Harrison was displeased with the adaptation, but nonetheless it was a great film."
I finally got round to reading the novel just recently, and the book and the movie share the same basic premise but little else. I can sort of see why Harry Harrison was displeased with the adaptation; the screenwriter jettisoned a good two thirds of his story in favor of a more action-oriented piece no doubt to accommodate the casting of Heston in the "hero" role. The film was also more high-tech; the utter separateness of lifestyle between rich and poor was emphasized in a way Harrison didn't bother to try, and of course the film's punchline is also not found in the novel.
This is one of the rare occasions when I think a film adaptation actually improved upon the novel from which it was taken. Harrison's novel really only had a single idea stated over and over, and the grungy look of his New York is uncomfortably similar to Orwell's London. The film takes this premise and runs with it, and at the end of the day I found the film more exciting and involving than the rather dull novel.
Never mess with a middle-aged, Bipolar queen with AIDS and an attitude problem!
><
Words that devalue credibility:
"sucked"
"lame"
"soo"
Then there's all-caps and exclamation points... the language of a fourteen year old girl.
What was their budget, $10 ??
Ten Dollars wouldn't pay for the meager amount of meat in the freezer.
I've seen tv-shows with better production values. Hell those lame sci-fi flicks from the 50s have better production values.
They're showing a run-down New York of the future, not Star Wars or Logan's Run. Why should it look fine and impressive?
Charlton Heston macho-ism is soo lame
A cynical, frustrated, weary police officer is macho?
what's with the clothes and the sets?
Yes, the very idea people could be wearing jeans, t-shirts, and baseball caps in the 21st century... and living in apartments, working in police stations, and going to church. There was a lot of location work, the suicide clinic's interior was the only unusual set in the movie. share
"..the girl plays pong on a console the size of a phone booth, for instance. "
Are you seriously visually impaired, while at the same time being 'technologically challenged' and 'informationally AN IDIOT?'
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Who plays Pong? (It's a NAME, so use a capital letter, dámnit!)
The game the woman is PRETENDING to play, is actually COMPUTER SPACE. Not Space War, and DEFINITELY not PONG!
And it's not a CONSOLE, it's an ARCADE game. It's a coin-up, those were very common in the late '70s and especially throughout the '80s.
Computer Space just happens to be more interestingly shaped than most coin-up Arcade games back then.
Computer Space:
http://www.cedmagic.com/history/computer-space-ad.jpg
A few typical Arcade games:
http://justusgeeks.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/sotg-arcades.jpg
I am amazed you still know what a "phone booth" is, but you don't know what Arcade games are!
Your mistakes:
1) Mistaking "Computer Space" for "Pong"
2) Disrespecting "Pong" by typing its name with a lowercase "p"
3) Thinking it's weird/odd/out of place/amazing that a game cabinet is that big
4) Calling an Arcade game a "console"
5) Thinking she is actually playing the game (she's an ACTOR, not a PLAYER)
6) The weird logic of knowing of a 'phone booth', but not of Arcade Cabinets
7) Complete ignorance of the history of video games (someone like this
shouldn't ever even talk about video games, consoles, or computer games)
The funny thing is, all that would have been necessary to correct a lot your mistakes was to ACTUALLY WATCH THE MOVIE AND PAY ATTENTION! So, even though not everyone can know everything about everything, you should at least have been able to READ THE NAME OF THE GAME, if nothing else. Besides, it's easy to research these days, and just by typing "pong" to images.google.com, you could have seen that it doesn't resemble the game she's pretending to play AT ALL.
I find it very challenging to respect people like you.
[deleted]
IT'S MADE OF PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Pure trash film LITERALLY so disgusting to watch. He should of just made a new planet of the apes movie.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TzcANOHiDo
No, sorry. I think it's pretty amazing and number it in my top ten favorite films, actually.
share[deleted]
SOYLENT GREEN is a visionary film by all measures. It's without a doubt hampered by a lower budget than what it needed, but it still hits all the right chords for the kind of film it is.
For all the kids who've posted misguided comments about SOYLENT GREEN, I don't think this film aimed to please everyone 4 decades afterwards, but for people who lived through the last quarter of the 20th century, everything it talks about resonates and it's amazing how much was known then about what we're having to deal with now.
20 years from now, kids will be laughing at the films today's kids enjoy. MATRIX, for example, will then be judged as a piece of crap, and you will be commenting back telling them how ahead of its time the first MATRIX was back in the day.
scuse me, but I'm 25 and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Enjoyed it even more in the fact that it's available to be viewed for free online at Google Videos, or Youtube. It's near impossible to find in a modern DVD store here, or maybe I'm just looking in the wrong places?
sharethere are plenty of films from the 1970s that I adore, so don't try pulling that "you're young and you don't know" rubbish
What other Sci-fi films from the 70's have you watched besides maybe STAR WARS before you decided so confidently you are a 70's films or Sci-fi film expert?
Aside from perhaps 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY and a handful of 70/80's films (e.g. SILENT RUNNING, ALIEN, BLADERUNNER, & DUNE, inclusive - all have a much larger budget), most sci-fi films made earlier than the mid-1990's would seem anachronistic. Yet SOYLENT GREEN doesn't seem dated for those who have seen other films made in that period [at the time of their release]. The character Sol, for your information is the late great Edward G. Robinson. If you know anything about Hollywood films and its history, you wouldn't just address Sol as a character. This film was his swan song, as he was already quite ill while making the film. In fact he passed away before the film's theatrical release. As for Heston, he simply acted in the manner as the type of movie hero he was famous and popular to the audience for (i.e. have you seen BEN-HUR?). He was still a bankable star in the early 70's and compared to the APE and disaster flicks, this role was definitely one of his better ones.
SOYLENT GREEN was made as a B-film, but it continues to shine NOT because fans believe it as a masterpiece, but for what it tried to communicate. Was the "truth" revealed that difficult to figure out for the audience? I don't think so, and neither is the reveal the reason SOYLENT GREEN has a loyal fanbase - The film was a fun ride with a visionary message - a message that most of the population didn't take serious then, but looking at the opening montage, it becomes a reminder that the damage mankind did to the planet was not news just from a few years ago.
If you're just looking to troll, please go back to your 2 strings of dull posts you seem to enjoy pestering others on. This film wasn't made for the likes of you, and likely you haven't seen much to begin with.
take care and watch more movies - you'll learn more about a lot of things you forgot from school. share
[deleted]
Dear FLECKofMcBEAGLE,
Yes, I did look up what kind of posts you have made, and they certainly are not impressive. You troll more than you make constructive points, while showing little credibility with your arguments in debating the merits of films.
The only point you have raised is that you don't like the film because it doesn't "compell" you in the right way - WOW, alert the public, McBEAGLE doesn't like a film but doesn't know why except he/she doesn't seem to like Charlton Heston playing the type of film-hero he's know for. McBEAGLE also doesn't realize that the significance of this film in relation to Edward G. Robinson - while fans of Edward G. see the last act as a [symbolic] farewell to the late great actor, McBEAGLE thinks they're just foolish in appreciating the scenes showing SOL seeing the world as it "used to be" - his character was just as much a forgotten has-been as the real life actor before he passed away after the film wrapped.
You list a few films you claim to have seen, but what significance or relevance do they have to do with this discussion (examples would help). You hate what others like about SOYLENT GREEN, and don't seem to know what and why beyond only your preference.
As to why the change with Heston's character, don't you realize that most of the characters in the story are supposed to have been brought up and educated to believe what the government tells them. They act in accordance in spite of their doubts. SOL points the light to him through their meetings and time together, but that's just as what we have heard about climate change and the effects of pollution in the earlier days when some scientists tried to point out its danger, his character just let it slip and just thought it was an old man blabbling. Tasting the food from "back in the good old days," and along the way of the investigation, finding out what romance and love felt like, turned the guy around. Finally in his life he had things and people whom he cared about. Why do people change? Well, sometimes realizing you are human can do that to you.
We can pop into any grocery store to get our apples, meat, and clean water. SOYLENT GREEN was the first film of that era to ask us to think WHAT the world would be like if we no longer have the same things we take for granted. Is that contrived today? yes, very likely, but if you judge a film based on the context and time it was made, those little touches helped to make the viewing experience a "fun ride" [at least for me]. In film school, a film like SOYLENT GREEN is also noted for its ability to use minimal effects and budgets (sets and props) to depict a completely different time frame. While the decision to use sets of slums (in the backlots of the last days of the old MGM studio) may have been due to budget limits, this was one of the first films to depict the future as not too different than the present, which for a [studio produced]science fiction film was rarely done (i.e. usually they would just reduce the scenes to indoor settings to avoid having to deal with wide exterior shots) - THE WORLD, THE FLESH & THE DEVIL (1959) being another MGM sci-fi film that uses a similar approach, but then it also used large sets to depict NYC after WWIII (i.e. if they didn't actually shoot on location in NYC).
maybe you need to see those movies you think you've seen AGAIN. May I also suggest you look up SILENT RUNNING, along with THX 1138, which is a much better film than LOGAN'S RUN (but story is not that different).
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
and I guess I should say, "who died and made you Lord?"
You compare film to fiction in its written form - I thought we're discussing film? Where do you wish to take that tangent?
One actor died shortly after production... Chuck Heston is in it... this was the first time the subject matter was dealt with in film... so what?! That doesn't make it a good film.
Right, then I guess you're just don't know enough to appreciate Edward G. Robinson. Have you seen any of his films? I suggest you start with LITTLE CAESAR, LARSONY INC., CINCINNATI KID, and definitely KEY LARGO. And "WOW," no credit for being innovative on film unless the movie brings out a concept even written fiction has not? Shouldn't you be posting on a board with your local library or Amazon?
Where did I write that SOYLENT GREEN is a masterpiece? You compare an early 1970's film to MOON? Where do you want to take THAT tangent.
I think the only person who is misguided and lost is you - you belong on another board, unless you're MacBEAGLE trying to pose as another person to attempt a vain comeback.
What's your point again? Are you lost? share
[deleted]
Must I watch 'Mosquito Coast' to appreciate Harrison Ford's portrayal of Han Solo? Must I understand 'Philadelphia' in order to have the full Tom Hanks experience of 'Toy Story'? Or perhaps I couldn't possibly appreciate 'Schindler's List' without watching 'Taken' to really get the emotive appeal of Liam Neeson?No, but does knowing about Mickey Rourke's rise & fall make you appreciate THE WRESTLER more? How about Errol Flynn in TOO MUCH, TOO SOON? Or, JAMES CAGNEY & PAT O'BRIEN in RAGTIME? How about GLORIA SWANSON in SUNSET BLVD? Or have you not seen THE WRESTLER either?
Because you were pretending that the concept of 'Soylent Green' was something new when it wasn't. Those of us who know our science fiction were laughing when you said that.Really? On film and in a Hollywood studio production [from that era]? Or are you referring to written fiction? Maybe you're just trying to make a contrived point about "the book is always better than the movie"?
You and WHO were laughing? Do you find yourself in debates when you actually don't see anyone else standing nearby? Hmmm... after watching MOON and "lovin' it", could there be a possibility of you getting taken in by the story so much that the "laughter" you referred to are just echoes of your own lonesome chuckles?
I think it's pretty clear that you don't like SOYLENT GREEN for your own reasons, but they just don't seem to hold up to any argument beyond just being a visceral reaction - you probably don't like Charlton Heston as an actor, or you haven't seen enough of Edward G. Robinson's work to appreciate how his role in SOYLENT GREEN serves as a mirror to his life. No one is praising SOYLENT GREEN as high-art, but like the MAD MAX, CHERRY 2000, and even the first two STAR TREK movies, they are considered cult-classics for reasons you may never understand or will agree with - if you don't like them, it's your choice.
Again, what does MOON have to do with SOYLENT GREEN? MOON wasn't made in the 1970's, and it certainly wouldn't be a missed-opportunity simply because a story like MOON would not have been made by any Hollywood studio at that time (SILENT RUNNING probably is the closest story from that era to which likely MOON took inspiration from). SOYLENT GREEN is a b-budget film aimed to entertain. It did to me and many others, and that's why it's considered a cult-classic. ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW and CADDYSHACK appeal to others as classics for their respective reasons also but they're certainly not technically a masterpiece like LE SAMOURAI. No one can tell you what to like or dislike if you don't agree, but if you're trying to debate or discuss on the value of a film that appeals to fans of this film while not even understanding to appreciate some of the attributes it offers, there's really not much to agree or disagree - If you don't agree but are not able to bring any facts relating to films and genres/trends of that time into the discussion, you really don't have much of a point to go on beyond just coming across as a misguided poster with less knowledge than you would like to pose to have.
see you at the movies - please watch more. share
[deleted]
Enough said, you just don't get it, so I give up trying. The reason you don't get it is because you have no clue about the films and references I have provided.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
or you haven't seen enough of Edward G. Robinson's work to appreciate how his role in SOYLENT GREEN serves as a mirror to his life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You keep repeating this nonsense but you fail to explain why it is relevant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No one is praising SOYLENT GREEN as high-art, but like the MAD MAX, CHERRY 2000, and even the first two STAR TREK movies, they are considered cult-classics for reasons you may never understand or will agree with - if you don't like them, it's your choice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On one hand you are saying it is my choice and my taste, then in the next you insult my age, intelligence and experience. If you think that 'Soylent Green' is high concept then you clearly have no experience with real scifi, that is why you got sucked into this illusion of conceptual scifi.Something is obviously missing here, and likely points to an inability to read on your part?
Insult your age? I think you've only added more salt to your self-inflicted injury by posting half-baked posts on tangents that have only proved you know little about the movies you think you so well understand.
So you've obviously not seen the films I've mentioned, so naturally you won't know how to appreciate the attributes I have pointed out as some of the reasons I consider SOYLENT GREEN a cult-classic.
Please watch more SciFi, read some actual books and you will see why I have such a problem with this.Again, are you having bouts of a MOON hangover? I think you need to watch more movies as you don't seem to have anything to say about movies but only keep pointing to books? And what and where did I write that I don't read? Or are you just not able to think straight
share
[deleted]
Oh I get it, I get entirely that you vastly overestimate your level of knowledge and experience. You also overestimate the relevance of the argument you are making for why this should be considered a great film. You've given me nothing beyond appeals to emotion.Okay, so you want to discuss movies? What have you to say about the films I've listed as examples of overlooked gems that brought new ideas to cinema?
What you consider irrelevance is just a function of your inability to accept the fact that you really don't know that much about Hollywood films - or movies in general.
If it helps, I can list a list of must-see films from the last four decades to which would help you have a better sense of how misguided your posts have shown you to be.
Oh, I went to film school, and am not in my 60's... maybe I come across to you as arrogant simply because you don't know much about the topic to begin with? share
SOYLENT GREEN is a b-budget film aimed to entertain.
- Perhaps technically, from the studio's point of view, it was aiming at entertaining and generating a profit. From what I've read about the film's backstory, it sounds like it was a part of Charlton Heston's retirement plan (he apparently shared in a part of the actual profits it generated, not the typical "monkey points" on the film's gross that sound good but most often pay little to nothing to actors and "Associate Producers".)
However, I think that Charlton Heston actually wanted to warn his and future generations about overpopulation, pollution, the greenhouse effect i.e. global warming, government & corporate greed; and the inevitable decline of modern society that could result in cannibalism.
"If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it copy this and make it your signature!" share
[deleted]
[deleted]
I have repeated, several times, that I understand this 'might' have seemed original to some when it was made. Though again, post WWII era, post The Population Bomb, post 1984 and the spate of dystopian fiction - it wasn't doing anything that original. I don't dislike this film because it is 'contrived'. I've given you plenty of other reasons NONE of which have anything to do with budget - which is what you keep banging on about.I think this paragraph sums it up. In spite of all your wrote, you only point to the fact that you really haven't seen enough to judge this film beyond comparing written science fiction to film adaptations.
Please go see the films I have mentioned and that you have indicated as your "will see" films. Add THE WORLD, THE FLESH & THE DEVIL (1959) to the list, along with ZABRISKIE POINT - from the 60's forward, films such as THX1138, SOYLENT GREEN, LOGAN'S RUN, SILENT RUNNING, and even ZABRISKIE POINT all rode on the theme of "questioning" decisions made by governments and industries. SOYLENT GREEN is not the best from the period to which these films came out, but neither is it the worst (i.e. at least compared to some of the Franko Nero films).
If you're simply trying to state the point that Science Fiction in its written form is almost always better than their film adaptations, with the exception of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, I would say it's almost always the case, and THE ILLUSTRATED MAN is one prime example. Other than that, listing films mean nothing unless you cite reasons why you feel the ones you have seen far are far superior than all other sci-fi films you haven't yet watched. share
[deleted]
Right, and you sir, please watch more movies before claiming authority on films.
good day.