Terrible Movie...
...even by 1973 standards. Not that that is any excuse. Anyone else think so?
You had me at 'Heil.'
If people enjoy this film - good for them, I didn't - they've obviously taken something from it that I didn't. But that's not something you can debate - it's personal opinion. But if someone tells me this 'good' then that is something to discuss - because I don't see anything that makes this film 'good'Precisely. You cite written science fiction to compare to SOYLENT GREEN the film, which I pointed out as irrelevant as a film is not lesser just because it doesn't bring in concepts or creative ideas not previously used in a different medium. You judge a film by what it is. If it doesn't compell you the way it does others, you can debate on the merits and/or lack there of based on what you know of the genre, which I did. You don't seem to have watched as many but used literature as the metrics to say it is a bad film, and I simply responded by telling you that's not really a point.
If you know the history of MGM studios, SOYLENT GREEN is by no means a big budget production. A big budget sci-fi film of that era would be LOGAN'S RUN, which used much bigger sets, or even THE TIME MACHINE. I don't know how you can qualify SOYLENT GREEN as a major production as that era saw some of the biggest effects-driven films such as TOWERING INFERNO, MIDWAY, EARTHQUAKE, POSEIDON ADVENTURE, and AIRPORT '75. In comparison to SOYLENT GREEN, their budgets are exponentially higher. Before JAWS, which is now remembered as the first SUMMER BLOCKBUSTER, these were the blockbuster-calibre films which utilized A-list stars and high budgets (except maybe LOGAN'S RUN, which has higher production value than SOYLENT GREEN due to budget, but certainly not in the same league as those I've just mentioned).
A film like MOON would have never been made in that era. SILENT RUNNING probably would be the closest to it, but it also had state-of-the-art special effects for that time. A film like SOLARIS would not have been made by a major Hollywood studio in that era, as it would have been judged as too academic. That is presumably the same reason why THE TIME MACHINE, LOGAN'S RUN, and SOYLENT GREEN were made under the approaches they have taken - as entertainment, not a scientific or anthropological study of a post-apocalyptic or near-apocalypse society - you have films like ZABRISKIE POINT that tried to touch on those points and they became instant duds. No one would cast CHARLTON HESTON in a non-commercial film. While he has starred in some films that could be considered indy-like (e.g. WRECK OF THE MARY DEARE, also stars Gary Cooper in one of his last film roles), but that film was just written off as an attempt to be a Cooper+Heston vehicle that failed).
In my opinion, there would be no point in remaking SOYLENT GREEN. We are living too close to 2022, so there would be little difference to the environment set in the story than what we've already seen happen to our world today.
Movies are movies, and you like what others will hate and vice versa. 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY was panned at the time of its release, but now it's a visionary sci-fi classic. BLADERUNNER got mixed reviews when it was first released but now is the definitive Sci-fi noir classic. SOYLENT GREEN on the other hand, is nowhere near the Kubrick flawed-masterpiece [whether past nor present], but it is no less a cult-classic just like other B-films such as CHERRY 2000, THX1138, MAD MAX, and even the original SOLARIS.
I like SOYLENT GREEN for what I've already stated. I am a big fan of Edward G. Robinson, and I appreciate innovative YET forgotten films which brought new ideas to cinema. THE WORLD, THE FLESH & THE DEVIL is one that belongs in the sci-fi genre, while GO FOR BROKE! does the same for me in the category of war films. James Garner in MISTER BUDDWING makes me think Chris Nolan took inspiration from in making MEMENTO, etc. Whether you've seen these films, like or hate them, I will never know. The point I have made is to substantiate the reason why I like some films, SOYLENT GREEN being the topic. You don't agree and appreciate the same things I do, yet you discredit the same innovative ideas it brought to the genre for the time it was made [as compared to literature] - how could I agree when it's not even a fair comparison? share