onetwothreefour
Bluelight Crew
so i finally got around to seeing this, and to be honest i wasn't that impressed. it was definitely good, but as something that had been built up as a definitive science-fiction classic... well, it didn't live up to expectations at all. this is a review i put up on imdb.
--
"Remember, before Star Wars, when sci-fi was smart?" wrote one IMDB reviewer, apparently astounded at the intellectual merits of this film, the 1973 adaptation of Harry Harrison's novel, Soylent Green.
I know, I'm supposed to be reviewing the film here too, but let me start off pointing out everything that's wrong with the above statement - sure, there were plenty of intelligent sci-fi films before Star Wars, like the original Solaris (1972), Jean-Luc Godard's Alphaville (1965) and Chris Marker's La Jetee (1962) amongst others, but it's not as if Star Wars set in motion an out-of-control trainwreck of brainlessness.
In fact, in the time since Star Wars, we've had Terry Gilliam's superb Jetee-inspired Twelve Monkeys (1995), The Matrix (1999 - the first one had plenty of brains) and Dark City (1998), to name only a few. Perhaps the argument might only be made that the genre took some time to recover from the action-oriented Star Wars, but the fact remains.
The main flaw here is the idea that Soylent Green is a great example of an intelligent film. It's not. A dystopian look into the future and a bunch of unhappy humans does not necessarily turn a mediocre story into a great one, and nothing the film puts in place does anything to change that. Heston is his usual wooden, masculine posturing self, and the only bright sparks amongst the actors come from Edward G Robinson's last role as Sol, and the police inspector.
The story is so well-trodden by now that it's essentially common knowledge, and it's not a horrible one. But the circumstances are obvious predictions to make if you have a pessimistic enough mind, and the "surprise twist" has nothing on that of the other famous Heston vehicle, Planet of the Apes.
But the film soldiers on. There are good things about it - the moments of calm between Sol and Thorn are occasionally poignant - like when Thorn brings home rare foods - vegetables and even meat. Robinson's face tells a story that Heston couldn't approach in a million years. Affecting also is Sol's departure, staring up with wonder into an enormous television screen of fields and waterfalls.
Unfortunately, things that could easily have been strengths are not acted upon. The film's sets are cheap and badly made - but where Godard, in the aforementioned Alphaville - used his limited sets and location shooting to enact a commentary on his modern day society, in Soylent it is a mere distraction from the story.
For all its faults though, Soylent Green trots along at a fairly even kilter, and though its story provides little new (even, when one considers the amount of science-fiction literature around, in its time), it is occasionally thought provoking, and certainly still relevant - perhaps even more so - in these days of political unrest and global warming. Just don't get sucked into thinking Soylent Green is the bastion of science-fiction cinema, because it isn't even close.
--
"Remember, before Star Wars, when sci-fi was smart?" wrote one IMDB reviewer, apparently astounded at the intellectual merits of this film, the 1973 adaptation of Harry Harrison's novel, Soylent Green.
I know, I'm supposed to be reviewing the film here too, but let me start off pointing out everything that's wrong with the above statement - sure, there were plenty of intelligent sci-fi films before Star Wars, like the original Solaris (1972), Jean-Luc Godard's Alphaville (1965) and Chris Marker's La Jetee (1962) amongst others, but it's not as if Star Wars set in motion an out-of-control trainwreck of brainlessness.
In fact, in the time since Star Wars, we've had Terry Gilliam's superb Jetee-inspired Twelve Monkeys (1995), The Matrix (1999 - the first one had plenty of brains) and Dark City (1998), to name only a few. Perhaps the argument might only be made that the genre took some time to recover from the action-oriented Star Wars, but the fact remains.
The main flaw here is the idea that Soylent Green is a great example of an intelligent film. It's not. A dystopian look into the future and a bunch of unhappy humans does not necessarily turn a mediocre story into a great one, and nothing the film puts in place does anything to change that. Heston is his usual wooden, masculine posturing self, and the only bright sparks amongst the actors come from Edward G Robinson's last role as Sol, and the police inspector.
The story is so well-trodden by now that it's essentially common knowledge, and it's not a horrible one. But the circumstances are obvious predictions to make if you have a pessimistic enough mind, and the "surprise twist" has nothing on that of the other famous Heston vehicle, Planet of the Apes.
But the film soldiers on. There are good things about it - the moments of calm between Sol and Thorn are occasionally poignant - like when Thorn brings home rare foods - vegetables and even meat. Robinson's face tells a story that Heston couldn't approach in a million years. Affecting also is Sol's departure, staring up with wonder into an enormous television screen of fields and waterfalls.
Unfortunately, things that could easily have been strengths are not acted upon. The film's sets are cheap and badly made - but where Godard, in the aforementioned Alphaville - used his limited sets and location shooting to enact a commentary on his modern day society, in Soylent it is a mere distraction from the story.
For all its faults though, Soylent Green trots along at a fairly even kilter, and though its story provides little new (even, when one considers the amount of science-fiction literature around, in its time), it is occasionally thought provoking, and certainly still relevant - perhaps even more so - in these days of political unrest and global warming. Just don't get sucked into thinking Soylent Green is the bastion of science-fiction cinema, because it isn't even close.
Last edited:
