In the 25th century, a time when people have designations instead of names, a man, THX 1138, and a woman, LUH 3417, rebel against their rigidly controlled society.In the 25th century, a time when people have designations instead of names, a man, THX 1138, and a woman, LUH 3417, rebel against their rigidly controlled society.In the 25th century, a time when people have designations instead of names, a man, THX 1138, and a woman, LUH 3417, rebel against their rigidly controlled society.
- Awards
- 2 wins & 3 nominations
Irene Cagen
- IMM
- (as Irene Forrest)
Jack Walsh
- TRG
- (as Raymond J. Walsh)
Susan Stroh
- Control Officer
- (as Susan Baldwin)
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaThe sounds of the police motorcycles are the sped-up sounds of women screaming together in a tiled bathroom.
- GoofsDuring the chase scene at the end, it is shown on one monitor that the THX budget is 3,410 units over the budget of 14,000 units (24%). A voice had stated earlier that accounts are to be terminated when they exceed their original budget by 5%. When the account/chase is terminated, a voice is heard saying that the THX project is 6% over budget, which would be 840 units, not 3,410.
- Crazy creditsThe Warner Bros. logo is preceded by a trailer for a Buck Rogers serial (or in early versions, a one-minute scene from Things to Come (1936)).
- Alternate versionsThere are technically three versions of this movie:
- The original version released in 1971. This version has not been released on any home media.
- The 1977 restored version, released after the success of Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope (1977), which reincorporated 4 minutes cut by Warner Bros. from the original release. This version was later released on VHS and laserdisc.
- The 2004 George Lucas Director's Cut, which had many scenes revised using CGI, and some new shots added in by Lucas. This was later released on DVD and Blu-ray.
- ConnectionsFeatured in Bald: The Making of 'THX 1138' (1971)
Featured review
Empty Worlds
There are some filmmakers who I just trust. No matter what, I know that even on a bad day they have a vision that matters. Each experience, which for these folks is a conversation. Sometimes experiences with these folks is a disappointment, but it is because the person has value, we have discovered it and invested in it.
I have a growing list of filmmakers with whom I have this relationship. I have another list of filmmakers with whom I never will. These may be folks who have had significant critical and financial success. They even make competent movies sometimes. But they are not interesting people, and have nothing interesting to say. They have no elegant twist on the universe, no value, no art. They make confections, adornments, amusements that are useless.
Lucas is one of these for me.
I can point to any of his films and show that anything that seems to have value is borrowed. Its clear here: a film school project with a Kubrick cinematic sensibility, but with no cosmos to back him up. Contrast this with Tarkovsky's "Solaris" a horrible failure as a film, but a remarkable experience non-the-less because it has hefty ideas behind it.
What we have are three elements. We have a future world drawn in typical 60's scifi fashion, where one thing is emphasized to the exclusion of all else, and that exclusion written as sterility.
We have a story, such as it is: two, three or four characters depending on how you count them. There is folding in the sense of watchers in the storyworld, but strictly speaking the story is captureable in 20 words.
And we have the cinematic expression of these two things. It consists of three film-making decisions: whiteness, observation and some editing that was thought to be edgy. All these are borrowed from Kubrick. But if you know Kubrick, you will see this as a copy of a first rate intuitive by a third rate enthusiast.
I was captivated by the actress who I understand disappeared for thirty years after this her first film. She's fantastic except when she is asked to just stand in the background when something happens. But that's just weak direction. She's bald but a redhead. I wish we had more of her.
Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.
I have a growing list of filmmakers with whom I have this relationship. I have another list of filmmakers with whom I never will. These may be folks who have had significant critical and financial success. They even make competent movies sometimes. But they are not interesting people, and have nothing interesting to say. They have no elegant twist on the universe, no value, no art. They make confections, adornments, amusements that are useless.
Lucas is one of these for me.
I can point to any of his films and show that anything that seems to have value is borrowed. Its clear here: a film school project with a Kubrick cinematic sensibility, but with no cosmos to back him up. Contrast this with Tarkovsky's "Solaris" a horrible failure as a film, but a remarkable experience non-the-less because it has hefty ideas behind it.
What we have are three elements. We have a future world drawn in typical 60's scifi fashion, where one thing is emphasized to the exclusion of all else, and that exclusion written as sterility.
We have a story, such as it is: two, three or four characters depending on how you count them. There is folding in the sense of watchers in the storyworld, but strictly speaking the story is captureable in 20 words.
And we have the cinematic expression of these two things. It consists of three film-making decisions: whiteness, observation and some editing that was thought to be edgy. All these are borrowed from Kubrick. But if you know Kubrick, you will see this as a copy of a first rate intuitive by a third rate enthusiast.
I was captivated by the actress who I understand disappeared for thirty years after this her first film. She's fantastic except when she is asked to just stand in the background when something happens. But that's just weak direction. She's bald but a redhead. I wish we had more of her.
Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.
helpful•1310
- tedg
- Jun 15, 2008
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Official sites
- Language
- Also known as
- THX-1138
- Filming locations
- BART Operations Control Center - 101 Eighth Street, Oakland, California, USA(brightly lit control room)
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $777,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $2,437,000
- Gross worldwide
- $2,437,000
- Runtime1 hour 26 minutes
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 2.35 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content