User Reviews (355)

Add a Review

  • Warning: Spoilers
    "Soylent Green" is one of these sci-fi movies that keep you thinking 'we'll get there' so that whatever negative reaction it elicits, that'll never be indifference. As for me, it became a certitude that Harry Harrison's prophetic vision of 2022 would come to reality sooner or later, and the opening credit sequences is a simple but effective-way to establish that the urban nightmare featured in the film is a logical continuation of the uncontrollable increase of the population.

    The fast-paced montage of photographs leaps over one century in less than three minutes, where stills of crowded streets in the Big Apple and highway spiderwebs, make pictures of vast landscapes as obsolete as the Dodo. And in that whirlpool of suicide-inducing images, some ought to catch the attention of a 2020's audience. "Soylent Green" might not have the wizardry arthouse feel of Stanley Kubrick's "2001" but a certain pandemic increased its significance. In this 2022 New York basking under clouds of yellow suffocation, people wear masks, need permits to circulate, ration cards to eat and can consider themselves lucky if they don't sleep on stairs.

    Even the least literate mind can feel the Orwellian vibes with corporations playing the Big Brother role, and we can forgive that 2022 looks oddly similar to the 70s and that digital technology didn't make much progress, but the merit of Richard Fleischer is not to aim too high so that the film can easily hit the target and makes its point, sparing us a lecture on Malthus theories about the regulations of population and the balance between demographics and food supplies. While the material calls for pessimism-driven analysis, the script written by Stanley Greenberg follows the usual patterns of detective stories with new layers revealed at the right time.

    And so we have alpha male Detective Frank Thorn, played by Charlton Heston and his partner and roommate Sol, Edward G. Robinson in his final role. Sol is an old man who age-wise represents the 70s audiences or any viewer for that matter, one who can recall a time where food was real, where fruits existed, where the fauna and flora of the planet weren't annihilated. He keeps rambling about them to an oblivious Frank just as then-audiences in the 70s heard stories about the Great Depression. Heston plays his Frank in sheer detachment, which is the right approach as someone for which this is the only 'reality', the catch is that like the vast majority of people, he doesn't know the secret about that reality.

    But whatever is to be discovered by Thorn is pending in the right order on the narrative's line, one we follow step by step. It starts when a big corporation executive named Samuelson (Joseph Cotton) is assassinated by a hitman and the murder is disguised as a botched burglary. The guilt-ridden victim knew his fate and didn't fight back. Frank is the one in charge and he handles the case rather cooly, thrilled by the opportunity to explore an upper apartment and bring back some trophies. He lets the bodyguard (Chuck Connors) file some red tape and then washes his head in the bathroom, takes a soap bar and admires the 'furniture' played by the beautiful Leigh Taylor-Young. The story warns us that in a time where necessity prevails, women's liberation would take many steps backwards.

    Frank brings back some real food from the house and later comes one of the most memorable movie eating scenes. What we see is a young man realizing what food is and one reminiscing about how it was. Think about it, what was the last time you went to a pub? The last time you could walk and breath without a mask? In these Covid-eras, we learned to value things, but we know they'll be back some day. Robinson's performance is integral to the power of that scene, every gulp, every drop he swallows gives a poignant dimension. In fact all the Heston-Robinson scenes are heightened by the subtext of their beautiful friendship, like in "Double Indemnity", Robinson can handle a manly 'I love you' without being a sap.

    Progressively, the film gets in the vicinity of these 70s paranoid conspiracy thrillers where a hunter becomes the hunted one. At that point of the review, there's no use to reveal the secret, let's just say that it became one of the most iconic quotes of American cinema and one that inspired a solution from Homer Simpson for overpopulation. The investigation in itself is rather formulaic and Fleischer doesn't have the right flair when it comes to handle action sequences, but the film is transcended by the Robinson's final scene, perhaps the most glorious swan song an actor ever had.

    The sequence is a classic: Sol, tired of all this nonsensical world, decides to go "home", he pick his favorite music, his favorite color (another scene parodied in "The Simpsons") and enjoys for the last time the sight of nature the way it used to be (in that nightmarish future, at least they kept the footage). Sol's eyes are filled with tears and so are Frank's. Knowing that Edward G. Robinson was dying of cancer, you can see these were genuine tears from the two actors and friends. Heston crying because he's bidding farewell to his friend, Frank's crying because he sees his friend dying or that world that is dead already, there's a whirlpool of tears induced by sights and sounds from Beethoven's symphony, culminating with a last "I love you" right before Gynt's morning music and a sunset illuminates the screen.

    That's a depiction of death that hasn't been equalled in any movie, as we see ourselves as part of the universe, embracing its eternal beauty before leaving. We'll get to that moment, but will that be as magnificent as Sol's departure? (perhaps the one moment of timelessness where "Soylent Green" came the closest to "2001").
  • "Soylent green" is an ecological dystopia that may not be a highlight in film history but that surely gives something to think about.

    I saw it on television in 2022, the year in which the film is situated. The year also in which global warming / climate change was a real ecological worry. The film was made in 1973, a year after the Club of Rome had published his report "The limits to growth", questioning the sustainability of ongoing economic and population growth.

    In the famous opening scene the effect of population growth and industrialization on the landscape is made visible, ultimately resulting in the city of New York containing 40 million inhabitants. Inhabitants feeding themselves with dried food of the company Soylent, because fresh fruit and vegetables is only affordable for the very rich.

    Just like in a dystopia such as "Blade runner" (1982, Ridley Scott) the distinction between upper class and lower class is very big. Also this is a point of recognition in the "real" 2022, where growing inequality after years of neo liberalism, alongside environmental problems, is a concern. Unlike "Blade runner" the world (especially the interiors of the homes of the rich) is very 70's. As though the film accentuates that it is not the science that has evolved (for the better), but only the environment and the society (for the worse).

    A minus for the film is in my opinion the role of women. They are portrayed as a sort of furniture in the houses of the rich. Furniture that is mainly there to be sexy. Overpopulation damaging the environment is plausible, overpopulation rolling back the emancipation of women is much less so.

    One of the most provocative and best scenes is an old man choosing for euthanasia. He remembers very wel that he has lived in a better world long ago and he has seen enough. Even in 2022 the issue of euthanasia because you suffer from life itself (and not from some kind of disease) is very controversial. The euthanasia ceremoy consists of beautiful images of nature accompanied by the Pastoral symphony of Beethoven. With the exception of Disney's "Fantasia" (1940) this music has never been used so well in film. This dying scene was played by the old Edward G, Robinson, who died in the year "Soylent green" was released. This dying scene was the last scene in his long career.

    The film ends with a shocking discovery. Of course I am not going to disclose this discovery, only that in the final scene the lead characters shouts his discovery to anyone who will listen. An ending very much alike that of "The invasion of the body snatchers" (1956, Don Siegel).
  • Very interesting. The big twist wasn't as big a shock as maybe they had hoped for and it was very dated but it did get my mind working. It really got me thinking about a world without vegetation or livestock and made me appreciate the world I live in a lot more. Charlton Heston does a good job, as do all the supporting characters, and it was a very realistic film which was surprising. It lacked direction at times and a lot of the settings and background needed more explanation but it was still a surprisingly good and intelligent movie. The main fault that I could find was that I didn't want the film to end when it did, I would have liked to see what happened next.

    7/10
  • I saw this movie shortly after it first came out - when I was a kid. The scene that sticks with me to this day is when the scoops come to break up the riot. The cop says, "The supply of Soylent Green has been exhausted. The scoops are on the way." Then the front-end loader trucks come and scoop the people up like so much garbage. The fact that 2022 looks like 1973 is entirely plausible because society has gone retrograde. Charlton Heston's performance is beautifully nuanced and believable. Edward G. Robinson is unforgettable as Sol. References to this movie pop up in shows like "The Simpsons" and "Millennium" for the simple reason that it is a visionary look at the future with real heart - a true classic.
  • Thanos_Alfie30 January 2022
    "Soylent Green" is a Mystery - Sci-Fi movie in which we watch a police officer in the future searching for the truth behind a big corporation that controls everything and people have to follow.

    I found this movie very interesting since it had a simple but very mysterious plot that made it even more interesting, and it was based on a clever idea. If we consider that "Soylent Green" was released on 1973 then we can understand how unique and innovative was for that time. The interpretation of Charlton Heston who played as Detective Thorn was absolutely amazing and he made the difference. Some other interpretations that have to be mentioned were Edward G. Robinson's who played as Sol Roth and Leigh Taylor-Young's who played as Shirl. In conclusion, I have to say that "Soylent Green" is a nice movie and it is considered a classic so, I recommend you to watch it.
  • The world of the 1973 sci-fi drama SOYLENT GREEN is what we could be seeing if we aren't careful. It is a world in which New York City's population has topped the 40 million mark in the year 2022. Overpopulation, air pollution, year-long heat waves, and food shortages are the rule. The only hope comes from a food product called Soylent Green. But what is this particular food stuff really made of? That question is at the heart of this admittedly somewhat dated but still intriguing film, based on Harry Harrison's 1966 novel "Make Room! Make Room!" Charlton Heston stars as Thorne, an NYPD detective who comes across the murder of a top corporate executive (Joseph Cotten). As it turns out, Cotten was on the board of directors of the Soylent Corporation, the people responsible for all those food stuffs that the people have to consume in lieu of the real thing. Heston believes that this wasn't just a garden-variety murder, that Cotten was bumped off for a reason. He gets a lot of help from his slightly cantankerous but very astute "book" (Edward G. Robinson, in his 101st and final cinematic appearance), and a few timely reminders of what the world used to be like. What Robinson finds out about Soylent Green shocks him beyond all imagination; but before he can tell Heston all of what he knows, he has himself euthanized. And when Heston does indeed find out the secret of Soylent Green...well, that part has become immortalized into cinematic history.

    Under the very professional guiding hand of director Richard Fleischer (THE BOSTON STRANGLER; FANTASTIC VOYAGE), SOYLENT GREEN is a fairly grim but thought-provoking look at a Dystopian future that humanity might be living if we don't curb our tendency to strip our planet of its natural resources. Indeed, this was a project that Heston himself had had in mind for filming as far back as 1968, after he had struck gold in the sci-fi genre with PLANET OF THE APES--a fact that probably gets lost whenever his ultra-conservative political philosophy comes up in conversation (after all, SOYLENT GREEN is hardly a tract for unrestrained capitalism). Robinson, as always, is the consummate professional in his last role; the sequence where he is euthanized (as he looks at video of the world from a better era, set to the music of Tchaikovsky, Beethoven, and Grieg) is quite simply heartbreaking. The film also benefits from solid supporting help from Chuck Connors (as a very convincing heavy), Brock Peters (as Heston's superior), and Leigh Taylor-Young as the woman who tries to help Heston in his inquiries.

    It must seem easy these days to dismiss SOYLENT GREEN for being dated. But those who do it ought to think twice; for this film's world may end up becoming ours in actuality if we don't watch what we do with what we have today.
  • There is something uniquely charming about predicitve science fiction films: while there are often many surprising paralleled to the fictional world and modern day, there are just as many hilarious blunders. I don't know about you, seeing wealthy people in the year 2022 playing Asteroids and on a behemoth of a machine with a disproportionateely tiny screen simply puts a smile on my face. And yet, it does not remove me from the world, but better informs me of the world through the context and time period of the film's production. "We're playing Asteroids in 2022?" I say, in awe. "What a world we are living in." 1973's Soylent Green, adapted from the 1966 novel Make Room! Make Room! By the phenomenally named Harry Harrison, paints a picture of a dystopian future where famine and overpopulation defined a generation in one if the densest cities on planet Earth: New York City. I think it paints this picture well.

    The characters are engaging, and their struggles are relatable. In particular, Thorn and Roth's relationship is heartwarming and effectively understated. The essence of stageplay in the dialogue and intimate character moments do the tone and story of Soylent Green many favors. The camera seems most comfortable in wide shots in this film. Not my favorite style, but typical of the era.

    The sound design was surprisingly mediocre: this is most noticeable in the scoop scene, which features bizarrely sparse and illogical footstep sounds. In general, most scenes in this film feature has poor levelling, noticeably missing or out of sync footsteps and foley, or the absence of essential sounds: things like cloth foley, bodies thudding, etc. The sound in this film usually does the job, but it is noticeable more often than it should be.

    Overall, Soylent Green seems to me a sci-fi classic. It makes a point and makes it well.
  • This was Eddie Robinson's 101st film and his last, and he died of cancer nine days after shooting was complete. All of which makes his key scene in the movie all the more poignant.

    Although some of the hair and clothing styles are a bit dated (also note the video game shown in the film), but the subject of the film is pretty much timeless. Heston said he had wanted to make the film for some time because he really believed in the dangers of overpopulation.

    Several things make this film a classic. The story is solid.

    The acting is top-notch, especially the interplay between Heston and Robinson, with nice performances also by Cotten and Peters.

    The music is absolutely perfect. The medley of Beethoven, Grieg, and Tchaikovsky combined with the pastoral visual elements make for some truly moving scenes. This was the icing on the cake for the film.

    And the theme (or the "point") of the film is a significant one. Yes, it's a film about overpopulation, but on a more important note it's a cautionary tale about what can go wrong with Man's stewardship of Earth. It's in the subtext that you find the real message of the film. Pay attention to what Sol says about the "old days" of the past (which is our present), and note how Thorn is incapable of comprehending what Sol is saying.

    This film is one of my top sci-fi films of all time.
  • ewarn-15 March 2005
    Warning: Spoilers
    This was a very thought provoking film, especially for 1973. At the time it was actually a huge box office success. After the 1970s it appeared to be forgotten, but its central messages were too important to disappear completely.It was actually at least fifteen years ahead of its time...no one had ever heard of the 'greenhouse effect'before 1985, and the controversial subject of euthanasia was rarely brought up.

    The sets and special effects might look a little outdated, but big money for sci fi films was a gamble in that period. If you look closely you will see everything usually makes sense. This is a message movie, not for zonked out star wars fans that cant sit through one minute of thought stimulation unless it contains a million bucks worth of explosions.

    This was also Hestons last good film, the end of his famous dystopian sci fi trilogy. After that it was all overblown disaster epics and big budget crowd pleasing trash. THis might not be the most amusing two hour movie ever made, and the ending might be creepy and depressing, but its hard to find any film producer with guts anymore who would tackle a subject like this.
  • All they're talking about now is relevant to this movie... charltan Heston is epic as usual... the detective he plays investigating a murder leads to a shocking discovery... A very good sci-fi for the time.... Well worth watching.
  • In the 70's, it was "overpopulation and pollution" that set the environmentalists ranting and raving about the coming world cataclysm. Hollywood happily obliged and made a movie. A damn good movie, as it turned out, with great writing, great direction, and great acting.

    Ironically, the year used in the movie is 2022, the same year in which I am reviewing this film. Happily, the dire predictions of movie haven't come true. The entire current population of the world, it has been calculated, if stood shoulder to shoulder, would just fill up the borders of the small American city, Gary, Indiana. Acid rain has become a concern of the past, people in New York are moving to Florida, not sleeping in the stairwells of apartment buildings. But that has never stopped the hysterical doomsayers. In the 80's, we were warned of the coming Ice Age, and Hollywood happily made movies about the earth freezing solid. As we entered the 2000's, it was "Global Warming", until it was shown that the mean temperature of the earth has actually been falling. Now it's "Climate Change", and those that don't believe that the climate is changing are called "Climate Deniers" .... and Hollywood has happily made a lot of climate changing type movies, full of big waves and big storms and more dire predictions. Ahh, Hollywood, ya gotta love it!

    But getting back to the movie. If you can overlook the absurd doomsday plot, "Soylent Green" is a good, engaging flick, that even entertains to this day. Charlton Heston was still in his prime, and gives a great performance. It really is a Heston tour de force, with great and touching support from Edgar G. Robinson. The rest of the cast are adequate, but nobody really stands out.

    So if you are a doomsday "Climate Change" radical, this movie will give you goosebumps. For the rest of us, just turn off your brain and enjoy a good SciFi flick.
  • travis-4627 March 2001
    10/10
    WOW
    I saw Soylent Green back in 1973 when it was first released and maybe another eight times over the years on T.V. or video. It was always one of my favorite sci-fi and/or Charlton Heston films.

    Recently, the Egyptian theater in L.A. had a twelve film Charlton Heston retrospective. I flew in from out of state to see six of the films over a two day period. Soylent Green looked great on the large Egyptian screen with a perfect new print. From its opening montage to the going home scene to the great ending the film was fantastic.

    Charlton Heston as a cop who lives in a dog eat dog world with few natural resources left and no understanding as to how the world used to be and Eddie Robinson as a man who remembers the past are both great.

    Their chemistry together is wonderful. The film also looks so much better in a great 35mm print. Fleisher really knows how to fill the screen,and the cinematoraphy, writing, music used, and everything about it works. The film is also very powerful in its bleak and very possible view of the future. Just think how the world population grew, the rain forest that disappeared, resources used up, green house effect getting worse since 1973. I just wonder why this film has not played in theaters all these years. Its reputation should be better.

    Speaking of reputations, often people speak as if Charlton Heston is not a great actor. Seeing him in El-Cid, Soylent Green, The Warlord, The Omega Man, Will Penny, and Major Dundee back to back I am convinced he is one of our best actors. Of course he made about a dozen other great films and for those that care you know what they are.
  • BradLacey13 February 2006
    "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 train wreck 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.
  • I spent the last 30 minutes browsing through comments made about this movie. I simply can't understand how people can speak of this movie having a "convincing atmosphere". Granted, the basic premise is intriguing, but Fleischer and his crew fail in nearly every aspect to effectively convey the bleak world they want to portray. I will mainly focus on aspects of why I think this movie is a very good example of sci-fi settings gone wrong.

    First and foremost SOYLENT GREEN looks like it suffered from some severe budget constraints. To give an example, the DP tries to show the polluted air by using a green camera filter for each and every daytime outdoor shot, while a handful of poorly costumed extras should create the illusion of overcrowded NYC streets. The effect is plain silly and unbelievable.

    The film does nearly nothing in the way of technology projection. It is set in the year 2022, yet the housing conditions of the members of the lower social strata do not seem to have evolved beyond the 1950's, while the high society dwells in apartments of 1970's luxury standard. The most advanced technological gadget we get to see is an early 1970's "computer space" arcade machine. The same goes for the costume style. Charlton Heston's scarf and baseball cap resemble the attire of a steamboat captain much like Humphrey Bogart's character in African QUEEN. Haircuts, dresses, props, everything just oozes seventies atmosphere. Judging from the visuals not a single moment was I compelled to believe this could be a possible future time line.

    Neither is there a convincing demographic projection involved in this film. Nine years later BLADE RUNNER created a future L.A. society that remains believable to the present day: A multi-ethnic conglomerate comprised of all races, languages and nationalities. You would think that in an overpopulated 40 million NYC the occasional Asian or Hispanic roamed through the streets. BLADE RUNNER did a lot of things right which SOYLENT definitely did wrong.

    During nighttime we see Heston's character wander empty rundown streets, not the slightest sound is to be heard apart from his foot steps. Is this what a 40 million moloch looks and sounds like at night? No police sirens, no bums gathered around burning trashcans, no nothing? Pure and perfect silence?

    The script has its share of problems too. The dialogue throughout the film puts way too much emphasis on the fact that food resources are sparse, a glass of strawberry jam costs 150$, a piece of meat is an invaluable treasure etc. A rather clumsy, laughable way to set the stage.

    Conversations between the weathered Sol and Charlton Heston's character focus on the fact that Sol experienced NYC before it deteriorated into what it is in 2022, while Heston did not. Heston was nearly 50 at the time of shooting and doesn't actually look much younger than that. If you do the math his character was therefore born around 1970, which (if Thorn doesn't remember the least bit of his childhood)in turn would mean that the change came about very rapidly between 1970 and 75. A nonsensical premise given the fact that the U.S. already had a negative population growth at the time of shooting. Not even massive, uncontrolled immigration from third world countries could quadruple the population of NYC and consequently bring a whole system upside down in a matter of years.

    I could go on rambling, but the matter of the fact is that Richard Fleischer's career peaked with TORA!TORA!TORA! in 1970. Take the time to check out his filmography after that one. Not a single movie reaches an IMDb rating of 7.0 or above, most are below 5.0. SOYLENT GREEN is not an exception. It is inherently flawed. It's no excuse to say that this movie was shot in the 70's and effects and production design therefore look dated, Kubrick shot 2001 in 1969 and it creates a more believable setting. When BLADE RUNNER was shot in 1982, there wasn't any CGI mumbo jumbo, yet it succeeds gloriously in creating a style that still looks futuristic even more than 20 years after it hit the silver screen.
  • It is the year 2022 and nothing has changed even if things have gotten worse. New York City has become even more overpopulated and is just yet another city heaving in its own filth with countless "have-nots" fighting over sparse resources. Energy supplies are low, water is strictly controlled, living spaces are small and cramped and "real" food is a luxury reserved for the very rich. The masses do not have such luxuries and eat rationed supplies of high-nutrient processed foods from the Soylent Corporation. Detective Thorn is a "have-not" and just like everyone else is out to get what he can for himself and friend Sol Roth. Called to a burglary that became a murder, Thorn learns that the victim is a director at Soylent and suspects that all the curious thing about the crimes may be coming together to be far more than the work of some random thug.

    Famous for its "shock" ending (which everyone must know and most people will guess) this film is actually more than just one scene and is actually an intelligent sci-fi detective story that has an engaging central story and a generally interesting vision of the future that is much more convincing than the one of Hollywood blockbusters and such. The investigation is solid but it is the world it happens within that is most interesting as we see a world where, surprise surprise, the poor people are left to make do while those better off can still enjoy the finer things while they remain. It is not an earth shattering view of the future but it is a convincing one and I enjoyed being in this story and seeing this world played out. Personally I bought it but it may help that I mistrust corporations anyway and believe that the poor will be the first to get shafted when anything bad happens, simply because they have less to work with.

    The narrative is not the strongest though and in terms of it being a detective story it could have been better. Some viewers have complained about the lack of action, which I think is a pretty unfair accusation since it wasn't trying to be that type of film. The main characters are interesting. Thorn is a man of authority but he is just like everyone else, out to get what he can and takes advantage of others the first chance he gets. His relationship with Roth is not fully explained but it worked anyway and provided a touch of humanity. It helps that both actors did good jobs of it as well. Heston normally plays the gruff hero but here at least he allows the corruption within man's heart to come out. Robinson has less of a character but his performance is assured and is touching for reasons internal and external to the film. Support is not so good but it is less important in the smaller roles; Cotton is a nice find though.

    Overall this is a famous film that is good but not without its faults. The narrative is reasonably interesting and carries the film all the way to a nice (but too well-known) conclusion but it is in the general vision of the future of a world where the people are struggling to get by with resources running low. A smart sci-fi that is well worth seeing.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    In an overpopulated futuristic Earth, a New York police detective (Charlton Heston) finds himself marked for murder by government agents when he gets too close to a bizarre state secret involving the origins of a revolutionary and needed new foodstuff.

    I have checked the spoiler box because I may accidentally say too much about the end. I think just about everyone knows what the "twist" is in this movie, but I will try to be careful just the same. The twist is, in fact, the worst part of this film. Rather than being the big shocker that it should be, audiences have enough hints throughout the picture that it should be anticlimactic by the time everything is revealed. And that is just too bad.

    Unfortunately, that build up tends to be the bulk of the film (because of how it ties in to the primary plot -- a murder investigation). The murder case and eventual reveal could have actually been done in just about any world. Yet, here we have a world of overpopulation, poverty, women being used as "furniture"... and these concepts are never really explored. Why do people sleep on the stairs rather than in the street? If the world is overheated, I would much rather be in an alley than a staircase!

    Charlton Heston is great, of course, but the heart and soul of this movie are in Edward G. Robinson. Making this film while almost completely deaf and dying of cancer, he is the most human character in the film. He may be the only one who remembers the world the way it used to be, the way we (the audience) expect the world to be. Robinson nails it, giving the performance of his career. I love his noir and gangster work, but this was tops.
  • As with all environmentally aware films from the 1970s SOYLENT GREEN has a rather cheesy view of what ecological meltdown is . Overpopulation means there`s too many people to feed ? I was under the impression that famines were caused by either war or failed economic policies . Stalin`s policy in the Soviet Union in the 1930s left millions dead because of famine and to this day the greatest man made tragedy was Mao`s rural policy in China which led over 30 million starvation deaths in the 1950s . And let`s not forget the great famines in the horn of Africa in the 1980s and 90s which were to do with conflicts not overpopulation . You might like to also consider that two of the most heavily populated areas on Earth , Hong Kong and Macau , have never suffered a famine in modern times . Likewise the expansion of shanty towns around cities as seen here isn`t strictly down to overpopulation - it`s down to economic factors where people flock to cities to find better paid work than in the countryside ( It`s a symptom of industrial progress - not of too many births ) so the image of the streets of New York city being too congested to walk through and of having people sleep in stairwells is somewhat laughable

    But don`t be fooled into thinking SOYLENT GREEN is a pile of corny tree hugging crap because I consider this to be the best ecological film of the

    70s . It plays on the contempary audience`s knowledge of the world where Sol and Thorn are beside themselves with joy at finding fruit , brandy and fresh meat . Thorn gasps in amazement at having ice in his whisky , puffs on a cigarette and delivers the classic line " If I could afford it I`d smoke two , maybe three of these a day " . But it`s the visage of the euthanasia chamber that`s memorable as Thorn gazes at the images of wild animals , flowers , running water and snow covered mountains , a world Thorn`s generation has never known . This is a very haunting scene which makes SOYLENT GREEN a very memorable film , combined with the fact it features the final screen appearance of Edward G Robinson as the wise old Jew Sol Roth
  • pkpera1 December 2021
    I watched it again, almost 50 years after doing it for first time. And the trigger was something I saw today in supermarket: called Food for future. There where diverse packages with that marking, and I looked better something 'veg', made mostly from wheat. In form of fish fingers. And the price ? Approx same as fish fingers per weight. This is approx same disturbing as this movie self. And fish prices go higher regularly this years.

    Yeah, we are one month to year 2022, where movie is placed in time. Was it just round 50 years from when movie was shot, or maybe book published ? Not really relevant, just interesting.

    Movie is declared as Sci-Fi, but I would rather call it Dystopia . Everything was in style of year 1970 in USA - cars, TV, apartments ... Most of screen time was detective investigation, spiced with some love making with attractive, younger girl (well that was almost mandatory those years :-) ) .

    But it gradually built up for final climax, what was pretty effective, and I'm sure that most of people in countries with TV, Internet is aware of.

    Indeed, pretty old fashioned, even for me, who was just adult when watched it then. And I will look for novel - probably not much known.
  • This is a brilliant sci-fi movie that is very strange in how men and women both view the same film. I have talked to many people about the film and almost every guy loved it and said it was brilliant--while most women thought it was just disgusting and stupid! This is the only movie I know of that has such polarized views based on gender. Perhaps many women just have a lower tolerance for disgusting or depressing plots--but whatever the cause, I have always found this difference fascinating.

    The film begins with a murder and a subsequent investigation headed by Charlton Heston. This is set in the near future and the head of the huge international Soylent Corporation has been assassinated. As the film unfolds, you quickly realize this is a terrible and highly inequitable future American society. The rich live in gorgeous apartments with security and all the pleasures money can buy(including "furniture"--a euphemism for paid mistresses that come along with the apartment). At the same time, the masses are dirt poor, unemployed and in many cases living in abandoned cars or apartment hallways. Overpopulation and smog have taken a severe toll and the future looks awful indeed!

    Why the rich man died and the awful truth he could not live with I really should NOT discuss--it could ruin the film for you. However, the film has a great plot and acting and is super-exciting to watch. Plus, it features Edward G. Robinson in his final screen performance as the crusty sidekick to Heston. Though not for the easily depressed or squeamish, this is a great sci-fi film that is allegorical and profound.
  • This is a movie everybody should watch for the sake of having watched it. Some of the acting and effects have not aged well, but the story is entertaining enough, and it provides a fairly rich environment for later references.
  • Rainey-Dawn16 November 2020
    One of the greatest sci-fi films of the 1970s. Set in a dystopian world of 2022, there is a major problem with over population, greenhouse effect, resources running dry, famine and crime. Detective Thorn is called in to investigate the murder of a major CEO that was a part of Soylent Industries - the company responsible for providing plankton from the ocean for food to the area's population. Thorn finds himself falling down a rabbit hole while investigating the murder.

    An enjoyable watch! 2022 is not that far away - it doesn't look like this scenario is going to take place in our real world 2022 but who knows what may happen in a few more years after that.

    Love the film - recommended!

    9.5/10
  • Warning: Spoilers
    NYC, 2022: The Greenhouse effect, vanished oceans, grinding unemployment and scarcity of water, power and food.. and New York's population has topped 40 million. This is a little gem of a picture, not least because a resource-depleted future is a reality for us 21st Century citizens.

    The low-budget opening titles of this movie are great: set to music, a low-tech 'tape-slide' sequence composed entirely of archive stills from the dawn of photography right up to 1973, depicts an unspoiled American pastoral developing into a polluted and crowded Hell in less than 2 minutes. Succinct and unambiguous, it's truly memorable. Budget limitations are also behind rather unimaginative cinematography and other constraints, at odds with the story's brilliant premise. The police station sequences are like an episode of some 70's TV detective show, and the other interior sets look basic at best. The budget probably all went on trying to 'futurise' the Soylent Executive's 'Chelsea West' apartment with state-of-the art goodies, meaning the other costumes are perfunctory, some establishing shots are bizarrely underpopulated and the daytime exteriors seemingly all shot through a smoke filter.

    The memorable scene where Sol and Thorn (Charlton Heston) share a meal of expensive and rare food neatly summarises their society: They enjoy real bourbon, lettuce, celery, tomato, apple, and beef, and we really sense their lip-smacking appreciation of someone else's wealthy privileges.

    Robinson's pivotal death scene, in which his character is willingly euthenased at a place called 'Home', depicts him immersed in images of the world's once-beautiful flora and fauna as he remembered them, beautifully contrasted with the jaundiced Thorn's dawning realization that the future has been bankrupted, among other horrors.

    This is one smart film, and its core message is as pertinent today as it was in the early 70s. Yes, I know we're not eating the dead yet, but with our resource-sapping longevity, spiraling poverty gap, corporate global capitalism and unchecked habitat destruction leading to climate change, the lasting prediction of 'Soylent Green' may come to pass.
  • Well, after almost 50 years, the equalization date for one of the most revered cult-classic sci-fi films is finally here.

    Released in 1973, this film shows an unrelentingly bleak picture of America, and the world in 2022. The world is massively overpopulated with food and housing shortages everywhere. New York City is an overcrowded Hellhole with a population of 40 million. The rich live in isolated sections of the city and pay exorbitant prices for food and lodging. Along with the chronic food shortages and massive pollution, there is year-round high humidity due to greenhouse gas effects. There are no trees left except those being kept in climate-controlled labs. The oceans are dying. There appear to have been massive extinctions of mammals, birds, and fish.

    To help feed the population, the government has created a new type of foodstuff called Soylent with variations like Soylent Yellow, Soylent Red, etc. One particular tasty and nutritious variation of this wafer, Soylent Green, has recently been added, but it is much harder to find that the tasteless variations and is always in short supply. When it runs out, huge riots break out, leading to the bringing out of the "Scoops", which are huge crowd-control bulldozer-like vehicles that can scoop up dozens of people at once and brutally suppress the food shortage riots.

    Detective Thorn (Charlton Heston), investigating the assassination of a high ranking official within the Soylent Corporation, eventually finds out the truth about the true origins of Soylent Green and is determined to prove his revelations to the public. But officials within the Soylent Corporation are determined to do anything to stop him and a large part of the film is devoted to him escaping his pursuers.

    The movie was made during the "population bomb" era of the early 1970s, in which many sociologists predicted that the world population would double by the year 2000. When I first saw this movie in 1981, it truly terrified me, for its unrelenting bleak vision of the near future. It was entertaining but seemed so far-fetched and preposterous. And indeed, as the equalization date drew closer, with a prosperous 1990s and crime way down in NYC by 2000, it would become even more so.

    Indeed, like many futuristic movies, many of the themes and portrayals of Soylent Green never came to pass. The actual world population rate increases between the 1970s and 2020s never came near those predicted rates, primarily due to the huge decreases of birthrates among women in many countries across the world over the past 50 years. In fact, in much of the developed world, birth rates have fallen so low that populations are barely increasing or even actually declining. New York itself of course, never even got close to 40 million.

    And even though the film takes place in 2022, there are lots of old 1950s and 1960s cars around and most of the characters sport 1970s attire and hair styles.

    Despite the premise though, it suddenly does not seem so far-fetched after all. The film did get a quite few of things right and touches on some themes that are very topical today. It has some timely references in the age of Covid-19. There are reference to supply chain disruptions as a result of the short supply of foodstuffs. There is massive anarchy everywhere - in this film due to overpopulation - but in reality due to the Pandemic, social unrest, brutal oppression by hardline regimes, crumbling infrastructure, climate migration by the millions due to droughts and floods, etc. There are references to massive levels of income inequality because the rich live in isolated sections of the city in heavily guarded luxury fortresses. There are not-so-subtle references to climate change in regard to the constant relentless heat and humidity due to greenhouse gases. All of these things are happening right now, albeit on a smaller, yet ever increasing scale.

    Though New York did not reach 40 million people by 2022 and indeed may have lost many thousands over the past two years, this films portrayal of massive civic decay across the world suddenly seems eerily on-target. And as Edward G Robinson's character film states early in the film that "People were always rotten" is right on the mark.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Soylent Green by Ricard Fleicher

    A sci-fi/Crime thriller based on the sc-fi novel "Make room! Make Room!" of Harry Harrison but with many artistic and historical freedoms.

    It's about a futuristic dystopia, here the future is 2022, in a New York saturated with people where food and water resources are scarce, in which nature has collapsed due to the greenhouse effect (1st film where this theme is alluded) and excessive pollution.

    The problem is that despite the importance of the theme, the film, as many of the 70s, good or bad doesn't matter, doesn't take him self or is to be taken, too seriously, it seeks to be another "cool" movie from the 70s. Focus essentially in the (non-existent in the book) police plot and in misogynistic entertainment, recurrent at the time, exponent of this misogyny the "furniture".

    There are several influences, the most significant being the evocation of the film "Fahrenheit 451" in the illiteracy and lack of culture of the population, with the exception of the relevant elderly people who still learned, the "books". And in the absurd narrative, the evocation of the book "The Process" by Kafka and the his film adaptation by Orson Welles.

    It became a cult film and the most memorable scene from it, a cinephile reference. It was the 101st and last film where actor Edward G. Robinson appears, and in one of the great coincidences of life, the character played by him commits assisted euthanasia, in a beautiful scene (for me the best of the film), as if pronouncing the "withdrawal" of Edward G. Robinson.

    It doesn't have the depth that the catastrophic theme suggests, but it's fun even with all the recurrent vicissitudes of the decade in which it was made. It manages, without the slightest doubt, to be a "cool" movie from the 70s. Nowadays, with so much political correctness and wareness, it would be unthinkable and completely slaughtered...
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Not a bad film, not a great one. Kind of memorable, kind of thought-provoking, but, once you are provoked to thought and actually think about it... it doesn't make any sense.

    The problem is, that, in coming up with a vision of this future dystopia, little of any actual thought was put into considering the actual ramifications of the plight the world was supposed to be suffering. They just threw in anything that seemed 'bad'-- crowding, pollution, shortages, corruption... without considering how the factors would intertwine with each other. So, we end up with some pretty nonsensical contradictions:

    1) We see that cars are no longer used for transportation, there's very little in terms of any kind of production of anything, you can't get parts for things... in short, Industrialization has pretty much ground to a halt. So where's all that *pollution* coming from?

    2) The situation is *extremely* volatile (understandably), with riots aplenty, and the only thing that seems capable of maintaining order is a heavy-handed police force. And certainly, the Powers-That-Be *want* to maintain order (and thus, power). So logically, they should be hiring LOTS of police force. Especially since, with *vast armies* of broke, jobless people living in cars and stairways, the price of labor has to be *dirt cheap*. They should have no problem at all hiring all the cops they want. Especially given that they're already not too fastidious about the character of the cops, given the rampant corruption. So why is the police force repeatedly shown to be thin on manpower?

    3) If the earth is so polluted and messed up that you can't even raise food anymore, if farms aren't functioning, and people are reduced to eating synthesized dead people or sea algae, then why on earth is everybody shoehorned into cities like that? Why don't they at least spread out into the unused unproductive former farmland?

    4) Given how dire things are, why aren't more people simply starving to death? Or dying of disease? If things are really as bad as they are claimed to be, it seems impossible that society could be as stable as it is portrayed.

    5) How is it that the same species that had all the brains to come up with all the scientific/technological/industrial magic that *led* to this situation, was unable to think of *any* kinds of solutions to any of the problems? I mean, really, "eating people" was the best that human-kind could come up with?

    6) What is that nonsense idea at the end about how soon they'll be raising people for food? What are they going to feed those people? That's a highly inefficient way to make food, you'd do better just directly feeding the people with what you would have fed your people-crop.

    The truth is, the whole threat of industrial overpopulation flies in the face of the observed fact that rising industrialization produces rising standard of living which produces *lowered* birth rates. So this was NEVER going to be a profound look at a possible future. But even so, they could've taken more trouble to introduce a little more logic and economics into the story.

    I'm looking forward to watching this movie again in the year 2022 and having a good laugh at its myopic vision of a future that will never come close to being.
An error has occured. Please try again.