In der vom Treibhauseffekt und der Überbevölkerung heimgesuchten Welt untersucht ein NYPD-Detektiv den Mord an einem CEO eines großen Unternehmens.In der vom Treibhauseffekt und der Überbevölkerung heimgesuchten Welt untersucht ein NYPD-Detektiv den Mord an einem CEO eines großen Unternehmens.In der vom Treibhauseffekt und der Überbevölkerung heimgesuchten Welt untersucht ein NYPD-Detektiv den Mord an einem CEO eines großen Unternehmens.
- Regie
- Drehbuch
- Hauptbesetzung
- Auszeichnungen
- 3 Gewinne & 1 Nominierung insgesamt
Empfohlene Bewertungen
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.
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.
This movie paints a very bleak future for planet Earth. What makes this movie so good is that the future seen may very well be a reality someday. A poisoned environment, an overpopulated planet and total disregard for human life all seem to be in there early stages today. Soylent Green is a very good and very believable film.
"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).
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).
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.
In the year 2022, the Earth is a polluted, over-populated hell. Hard-nosed, NYC cop, Thorn (Charlton Heston) is investigating the murder of a powerful, rich man (Joseph Cotten), only to find himself caught up in a huge corporate / government conspiracy involving the world's dwindling food supply.
The first part of the movie is meant to get us accustomed to our possible future, and to slowly build the mystery and suspense. This leads to the fabulous, downbeat finale, when Thorn uncovers the unthinkable truth behind... SOYLENT GREEN! This is classic, dystopian science fiction, and Heston is at his snarling, grimacing best! Edward G. Robinson makes his final role a memorable one as Thorn's father, and Chuck Connors adds some eeevil menace to the proceedings.
SPECIAL MENTION FOR: Leigh Taylor-Young, who absolutely sizzles in her role as Shirl! My goodness! Ahem..., where was I?...
The first part of the movie is meant to get us accustomed to our possible future, and to slowly build the mystery and suspense. This leads to the fabulous, downbeat finale, when Thorn uncovers the unthinkable truth behind... SOYLENT GREEN! This is classic, dystopian science fiction, and Heston is at his snarling, grimacing best! Edward G. Robinson makes his final role a memorable one as Thorn's father, and Chuck Connors adds some eeevil menace to the proceedings.
SPECIAL MENTION FOR: Leigh Taylor-Young, who absolutely sizzles in her role as Shirl! My goodness! Ahem..., where was I?...
Wusstest du schon
- Wissenswertes(at around 33 mins) The scene where Thorn and Roth share a meal of fresh food was not originally in the script, but was ad-libbed by Charlton Heston and Edward G. Robinson at director Richard Fleischer's request.
- Patzer(at around 9 mins) The piece of meat Shirl buys for Simonson is clearly not the same piece Thorn unwraps in front of Sol (at around 23 mins).
- Zitate
Sol: [Thorn is seeing the beautiful images shown in Sol's euthanasia chamber] Can you see it?
Det. Thorn: [choked up] Yes...
Sol: Isn't it beautiful?
Det. Thorn: Oh, yes...
Sol: I told you.
Det. Thorn: [humbly] How could I know? How could I... how could I ever imagine?
- Alternative VersionenDeleted scene: When Tab Fielding (Chuck Connors) goes shopping with Shirl, he is mugged, and wins the fight. This scene was filmed, but deleted.
- VerbindungenEdited from Die Herrin von Thornhill (1967)
- SoundtracksSymphony No. 6 in B Minor, Op.74: 'Pathetique': I. Adagio - Allegro non Troppo
(uncredited)
By Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky
Top-Auswahl
Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
Details
- Erscheinungsdatum
- Herkunftsland
- Offizielle Standorte
- Sprachen
- Auch bekannt als
- Cuando el destino nos alcance
- Drehorte
- Chevron Refinery Power Generating Station, 300 Vista del Mar, El Segundo, Kalifornien, USA(Soylent factory Exterior)
- Produktionsfirma
- Weitere beteiligte Unternehmen bei IMDbPro anzeigen
Box Office
- Budget
- 4.000.000 $ (geschätzt)
- Weltweiter Bruttoertrag
- 210 $
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen
Oberste Lücke
What is the Hindi language plot outline for ...Jahr 2022... die überleben wollen... (1973)?
Antwort