En el mundo devastado por el efecto invernadero y la sobrepoblación, un detective de la policía de Nueva York investiga el asesinato del CEO de una gran empresa.En el mundo devastado por el efecto invernadero y la sobrepoblación, un detective de la policía de Nueva York investiga el asesinato del CEO de una gran empresa.En el mundo devastado por el efecto invernadero y la sobrepoblación, un detective de la policía de Nueva York investiga el asesinato del CEO de una gran empresa.
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Elenco
- Premios
- 3 premios ganados y 1 nominación en total
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Todo el elenco y el equipo
- Producción, taquilla y más en IMDbPro
Opiniones destacadas
"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).
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
7/10
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.
The 1970s was a great era for dark sci-fi films and Soylent Green was one of them. Soylent Greenwas a film where people who haven't seen it know the twist and the ending. Even so, it was an excellent film for fans of the dystopia genre.
Soylent Green was a film that was set in the far-off year of 2022, and the film was surprisingly precedent regarding its themes of overpopulation, food shortages, and environmental catastrophe. The film did a great job of showing this version of New York being a hellhole because the streets and buildings were cramped, poverty was a rift, and real food was a luxury. It was world-building done well.
The film was also a well-made detective story that happened to have sci-fi twist. It was a murder mystery that involved corporate and political interests.
With the themes and story it was easy to see how Soylent Green other sci-fi films and novels like Blade Runner, What Happened to Monday and Ready Player One.
Soylent Green was a film that was set in the far-off year of 2022, and the film was surprisingly precedent regarding its themes of overpopulation, food shortages, and environmental catastrophe. The film did a great job of showing this version of New York being a hellhole because the streets and buildings were cramped, poverty was a rift, and real food was a luxury. It was world-building done well.
The film was also a well-made detective story that happened to have sci-fi twist. It was a murder mystery that involved corporate and political interests.
With the themes and story it was easy to see how Soylent Green other sci-fi films and novels like Blade Runner, What Happened to Monday and Ready Player One.
¿Sabías que…?
- Trivia(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.
- Errores(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).
- Citas
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?
- Versiones alternativasDeleted scene: When Tab Fielding (Chuck Connors) goes shopping with Shirl, he is mugged, and wins the fight. This scene was filmed, but deleted.
- ConexionesEdited from Lejos del mundanal ruido (1967)
- Bandas sonorasSymphony No. 6 in B Minor, Op.74: 'Pathetique': I. Adagio - Allegro non Troppo
(uncredited)
By Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- País de origen
- Sitios oficiales
- Idiomas
- También se conoce como
- Soylent Green
- Locaciones de filmación
- Chevron Refinery Power Generating Station, 300 Vista del Mar, El Segundo, California, Estados Unidos(Soylent factory Exterior)
- Productora
- Ver más créditos de la compañía en IMDbPro
Taquilla
- Presupuesto
- USD 4,000,000 (estimado)
- Total a nivel mundial
- USD 210
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta
Principales brechas de datos
What is the Hindi language plot outline for Cuando el destino nos alcance (1973)?
Responda