A nightmarish futuristic fantasy about the controlling power of big corporations and an innocent cop who stumbles on the truth.A nightmarish futuristic fantasy about the controlling power of big corporations and an innocent cop who stumbles on the truth.A nightmarish futuristic fantasy about the controlling power of big corporations and an innocent cop who stumbles on the truth.
- Director
- Writers
- Stars
- Awards
- 3 wins & 1 nomination total
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
"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).
2022 and Earth is in dire condition. Natural resources have been exhausted and food is largely provided by Soylent, a company that makes packaged meals from plankton. Against this backdrop we meet Detective Thorn (Charlton Heston), a police homicide detective. His latest case is the murder of William R Simonson, an executive at Soylent.
Original, clever, ahead-of-its-time thriller. Great plot, well directed. Charlton Heston rises above his usual wooden acting to put in a good performance. Best performance on show, however, is from Edward G Robinson, as Sol.
It is amazing the environmental picture this movie paints, as it was made in 1973, before anyone worried about global warming etc. It is starting to look fairly accurate, unfortunately.
Original, clever, ahead-of-its-time thriller. Great plot, well directed. Charlton Heston rises above his usual wooden acting to put in a good performance. Best performance on show, however, is from Edward G Robinson, as Sol.
It is amazing the environmental picture this movie paints, as it was made in 1973, before anyone worried about global warming etc. It is starting to look fairly accurate, unfortunately.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Did you know
- 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.
- Goofs(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).
- Quotes
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?
- Alternate versionsDeleted scene: When Tab Fielding (Chuck Connors) goes shopping with Shirl, he is mugged, and wins the fight. This scene was filmed, but deleted.
- ConnectionsEdited from Loin de la foule déchaînée (1967)
- SoundtracksSymphony No. 6 in B Minor, Op.74: 'Pathetique': I. Adagio - Allegro non Troppo
(uncredited)
By Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Official sites
- Languages
- Also known as
- Le mystère de la Soylent Green
- Filming locations
- Chevron Refinery Power Generating Station, 300 Vista del Mar, El Segundo, California, USA(Soylent factory Exterior)
- Production company
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $4,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross worldwide
- $210
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content