empathielabs/imdb_v0 huggingface dataset:
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nSoylent Green IS...a really good movie, actually.
I never would've thought it. I don't really like Heston in his sci-fi efforts. He's one of those actors who, like Superman, manages to come across all sneery and invincible most of the time. I prefer more vulnerable heroes. And indeed, he sneers his way through much of Soylent Green, too, but as he's supposed to be playing an overconfident bully I don't really mind.
I can understand why some people would turn their noses up at this movie. Soylent Green makes no effort whatsoever to create futuristic visuals (what do you know - it looks just like 1973), and it's lacking in action. But I admired the film's vision of a complex, corrupt, and highly stratified society, and I was so pleased to see that Edward G. Robinson had such a moving, funny final role. Nice little character moments - like when he shares some precious food with Heston - really make the movie.
The message of Soylent Green is pretty relevant these days, when nobody seems to know what the hell the government or corporations are up to. Funny, isn't it, to see Heston in a prototype Michael Moore movie...
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nVery 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
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis 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.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI watched this film sort of by accident, having bought it as the B side on The Omega Man DVD. The Omega Man was a bit of a disappointment - except for the beginning, which was clearly the inspiration for 28 Days Later, the rest of it is just the stuff of TV movies. But Soylent Green is in a whole other league. I bet this is one of Tarantino's favourites. There are at least 3 scenes in the film that I've never seen anything like before. Heston casually getting into bed with the \"furniture\" while discussing something else completely unrelated! A whole crowd of people being scooped up by a fleet of mechanical diggers! A priest taking confession and being shot by the confessor. Ok maybe that's been done since - but there aren't many films that are so consistently original like this. And what the heck is going on between Heston and Edward G. Robinson? Is this the most unlikely gay couple ever, or what? Luckily, I saw this film without knowing the ending - which apparently is rare. Then I watched it again, and enjoyed all the little clues that make the long early scenes worthwhile. A very nice script - and some great sets too. Just when you thought you'd seen everything . . .
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe only other film besides Soylent Green that has such an air of hopelessness is On the Beach. Both films deal with the consequences for the species and the planet from man made cataclysms. On the Beach with nuclear war and Soylent Green with the environmental poisoning of the planet.
Maybe there's cause for some optimism because as of 2007 we haven't reached either of the worlds described in those films and we were supposed to by now. New York City still has about 8 million people not the 22 million by the turn of the millenia as described in Soylent Green. Environmentalists always hail this film as showing the consequence of global warming. For myself it also shows the Right to Life ethic run amuck. Obviously there's no family planning in this world either.
Charlton Heston is an NYPD detective who lives with room mate Edward G. Robinson who's old enough to remember the Earth before catastrophe struck. There's been a murder committed, Joseph Cotten an executive with the Soylent Corporation, a multi-national concern that has come up with a food product, some kind of wafer in many colors to feed the world's population. It's latest product is Soylent Green.
The investigation finds Charlton Heston getting his man, but also it leads to some horrifying truths about the Soylent Corporation and the future of mankind. As Heston shouts in the end that Soylent Green is made of people, that we've become a race of cannibals, the horrifying thing is that there is no alternative. We've exhausted the planet and we have to eat our dead to survive.
This was the farewell performance of Edward G. Robinson and in his memoirs Heston spoke movingly of Robinson even though they had differing political views. A few weeks after Robinson wrapped that final scene of his screen demise by consented euthanasia, he passed away in real life. Not many did, but Heston knew that Robinson was terminally and there was no acting involved in that final death scene between the two of them.
Though the timetable was off, it doesn't mean that the world envisioned by Soylent Green may not come to pass. Hopefully we'll have not just the intelligence, but the sense of shared responsibility to keep that from happening.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis 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.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAs 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
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe time is the future and for many not aware of it, that day is now. In this final movie for legendary actor, Edward G. Robinson, \"Solent Green\" becomes a landmark classic. Many a film buff and environmentalist believe this is our eventual history. The movie is taken from the novel entitled, 'Make room, make room' but who's working title was changed to \"Solent Green.\" The story concerns the Earth as it evolves into the future with the world's environmental problems becoming nothing short of Catastrophic. The planet's natural resources have been exhausted and basic food has been reduced to simple staples. They come in a variety of colors, such as Solent Yellow, Solent Red, and now 'Solent Green.' However there are those who know the 'real' ingredient in Solent Green and cringe at their own culpability and fear divine retribution. The first is a food executive named William R. Simonson (Joseph Cotton). Upon his death, a dedicated police detective called Robert Thorn (Charleston Heston) seeks the truth behind his apparent suicide. Although corruption goes all the way to the top, it begins with Simonsons' Bodyguard, Tad Fielding (Chuck Connors) and Security chief Donnovan (Roy Jenson) who target Thorn for a Waste Desposal Factory. Thorn's boss, Lt. Hatcher (Brock Peters) believes his suspicions but warns him of those 'Higher and Hot' who want the case closed, but Thorn will not risk his \"Job\" for an easy way out. What Thorn discovers marks him for death, but like the film, awaits a final warning. ****
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe 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.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nNYC, 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.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nTruly amazing film, the concept as a possible prophetic vision of the future is frightening. A world vastly overpopulated, unbearable heat due to the damaged ozone layer, and all our natural resources spent. In this nightmarish degenerate society we have the great Charlton Heston as a likable film noirish style detective trying to fathom the truth behind a murder, opposite the film noir legend Edward G Robinson turning in a fine last performance.
One of the images that will always stay with me from this film, is the masses of people that populate the stairwells and the way in which Thorne (Heston) has to hop through them every time he uses them.
The movie's use of music is note worthy too, although it contains no score in the usual sense, The opening theme is good, and the subsequent snatches of music we here in Simonson's apartment, and especially the Beethoven pieces in the euthanasia clinic are outstandingly atmospheric.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIs this the future that awaits us? An overpopulated, unforgiving wasteland with a hellish, unwanted existence? This film brings to mind a problem that still plagues us, doubly so since the film was released in back in 1973. Let's hope that the world isn't going to end up like this...
Soylent Green is a wild movie that I enjoyed very much. It had likable characters, a semi-apocalyptic setting, a compelling and thought-provoking storyline, and the macho-est macho man out there: Charleton Heston. Richard Fleischer gave the movie a very unpleasant, dirty feel. You're almost choked by the stench from the city and its filthy inhabitants.
The characters are wonderful. Charleton Heston, who has become one of my favorite actors, IS Thorn. The man created this role of badass, yet likable tough-guy. I could definitely put myself in Thorn's shoes. He sees that something isn't right, but everyone around him either doesn't listen (more like paid not to listen) or wants him dead. Edward G. Robinson (in his last film, R.I.P.) plays the lovable old Sol, who has had enough of this nasty place. Everyone else is great, especially Leigh Taylor-Young as Shirl, a piece of \"furniture\" that comes with the apartment in which she resides.
The special effects are fantastic, even for 1973. The Soylent Green factory, the futuristic apartments, and especially the \"scoops\" (bulldozers that get rid of people) were excellent. The polluted air outside looks disgusting and very nasty. The empty city streets filled with the vile and putrid people are very unsettling.
One final note is the ending, which even now still shocked me. It is gruesome, but if you think about it, it's a pretty good idea.
The Bottom Line:
An excellent 70's Science Fiction flick that makes you think and leaves you feeling very uneasy.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nSoylent Green I found to be an excellent movie.
If you like Logan's Run you'll like this.
Yes the movie is old and there are no special effects and some of the acting can somewhat be best described as \"cheesy\" but the story is excellent.
The story of how the world can be and its impact on society is very poignant.
At the end the mystery wasn't a mystery but the story unfolded in an easy at the right pace.
It's nearest modern day equivalent would be \"Dark Angel\" in terms of how the US is shown to be third-world country.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nMy evaluation: 8/10
I like a lot this movie. Compare to today brainless movie (just action and special effet and nothing new about ideas), \"Soylent Green\" ask to something that today doesn't exist anymore: To Think.
Well it would not a big surprise a day human eat \"cookies\" which are create with body of human. With all what happen on this planet, and to see how people are so indifferent to all, this kind of future is possible.
Sure this movie take some age but the idea behind the movie is actual again. Rich at Paradise, other in the hell. Well a luck today they are TV and idiocy like \"Reality Show\".
TV is a good wash brain. It's pity to see that intelligence of human have not progress like technologies. Since writing all stop.
If you like reality show this movie is not for you. If you believe all politician same too. If you don't like ask yourself question about now and future well never look this movie.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nEspecially for a time when not much science fiction was being filmed (1973), this is a terrific vision of a future where everything has gone wrong. Too many people, and nothing works. The only people who can live in comfort are the rich. It's set in New York in 2022 (I think), and it reminds you of your worst vision of Calcutta.
I got to appreciate Charlton Heston's acting after seeing him in Orson Welles' Touch of Evil. He was (maybe is) capable of portraying a range of heroic or semi-heroic people. Here, he is torn between being a cop who is just a little bit corrupt (taking rare food treats from the rich), and being totally corrupt (actively condoning evil).
The movie all seems to take place at night, and sweat is dripping off everyone, except in one of the rare air-conditioned apartments. Even though I hadn't seen it before, I knew the famous ending (which will not here be revealed), but the ending is certainly foreshadowed.
Great scenes with Edward G. Robinson: going to the council (made up of elderly Jews with heavy accents, so it seems), where the truth is revealed. And then going off to the Thanatopsis to check out.
Gritty, pre-Star Wars dystopian science fiction.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nNot often have i had the feeling of a movie it could be visionary. But clearly this movie has the seed of a premonition.
We should not tend to be alarmists and see armageddon in something because it seems to fit our emotions of the moment. But, didn't we say this of \"1984\" ? Had James Orwell known the Internet becoming reality not long after 1984; In fact it was in 1994; he might have reconsidered writing his story the way he did. Hindsight rewarded.
It doesn't matter. What DOES matter is that we often regard ourselves as superior to our surroundings but indeed become emotional about a \"love apple\" when necessity knocks at our door. A snapshot of ourselves at old age.
Whatever the time-line will prove to be for us, I know for a fact we haven't seen the beginning of it yet.

\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is a great movie but there could be more about Soylent Green. There should be more scenes of what they do to people. How people act in 2022. I think it would be neat to see if all this does happen in the year 2022 and beyond. Even if you still know what the secret is it is a great movie. So go rent or buy this movie right NOW!!
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI've seen tons of science fiction from the 70s; some horrendously bad, and others thought provoking and truly frightening. Soylent Green fits into the latter category. Yes, at times it's a little campy, and yes, the furniture is good for a giggle or two, but some of the film seems awfully prescient. Here we have a film, 9 years before Blade Runner, that dares to imagine the future as somthing dark, scary, and nihilistic. Both Charlton Heston and Edward G. Robinson fare far better in this than The Ten Commandments, and Robinson's assisted-suicide scene is creepily prescient of Kevorkian and his ilk. Some of the attitudes are dated (can you imagine a filmmaker getting away with the \"women as furniture\" concept in our oh-so-politically-correct-90s?), but it's rare to find a film from the Me Decade that actually can make you think. This is one I'd love to see on the big screen, because even in a widescreen presentation, I don't think the overall scope of this film would receive its due. Check it out.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIn the '70s, Charlton Heston starred in sci-fi flicks of varying quality. \"Soylent Green\" is one of the better ones. He plays Robert Thorn, a detective in 2022 New York. In this future, most food is so expensive that everyone needs a product called Soylent Green. But when Thorn finds out the unsavory truth about this product, he finds himself on the run.
I guess that it's only natural that this movie should seem dated to us nowadays. But even so, it still brings up interesting questions about what will become of our agriculture. Also starring Leigh Taylor-Young, Chuck Connors, Brock Peters, Joseph Cotten and Edward G. Robinson (in his final role).
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie came to me highly recommended by Matt Groening. Well actually I watched both The Simpsons and Futurama and it gets a mention in both so I figured \"what the heck\". The film brings home a few \"what if's\" that make you realise how lucky we are in this day and age where we take simple things like soap and water for granted. Interesting though that in the year 2022 men are still shaving with a single blade safety razor! Nice that Those responsible didn't over load the film with unnecessary special effects, ray guns, etc. Some nice looking 'furniture' once you figure out what that means. Remember, \"Tuesday is Soylent Green Day\"
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nSoylent Green is a classic. I have been waiting for someone to re-do it.They seem to be remaking sci-fi classics these days (i.e. War of the Worlds)and I am hoping some director/producer will re-do Soylent Green. With todays computer animation and technology, it would have the potential to be a great picture. Anti-Utopian films may not be that far-fetched. The human race breeds like roaches with no outside influence to curtail it. We, as humans, have the option of putting the kibosh on the procreation of lesser species if they get out of hand, but there's nothing to control human breeding except for ourselves. Despite all the diseases, wars, abortions, birth control, etc. the human race still multiplies like bacteria in a petri dish. Classic Malthusian economics states that any species, including humans, will multiply beyond their means of subsistence. 6 billion and growing....that's obscene.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie has very good acting by virtually all the cast, a gripping story with a chilling ending, great music, and excellent visuals without significant special effects. It is interesting to note though that, like so much science fiction, its predictions for the future don't appear likely to come to pass as early as depicted. That's not to say we're out of the woods yet, but 2022 is now obviously too soon to be in this condition. It shares this failing with a fairly illustrious list of science fiction classics: \"1984\", \"2001: A Space Odyssey (compare its space station with our International Space Station) and Isaac Asimov's \"I Robot\" (positronic brains were to have been invented in the 1990's).
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIn this movie the year 2022 looks much like the seventies. This is amusing at first, but soon the viewer perceives how very different that decadent futuristic world is despite the appearances, how many things that we take for granted could become unavailable.
Characters often interact in a peculiar way, with no tact or manners or respect. I believe this is intentional, not bad acting. After all, who witnessed the social changes in the 60s and 70s may well assume that by 2022 an overpopulated city's inhabitants behave like that.
I didn't like most of the action scenes, apart the death of the priest: too cheap even for the seventies. The plot isn't too polished. But the great scenes and ideas - like the death of Sol, the way rioters and dead bodies are dealt with, the \"furniture\" - outweigh the shortcomings of this film.
8 out of 10.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n\"Soylent Green\" is one of the best and most disturbing science fiction movies of the 70's and still very persuasive even by today's standards. Although flawed and a little dated, the apocalyptic touch and the environmental premise (typical for that time) still feel very unsettling and thought-provoking. This film's quality-level surpasses the majority of contemporary SF flicks because of its strong cast and some intense sequences that I personally consider classic. The New York of 2022 is a depressing place to be alive, with over-population, unemployment, an unhealthy climate and the total scarcity of every vital food product. The only form of food available is synthetic and distributed by the Soylent company. Charlton Heston (in a great shape) plays a cop investigating the murder of one of Soylent's most eminent executives and he stumbles upon scandals and dark secrets... The script is a little over-sentimental at times and the climax doesn't really come as a big surprise, still the atmosphere is very tense and uncanny. The riot-sequence is truly grueling and easily one of the most macabre moments in 70's cinema. Edward G. Robinson is ultimately impressive in his last role and there's a great (but too modest) supportive role for Joseph Cotton (\"Baron Blood\", \"The Abominable Dr. Phibes\"). THIS is Science-Fiction in my book: a nightmarish and inevitable fade for humanity! No fancy space-ships with hairy monsters attacking our planet.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIts time to pay tribute to the great Charton Heston after his recent passing but this film is not the one. His other films of a past generation were BEN HUR, THE TEN COMMANDENTS, OMEGA MAN and PLANET OF THE APES were his better works.
This film made in 1973 attempts to prophesies a future earth , in 2022, that is so overpopulated that the human race has been manipulated by authorities to eat a universally produced food product called \"Soylent Green\" which is manufactured with Human flesh. This bizarre and implausible film was as ridiculous at the time of its release as it is now and assumes India's population which would be about 2 billion by that stage would be then meat eaters without knowing it.
Charlton Heston's character this supers secret international conspiracy that world powers have concocted to meet the nutritional demands of overpopulation by using cannibalism.
Unfortunately for the producers of this film the Green message they deliver is not the Greens Party of today's ethos thank god. Cannibalism was practiced by the indigenous populations in New Zealand , Fiji and Borneo up until only 40 years before this film was made but has been long abandoned by human civilization.
Another silly prediction in the film is that women become quasi sex slaves turning back the tide of radical feminism which was on the rise in 1972 when this film was made.
The film was stupid then and is as silly now but does contain a very unmemorable last film performance by the late and great Edward G. Robinson but still no a valid reason to revisit the film other than for academic reasons.
This is a dud of a film and I wouldn't even recommend it to baby boomers or Charlton Heston fans. All the other reviews of this film I have read all sound the same referring to a dystopian society in the future of which the centralised theme only seems to involve the USA in which an ecological disaster has occurred.
The only merit in the film is that earth does face overpopulation.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nHaving just finished Cronicles of the Heroic Knight mere minutes ago I find myself extremely please but questions still loom over me. While it would appear that the first 7 episodes or so are actually a retelling of the events of the first Record of Lodoss War the truth is that they really aren't. It would appear that the creator of CotHK had a different vision as to how the original ended (and that may be the reason that the first 7 episodes occur) but I do not find that to be the case. CotHK does say it starts 5 years after the War of Heros which Parn was a part of. I think the director made the first 5 episodes seem so much like a recap of the original just to give the viewer a small reminder and an introduction to characters and their deeds done because they appear much less after the series kicks into Spark's story. Now, once the series does kick into Spark's portion we find ourselves kicked up another 10 years (15 years now since the War of Heros). Spark and his crew do, in some cases, resemble Parn and his crew once the journey kicks into gear, especially the love story that brews between Spark and Neese. I also thought several times throughout CotHK that I threw in the original series and if it wasn't for Spark's long blue hair I know I would've pressed stop more than once to make sure the right disc was in. By no means do I consider these major set backs however, the writers did a fine job in crafting believable characters and a remarkable storyline. The only thing that makes me hurt is that Ashram and Wagnard return. Ummmm... how??? Don't get me wrong both are great villains even though Ashram's only villainous trait is that he supports the Marmo. Perhaps I missed something during the coarse of the series that explained that part. As far as sequels go though, I highly recommend CotHK. I place both CotHK and, even more so, the original Record of Lodoss War far above the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Both of these are more epic than anything I've ever seen or read. I highly recommend this.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nDespite what the title may imply, \"Pigs Is Pigs\" does not star Porky Pig. Rather, it features a young swine with an appetite more insatiable than John Belushi's character in \"Animal House\". His mother repeatedly scolds him, but it does no good. So much so that he goes to another house where a deranged scientist force-feeds him more than any mere mortal can handle (but there's a surprise at the end).
I would mostly say that this cartoon seemed like a place holder in between the really great cartoons (Daffy Duck debuted three months after this came out). But make no mistake about it, they do some neat things here. The whole force-feeding sequence looks more relevant today, given the obesity epidemic overtaking our country.
Anyway, not the greatest cartoon, but worth seeing.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA visit by Hitler in Rome is the backdrop of this tender story of love, friendship, homosexuality and fascism. Sophia Loren plays the housewife and mother of six children who stays at home while her entire family go to the military parade in honor of Hitler and Mussolini. She has to stay at home since the family cannot afford a maid. She would have loved to go though as she along with the entire housing complex where she lives is an ardent admirer of Il Duce.
There is one exception though. Across the yard sits Marcello Mastroianni on his chair contemplating suicide. The reason? He is homosexual and because of that has recently lost his job as a radio announcer. The film really takes off when these two people meet by chance. Mastroianni is in despair and badly in need of a friend. Loren, frustrated by her own cheating husband misunderstands Mastroianni and in a masterfully shot, directed and acted scene on the roof of the building complex offers her body to him only to be rejected. The initial chock is replaced soon afterwards by her hunger for this man, this anti fascist, this homosexual, this other world who is so willing to give her all that she longs for.
This is a beautifully crafted movie with two of the most talented actors ever. Loren proves here that she is an actress of caliber when well directed. This is a simple but yet powerful film about fascism, love, ordinary people and most importantly the human condition. Despite its sad ending there is a glimpse of hope in the denouement, things will change, someone has understood.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film has great acting, great photography and a very strong story line that really makes you think about who you are, how you define yourself, how you fit in, whether you accept to play a role or break free... There already are excellent comments dealing with these aspects. I want to comment on the formal setting of the film. Basically, it's two people on a roof. There is unity of place and time, with 2 protagonists, and the radio acting as the choir. Many directors have turned Greek tragedies into film, many directors have filmed contemporary stories as if they were a Greek tragedy, but no director, in my opinion, has succeeded as admirably as Ettore Scola in approaching the purity and force of the great Greek tragedies both in story line and formal setting. A masterpiece.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nEttore Scola, one of the most refined and grand directors we worldly citizens have, is not yet available on DVD... (it's summer 2001 right now....) Mysteries to goggle the mind.
This grand classic returned to the theaters in my home-town thanks to a Sophia Loren - summer-retrospective, and to see it again on the big screen after all these years of viewing it on a video-tape ... it is a true gift.
To avoid a critique but nonetheless try to prove a point: i took my reluctant younger brother with me to see this film. He never saw the film before and \"doesn't like those Italian Oldies...\" Like all the others in the theater he was intrigued by this wonder. Even during the end-titles the theater remained completely silent.
This SPECIAL DAY is truly special. A wonder of refinement. And a big loss if you haven't seen it (yet)...
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA SPECIAL DAY (Ettore Scola - Italy/Canada 1977).
Every once in a while, you come across a film that really touches a nerve. This one offers a very simple premise, almost flawlessly executed in every way and incredibly moving at the same time. It's surprising Ettore Scola's \"Una giornate particulare\" is relatively unheralded, even hated by some critics. Time Out calls it 'rubbish' and Leonard Maltin, somewhat milder, 'pleasant but trifling.' I disagree, not only because this film is deeply moving, but within its simple story it shows us more insights about daily life in fascist Italy than most films I've seen. The cinematography is distinctly unflashy, even a bit bland, and the storyline straightforward, which might explain the film's relative unpopularity. Considering late '70s audiences weren't exactly spoiled with great Italian films, it's even stranger this one didn't really catch on with the critics.
The film begins with a ten-minute collage of archive footage from Hitler's visit to Italy on may 8th 1938. Set against this background, we first meet Antonietta (Loren), a lonely, love-ridden housewife with six children in a roman apartment building. One day, when her Beo escapes, she meets her neighbour Gabriele (Mastroianni), who seems to be only one in the building not attending the ceremonies. He is well-mannered, cultured and soon she is attracted to him. During the whole film, we hear the fascist rally from the radio of the concierge hollering through the courtyard. Scola playfully uses the camera to make us part of the proceedings. After the opening scene, the camera swanks across the courtyard of the modernist (hypermodern at the time) apartment block, seemingly searching for our main characters, whom we haven't met yet.
Marcello Mastrionani and Sophia Loren are unforgettable in the two leading roles, all the more astonishing since they are cast completely against type. Canadian born John Vernon plays Loren's husband, but he is only on screen in the first and last scene. I figure his voice must have been dubbed, since he's not of Italian descent and never lived there, to my knowledge, so I cannot imagine he speaks Italian. If his voice has been dubbed, I didn't notice at all. On the contrary, he's completely believable as an Italian, even more than the rest of the cast. The story is simple but extremely effective, the performances are outstanding, the ending is just perfect and the framing doesn't come off as overly pretentious but works completely. Don't miss out on this one.
Camera Obscura --- 9/10
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI too was quite astonished to see how few people had voted on this film, and just HAD to write something about it, although my comments are quite similar to those written already.
I like many things about the film. The superb acting between Mastroianni & Loren. The way the film is narrated: Humanity and love slowly developing between these two outsiders, and contrasted to the simultaneously & continuously ongoing inhumane marching pace of the fascist radio announcer (who happens to be a colleague of Mastroianni's part)and the adherents \"going to and coming from the show\". To me this is a very fine film about what it is to be human. Maybe some of you would argue that the anti-fascist \"message\" is too clearly delivered, but to me this didn't destroy the film in any way. My vote is 10/10.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe first thing you meet when you study fascism is ostracism:because this\" philosophy \" is a fake one,there's a need to use scapegoats to assess the \"thought\".Ettore Scola's movie,probably his masterpiece, focuses on the outcasts,the scapegoats of the regime.
Of the historical event (Hitler and Mussolini's alliance),we will see almost nothing:some military march,some garlands,some scattered voices ..Our two heroes are not invited for the feast of virility. \"Genius is essentially masculine\" :this is the golden rule Antonietta (a never better Sophia Loren)embroidered on her cushion;Antonietta ,whose world amounts to her kitchen,whose pride is her offsprings .At the beginning of the movie,she's a victim of this hypermacho world,but she does not realize it.She thinks she should be happy.Gabriel,on the contrary ,is politically aware,he knows about the cancer that is destroying inexorably his country.But as a gay man,he is no longer part of it,he's about to be arrested.
Forgetting everything that comes between them,they realize what they have in common and they make love.This is an act of rebellion,particularly for Antonietta ,whose ethic should forbid such a thing.Becoming an adulteress in a land where politics and religion combine to repress women as ever leads her to some kind of political awareness.One of the last shots shows her listening to the news on the radio.
Expect the unexpected and maybe a doctrine which denies the human being his intimate personality will see that its days are numbered.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"