This movie leaves the intellectual mind thinking and trying to analyze the story. I too cannot understand why people would trash this movie.

If you are a Jerry Bruckheimer fan, this movie may not suitable for u.

This movie presents high degree of realism. The actors and actresses' performance is examplary. Not fake, just natural.

No special sound.effects, so special side effects.

The camera work is excellent, the music is oh so good. I can't wait to get the soundtrack.

It leaves your body numb, like Constant Garderner.The directly has raw talent, certainly not a follower.


This movie is incredibly realistic and I feel does a great justice to the crime that many people do not understand because of a lack of experience. The many people who think they could fathom what goes through a victim's mind are arrogant. As a victim, I feel that Dawson did a fantastic job in her role of Maya. I agree that this is an incredibly brave film. This looks at rape from a different, more realistic standpoint than any other movie I've ever seen on the subject. The end did drag on a bit long, but I know that many victims imagine this kind of justice, since the chances of an attacker being sent to jail for their crime is around 1%. It's good to see a movie that sticks closer to reality than most would dare to.


Love Rosario Dawson, think she's one of the finest actresses of the modern era.

Descent seems to be more about self-empowerment than anything else. It's the consistent undertone in everything in the film. The dialog is flat, the characters seemingly intentionally bland and one sided. The only consistency is the representation of self-empowerment in the characters and Rosario's journey from self empowerment to loss of empowerment and back again.

Pitching this as a rape classic isn't appropriate, and that's probably why so many people don't enjoy the film. The standard 'rape' audience wouldn't particularly like this film, and maybe that's the point? The film asks more questions than it answers, and it does confront it's target audience, whether they like it or not. There's a compelling relationship between the characters and the target audience and while the film doesn't slap the audience across the face with self-righteous audacity it does engage the viewer for what may or may not be, all the wrong reasons.

Descent is a good film which IMHO is severely under-rated.


"Descent." Yeah. Boy... I haven't seen anything this powerful and scintillating since Bruno Dumont's, "Twentynine Palms" (2003). (By the way this film is not to be confused with another fairly recent pic about the topic of "female empowerment," "THE Descent" (2005), directed by our Splat Pack friend, Neil Marshall, who also happens to be a major talent his own right.) But getting back to this "Descent," the NC-17 rated (uh-oh) effort on which the lovely Ms. Dawson takes a producer's credit (congratulations) and directed by Talia Lugacy (strong chance that's not a real name), as good as it is (in moments), it will not be appreciated by most lay people out there because the script is pretty flawed. As a producer, you really have to tighten up that script. Of course, in the premise alone, you have the promise of rising conflict, but there still lies the task therein of accomplishing rising conflict.

At times, this thing plays like an interesting piece of experimental theater and, well, I guess I'll let the others who've already commented here speak to the boringness of it, namely that which occurs in the second act -but find me a second act that isn't boring? There's also this Catch 22 that goes along with these quasi-independent films like "Descent" in which Rosario happens to be attaching herself to and leveraging her "fame-identity" to get a script into production that would, under usual circumstances, not get made at all while at the same time she is basically a miscast in the film's leading role. Rosario Dawson is gorgeous and, apparently, you can shoot this girl from just about any angle all day long, but, oh, wow-wee, how fast the time just slips away: Rosy ain't no undergraduate no more. That's part of the confusion about the screenplay: "Is she a graduate student? A TA? No, graduate students don't really have these type of qualms with football players, do they?" Again, if you are Rosario Dawson, Executive Producer, that's the one of many, many aspects to the professional film process you'll have to think about as you embark on this wonderful new role in your film career. And if you don't have the answer to why you're movie isn't convincing, let me tell you: there is a boatload and a bevy of vivacious, well-qualified, undergraduate aged talents, pining to get involved in the business, who might have nailed that lead character down, all the while, looking just as darn good as you know who; but unfortunately without Ms. Dawson -no Honey, NO money. I have to say, the camera department did an outstanding job, however, because this film is really well shot (i.e. lit) in all its dreary/dreamy darkness. The nightclub scenes look wonderful; one can tell all those music videos are starting to pay off and the play with time... The shooting/framing is all quite excellent which makes the picture a rewarding watch.

"Descent" is good not great. However, I have a feeling, thanks to NetFlix, this movie will find a life of its own. I hope this group continues making films. If you're into experimental American film-making, cinematographic imagery of implausibly well formed college studs (or male model drop-outs) in their early twenties, or if you're an undergraduate, just plain angry at the hormonally aggressive young men that comprise less than half of your American university, "Rosario Dawson's Descent" might be your flavor of RockaRoll.


The film was very outstanding despite the NC-17 rating and disturbing scenes. In reality things like this do happen and that is why this movie shows a lot of it. It all starts with Maya (Rosario Dawson in superb performance) whose recently started attending college has everything going well for her. She meets Jared (Chad Faust in a terrific performance) at a frat party who turns out to be a real gentleman and sweet. He invites her out to dinner. They look at the stars from a bridge and they end going to his apartment. They talk and takes her to the basement were they become flirtatious with each other. She tries to put an end to it, but he rapes her. This incident scars her. She goes to a club meets a bartender/DJ Adrian (greatfully played by Marcus Patrick) who sees that she is getting to drunk and helps before she goes to far. They strike a friendship. He also does drugs and Maya starts using as well. In other words introduces her to a different world. She starts going back to school and working as TA (Teaching Assistant) and spots Jared as one of the students. While the students are taking a Midterm, she catches Jared cheating. Jared tries to smooth talk Maya, but she still has the upper hand decides to invite him to her place. Will history repeat itself? Or Will Maya have a surprise for Jared? You watch the movie. Excellent A. Rosario Dawson portrays the role with focus and endurance. Chad Faust does not like he can be a rapist, but he does a terrific job as Jared. Marcus Patrick is very brilliant the man who saves Maya and coaches her into a new world. This film deserves an award.


Some genre films need to be dressed up. This one was an exception. Taken on its own merit, it's a dressed down version of the horror genre film. With minimal special effects, it manages to be a psychological study of sorts, with a simple yet existential theme - who gets hit by the bus, and why her? It's not a great film, yet because there is little contrived about it, the story works. Subtle, and all about the interactions of the characters. Actually, there is one contrivance in the opening scenes, but it may have been placed there to simply set the tone for what's to come. I very much appreciate the balance of male and female energy, and would not recommend this story to anyone interested in more than people reacting to a physical and psychological challenge. You will enjoy the film if you have some empathy, value the need for a bit of adventure in your life, and wonder "What would I do in this situation?"


Letters with no destination end up in another world found in the back rooms of the post office. Here, Alice manages to land a job in hope of finding her lost father. What she does discover is the tormented soul of her boss, Frank. A quiet little Aussie flic that came and went at the cinema. Now you find it in the deep dark corner of the video shop, overshadowed by fifty copies of that dreaded GODZILLA film. It's a shame because this turned out to be a satisfying film telling a brave tale with strong simple images and effective performances from the two leads. This film succeeds where Garry Marshall's other dead letter office flic DEAR GOD (1996 - USA) failed, and comes close to the brilliance of, not the Kevin Costner turkey, but He Jianjun's POSTMAN (1995 - China).


This film is a wonderfully simplistic work. Enjoyable from start to end it is both sad yet uplifting at the same time. The performances from Miranda Otto (oh, how she deserves so much more recognition!)and George del Hoya are beautiful and yet almost painful to watch, as the two tortured souls come to understand each other. The supporting cast of workers at the Dead Letter Office are wonderful bit-parts in them selves, as is Alice's long-suffering boyfriend, who I couldn't help but feel slightly sorry for. There's one particular scene I could watch over and over (and I have!), it's such a shame that films like these don't get recognition, and therefore bring them futher into the public eye for more people to enjoy. I cried, I laughed and I sighed. I'd recommend this film to anyone.


If the Australian Post Office ever needed a promotional film for recruitment then this is it.This is one of those movies who's heart is in the right place and you can watch again and again. Miranda's performance is touching as it shows an aspect of Australia unimagined by many Europeans, in that it can be cold, wet and bleak, just like anywhere else and just like anywhere else what is important is the people that surrounds you. The characters in the movie are warm and welcoming and make the prospect of a career move into a 'dead letter office' a thought to be considered. Miranda has gone on to do bigger movies, but I hope she always keeps a thought inside for this one?.


I first saw this at a foreign film festival. It's a beautifully paced nail-biter about a plot to relieve the Estonian treasury of a billion or so in gold. It's all shot in a gritty, grainy style that Hollywood rarely uses --- but it captures the atmosphere of the newly emancipated Baltic states beautifully (note: Tallin was actually looking a lot less grim in 2003 when I was there).

There's a lot of humor and some romance, too. I don't want to spoil a number of startling yet logical surprises, so I'll just say this heist film starts from a great script, and the directing and performances are top notch. DARKNESS IN TALLIN is simply the fastest and most nerve-racking example of its genre --- I'd put it up against RAFIFI, TOPKAPI, and it's miles ahead of the new OCEAN'S 11, though (deliberately) not as glossy. RENT OR BUY IT NOW.


This is one of those landmark films which needs to be situated in the context of time.Darkness in Tallinn was made in 1993.It was a period of chaos,confusion and gross disorder not only for ordinary denizens of Estonia but also for countless citizens of other former nations which were a part of mighty Soviet empire.It was in such a tense climate that a young country named Estonia was born.As newly established governments are known to encounter teething problems,Estonia too faced numerous troubles as some corrupt officials manipulated state machinery for filling their dirty pockets by making use of their selfish means.This is one of this film's core themes.Darkness in Tallinn appears as an Estonian film but it was made by a Finnish director Ilka Järvilaturi. He has tried his best to infuse as many possible doses of Estonian humor.This is why one can call it a comedy film of political undertones.As ordinary people are involved in this film, we can say that this film signifies good versus evil.This is not a new concept as it is readily available in most of the religious books of different faiths.Darkness in Talinn shows us as to how ordinary governments can also be toppled by corrupt people.A nice film to watch on a sunny day.


Simply the best Estonian film that I have ever seen, although it is made by a Finnish director Ilkka Järvi-Laturi. Tallin Pimeduses is an entertaining thriller about a bunch of gangsters who are trying to steal a huge amount of gold, a national treasure that belongs to the republic of Estonia. But at the same time it is some kind of a summary of the conditions of many Eastern European countries at that time. In the early 90s Soviet Union fell into pieces and many countries, such as Estonia, became independent. Now the conditions may be better in most of those countries. But in the beginning of the 90s many of those new nations had to fight against corruption and organized crime that the Soviet era had left them as inheritance. (And many of them still do...at least on some level...)

Tallinn Pimeduses is a very realistic film of that era with believable characters and with a well-written script. The actors are also very good, especially Jüri Järvet (perhaps the best known Estonian actor, plays Snaut in Tarkovski's Solaris), playing and old gangster who's slowly becoming tired of his way of life. But the most astonishing performance comes from Monika Mäger, a child-actor playing Terje, a boyish girl in her early teens, whose presence in the plot is quite essential. (and her name is not even mentioned in the IMDb-credit list!!!)w

There are not many films in the world that manage to be entertainment and artistic at the same time. But Tallinn Pimeduses does that. Unfortenately Järvi-Laturi's other films are far from this kind of achievements. His first one, Kotia päin was too artificial and his latest, History is Made at Night was just a weird mess.


I caught this at a screening at the Sundance Film Festival and was in Awe over the absolute power this film has. It is an examination of the psychological effects on our brave soldiers who join the military with hopes that they will protect and serve our country with honor as well as be taken care of by our government for it. The film details the psychological changes that takes place in boot camp as the soldiers are turned into "killers for their country" and put into the war and the after effects once they return home. It also portrays the effect that killing has on the human psyche. It pays homage to the Soldiers and never ever criticizes the soldiers unlike other films, instead criticizes a system that is not prepared to and does not take care of all the physical and psychological needs of the returned Vets.

This film is powerful, moving, emotional and thought provoking. It stands as a call to arms to support our troops not only by buying stickers and going to parades but by actually listening to them, and helping to support a change in the way their health and well being is taken care of after the killing ends.

The best film of the Festival so far, ****/****


I saw this film premiere Friday (1/19) night in Park City for Sundance and was incredibly moved. Sitting in a theater and hearing first-hand the anguish soldiers go through was almost more than I could bear. Others in the audience were equally moved and while we wanted to turn away, the least we could do was bear witness as these men and women shared their experience with us. Robert Acosta, Paul Rieckhoff, Sean Huze, and Herold Noel, all veterans of the war in Iraq and featured in the film, were present. While they may be home now, you can tell this war is still inside them and probably always will be. Whether you support the war or not, it is OUR duty to support the troops with something other than a bumper sticker. See this film!


I saw this film tonight in NYC at the Landmark Sunshine. I didn't know what to expect, I'd not read much about it as I knew I would see it no matter what. All in All, it is very well done. It doesn't focus on the generalization of "Anti-War" statements, which to me, left the politics out of it. The soldiers mainly spoke of their awareness of toxicity in their training in boot camp, and how hard it was once they returned to civilian life. It was really good to see Paul Rieckhoff and Camilo Mejia tell about the difficulty in surviving not only the war, but refusing the command to go back when it was against personal morals. Make no mistake - this is not an anti-war film. Anyone who says it is hasn't seen it or is not living with the scars of war on their souls.


This film illustrates the worst part of surviving war, the memories. For many soldiers, men and women alike, returning home can be the beginning of real problems. I am reminded of my father and his brothers returning from WWII. For one of my uncles the war was never over. He survived the D-Day invasion, something akin to the first 20 minutes of Saving Private Ryan. For him the memories not only lingered but tortured him. He became an alcoholic as did several of my cousins, his sons. Jump ahead 60 years and place the soldiers in a different war, in a different country, the result is the same. When I saw this at the KC FilmFest, I was reminded that there are somethings about war that never change. The idealistic young men and women are not spared the emotional torment of what happened in Iraq, and especially if you are against the war you will come away with more compassion for the soldiers there trying to do what they believe or have been told is right.

The tag line from the Vietnam war film Platoon says it all. "The First Casualty of War is Innocence."


That is no criticism of the film, but rather a comment on how blind we are to our own past.

I recently watched Winter Soldier, and The Ground Truth was like watching a remake or sequel-- except it was about Iraq rather than Vietnam. Similar to Winter Soldier because of it's one-sided message, both films illustrate how gleefully we rush to engage in conflicts based on false pretenses, and allow our young and brave (and often naive) to bear the brunt of this greedy war profiteering. Both films effectively show that the mentality forced into the minds of the young and willing make them efficient killing machines, but the training falls woefully short of teaching the diplomatic and policing skills necessary to effectively win the hearts and minds of the people they're supposedly fighting for. This is ultimately what lost the war in Vietnam, and will likely lose the war in Iraq as well.

My only negative comment is that the film is so one-sided it could be easily passed off as left- wing propaganda. Not by me, mind you, but by those aiming to discredit the film and message. A more balanced point of view would speak to a larger audience.


There is an episode of The Simpsons which has a joke news report referring to an army training base as a "Killbot Factory". Here the comment is simply part of a throwaway joke, but what Patricia Foulkrod's documentary does is show us, scarily, that it is not that far from the truth. After World War Two the US Army decided to tackle a problem they faced throughout the war; that many soldiers got into battle and found themselves totally unable to kill another human being unless it was a matter of 'me or them'. Since then the training process of the US army has been to remove all moral scruples and turn recruits into killing machines who don't think of combatants as people. To develop in them a most unnatural state: "The sustainable urge to kill".

First off, this isn't an antiwar movie as such. Whilst it certainly paints war in a very bad light, Foulkrod focuses rather on an aspect that doesn't get as much media attention as, say, the debate over the legality of a war or it's physical successes or failures; the affect the process of turning a man into a soldier has on that person as a human being. It's the paradox that to train someone to be a soldier to defend society makes them totally unsuitable to live as part of that society themselves, and whilst most of the examples and interviewees are from the current Middle East conflict Foulkrod makes the links to past conflicts, especially Vietnam, painfully clear. This isn't about any particular war, it's about the problems caused by war in general.

Structurally the film seems to be split into three sections; how recruits are drawn into the army and the training they receive, how they are treated once they are in combat, and what happens once they leave the army. Once this point is reached you realise that the main target of this film is actually the policies that are inherent in the armed forced, policies that are put into place to make soldiers into an affective combat force but removing all humanity from the individuals. Those interviewed tell the camera how the recruiting process seems so clean and simple, how word like "democracy" and "freedom" are banded around, but once the training begins they become "enemy" and "kill" and "destroy". How once in action soldiers don't care what they are ordered to do, as they are ingrained with the idea that as soon as they carry out an order, whatever it may be, they are one step closer to going home. They have no political or social ideals to fight for but fight and kill as that's what they've been trained to do.

But The Ground Truth's main goal is to highlight the way the US Army discards those who have fought for their country once they return home. There is no real rehabilitation given to soldiers returning, and many are forced to go home unable to cope with what they have seen and done, and most policies in place seem to be to make sure the army has no legal responsibility whatsoever for psychological affects their soldiers pick up. This is the final indignity, that once they are used they are cast away.

If there is a flaw in the film it is that Foulkrod doesn't attempt to show another side to the argument. You would get the impression that every single soldier who ever went to war would come back with Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. It would have been interesting to see those of a less liberal upbringing give their opinions of how the army handles training and policies. There is never a chance for the other side of the argument to make itself known.

But other than that this is an expertly crafted documentary, and Foulkrod's use of stock footage and music is perfectly utilised to get across a side of war that too often get s passed by when discussing the fallout of war.


The information contained in this movie is somewhat familiar to many who have been paying attention to the news lately. The Walter Reed scandals show a small part of the fact that we are not doing a good job taking care of our injured heroes when they return.

What this movie further shows is a truth common to all wars. The psychological trauma that soldiers suffer while engaging in war and the difficulty they have when returning to civilian life. They are not just changed or affected, they are different people and most do not know how to deal with that as they do not know themselves.

Finally, this film shows what the military does to our young men in women in getting them ready for war and the policies and practices that they have to follow in prosecuting war that leads to all the psychological trauma.

We have over 3000 dead soldiers in the four years of this invasion; but we have many tens of thousands that will suffer lifelong physical and psychological trauma because of this war. It doesn't matter what side you are on, it behooves you to know the cost of war to decide if we should be in that business. This film illustrates the costs to the men and women perfectly.


Do not expect a depiction of the "truth". However, the accounts of these veterans of the Iraqi & Afghanistan wars demand thoughtful consideration.

The major strength of the film is that it vividly portrays the words and war wounds of these vets and their post-war struggles to reconstruct some degree of normalcy and functionality to their lives.

My major criticism of the film is twofold: it is one-sided and it advocates anti-war activism but nothing more to correct the serious shortcomings of the military's and Veterans Affairs' programs for helping those who've suffered and still suffer the traumas of war. These are NOT fatal flaws of the film.

As a veteran myself, I know that the horrible aftermath of war is real, and these young men and women articulate it very well. These vets vividly describe the physical and mental pain and torment that most veterans experience and that ordinary people need to understand because the horrors of ALL wars are so traumatic and disturbing.


I desperately need this on a tape, not a DVD, and soon!

I have one nephew who is in the infantry but has not yet deployed, although he set to go to Iraq soon after December 2008. I lost my beloved step son in Ramadi Iraq on 09-15-05 from an unmanned missile in a green zone. I have another nephew who is joining the army as soon as he graduates from high school this spring because he, like his older brother, has some idealized and romanticized idea about what serving in the military is. My stepson died after only 10 days in country and he never went out on any missions so my nephews have no way to reference any of the experiences shown in this candid documentary from any type of personal experiences that might have been conveyed by my now deceased son.

There is nothing I can do about those who are in, or now gone, but I have one left that has not raised his hand and been sworn in YET. I desperately want him to do so informed, none of the others did.

Pleases help me with this.

The movie documentary The Ground Truth is the best visual reference I have ever seen. I need to somehow make my youngest nephew see what he is getting himself into before it is to late. BUT: ( do not laugh )I NEED my mother to see this first. She must actually see and hear these men and women, not simply the idea of them, but the truth of what they will be immersed in, possibly forever. Then she will have the emotional determination to make my brother watch this film and once he has then he may then make his son, my youngest nephew, watch it too. Then, my nephew might begin to take this seriously.

((( is there another time when this will be shown on TV ? if so please tell me when ? )))

However, my problem is, my mother does not own a DVD player, she still uses video ( is that correct? with tapes ? ) So, I need to find a way for her to be able to watch this film. Can I purchase this from anyone in that form? If not, is there any other way for me to get this in the form of a tape from anyone? Is there any legitimate link from which I can pay to download it onto my computer and then transfer it to a tape. If so who would I contact. I will gladly pay for the privilege providing it is a legitimate link.

Or,if you have any alternative ideas I will consider anything you can suggest.

Please help me, I have lost one very precious adored and loved one already, I already know my oldest nephew will never be the same when he returns and I may loose him too. I cannot loose three and the emotional toll for all of those that do make it back is too high a price to pay for every male child in my family of that generation. Please help me. I will happily call you, email me a number if that is the best way to get the needed information. Thank you so much for any help you can offer.

Sincerely, Lori Swanberg l.swanberg@yahoo.com


This shorter movie is the epitome the expected results when the imbecile runs the asylum. It is sad how the futures of these young people were rolled down a craps table when neither Saddam Hussein nor the people of Iraq, God rest the souls of the 350,000 plus that have been killed, had anything to do with terrorism nor al-Quida.

Following this movie the astute viewer will need to pick up or download a copy of "Loose Change." This movie is available free on the internet, until the Bush cabal locks it down, by googling-up the very title, as indicated in parenthesis.

God Save our country. This will not be done by following the Christo-fascists that controlled the Halls of Congress for over 10 years prior to November, 2006!


This movie is a must-see movie for all. Congress should see this truthful documentary from the point-of-view of the soldier, as should everyone in America. The previous reviewer totally missed the point--the point is to reveal the truth about teaching our soldiers to kill people who are NOT terrorists, but who just live in our "enemy's" territory, and what it does to the soldiers. We must support our troops by bringing them home IMMEDIATELY, before another person is killed or injured. This also reveals that the government does not help its veterans, those who are injured mentally, with ptsd- post-traumatic stress disorder, or physically, with lost limbs. Julie A. Roberts, Streamwood, IL


Having Just "Welcomed Home" my 23 YR old daughter from a year in Iraq, Camp Anaconda medical support unit, I felt compelled to get this DVD. I wanted to hear other returning vets feelings in order to attempt to better understand her mentality on arrival and not waiting until after something bad happened. Regardless on your take on the war and peace this movie serves as a great start for all Americans to begin the healing of our returning vets emotional void. The paramount statement of the entire movie is "Take Action" on the problem . Incredibly emotional movie. I would highly recommend this movie to the vet the vets entire mature family and ask that they follow through with a plan to listen comfort help the returning Gulf War Enduring Freedom vets.

Fast forward nearly one year later & My daughter has seen this DVD. Took account of her emotions and actually has made a commitment to re-up for another 6 years. Her take on her time spent in the sand is that she did some good. Local Balad children got first rate medical treatment for various common ailments not ordinarily able to afford free with an escort and translator. Her look over her shoulder at her Iraq tour was . "We changed some hearts and minds back there" Great DVD you have to keep an open mind and see all sides


The hip hop rendition of a mos def performance (according to the film's musical credits)...it is an incredible piece of savage consciousness that slams the violence in your heart with each "snap" if anyone can tell me someplace this song, "Live Wire Snap" by Mos Def from "The Ground Truth", an undeniable duty to see as the Americans who might not support the mission but embrace each soul caught inside this savage miscalculation of purpose...they take on the haunting as so many of us can sit back and be angry...

"Live Wire Snap" by Mos Def, where can it be found

desperate to find it :

medically unable to serve


Before seeing this, I was put off by the subject matter, but this is not your average triumph over adversity story. Although this is technically about blind Tibetan kids climbing Mt. Everest, there is so much more to it. This movie shows the very strong, often contradictory personalities of two highly accomplished blind adults leading the children, Erik and Sabriye. Erik is an American blind mountain climber/athlete and Sabriye is a blind German academic who started a school in Lhasa Tibet. They are both exceptional in their own ways, but disagree on what will really build confidence in the kids. Erik wants them to reach the summit while Sabriye wants them to enjoy Erik as a role model and take pleasure in moment. The nuances are complicated and one walks away not really being sure who was right or if the whole climb was a mistake or a great idea. The most profound scenes are with the Tibetan children themselves and the hardships they faced before finding their way to the school. The most moving for me was the story of Tashi, a frail teenager who grew up on the streets after his parents abandoned him. I could watch a whole movie on his life and was happy to learn that thanks to the school, he is now running a successful small business with some of his fellow students. If you liked Spellbound or Murderball, you will love this.


I saw this film at the Toronto International Film Festival. I loved this, and not just for the obvious reasons. Blindsight is a documentary about a group of blind Tibetan teenagers who attempt to climb one of Mount Everest's sister peaks. Now, this kind of thing is usually a can't miss. Inspirational. Moving. Pretty standard, right? And even if the film were just that, I'd still have liked it. But it was so much more. Blind herself, German Sabriye Tenberken established a school for blind children in Tibet, in a culture that sees blindness as a curse, as evidence that a person did bad things in a previous life. Many of the children at the school have been shunned their whole lives, and at best, are a burden to their families. As part of their education, Tenberken shares with them the story of American Erik Weihenmayer, the first blind person to reach the summit of Mount Everest. She sends him a letter inviting him to come and visit her students. Instead, he comes up with a plan. He'll arrange an expedition for them to climb 23,000 foot Lhakpa Ri and provide all the guides and equipment. Sabriye finds six willing participants and this is when the fun starts.

Erik's team are mostly American, mostly male, and mostly sighted. As experienced mountaineers, they're Type-A personalities, very gung-ho and goal-oriented. Sabriye is European, female, and blind, and the students for her are more than a "project," no matter how well-intentioned. Additionally, the students are Tibetan, and not old enough or confident enough to always stand up for themselves. As the expedition unfolds, they become pawns in between the two adult "sides," wanting to please both, while at the same time wanting to gain the confidence that comes from accomplishment. As an additional obstacle (other than being blind, that is), they are speaking English as a second or in most cases, a third language, and struggle to understand and make themselves understood.

When it turns out that none of the students have any climbing experience, and that some are much more coordinated than others, it begins to unravel Erik's original plan for them all to reach the summit together. As both students and teachers begin to suffer the effects of high altitude, decisions must be made as to whether to continue on or to send some down the mountain. Among the effects of high altitude is increased irritability, and you can see how this feeds the conflict between the adults. At the risk of oversimplifying, on one side are those for whom the destination is all, and on the other are those who just want to enjoy the journey. I won't tell you how it all turns out, except to say that this was one of the most surprising and thought-provoking stories I've seen in a long time.

The film also weaves bits of each climber's story into the narrative, and this was sorely needed, since once on the climb, the kids tended to keep their heads down and their mouths shut. With all the drama going on around them, that wasn't surprising. The backstories are by turns charming and heartbreaking, and I found it very strange that I found myself closer to tears at the beginning of the film than at the end. This was contrary to my expectations, and another pleasant surprise.

In addition to all the human drama to cover, director Walker and her small crew had to contend with the frigid and oxygen-deprived conditions herself, lugging equipment up the mountains and hoping it wouldn't break down. As with all great documentaries, the filmmaker was just lucky enough (or smart enough, or prepared enough) to be at the right place at the right time, and she's captured a very special story that has as much to say about people who want to do "what's best for the kids" as it does about the kids themselves.


This film was amazing. It is an inspiring piece of cinema. The characters are fully developed through the truth in which Director, Lucy Walker brings to the film. I highly recommend this to any one looking for that special film that shows the humanity in the human condition. Lucy Wlaker showcases the landscape beauty. This film id a true example of man vs. nature and sometimes man vs. man. The inner turmoil and triumph is tremendous in its subject matter. The subject of how the Tiebtans view blindness as a sign of demons is interesting. This film sheds light on a particular culture that has never been showcased. Lucy Walker has given Erik Weihenmayer a voice when he would have not normally been heard. Thank you Lucy for being true to your vison as a filmmaker.


This interesting documentary tells a remarkable tale of an expedition to take blind Tibetan children trekking in the Himalayas; but also of a personality clash between two remarkable people. On one hand, there is Erik Weihenmeyer, the first blind man to climb Everest, and the team of (sighted) mountaineers who are guiding the kids. On the other, there is Sabriye Tenberken, a blind woman who runs the first school for blind Tibetans, who agrees to the expedition but subsequently has doubts about how it is progressing. At some level, Sabine simply doesn't understand the mountaineer's philosophy (with it's emphasis on summitting); she is probably right in identifying the mismatch between the mountaineers goals and the desires of the children but her certainty in her own correctness makes her a hard person to sympathise with, especially as she has an effective veto. In the background to this (reasonably well-mannered) clash, we get an insight into the lives of the children themselves. I enjoyed the film, although it delivers a message clearly designed to be uplifting - even though it details the quarrel, the film somewhat relentlessly asserts how amazing all those who feature in it are. But it's hard to argue with that assessment, even if it is presented to the viewer somewhat unsubtly.


Just got out and cannot believe what a brilliant documentary this is. Rarely do you walk out of a movie theater in such awe and amazement. Lately movies have become so over hyped that the thrill of discovering something truly special and unique rarely happens. Amores Perros did this to me when it first came out and this movie is doing to me now. I didn't know a thing about this before going into it and what a surprise. If you hear the concept you might get the feeling that this is one of those touchy movies about an amazing triumph covered with over the top music and trying to have us fully convinced of what a great story it is telling but then not letting us in. Fortunetly this is not that movie. The people tell the story! This does such a good job of capturing every moment of their involvement while we enter their world and feel every second with them. There is so much beyond the climb that makes everything they go through so much more tense. Touching the Void was also a great doc about mountain climbing and showing the intensity in an engaging way but this film is much more of a human story. I just saw it today but I will go and say that this is one of the best documentaries I have ever seen.


DOCTEUR PETIOT, starring Michel Serrault, is a brutal story about a brutal man. A doctor who heals the sick in occupied France, even if their ability to compensate is not there. Yet, he preys on the weakest amidst the populace. The imagery and cinematography are superb, and lend an additional macabre feeling to this complex story. He is the perfect psychopath. Seductive and altruistic, intelligent and caring, calculating and murderous. A movie certain not to be forgotten soon by the viewer. Kudos to Mr. Serrault, for his chilling portrayal.


This is easily a 9. Michel Serrault, known more for comic roles in the earlier part of his acting career, does a stunning, even worryingly stunning job of impersonating Dr Petiot, a legendary French serial killer.

He is just so believable at every and any moment in the film, that the actor completely disappears behind the character - only the very best ever achieve this feat, and when they do it is only in a handful of parts at best.

The whole story (a real story which happened in 20th century France) is so powerful, so sinister - it makes for a very strong film that one remembers for a long, long time.


I discovered this film after reading the book that inspired it. It is not a strictly biographical film; it is "loosely based" on the facts. But I found it a compelling and eerie exploration of evil and madness, and Michel Serrault gives an unforgettable performance as Dr. Petiot.

There are many memorable images in this movie; Petiot traveling through the night like a vampire, his black cloak flapping behind him, is almost iconic. There are also several touches of expressionism - Petiot's crooked silhouette mounting the stairs leading from the cellar where the butchered remains of his victims await cremation, reminds me of some scenes from 'Nosferatu'.

But I found the primary appeal of this movie to be aural. The soundtrack is loaded with ominous sounds, starting with the foreboding music of the opening credits, accompanied by wordless wailing. Petiot lives and runs his medical practice in a complex with many small shops, and there is a persistent background noise of knives being sharpened somewhere, as well as a peddler playing eerie tunes on a saw. There are animal noises as well - the concierge keeps a goat, unseen cats howl - and later in the film we see hapless cattle being herded through an underpass. The whole atmosphere is unsettling, with overtones of violence and slaughter.

Not only animals, but human voices are often heard - the screams of Gestapo victims, Petiot's patients in his waiting room, monitored by a listening device, just the same as the suspected collaborators after the war are monitored in their cells. Even the action of the film is often arranged so that we hear the voices of the participants without seeing them - when Petiot goes to see Mme Kern, we hear her singing as she works, her voice echoing in the theater, before we ever see her. And even when she does appear, she is often filmed from behind, her voice calling out to her husband, whose voice calls out to her in conversation. Disembodied voices echo in large halls, and their owners, when seen at all, are photographed at a distance, so we cannot actually see them speaking. This is a ghost story, and these are the voices of ghosts - many of them Petiot's future victims.

Yet Petiot himself is often only a voice; his frightening laughter echoes as he retreats from the camera, throwing comments behind him or into the air to nobody. In a way, he is as much a ghost as those he murders. He is always frantically busy, scurrying from appointment to appointment, never at rest. But his activity is that of a machine - lifeless and imperturbable. It is interesting that among all the horror and danger of occupied Paris, Petiot alone is unafraid; he is amused, enthusiastic, angry, irritated, contemptuous, but never afraid, unlike those real people he lures to their deaths. It is no surprise that he boasts of his mechanical inventions, including a perpetual motion machine (a true detail from the book - he did claim to have invented many machines); he is a sort of perpetual motion machine himself. And mechanical imagery is everywhere in the film, from the opening giant wheel in the movie house, to Petiot's bicycle (with its squeaking wheels echoing the sound of sharpening knives), to the Victrola he keeps winding up to play music before he makes a kill. Even his routine with his victims is mechanical - write a note to your wife, let me disguise you before you leave, you need a vaccination, Barcelona, Casablanca, Dakar - like a well-oiled machine, the routine is always the same, just as the record is always the same.

Maeder, the author, says that it was the clockwork perfection of his crimes that weighed so heavily against Petiot at his trial. His system was as smooth and efficient as a Nazi concentration camp, and this may be why the movie invents a subplot of Petiot's involvement with the French Gestapo and the occupying Nazis. Unfortunately, it doesn't quite work as part of the story, because it's very hard to figure out just what Petiot is doing for the collaborators, or what is going on when he ends up at their headquarters in the middle of the night. Disposing of bodies? Hiding stolen goods? It's hard to say, and harder to believe; it's not likely the state would turn to a freelancer like Petiot.

But it does remind us of the duality of evil people; Petiot is a robber and a murderer, but he is also a devoted father and husband. Just as we learned that Hitler loved dogs, and that Nazis guilty of the worst war crimes could also be loving fathers and family men, so we have to recognize that Petiot could commit unspeakable horrors and yet also function normally. His insanity is easily camouflaged by the insanity and horror of the wartime situation in Paris; when killing, robbing and disappearing are happening all around, nobody pays attention as Petiot tosses more corpses on the pile.


North Africa in the 1930's. To a small Arab town on the edge of the Sahara comes a beautiful woman looking for meaning to her life & a handsome Trappist monk fleeing from his crisis of faith. They will meet and passions will be stirred, but not even the Sand Diviner knows if they will find happiness or sorrow, here, in THE GARDEN OF ALLAH.

The plot is pure hokum, but the film is still great fun & beautiful to look at. Marlene Dietrich & Charles Boyer are a superb screen couple. She is, to put it simply, gorgeous, and Boyer gives a most effective, understated performance, letting his sensitive face do much of his acting for him.

The supporting cast is excellent: Basil Rathbone, in a sympathetic role as a Count who loves the desert; Joseph Schildkraut as a friendly, talkative guide (all the "Arabic" he & others speak in the film is pure gibberish); Lucile Watson as a gentle Mother Superior; Alan Marshal as an honorable young French officer; Tilly Losch as a dangerous dancer; Henry Brandon as a comic porter; John Carradine as the mysterious Sand Diviner; and magnificent Sir C. Aubrey Smith as a wise old priest.

Movie mavens will recognize Helen Jerome Eddy as a nun; Marcia Mae Jones & Bonita Granville (peeking over the nun's shoulder) as convent girls; gaunt Nigel De Brulier as a monastery lector; and Ferdinand Gottschalk as a hotel clerk, all uncredited.

Color films of the 1930's are both rare & lovely to look at, and this movie is no exception - the cinematography is as colorful as the desert itself. THE GARDEN OF ALLAH was the first Technicolor film to be shot on location. Yuma, Arizona gave the film makers all the sand dunes they could desire, but contaminated drinking water & 135 degree heat soon had the company in revolt. When the daily rushes showed Boyer's face had burned a bright tomato red, producer David O. Selznick finally gave in. The remainder of the film was shot on a Hollywood sound stage.


I give this movie an A+ for the sheer camp of it! As Dietrich's daughter Maria Riva wrote in the book on her mother, "If one sees The Garden of Allah in the context of high camp, it can be very amusing." And how! I laughed with delight at the overwrought score and the astoundingly, ridiculously, fantastically melodramatic dialogue. Viewers who've read the accounts of Boyer's toupee (it kept coming unstuck in the heat) will snicker every time it makes an appearance.

Dietrich and Boyer rarely look at each other when giving their lines -- instead they gaze dreamily off into the distance, presumably so their faces can be photographed at the best angle and with the most advantageous light (if you're starring in a turkey might as well look good!). Dietrich's costumes are out of this world. As Riva notes in her book, Dietrich managed to steal Paramount's Travis Banton and have him design some of the most divine gowns, such as the chiffon beige dress & cape.

I heartily agree with the other reviewers who rave about the Technicolor. It really is hard to believe the film was done in 1936 -- the color is fantastic.

In short, if you watch The Garden of Allah with a lenient attitude and embrace its silliness, you can't help but enjoy it.


Marlene Dietrich and Charles Boyer give solid performances in this beautiful but empty film. The irony is that Dietrich plays a woman with a beautiful but empty life. Truly gorgeous cinematography and sets, and yes Dietrich's bottomless trunk of clothes are also fabulous. She look great; Boyer looks young and trim.

Story of a woman seeking meaning and an ex-priest seeking life seems pretty stale, but set against such unreal sets and skies it somehow works, given the two stars, the terrific score by Max Steiner, and a good supporting cast. The film runs like 76 minutes and seems badly edited, plus certain characters just appear or disappear.

Joseph Schildkraut is funny as the Arab guide, C. Aubrey Smith is the old priest, Lucile Watson the mother superior, Tilly Losch the dancer, John Carradine the diviner, and Basil Rathbone plays.... well I'm not sure. He just rides in from the desert and spoils everything! As others have noted, John Gilbert was slated to star with Dietrich. I can't help but think he would have been wonderful. The role of world-weary Boris would have suited the great Gilbert quite well. And after the success of Queen Christina (with Garbo), his career might have gotten back on track.

I can't think of any other 30s film Dietrich did in color. She looks great and wears some terrific clothes. My favorite is the Valentino as The Shiek-like outfit she wears by the pool.

Certainly worth a look for the lush sets and color and the two great stars.


In terms of visual beauty this movie is outstanding! I had no idea that Technicolor came out so early. Although I didn't like the ending, the entire movie is fantastic and makes me wish that I was in North Africa. The cast is excellent and Marlene Dietrich is a big plus and of course she is so alluring and I just loved her in this flick. Basil Rathbone is also perfect in this movie. I couldn't get over the scenery and the sets... The hotel, the palm trees, the desert, it's all there... the legionnaires also bring a "Beau Geste" feeling to the film. They certainly don't make movies like these anymore. Don't fail to watch this classic!


"The Garden of Allah" was one of the first feature length, 3-strip Technicolor films. To correct a previous poster the first Technicolor feature (after Disney's 5-year exclusivity deal) was 1935's "Becky Sharp" which was a costume drama that used the color for it's garish color costumes.

"The Garden of Allah" looks as if it could have been shot years later as the cinematography uses not only the color but also the use of shadows. It must have been amazing for an audiences at the time to see a color feature after seeing basically only black and white films for their whole life. Unfortunately, the film does not stand up to the cinematography. That being said, the film is worth seeing just as a visual treat.


Audiences back in 1936 must have been stunned at what they were watching: a full-fledged, beautiful full-length Technicolor film. I can't say for sure, but this might have been the first one (3-strip). At any rate, it still looks beautiful over 70 years later on DVD. In fact, just how good it looks is amazing.

Kudos for that have to go out to Director Richard Boleslowski, Director Of Photography Virgil Miller, Selznick International Pictures and, for the DVD - MGM Home Entertainment. All of them combined to give us one of the best-looking films of the classic-era age.

I thought the story was so-so: excellent in the first half, stagnant in the second. It gave a nice message in the end, even though a lot of people might not have been happy with it. I can't say more without spoiling things.

Marlene Dietrich never looked better, I don't believe, and certainly never played such a soft-hearted character ("Domini Enfilden"). Heart-throb Charles Boyer was the male star and Domini's object of affection, but some of the minor characters were the most interesting to me. People like Joseph Schildkraut as "Batouch;" John Carradine as "The Sand Diviner;" The most memorable, to me at least, was the dancer "Irena," played by Tilly Losch. Wow, there is a face and a dance you won't soon forget! I've never seen anything like it in the thousands of films I've viewed. Just seeing her do her thing was worth the price of the DVD. Looking at her IMDb resume, she was only in four movies, but they were all well-known films.

Basil Rathbone, the actor who really became famous for playing "Sherlock Holmes," also is in here as is C. Aubrey Smith, another famous British actor of his day. Schildkraut, by the way, will be recognized by classic film buffs as the man who played the arrogant sales clerk in the big hit, "The Shop Around The Corner," with Jimmy Stewart and Margaret Sullivan.

The beautiful direction, photography and color, and Tilly's dance, are the things I'll remember best about this movie which is a lot of good and not-so-good things all rolled into one. Had the last half hour been better - although I admire the ending - I would have rated it even higher. It's definitely one film collectors want to add to their collection.


Gorgeous Techicolor production telling the unusual tale of the romance between a woman of strong religious faith and a Trappist monk who has left his monastery, breaking his vows. The film opens at a convent in Europe, where a former student prays - a lonely beauty in black named Domini (Marlene Dietrich). She is advised by the Mother Superior to go to the desert and "find herself", and lose her grief over her father who has recently died. In the train car on the way into the Sahara she sits opposite a very, very troubled man (Charles Boyer) - our former monk. She's soon at a hotel near a palm-treed oasis where she again sees our mysterious troubled man as he is stumped over what to do when confronted by a very seductive dancing girl. Domini becomes friends with him, though knows nothing of his past - romance soon to follow.

This film is sentimental, melodramatic, and different (in a way, almost surreal and even a bit campy) - I found it to be quite fun and entertaining. The photography in this is really interesting - it is full of extreme facial close-ups and beautiful color shots of caravans of horses crossing the desert, silhouetted figures against a sunset sky. Marlene Dietrich gives a nicely done, though restrained, performance here and looks gorgeous. Charles Boyer - not usually one of my favorites - is actually pretty good in this, I think the part sort of suits him and he looks quite young and handsome too. Basil Rathbone is fine here, except given very little to do. Another great orchestral score by Max Steiner helps keep the drama rolling - all in all, a very enjoyable film.


"The Garden of Allah" is a prime example of "popular women's literature", turn of the XXth century style, combining all the power of unbridled erotic and exotic reveries with the stimulating glamour of fake mysticism and the sado-masochistic bite of Catholic guilt. Just as Jane Eyre couldn't really be happy until her castle burned down around her and her lover was permanently maimed for his sins, or the heroine of "Rebecca" couldn't find true fulfillment in her marriage until her lordly husband was put on trial for the murder of his first wife (and her castle burned down around her), or poor Psyche couldn't leave well enough alone and had to extract Cupid's secret at all costs, Domini, the devout Catholic heroine of this piece of tripe, can only find true sexual realization by inadvertently marrying a man who has renounced his sacred religious vows. Like all such narratives aiming to stimulate the female reader and induce the vapours, this one relies on the oldest tricks in the book: basic misunderstandings and the inability to express one's true feelings at the right place and at the right time until it is too late. The logic is that any ultimate sexual ecstasy can be indulged in as long as one is willing to eventually pay a high enough price for it in atonement in the last act. It is Paul Claudel reduced to beauty salon magazine standards. Oh well... It could have been much worse and it often was...

Without the religious overtones, the film's plot is that of your basic porn flick: Oversexed monk driven mad by abstinence escapes to the desert where he has a few rolls in the dunes with a romantic, shapely but naive Catholic heiress before reintegrating his monastery, all passion spent, leaving her to clean up his mess. And I really resent another commentator's comparison with Anatole France's "Thais", a sophisticated novel whose intention was to make fun of the whole concept of Catholic sexual repression, some of which transpired in Massenet's opera of the same name, thankfully.

But what makes this picture unique in the annals of commercial female eroticism, of course, is the enormous constellation of talents gathered under one banner to make this cinematic wet dream come to shimmering, vibrant life. Imperishable Technicolor photography that will outlive us all, a truckload of worthy character actors (including one cute dog), a music score by Max Steiner that seems determined to accomplish the "composed film" that Michael Powell (who, ironically, had a bit part in the 1927 silent version) always dreamed about, tittering at times on the brink of dissonance but always coming through in splendid symphonic, operatic exoticism, a dream-like atmosphere where material considerations are no object, characters travel as if by magic from one spot to the next, dialog is sparse, vague and suggestive, the art direction is close to celestial, flower arrangements appear in the humblest hut or tent, the heroine's wardrobe is inexhaustible and all the male characters are either aristocrats, saints, doomed but horny sinners, mystics or poets.

Ahh... Hollywood! The MGM DVD presentation of this film is bare bones but impeccable. The bit rate is very high throughout, the colour registration is almost always perfect and the 2.0 mono sound truly does justice to Max Steiner's score and to Boyer's penultimate confession.

A historical note on this sort of "women's subject": The following year (1937), Julien Duvivier, visibly inspired by "The Garden of Allah", directed "Carnet de Bal", where a very similar clothes-horse butter-won't-melt-in-her-mouth heroine (widowed after taking care of an ailing husband in the exotic remoteness of some impossibly romantic Alpine lakeside villa) wants to discover what she has missed by looking up the male dancers in her first dance book. She finds them all in time, only to realize that whatever feeling there was at one point between her beaus and herself were either misunderstood, overestimated or else had lifelong tragic consequences. It was Duvivier's cynical way of telling us to beware of impossibly idealistic notions and that we all need to grow up sooner or later.


The pioneering Technicolor Cinematography (Winner of Special Technical Achievement Oscar) is indeed enchanting. Add an endless variety of glamorous costumes and a romantic cinema dream team like Marlene Dietrich and Charles Boyer, and you've got a rather pleasant "picture".

Unfortunately the contrived plot as well as the over-blown acting leave much to be desired. Still, there have not been any more breathtaking Technicolor films before this one (1936), and very few since then, that can top this breathtaking visual experience of stunning colors. Cinema fans who have enjoyed the glorious color cinematography in "Robin Hood" (1938), "Jesse James" (1939) and "Gone With The Wind" (1939), will not be disappointed in the fantastic work done here. "The Garden Of Allah" will always be synonymous with brilliant color cinematography.


Domini Enfilren (Marlene Dietrich) has spent most of her life caring for her father. Now that he has died she is free--but doesn't know what she wants. Boris Androvsky (Charles Boyer) is a monk who has fled a monastery to taste more of life. They meet accidentally in Algiers, fall in love and get married. But he can't leave his past behind and she can't live without him...

WAY overdone romance full of hysterically bad dialogue and situations. Dietrich and Boyer do their best to give good performances but NOBODY could get away with some of their lines! Still, in a way, it is a classic. It's shot in gorgeous Technicolor (try to see it on DVD) where every frame is breath-takingly beautiful. Dietrich is always dressed to the 9s (even in the middle of the desert) and strikes hysterical poses to show off the clothes and her body. Boyer just walks around looking stricken (no shock there). Still I was never bored. It was wonderful to look at and the non-stop stupid dialogue kept me in stitches. The end almost had me falling out of my chair because I was laughing so hard! Now I love corny romances and give them plenty of space but really---this is unbelievable! It also runs a very short 80 minutes.

As a camp classic I give this an 8. As a serious movie--a 1.


This was Eddie Robinson's 101st film and his last, and he died of cancer nine days after shooting was complete. All of which makes his key scene in the movie all the more poignant.

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

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

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

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

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

This film is one of my top sci-fi films of all time.


I saw Soylent Green back in 1973 when it was first released and maybe another eight times over the years on T.V. or video. It was always one of my favorite sci-fi and/or Charlton Heston films.

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

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

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

Speaking of reputations, often people speak as if Charlton Heston is not a great actor. Seeing him in El-Cid, Soylent Green, The Warlord, The Omega Man, Will Penny, and Major Dundee back to back I am convinced he is one of our best actors. Of course he made about a dozen other great films and for those that care you know what they are.


Soylent 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...


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


This is a brilliant sci-fi movie that is very strange in how men and women both view the same film. I have talked to many people about the film and almost every guy loved it and said it was brilliant--while most women thought it was just disgusting and stupid! This is the only movie I know of that has such polarized views based on gender. Perhaps many women just have a lower tolerance for disgusting or depressing plots--but whatever the cause, I have always found this difference fascinating.

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

Why the rich man died and the awful truth he could not live with I really should NOT discuss--it could ruin the film for you. However, the film has a great plot and acting and is super-exciting to watch. Plus, it features Edward G. Robinson in his final screen performance as the crusty sidekick to Heston. Though not for the easily depressed or squeamish, this is a great sci-fi film that is allegorical and profound.


I 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 . . .


The 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.


This was a very thought provoking film, especially for 1973. At the time it was actually a huge box office success. After the 1970s it appeared to be forgotten, but its central messages were too important to disappear completely.It was actually at least fifteen years ahead of its time...no one had ever heard of the 'greenhouse effect'before 1985, and the controversial subject of euthanasia was rarely brought up.

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

This was also Hestons last good film, the end of his famous dystopian sci fi trilogy. After that it was all overblown disaster epics and big budget crowd pleasing trash. THis might not be the most amusing two hour movie ever made, and the ending might be creepy and depressing, but its hard to find any film producer with guts anymore who would tackle a subject like this.


As with all environmentally aware films from the 1970s SOYLENT GREEN has a rather cheesy view of what ecological meltdown is . Overpopulation means there`s too many people to feed ? I was under the impression that famines were caused by either war or failed economic policies . Stalin`s policy in the Soviet Union in the 1930s left millions dead because of famine and to this day the greatest man made tragedy was Mao`s rural policy in China which led over 30 million starvation deaths in the 1950s . And let`s not forget the great famines in the horn of Africa in the 1980s and 90s which were to do with conflicts not overpopulation . You might like to also consider that two of the most heavily populated areas on Earth , Hong Kong and Macau , have never suffered a famine in modern times . Likewise the expansion of shanty towns around cities as seen here isn`t strictly down to overpopulation - it`s down to economic factors where people flock to cities to find better paid work than in the countryside ( It`s a symptom of industrial progress - not of too many births ) so the image of the streets of New York city being too congested to walk through and of having people sleep in stairwells is somewhat laughable

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


The 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. ****


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.


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

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

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

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

This is one smart film, and its core message is as pertinent today as it was in the early 70s. Yes, I know we're not eating the dead yet, but with our resource-sapping longevity, spiraling poverty gap, corporate global capitalism and unchecked habitat destruction leading to climate change, the lasting prediction of 'Soylent Green' may come to pass.


Truly 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.


Is 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.


Soylent 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.


My 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.


Especially 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.


Not 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.


This 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!!


I'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.


In 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).


This 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"


Soylent 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.


This 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).


In 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.


"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.


In terms of the arts, the 1970s were a very turbulent era. In literature and the visual arts, it was the closing of a great fifty or sixty year period of creativity that has yet to be restarted. In music it was a decade that many see as a low point, due to corporate rock and disco. On television it was a Golden Age for situation comedies, from The Odd Couple to the Mary Tyler Moore Show to M*A*S*H to All In The Family, but in film it was even a greater period of creativity, in all genres, that saw the rise of the American auteur- directors like Robert Altman, Francis Ford Coppola, and Martin Scorsese- from the ashes of the old studio systems that had dominated Hollywood for over half a century. These directors wanted to craft literate, arts films for the masses, of the sort that had been staples in Europe since the end of the Second World War. Yet, the studios were trying to keep pace, with socially aware films of the sort not seen since the 1930s.

But, unlike the films of the 1930s, starring actors like Jimmy Cagney and John Garfield (usually co-starring the Dead End Kids), that dealt with social issues in a gritty realistic way, or as realistic as one could get on a sound stage, the social consciousness of the late 1960s and early 1970s manifested itself most in science fiction films, which allowed the Left Wing of Hollywood to preach to the masses under the guise of what most considered little above comic strip entertainment. There was precedent for this approach, for several of the flying saucer films of the 1950s dealt with the political zeitgeist of the McCarthy era- most notably The Day The Earth Stood Still and Invasion Of The Body Snatchers. And the early 1960s saw Rod Serling constantly subverting the political conservatism of the time by casting social issues into science fiction settings on his classic sci fi television anthology show The Twilight Zone. Among the studio offerings of this time were the ecologically sensitive Silent Running; George Lucas's first film THX 1138, which dealt with consumerism, group think, and existentialism; and Logan's Run, which hammered away at Communism and state control versus the rights of an individual. Some of the film's references are quite heavyhanded- and reek of the then current Arab oil crisis and rampant inflation. A few jarred strawberries cost $150, and Soylent rations its assorted colored foods- Soylent Yellow, Soylent Red, and the new Soylent Green, reputedly made from 'the finest undersea growth,' in a manner not unlike the gas rationing of the time. Scenes of food riots are eerie echoes of the oil riots at many gas stations during the year of the film's release, and the scenes of crowding, and bodies, live and dead, lying all about are still chilling, as well as influential. A later film like Escape From New York is an obvious progeny. The rest of the script, by Stanley R. Greenberg, however, is rather pedestrian, and fairly standard for a dystopian flick, but Fleischer and cinematographer Richard H. Kline do a great job of filling the screen with interesting images and sounds, to spice things up. The use of soft, dimly lit visuals, murkily filtered, add a Stygian feel to the New York of the film, almost like a colorized version of Carl Theodor Dreyer's Vampyr. The only light in the film comes from artificial sources, and were it not for the fashion faux pas the film could truly seem timeless.

The end of the film, where Thorn sneaks into the processing plant where human corpses are made into Soylent Green wafers, is both chilling, and oddly drama-less. In the end, the Soylent minions hunt Thorn down, but he survives long enough to utter the film's catchphrase to Chief Hatcher. Yet, one does not know if it is enough, for Hatcher has already been co-opted, and has a track record of taking the easy way out. Yet, that fact, and its ambiguity, shows that the film does not recapitulate its characters' dilemmas, and has a depth many later, better made films, sci fi or not, do not have. It is also why Soylent Green is still a film worth watching.