...and that is saying something, since its seems that producers tend to (falsely) believe that sci-fi is a genre where you can go along with a stinky plot because the audience will be thrilled by the special FX.
The first twenty minutes you almost believe you are watching a movie (even though the one dimensional characters and cheesy script rapidly fill you with a sense of foreboding).
But once the Bruce Dern character makes his choice, he has literally nowhere to go (and so does the movie). So we are stuck watching a man spiraling into depression and failure, spending his time in mostly futile endeavors i.e, lecturing or playing with pieces of equipment (robots...
That theme might have been interesting (a certainly original, if a little bit somber): the story of a man that is willing to sever ties with the rest of humanity (including the murder of other human beings) for what he considers a good cause..... And finds out that, alone as no human being has ever been, you just can't live at all.
Had it been the filmmakers real intent, and if someone of the caliber of Ingmar Bergman had been directing, this movie might have been ambitious and meaningful.
But it is clearly not what this movie is about and the only emotion conveyed by this film is a sense of pointlessness and massive boredom.
The Bruce Dern character just fails to reach whatever were his goals and when reality catches him, he just commits suicide leaving a machine doing his works in his stead : obviously an illusory solution, as we well imagine that, at some point in the future, the "ark" he lets adrift in space will experience mechanical failure, and his "sacrifice" will have been in vain.
The sad story of a complete looser in space... Defitinely not a film that people suffering of depression should watch.
As why some people seem to have loved this movie, it remains a mystery to me.
My guess is that, at the time of its release the environment theme was a novelty. And the fact that a man could choose "the side of nature" against "the side of humankind", was probably perceived as daring and groundbreaking. For the sake of the "message" the people were probably willing to suspend any sense of disbelief, and willed themselves to see a happy ending.
But what remains today, are the fatal flaws in the plot, the implausible behavior of its hero and the inescapable fact that nothing of substance happens during at least two-third of the movie..
On a personal note : Some friends and I organized a "night of the worst movie" each of us had to come with one movie (we restricted the field to the Horror/Fantastic/sci-fi genre. Well "Silent Running" (my candidate) won, hands down, in spite of a very stiff competition :) ! (I was personally very much "impressed" by "Starcrash" ), but the complete sense of pointlessness of "silent running ultimately won the day !
The first twenty minutes you almost believe you are watching a movie (even though the one dimensional characters and cheesy script rapidly fill you with a sense of foreboding).
But once the Bruce Dern character makes his choice, he has literally nowhere to go (and so does the movie). So we are stuck watching a man spiraling into depression and failure, spending his time in mostly futile endeavors i.e, lecturing or playing with pieces of equipment (robots...
That theme might have been interesting (a certainly original, if a little bit somber): the story of a man that is willing to sever ties with the rest of humanity (including the murder of other human beings) for what he considers a good cause..... And finds out that, alone as no human being has ever been, you just can't live at all.
Had it been the filmmakers real intent, and if someone of the caliber of Ingmar Bergman had been directing, this movie might have been ambitious and meaningful.
But it is clearly not what this movie is about and the only emotion conveyed by this film is a sense of pointlessness and massive boredom.
The Bruce Dern character just fails to reach whatever were his goals and when reality catches him, he just commits suicide leaving a machine doing his works in his stead : obviously an illusory solution, as we well imagine that, at some point in the future, the "ark" he lets adrift in space will experience mechanical failure, and his "sacrifice" will have been in vain.
The sad story of a complete looser in space... Defitinely not a film that people suffering of depression should watch.
As why some people seem to have loved this movie, it remains a mystery to me.
My guess is that, at the time of its release the environment theme was a novelty. And the fact that a man could choose "the side of nature" against "the side of humankind", was probably perceived as daring and groundbreaking. For the sake of the "message" the people were probably willing to suspend any sense of disbelief, and willed themselves to see a happy ending.
But what remains today, are the fatal flaws in the plot, the implausible behavior of its hero and the inescapable fact that nothing of substance happens during at least two-third of the movie..
On a personal note : Some friends and I organized a "night of the worst movie" each of us had to come with one movie (we restricted the field to the Horror/Fantastic/sci-fi genre. Well "Silent Running" (my candidate) won, hands down, in spite of a very stiff competition :) ! (I was personally very much "impressed" by "Starcrash" ), but the complete sense of pointlessness of "silent running ultimately won the day !
Tell Your Friends