Only good for those with good taste in movies...
Added 9/24/2009
This's a good example of a love it or hate it type of movie. My friends and I love it. It's a good example of how a low-budget sci-fi movie can gather a cult following.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
An enjoyable story for the imaginative viewer
Added 3/18/2007
Many people dislike this film because it seems boring or confusing to them. I say all you need is a little imagination to find the beauty of this simple sci-fi story. It seems to take place in a very small part of a very big world. Almost like a tiny glimse into a great novel. While the big story going on far away is deep and complex, the smaller story of these few individuals who came in contact with Omega Doom is more subtle.
I won't spoil it for you, but I recommend watching this movie and doing so with your imagination ready. If you look further into it than just the surface, you can see so many things. Don't let yourself be blinded by all the big-budget, high action, CGI-filled blockbusters out there.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Somewhat disturbing, but it has its beauty
Added 3/3/2007
As a sci-fi fan, I liked this movie.
It starts in a distrubing way, in totally demolished, post-war buildings.
Dead bodies lying everywhere... There has been a nuclear war and
the humans are dead, only cyborgs remained. The groups of cyborgs
fight each other. But then Omega Doom (the good cyborg) comes,
destroys the bad cyborgs, leaves the good cyborgs alive, and departs.
The end is definitely optimistic, it's a happy end. So, the movie gave me
a moral satisfaction that the good prevails over evil after all.
This movie really has extremes in it: extremely beautiful women (a blond and 3 brunettes)
and an extremely ugly one (with a black mask). It has amazing special effects, such as
the talking head, detached from its body.
Overall, once you get into the spirit of the movie, you can enjoy it.
Inside, the demolished building looks like a medieval tavern, so it's not too bad.
It's a simple, unpretentious movie - more like a theatrical play than like a film. But it has it's merits.
I remove one star from the rating, because I think that the movie could have been
much better if the surrounding buildings were more futuristic, rather than
looking so destroyed.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Call me Mr Weird but I liked it...
Added 7/21/2006
I think some of this film's reviewers are so 'blown away' by films with excesive CGI, big budgets - and even bigger names - that they either won't, or cant, see the good in lesser offerings. This film makes so many sly references to other films that part of the fun is spotting them.
Take the opening where we see a foot coming down on a pile of human bones and skulls. Terminator, right? Then there's all the other stuff that people have picked up on by Sergio Leonne but why has no one mentioned Clint Eastwood and Pale Rider? The scene at the end where Hauer's character just disappears into the sunset? I mean, come on... Oh yeah, and the penultimate fight scene between the Bauhaus look-a-like droid and Hauer is straight out of The Matrix PLUS the Talking Head was like a character out of the Wizard of Oz.
To me this film had humour,atmosphere and subtlety and a cracking performance from Rutger Hauer as the thinking man's - or woman's - Schwarzenneger. I feel sorry for all those who possess the attention span of a goldfish and see any film where 2 mins go by without some scene of mindless sex, or violence, as boring. Don't try reading Dickens guys!
4 out of 4 people found this helpful.
|
Not Supposed to be Van Damme
Added 7/11/2006
Nah, I don't think it's a horrible movie. Sure it lacks a lot of action that movies of the period had, but I never thought of this as an action movie anyway. It seemed to me to be more like a comic book/graphic novel meets 70's samurai movie meets spaghetti western. Despite the obvious overarching situation (apocalypse, possibility of humans returning, obvious society gone to hell), it pretty much all but ignores that and focuses on the problem at hand: ridding the robot town of the "bad guys." It ends with a sense that Omega Doom has really done nothing more than put a band-aid on the whole situation, but his actions are more along the lines of self-preservation than anything else. He just showed up for a drink and gets sucked into a fight. That's how pretty much any of the same genre starts. Someone comes along, wanting to be left alone, but some dumb schmuck picks a fight and then our hero has to teach them a lesson. Nothing is resolved, the world is still as crummy as it ever was, but the hero gets to get back on the road in one piece. Lather, rinse, repeat.
That's why this kind of movie appeals to me. I don't think it's boring or a waste of time. It's interesting enough in it's hopeless nothingness. I don't always want to see a happily ever after ending or some Matrix-y, save-the-human-race type of fight. Those are a dime a dozen. That's what has always appealed to me in old samurai movies, though those tend to focus more on making things better. This movie was very reminiscent of Philip K. Dick stories: bleak futures with small stories that just are what they are.
Of course this kind of movie doesn't appeal to everyone, not by a long shot. I think my little brother fell asleep. Van Damme movies were more his thing. Lots of fight scenes and the bad guys get their due. Not that I don't like those movies, I do. It's just that something of the type of movie that Omega Doom is, is a breath of fresh air. There's a pointless despair to it that I enjoy. Something is done, and yet it isn't.
Also, I know the special effects are bad, but I honestly thought it was an 80's movie. I was surprised to see 1995-1997 as a release date. I think it's much better thinking of it as an 80's movie if you're the type of person who just can't get past special effects not being as good as LotR or Star Wars.
So this gets 4 stars from me. Not the greatest, but not the worst. Despite IMDB and Amazon's plot description, it doesn't try to be anything other than it is, it fulfills my comic book/graphic novel pleasures, and I much enjoyed some of the talent in it compared to, say Van Damme.
5 out of 5 people found this helpful.
|
I think we are being watched
Added 9/7/2009
Long ago, the Warlords seized power over my world. A resistance army banded together to fight the oppressors. Though it was a battle we could not win, we survived and continued to resist the occupation.
The Warlords then turned their attention to other worlds, other dimensions to conquer.
As with most myths best described by Joseph Campbell this is a modern-day (Los Angeles 1996) coming of age story for Joe Talbot (Josh Charles) as he must prove himself. He is lured by Laura (Andrea Roth) and mentored by the independent renegade A.T. (Rutger Hauer.) Can he overcome not being ready and fulfill his purpose to same our would and free there. Or was his mother right in not telling him until/or if he was ready for the journey?
We journey with Joe thorough the many world some time kibitzing hopefully growing along with him and his new friends.
The special effects do no overwhelm the story and the action is also proportional to the story.
Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Terrible waste of Talent
Added 7/20/2009
This was a stupid concept; with the exception of a couple of good scenes, it was just a mish-mash of desert backdrops. Total waste of Rutger Hauer.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
I've always liked this movie!
Added 3/16/2009
It's been a while since I'd seen it, I'm glad I found it again here. If you're into magic, mysticism, or you're a plain sci-fi freak I think you'll enjoy the movie.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
