Defender 2000

You might not think at first that a jungle country like the Philippines would get involved with making post-apocalypse movies, but it actually did happen a number of times in the 1980s. Many of them were made by the prolific B-movie filmmaker Cirio H. Santiago, and while "Equalizer 2000" is not one of his worst, it is perhaps one of his most forgettable. Despite hiring martial arts movie star Richard Norton, Santiago pretty much wastes him. Norton hardly gets to do anything resembling true martial arts, and for the most part he comes across as bland and unemotional. The bland feeling extends to the gun battles and car chases as well. Though there seems to be an excuse for action every few minutes, there is no zip or excitement to be found; it just seems to be going through the motions instead. As I indicated earlier, there's nothing to make this post-apocalypse movie stand out from the pack from the countless others that were made in the 1980s all over the world. If you want to see a GOOD post-apocalypse actioner made by Santiago, track down a copy of "Wheels of Fire" instead.

Here's an entirely undistinguished post apocalyptic yarn from the normally reliable Cirio H Santiago.

Dashing martial arts star Richard Norton has very little to do here other than run around with a souped up gun, alternatively shooting and blowing things up. Yes, if you like gun fire and explosions then this may well be blissful viewing but for those requisite of a bit more substance to their viewing this will prove a decidedly tedious watch.

Not wishing to stray from the main point of my review, but one thing that never ceases to irritate me about some of the reviews on IMDb is the swift tendency by many reviewers to label every single low budget flick as 'The greatest B-movie ever!'. OK, so I admit that tastes vary and it's very much a subjective issue but really – before awarding any such lofty accolade, do so with at least some perspective and knowledge of the genre to which the relevant film belongs. The film in question for instance is anything but a classic in any way, shape or form.

In fact the only reason I can think to watch this other than for Norton completists is to a) see the always superb Robert Patrick in an early role and b) to see the very beautiful (and buxom!) Corinne Wahl as the films heroine.

For a far more enjoyable Mad Max/Road Warrior inspired outing try instead some of the Italian entries in the genre which are infinitely more memorable and indeed so much more fun than this.

Rating Breakdown: Story - 1.00 :: Direction - 1.00 :: Pacing - 0.75 :: Performances - 0.75 :: Entertainment - 1.00 TOTAL - 4.5/10

Ah, the Eighties-a decade when dystopian sci-fi films meant wastelands, explosions, and shoulder pads so large they could double as aircraft hangars. And in this grand tradition of bargain-bin Mad Max knock-offs comes Equalizer 2000, a film that asks: "What if a gun was the main character?"

The plot, if you can call it that, follows Slade, a soldier for the evil Corporation (because all futuristic dystopias have one), who turns against his employers after his friend is murdered. He wanders through the desert, meeting various factions of people who all look like they got lost on their way to a Road Warrior convention, and then, with the help of an old friend of his father's, he builds the ultimate weapon-the Equalizer 2000. It is less of a gun and more of an artillery installation strapped to one man, and it exists solely to resolve the film's many, many conflicts in the loudest way possible.

Character development is nonexistent. Slade is not a hero, nor is he an anti-hero-he is simply a man attached to a machine gun. Richard Norton, an actual martial artist, is bafflingly underused until the final act, while Robert Patrick, in one of his earliest roles, injects some much-needed charisma into an otherwise cardboard cast. But the real stars here are the explosions-glorious, real, and reckless, a tribute to a time when stuntmen risked life and limb for your entertainment.

It is not good. It is not intelligent. But it is honest in its mission: big gun, big bangs, big fun. Would I watch it again? Not for a long time. But if you want a perfect slice of Eighties schlock for a lazy afternoon, it is ready and waiting.

If you're a Corinne Wahl fan, you'll have to see this movie at least once just so that you can witness the famous scene where she puts on her most serious and angry face, points a pistol at five dusty desperados dressed in Civil war uniforms and says "I'd love to blow you guys right here." Corinne tries so hard to be non-sexual, it's hysterical. The response by the desperados is equally amusing: The #1 bad guy acts frightened, scrambles to his feet and shouts "Keep your pants on, little missy!"

There is little to redeem this movie. I've seen better high school productions. The costuming was created using black spray paint and sporting equipment (football shoulder pads, helmets, hockey sticks, ski masks, etc). The whole movie was filmed in a dusty quarry somewhere east of LA. None of the actors in this movie are famous ... because they can't act.

See this movie if you want to see Corinne Wahl shooting guns, driving wildly in a rusty Mustang and running around in dusty black leather and leotards. Disappointingly, there is no skin in this movie and the only love scene consists of 30 seconds of kissing.

Sometimes you just need a questionable 80s action flick. Hey, if nothing else, I'm a fan of Richard Norton, and it's noteworthy that this is an early role of Robert Patrick. The filming locations are gorgeous, Ding Achacoso's music (that I, for one, love) recalls themes that Nobuo Uematsu wrote for the 'Final fantasy' series of videogames at varying points (perhaps with additional influences on top, like Henry Mancini and high school marching bands), the vehicles are modified from the last 'Mad Max' production, and the costume design is comprised of the standard issue black fascist uniforms, military fatigues, and post-apocalyptic civilian rags. Action sequences are built on the principals of running, chasing, and shooting, but somehow feel sterile and bereft, possibly because the music is ill-fitting. This rather looks and feels so much like something the Band family might have produced in the same timeframe, like 'The Eliminators' or 'Metalstorm: The destruction of Jared-Syn,' and it's surprising that Charles or Albert weren't actually involved. Dropping those names may well be the best indicator of the company 'Equalizer 2000' keeps, but for what it's worth, in terms of fare of this nature, it's pretty much on par thirty years on.

I'll say this much, the movie knows what it is - and what it is, friend, is ninety minutes of action (okay, eighty-eight) with light, thin plot (rebels versus fascists, with scattered third party elements on the side) breaking up that action at irregular intervals. Even though such scenes are robbed of some of their vitality they still look good in and of themselves, with stunts and effects galore; then again, even the use of some of these seem a smidgen senseless and willy-nilly at times. I could have actually done with more plot, as that may have provided a shot in the arm that the action doesn't, but here we are. I actually think this is fairly well made, all told, and the issue is just that the result is weirdly middling. Is it the acting? Is it the direction? Is it the flimsiness and ordinariness of the story? Is it the fact that the MacGuffin, the titular object, is a single handheld weapon? Norton doesn't even get to really exercise his martial arts skills; a love scene feels extra contrived as it's shot. I don't know if the feature needed more energy, more extras, more story, better acting, stronger direction, or what, but it uniformly feels like something we can "watch" without ever actively engaging - and more than I might say of other titles of which I've said the same.

You could do worse; you could also do a lot better. The most important question might be "why bother at all?" If one has a specific impetus to watch, like being a fan of someone involved, that might be motivation enough. Without such impetus, though, there's not really any need to check it out. If anything, set 'Equalizer 2000' aside for a quiet, lazy day, something you can put on in the background, and that may be the best way to appreciate it. It's decent, I guess, but just not something that particularly inspires enthusiasm. Take that as you will.