Last Man on Planet Earth

The idea of this film was that WWIII started in Afghanistan and their use of biological weapons forced their enemy allies (US, in particular) to develop a counter-biological weapon which went haywire and wiped out all but a handful of the male species on the planet. Today, in October of 2001, we know this isn't such a far fetched premise for a story line anymore. Sad, isn't it?

The film is interesting to think about because of recent events, but nothing spectacular or special - an average TV movie.

In reading the previous reviews, it struck me that almost none of you people seem to care for Science Fiction. Or, if you do, you've missed the classics upon which this story line was based. So, WARNING!!! If you don't care for the genre, you probably won't enjoy the movie unless it has a lot of special effects, your favorite actor, or some other redeeming factor not inherent in the subject matter.

Please don't misunderstand -- this is NOT a great movie -- but it stands as mediocre, definitely not the worst film ever. If you think there's anything new about the concepts treated with in the plot or the manner in which they were handled, maybe you should try reading Philip Wyley's "The Disappearance" (1974 -- out of print). Kenneth Biller took exactly the same approach, he just change the cause of the obliteration of a gender and had men wiped out instead of women. Even a reread of "On The Beach" by Neville Shute would cause you to rethink your attitude toward this movie, I believe.

If people (of either gender) have no possibility of creating relationships in what we now consider the "normal" manner, they will invariably find some other way to satisfy their needs for personal and social relationships. That does not imply that this movie, either of the books I listed, or I believe that a single-gender society would be superior. It's just a recognition of human nature. In that sense, the tale told in this film is well worth seeing once.

It's a male bashing bonanza. I saw this on Sci-Fi a while ago, and the idea seemed interesting. It could have been a good movie, and the plot itself I don't see as male bashing, but certain specific references to men get really annoying. I might still watch the movie again though because it does at least try to redeem itself by hinting that maybe the women in the movie aren't really as non-violent as they claim, but it still doesn't compensate for the really tiring male-bashing. I mean, I can understand a little, it's part of the movie's plot, but come on, it gets really tiring after awhile. Not only that, but to assume that the majority of women in the world would accept becoming homosexual that easily and that the few remaining heterosexuals would be such a minority as to go "in the closet". It's just too unbelievable. There are far too many women out there with cultural or religious restrictions that would balk at this it is totally implausible. I mean I know its sci-fi, and I love sci-fi, but the best sci-fi has at least a hint of it being possible, and this is too implausible. The phrase "Truth is stranger than fiction" came about because fiction has to at least seem plausible to be welcomed, but truth isn't always. This movie is not that. Other than that, the movie does have some good acting and the eventual morals of the story, that something like what happened was wrong, do redeem it a little, but not enough.

This made for TV movie takes a large chunk of inspiration from Huxley's Brave New World - natural reproduction is replaced by cloning (and in the case of the dual protagonist, Adam, by "synthesis"). The new society strives to be utopian, but has a grim, dystopian side. The plot is unique, though, in that it deals with dark aspects of militant, lesbian feminism. Camille Paglia would appreciate this story! The most telling line in the film is where Adam says "violence is not genetic" (meaning actually, "not determined by gender"). Another intriguing aspect of the film's social commentary is its take on conspiracy theories and official truth, and how politics is politics no matter who is in charge. From the standpoint of cinematic excellence, this is clearly not Academy Award material. Of course, it was made for TV and presumably didn't have a large budget. I was surprised though, at the depth of ideas and the acting was good. Worth seeing.

The story line of a Mutant Y- Virus that kills every human male had potential. But this story didn't push the envelope. The writer didn't research his material well enough. That an Event Level Event bio threat like this one would have probably eliminated every male mammal as well. Or at least that a mutant virus would also effected the ecosystem and caused variant oddities in nature. Sixty-five Million years ago one species was a dominant life form but wasn't able to adapt. True you could have a world removed of the Y-Chromosone,but evolution would no longer exist. This being the clone society as they had it wouldn't be able to adapt to coming changes. Also a common factor noted by the Center for Disease Control," nothing just goes away, because one day an organism will come back, when it comes back it has learned, leaped, and taken major strides...... The writer could have included this in the story. That the virus is coming back to attack X- Chromosome or everyone not born with a survivor gene passed down by Y-chromosome survivors emphasis. The writer could have put that in the story, being that the Hope Chayse character could have been trying warn every one of a coming Apocalypse. And the by the end of the film could have really made it something really scary. The plot twister, there can be no light without darkness, and no darkness without the light. I'm really surprised and disappointed that writer Kenneth Biller who credits include Voyager and X-files didn't include this type of tapestry to this piece.