Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueA ruthless vehicular gang rules the post-apocalyptic wasteland. That's until a muscled hero named Slade builds the ultimate machine gun - Equalizer 2000, and declares a one man war on the ga... Tout lireA ruthless vehicular gang rules the post-apocalyptic wasteland. That's until a muscled hero named Slade builds the ultimate machine gun - Equalizer 2000, and declares a one man war on the gang's "piece of garbage" leader.A ruthless vehicular gang rules the post-apocalyptic wasteland. That's until a muscled hero named Slade builds the ultimate machine gun - Equalizer 2000, and declares a one man war on the gang's "piece of garbage" leader.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
Don Gordon Bell
- Gossage
- (as Don Gordon)
Bobby Greenwood
- Dinah
- (as Bobbie Greenwood)
Henry Strzalkowski
- Alamo
- (as Henry Strzalskowski)
Willy Schober
- Lube Job
- (as Schorber Sagarbarria)
Brad Cassini
- Soldier
- (non crédité)
Avis à la une
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
B movie perennial Richard Norton ("Force: Five") stars as a hero named Slade in this little epic, just one of many grungy post-apocalypse features to pattern itself after "Mad Max" and "The Road Warrior". Slade is out to get revenge on a military unit dubbed "The Ownership", who are just greedy enough to want control of all resources. They meet resistance from Slade and other rebels, "mountain people", and a sexy as Hell warrior woman named Karen (Penthouse hottie Corinne Wahl). But Slade has an ace up his sleeve: the sleek and massive weapon of the title, which ensures its owners' survival.
Fans of derivative future set schlock won't mind that the story (written by co-star Frederick Bailey, who plays Hayward) is practically non existent. It's all about non-stop (and I do mean non-stop) gunfire, explosions, and setting people on fire. (This is the kind of movie where nobody ever seems to run out of ammo.) While it's hard to give much of a damn about any character here, the actors do what they can with limited material. Norton is fortunately one very badass hero; he can shoot at the bad guys while perched on the hood of a car, and not lose his balance. Wahl isn't much of an actress, but it's doubtful that many people will care when she looks so fine. William Steis (as Lawton) and Peter Shilton (as MacLaine) are adequate villains. Any fan of Filipino exploitation cinema will be happy to see Vic Diaz here, as he portrays one of those "mountain people". But the most fun is in seeing future star Robert Patrick, in his second feature film appearance, as a mangy weasel named Deke.
Passable direction by Cirio H. Santiago and amusing electronic music by Ding Achacoso help to make this an okay diversion.
Five out of 10.
Fans of derivative future set schlock won't mind that the story (written by co-star Frederick Bailey, who plays Hayward) is practically non existent. It's all about non-stop (and I do mean non-stop) gunfire, explosions, and setting people on fire. (This is the kind of movie where nobody ever seems to run out of ammo.) While it's hard to give much of a damn about any character here, the actors do what they can with limited material. Norton is fortunately one very badass hero; he can shoot at the bad guys while perched on the hood of a car, and not lose his balance. Wahl isn't much of an actress, but it's doubtful that many people will care when she looks so fine. William Steis (as Lawton) and Peter Shilton (as MacLaine) are adequate villains. Any fan of Filipino exploitation cinema will be happy to see Vic Diaz here, as he portrays one of those "mountain people". But the most fun is in seeing future star Robert Patrick, in his second feature film appearance, as a mangy weasel named Deke.
Passable direction by Cirio H. Santiago and amusing electronic music by Ding Achacoso help to make this an okay diversion.
Five out of 10.
Prolific low-budget director Cirio H. Santiago made a career of directing low-budget genre pictures in the Philippines for US distributors and here brings to us his version of "The Road Warrior." Musclebound stuntman/actor/martial artist Richard Norton ("Twinkle Twinkle Lucky Stars" "Gymkata") plays Slade, our hero who uses his giant machine gun, the Equalizer 2000, to defeat a nasty gang of wasteland bikers. Compared to most of the Italian Mad Max ripoffs, this one actually bothered to film a few car chase action sequences that aren't too bad, but most of the movie is a bunch of dudes in ratty clothes fighting, arguing, and shooting each other up in what looks like an abandoned quarry. One interesting casting note, this is the first film appearance of Robert Patrick, four years before his star making role as the T-1000 in "Terminator 2: Judgement Day." Overall, "Equalizer 2000" is nothing to go out of your way to watch, but if you're desperate for a warriors of the wasteland action flick and have seen all of the good non-Mad Max ones (i.e. "Cherry 2000" "A Boy and His Dog" "Doomsday" "Six String Samurai" and the list pretty much stops there), Cirio H. Santiago's "Equalizer 2000" or "Wheels of Fire" may scratch your itch.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesRobert Patrick's 2nd film.
- GaffesThe guy about to be roasted with the flamethrower is wearing a tee shirt as he runs away, but when they cut back after he's lit up he's wearing a leather jacket.
- Versions alternativesUS R-Rated version published by MGM/UA on VHS is about 10 minutes cut in a few shorter scenes of violence (two "living torch effects"; Corinne Wahl getting shot during the showdown for example), some action scenes and a good deal of story lines. German VHS version rated 18 is cut as well, but only about 3 1/2 minutes (for violence). British VHS version distributed by New Dimension, rated 18, is completely uncut (so you could consider it an "Unrated" version).
- ConnexionsEdited into Raiders of the Sun (1992)
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
Détails
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant
Lacune principale
By what name was Apocalypse Warriors (1987) officially released in India in English?
Répondre