Le Dernier Homme sur Terre

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.

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.

Very interesting tale - a la male version of the Handmaid's Tale - it seems that biological warfare has inadvertently wiped out 97% of the world's male population - and the remaining women have decided to enact laws to ban the reproduction of any further men because men are hopelessly violent, and their eradication proves it. The new women-only society has decided that only females are allowed to be born through modern science. Funny and interesting premise - although of course this American movie fails to explain what kinds of similar laws are implemented in the rest of the world. Did Russia also embrace a women-only policy? Iran? We only get the American version. If other countries didn't agree with the American pro-woman policy, than men would quickly repopulate elsewhere and perhaps try to immigrate to the U.S. I guess the U.S. could have a no-male immigration policy to ensure female purity. Putting this major plot flaw aside, this movie was very entertaining. The plot follows a renegade female scientist who genetically creates a male without a predisposition for violence - the assumption that male violence is genetically intrinsic in males is unquestioned. The male creation, named Adam (how Biblical!), is born and grows up rapidly within three weeks until growth is curiously finished around 25 years or so, when the normal rate of aging resumes. Of course, the male creation grows up to be a strappling, muscular hunk played by Paul Francis (conspicuously absent from this website's cast list?). Highly recommended for the interesting premise - some men might find it hard to take - it makes no bones about suggesting that all men are genetically violent, and combined with the sexism against Adam (nudity, temporarily turned into a male prostitute, generally passive and undeveloped character, etc.) might prove a little offensive. Men haters will love it.

Wow, what a stinker.

I was intrigued by the premise, which had an "Outer Limits" ring to it.

It's a shame that the actual movie turned out so laughable. This brings me to my summary, which is how I actually made it through this. Seriously, once I changed my expectation, I had a blast.

If it weren't so preposterous and sophomoric, it might actually have been offensive.

Maybe this would make a good film to review in a film class. There were so many opportunities to turn things around, I think a class of young students could have a field day with this.