Absolon

Exactly that, this film had potential to be good. Alas it sucked. Kelly Brook may be hot but her acting is luke warm. And why is it that lamberts voice never changes, totally mono.

Avoid the film unless youre planing on re-making it, becuase it has a good enough Sci-Fi story line to work with.

As far as direct-to-video sci-fi, it hardly gets worse than Absolon, and that's saying a whole lot. As with about 97.9% of the people who have seen this movie, I rented it because Christopher Lambert was in it. This movie was bad even by Christopher Lambert direct-to-video standards. The plot is a ludicrous story of viruses and big business in the "future". This future doesn't look very futuristic, but this is explained away in the prologue by telling the viewer that because so many people died in a plague, the world's population has enough goods to last another 100 years. I guess that's why everyone drives 2001 Tauruses and Explorers then, not budget constraints, right? Lambert comes out OK here, as he once again rises above his awful material to give what is at the very least an acceptable performance. Other than that, watch out. Lou Diamond Phillips hams it up like never before, and even Ron Perlman is stunningly awful in his small role (I guarantee he wasn't on set for more than a day or two, as his character never leaves his desk, and about halfway through the movie he stops interacting in person with the other characters, instead using video conferencing). Additionally, I'm pretty sure that in this future, anyone can be a cop, because one of Lambert's fellow cops looks like she is about 10 minutes removed from a Ramones show (with dark red streaks in her jet-black hair) and another appears to be wearing some sort of Indiana Jones Halloween costume (fedora included). Kelly Brook is gorgeous as Lambert's love interest, although her acting talent is limited as is her willingness to do nude scenes apparently. I've never felt so teased by a female character's lack of nudity in my life.

The direction is awful, I'm sure half of the people that read this, if not more, could make a better movie. Barto uses some of the most ridiculous editing techniques I've ever seen, including an incredibly obnoxious fast-forward/slo-mo combination that hurts my eyes every time it comes on screen. Even worse than the direction is the music. It's one thing to have the John Carpenter-esquire simplistic synth score, it's quite another to try to make it sound complex. The score was obviously recorded entirely on a synthesizer on "Strings" setting to emulate an orchestra, and the effect is hilarious, giving every second of music in the film a Casio Keyboard quality. This is not the only problem with the sound, however, as I swear there was one point in a chase sequence when Brook moved her mouth as if speaking and no speech accompanied it.

One of the worst movies I've ever seen, and maybe THE worst, but I'm giving it 3/10 because it is unintentionally funny to the point of actually being watchable all the way through, if only to wait for the next misstep.

I watched this movie mainly because of the actors that were in it, namely Lambert, Perlman, Philips. The plot is not entirely original (which ones are?) but interesting in detail and certainly good enough to support a good movie. Had the budget been bigger, this move could have been so much more. Fight sequences are the worst part - silly and unbelievable. If you removed most of them the movie would be much better. The cast are mostly good actors but the script and other aspects of the movie let them down - they mostly do the best they can with what they have been given. Lou Diamond Philips would have had more impact if he had toned down his performance - its too over the top. I tend to blame the script/director for this rather than the actor. He certainly has the looks and talent to play a great bad guy - but hes not great here. Of the three name actors he comes out worse. (If you want to see what he can really do Courage Under Fire.) Perlman does well in his rather limited role. Lambert is OK some of the time, but rather wooden the rest. Brook is great too look at and sort of OK but the script gives her no opportunity to stretch herself. I liked the actress who plays the Scotts partner - an interesting performance. She looks great too. I hope to see her more often (I resisted the temptation to say "see more of her" - it could be misconstrued). In many ways a bad movie but it has some unexpected good points that kept me watching despite the lows. One commenter on this forum says watching this movie is a waste of time. Perhaps, but then really watching any movie is strictly speaking a waste of time. This is especially so today, when hardly any modern movies have anything but laughable plots. There are many worse ways to waste your time than this movie.

Review on the movie "Absolon (2003)"

As always with any movie that casts Christopher Lambert I approach with trepidation. This is because his films, other than the original Highlander, always seem to be of B grade or less quality. Absolon only further reinforces that reality. The premise of the plot: that some major corporation is controlling the supply of a drug that is required for sustaining life is interesting enough. The execution of the plot and the production of the movie are poor at best. Here are examples. 1. The soundtrack is poor (pitiful and boring is a better description) 2. Lou Diamond Philips performs at his usual bad actor level. Every time he tries to act like a tough guy is deplorable. 3. The time period was after 2012 yet the sets were decorated with modern items, at times even old items: old cars, old telephones, old signs. Very little effort or expense was made to give the impression of a future world. 4. Overused and insipid clichés: a. Girl blowing smoke from barrel of a shotgun after killing someone. b. Worn out scene of last second salvage from a ticking time bomb. c. Black lady constantly applying lipstick in futile attempt at sexy and tough. 5. Fight scenes are unbelievable, too choreographed and too long. A metal pipe to the rib cage will drop a horse, but not our protagonist (even after he has already taken a few blows to the head). 6. Sidekick female doctor with a big set of tits (actually a really nice rack) is so obvious an attempt to add sex/beauty to a movie that hopeless lacks everything else. You have poor actors (Lou Diamond Philips, Christopher Lambert, Ron Perlman), poor background music, poor sets, poor plot execution basically you get a poor movie. On a scale of 1 to 10 this one gets a 3.5 at most.

In the future, all money has been obliterated in exchange for a chronic medicine which treats (but doesn't cure) a universal plague that everyone suffers from. However when an actual cure for the plague is produced, the government wants to kill the scientist due to the shock it would have on the economy, Christopher Lambert, Lou Diamond Phillips and Ron Perlman are aboard to make this more watchable than it would be. Absolon is a straight to video movie (Obviously) which I watched on the Sci-Fi channel, for some reason I have an uncanny ability to seek out the STV movies independent from them and some how avoid their made for Sci-Fi movies, consider it luck I guess. However this being said Absolon is a competently made B.movie but it is also clichéd, unexciting and dreary. Lambert is actually not too shabby and there are moments when you suspect that the movie is going to open up and get really interesting but alas it never does. It always comes close to a boil but it loses steam due to an uninspired gunfight or something gratuitous to it's plot. Had Absolon concentrated on it's futuristic dwellings this would have been good, however because it lacks atmosphere the movie feels ordinary and by the numbers. Still fairly watchable in a low expectations kind of way.

* * out of 4-(Fair)