Absolon

The biggest mystery about ABSOLON is how the filmmakers managed to get 33 people to register and then give the film a perfect "10" score. It's ridiculous, of course, and I'm willing to bet even star Christopher Lambert would agree.

ABSOLON is yet another low-budget film with minimal resources, and yet it seems unaware of this fact since the movie is set "sometime in the near future". I.e. Things are just similar enough that the filmmakers can get by, but there are differences such as a VR and an artificial intelligence computer that lets us know it's "the future". Of course the VR only shows up in the first 3 minutes, and the artificial intelligence computer is basically a woman talking through a speaker.

ABSOLON is not an awful movie, but it is a bad movie. It's basically a string of cliches and "Evil Corporation" formulas thrown into scenes of Lambert dodging assassins led by a cheesy Lou Diamond Phillips, now trying to make himself the King of Low-Budget Cheesy Villains.

Skip this film.

3 out of 10.

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 think this movie has enormous potential as a cult film. I was baffled by the first half of the movie. I found myself laughing out loud at the second half. You could almost hear the director coaching the lead actress - "Okay, in this scene you are once again feeling warm and feel the need to take off your jacket and arch your back." I half expected the actors to start laughing at themselves as they all seemed to be reading the terrible dialogue off cue cards. I would like to think this movie was made in under 24 hours and there was no time for writing, reading, or memorizing a script.

Even though the story was basically over after an hour, the plot dragged along - just to make this into the feature-length category. Even the actors and cameraman seemed bored with the actual plot. I have never seen a movie make more ridiculous use of sunglasses, hair extensions, and gratuitous chest shots.

I dare you to sit through the whole thing.

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.

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.