Apocalypse Warriors

Equalizer 2000 (1987)

* 1/2 (out of 4)

Here's another low-budget post-Apocalyptic film that deals with a gang of bad guys who want to control everything that remains in the dirty world. The only problem is that they run up against Slade (Richard Norton) who creates a new gun that makes him a major threat to all.

EQUALIZER 2000 was one of many rip-offs of MAD MAX and THE ROAD WARRIOR that would be made and thrown on video store shelves back in the 1980s. If you were lucky enough to grow up during this era then you know that if a movie was popular in theaters then low-budget producers would try and make a killing with the rip-offs. Director Cirio H. Santiago made several of these in the Philippines so I guess the best thing to say is that this is better than THE SISTERHOOD.

If you're looking for nothing but action then you'll get plenty of that here. There are fast cars speeding around everywhere. You've got non-stop gun fights, explosions and various other action scenes that were all done with very little money and it shows. You've got a lot of eye candy going on here but there's no question that the story itself is very boring and it all grows rather tiresome very quickly.

If you're a fan of these type of low-budget, direct-to-video films then I'm sure you'll get a kick out of this one. As it stands, it was just too boring and way too bland for its own good.

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.

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.

If there is one thing I appreciate about director Cirio H. Santiago, it's that he seems to like strong female characters and includes them in many of his films. In "Equalizer 2000" we have the sexy Corinne Wahl, who handles her guns with proficiency and adds the only spice to the film. The lead is Richard Norton, whose (considerable, if you watch any of his HK work) talents are largely wasted in a few poorly filmed fights, and who is a total blank as a character (more the script's fault than his own). The action scenes are uninteresting and unexciting - chaotic battles between armies of anonymous people whom we don't know or care about. There is just very little worth seeing in this film, and almost all of it comes from Wahl. Even with her, however, your best option is to skip it. (*)

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.