The Last Man on Planet Earth (TV Movie 1999) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
34 Reviews
Sort by:
Proof why Oxygen shouldn't be allowed to make movies
djsmeggysmeg12 December 2002
Warning: Spoilers
I have to say that this is possibly one of the worst movies ever. And keep in mind I've seen LaserBlast, so I know of which I speak. To call the plot sophomoric is being generous at best.

Now before I continue I would like to warn those unwary enough to see this movie that I cannot review it without revealing some of the plot 'twists'. There are some who refer to these sorts of things as 'spoilers' but it is my contention that this movie is so reprehensible that it is obvious that it was well spoilt before I got to it.

The premise is that WWIII ignites and because all of the women have evidently resigned from the armed forces around the world in unison, the only ones who are left to mind the deadly bacterial weapons are those filthy carriers of the dreaded Y chromosome. Now because ALL men are obviously nothing more than talking chimps they release a viral agent in Afghanistan, which proceeds to kill off 96% of the male population, regardless of age. Now this is the point where the movie becomes REALLY believable. The U.S. Surgeon General starts a crusade to make being male illegal but she is (GASP) assassinated by a (SHOCK) male gunman, thus proving her point to the entire world. The entire world proceeds to outlaw the Y chromosome with no worries because cloning has been perfected so now the human race can proceed into their utopia in peace and tranquility.

This flick gave me such a headache that I barely noticed the 'love story' between the brash young scientist and her new and improved clone male, new and improved in that she removed all those pesky aggression and self preservation genes turning him into the perfect male.

Now I really didn't mind the obvious attempts at irony foisted on us by the director like the brothel where wealthy women pay to spend time with the dangerous males. The only reason I don't mind them is that I refuse to believe I wasted 2 whole hours of my life on something so dumb.

And that's really what gets me. Not the bad acting, but that the premise in and of itself was just so insultingly stupid.

In short, movie bad. Men bad. Ook Ook Ook (Pounds fists on chest making ape noises)
12 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Wonderful fantasy
M_Guerin10 October 2000
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.
11 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Crap, pure and simple
gl_link6 May 2006
This has to be one of the worst movies ever to come out of the Sci-Fi Channel. Here is how the movie starts, Women are the only humans on this planet due to the fact that in the not to distant future chemical warfare is A OK as long as it only targets soldiers (In case your wondering, Men) However the virus back fires (Big shock)and all the men on earth slowly die. Then all of male kind is condemned to die when the madam president is shot and killed by a man. now we are taken around 60 to 70 years from now, two female scientists are working on cloning a female baby and one of them says "Hey, why don't we bring men back?" The other one says no the world is not ready for that, but promptly ignores her and thus a man walks the Eath again.

First off, this movie assumes that all men who are not genetically altered are blood thirsty monsters. Secondly, the writer forgot to mention that present day soldiers are a good mix of Male and Female officers so there is no real reason to have a virus like that. This is the biggest waist of time you can find. This movie managed to insult my intellect not only by the bad story, but with the Lifetime style acting. Avoid this movie at all costs.

I give this a 1 out of 10 but only because I could go no lower.
15 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Oh, yeah -- super schlocky
waylandseal20034 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is awful beyond belief. It's a low-budget, badly written, piece of pointless garbage. But the Saturday afternoon I stumbled across it on TV still sticks in my mind as one of the most entertaining I've ever spent in front of the television. The badness of this movie is epic -- maybe not Ed Wood epic, but close. The premise is hysterical (men are banned for being too dangerous and imprisoned in -- haw! -- football stadiums), the pseudo-dyke culture is laughably bizarre (there's an underground sex trade with women who dress up like men to service "deviants") and the "last man" of the title is a pitiful reincarnation of Rocky from Rocky Horror Picture Show. I didn't get to see the end of it, which I have to assume was so dripping with syrupy "what have we all learned from this?" nonsense it would bring on an urge to brush the teeth, but everything in the first two-thirds was so memorably bad, even if the last third turned out to be a pale imitation of the rest, it's still worthwhile for anyone who gets a kick out of campy, stupid, brainless sci-fi B-flicks.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Could not believe I watched the whole thing...
grimtooth9 December 2002
... but had to see just how bad it could get. The plotline was thin to begin with, but it just kept getting worse. A female genetic engineering grad student uses her research on accelerated mitosis to artificially create a male, because a biological weapon used in WW3 killed off 97% of the worldwide male population. The surviving men are either high prices gigolos in back alley clubs, or crazed lunatics in run down football stadiums plotting to overthrow the 'Lesbian Conspiracy'. The entire process resembled the microwaving of a large bowl of jello. Press a few buttons and ding you get a baby. Not only that, but he will age to mid 20's in a month, and then begin to age normally (how convenient). Eventually poor Adam gets bored with the secluded cabin in the woods where his creator had raised him and steals her car to 'see the city'.

This begins 90 minutes of unlikely chases, convenient plot twists, and several subplots that we never see resolved. As Adam quickly learns, what men did survive are treated as outcasts/criminals, because they are dangerous beasts that cannot help there genetic predisposition to violence. The propaganda machines have been in full swing, scaring women into believing all men are rapists and murderers. This has led to lesbianism being the norm, the fall of Christianity, female only reproduction via cloning, and oh yeah world peace among other implied results. All of which seem unlikely given that only ~30 years had elapsed since the war. Adam stumbles from one bad situation to the next, all the while being genetically programmed to be non-violent and unable to really do much on his own behalf. With the FBI on his trail, madams looking for fresh meat, and his creator trying to recapture him (for herself it seems), he learns that violence is not limited to the male species after all.

All in all, I would not recommend this movie.

I did however enjoy Veronica Cartwrights portrayal of the 'love to hate her' Director of the FBI, and Julie Bowen didn't do bad as Hope the 'closet hetero' geneticist either.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Mint Chan17 March 2006
I had no idea why the movie appear in my Tivo. I thought the title was intriguing and it might be charged with some sexual innuendo context but this is not the case. Many people might hate it because they don't get it.

This is a very political movie. While women in the movie said, in the movie, that men were violent by their genes, the truth was opposite. In the movie, either men or women just made up the stories, to justify their actions. In the movie, women society supposed to be Utopian and peaceful but it filled with corruptions as well as violent crimes. The police eager to use their guns with empty hand civilians.

There were some good acting but most of it were not very convincing. The plot was predictable. But they were not the points of this movie.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
If you don't like Science Fiction ....
AEEd21 April 2003
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.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Planet of the Apes Revisited
Hunter11142 April 2002
This film is a thinly veiled remake of the original "Planet of the Apes" but wholly without the depth or thought provoking qualities of the original. As one could deduce from the title, it is set in a world now composed almost exclusively of women. Except for a few, very few, moments near the end, the characters are cartoonish, and at times insulting, as is the explanation of how the world came to be in the state it finds itself. The film may be attempting to satirize the PC climate of today's society but does not succeed. Even as TV movies go, "Last Man..." serves mainly as something to fill air time between commercials. In general, if one finds ones self with nothing else to watch on a rainy day, go rent the original "Planet of the Apes".
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
yeah right !
bl-112 May 2000
The makers ask for a huge suspension of disbelief, you grant them it in the hope that given a little time they'll convince you it's possible. Alas, with TV movies it seems as though they specifically set out to make cheap Cosmo questionnaire films. With a small budget and big claims you should spend every penny on the details to convince the audience. Not here though. The film gets a few points for the good performance the two leading ladies give against the odds, but unfortunately it's not enough to save the day. oh, and the less said about the ending the better. Happy Film-Viewing Everyone !
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Could we please have some more male bashing?
georgette31 March 2002
This picture deserves kudos for including every male-bashing bromide and stereotype imaginable in a single movie. From the manipulative and violent "John Doe" character, to the reckless rebelliousness of Adam, to the law enforcement officer who was glad all the men were dead because as a child she watched her father beat her mother (obviously all men do this), the premise of this movie alone is laughable and sad at the same time. As a woman that does not think that men are inherently evil, I recommend that all like-minded people refrain from watching it.
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Good premise,but didn't really push the envelope
kastle979112 August 2004
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.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Works better as a comedy
marge_innovera8 August 2004
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.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Lubin Odana26 February 2001
Pure schlock from beginning to end. The average 12 year old might find that it has an interesting take on discrimination. Otherwise, it's a pure camp-fest endurance test. Like one of those so-so episodes of Star Trek The Next Generation that thinks it has Something Important To Say.

You'll see every plot twist a mile off in this by-the-numbers romp. However, it's worth seeing for its portrayal of drag-king prostitutes, a brothel where young women pay old men to have sex with them (how's that for role reversal), and lesbian soap operas. The ghost of Valerie Solanis lives!
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Lousy TV movie
Allen The Man4 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
They used footage of some real protest spliced with some woman talking about a society with no men to make it seem like these people were cheering for the 'gendercide' of men. The funny thing is, you can see a man cheering on his own death in the background.

OK, the plot. Some lady says there should be a society with no men, and the crowd in front of her (which contains some men) think its a great idea. So then all the men are killed or something. So there are no more.

Then this blonde scientist creates a man, but removes some chromosomes so he can't be violent. The male grows very quickly and soon is a full grown man. Not long after, he takes the blonde's' Volkswagen beetle and drives into the city where he's discovered. Now you would think the lone man in a city full of lesbians would be the happiest guy ever but no way. The police chase him.

I didn't watch the rest but it probably ends up that they've got to race against the clock and some people, or something bad will probably happen. Somehow the man ends up in a stadium with some other men who want him to lead the rebellion. These brave warriors hiding in a stadium might have had some sort of plan which laid out the details of how they'd single handedly get rid of a planet full of women, but I didn't watch. And neither should you.

If you're up late and channel surfing and this happens to come on, don't watch. Watch anything but this. You'll find those ads for Bowflex or the ones with women in bathing suits asking you to 'pick up the phone to meet women just like these' in your area will be more satisfying entertainment.

(Oh yeah, there's this funny thing when they're pulling in with their cars. I don't know what they did, it looks like they drove in real slow and careful but then tried to speed up the film to compensate but it just looks really weird.)

The blonde girl was kind of cute and I'm feeling generous, so... 2/10.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Last Movie I'd Ever Watch Again
netguy90013 June 2005
The plot - in the future when nearly all men have been killed by a Y-chromosome-targeting virus, a (hot) female genetic engineer 'creates' a man in a chem lab - is intriguing. Despite the somewhat promising premise, the movie falls flat in nearly every regard. The dialogue is laughable. The characters are paper thin. The exploration of a single-gender world is shallow. The worst part of the entire movie is the Asian detective who delivers lines so cheesy and contrived that you'll want to vomit.

I can't imagine how on earth this trash got produced. Most of the movie is male bashing. "All men are violent." "All men rape women." "Men are only animals." All of the women - even the 'closet hetero cases' - seem to display anger toward-, fear of-, and hatred for men. If you want to see a sci-fi film something along the lines of this movie's premise, you'd do best to look elsewhere.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Good idea, Bad script
sallybrat31 January 2004
It's a male bashing bonanza. I saw this on Sci-Fi a while ago, and the idea seemed interesting. It could have been a good movie, and the plot itself I don't see as male bashing, but certain specific references to men get really annoying. I might still watch the movie again though because it does at least try to redeem itself by hinting that maybe the women in the movie aren't really as non-violent as they claim, but it still doesn't compensate for the really tiring male-bashing. I mean, I can understand a little, it's part of the movie's plot, but come on, it gets really tiring after awhile. Not only that, but to assume that the majority of women in the world would accept becoming homosexual that easily and that the few remaining heterosexuals would be such a minority as to go "in the closet". It's just too unbelievable. There are far too many women out there with cultural or religious restrictions that would balk at this it is totally implausible. I mean I know its sci-fi, and I love sci-fi, but the best sci-fi has at least a hint of it being possible, and this is too implausible. The phrase "Truth is stranger than fiction" came about because fiction has to at least seem plausible to be welcomed, but truth isn't always. This movie is not that. Other than that, the movie does have some good acting and the eventual morals of the story, that something like what happened was wrong, do redeem it a little, but not enough.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
glamorized Nazism
domonkassu10 December 2002
Warning: This could spoil your movie. Watch it, see if you agree.

To think that we as humans can not learn from the past. The futuristic society portrayed glamorized what Hitler believed, obliterate a race of people (in this case men) for the benefit of society. It made me sick to my stomach. Also the plausibility of a Y bomb is insane. Even in war our instinct for self-preservation will prevent the extinction of humanity. We made mistakes in the past ie: Japan, Hiroshima and Nagasaki in '45 but because of that we avoided a bigger mistake in '63 during the Cuban Missile Crisis
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Males Not Included.
screenman30 October 2016
Warning: Spoilers
I found this to be a very engaging movie, premising a scenario in which men are practically driven into extinction by a genetically-engineered disease. Females have become sufficiently paranoid about men that their reintroduction is prohibited on the basis that they are the cause of all violence. Now, all children can be - and are - produced artificially, with a predetermined female gender. There is no domestic violence, no rape, no discrimination, no religion-induced misogyny. It's a daring concept and one likely to inflame a host of simmering sexual prejudices - more especially amongst males, I think (of which I am one).

Into this world, a female scientist has illegally created an artificial male, genetically engineered to be nice. His reception is mixed.

The movie touches upon the aforementioned prejudices about gender with a light hand, never becoming too seriously involved with 'issues' and just lets the story run its course. The bitterness of criticism in most of the commentaries is, I suspect, a measure of which those prejudices are inflamed. In that respect, it does its job, and deserves a wider audience.

All sensible people know that violence is not something inherently entailed in maleness - as Darwin made clear nearly 150years ago. Yet the delusion continues to be propagated; as recently as the mid-1990's two (male) naturalists co-wrote a book called "Demonic Males" which attempted to be scientific, but was simply an advocacy that was quite preposterous in its misuse and misinterpretation of evidence.

All technical issues are adequate; nothing stands out except the slightly audacious idea, which clearly arouses passions.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A great concept that deserved a bigger budget and better realisation
Joxerlives6 September 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I watched this on the Horror Channel which was weird as it certainly wasn't horror (as indeed is a great deal of The Horror Channel nowadays), the title and premise intrigued me. It has a great central concept reminiscent of an episode of the old sci-fi show Sliders, what would a world without men be like? It has some very interesting set-pieces, the brothel where women go to be 'entertained' (literally and figuratively) by a gang of ageing gigolos, one woman accusing the other of being a 'closet hetero' and the other being jealous that she got to know her father. Its' depiction of an all female world is interesting, a place without war and very little crime, in many ways a paradise on Earth. But girls will still be girls, lustful teenage females still yearn for stubble and a sixpack held against them, older women still crave the adoration and hetero rough and tumble of sex with a male lover.

In contrast to some reviewers I don't think this film is either anti-male or anti-female, if anything it walks the middle line, after the helicopter scene one character remarks that violence isn't a solely male trait and later on we see that neither is ruthlessness (the great Veronica Cartwright giving another smashing performance).

It suffers from a lack of budget and I'd like to have seen more of the reaction of an all-female society to a male on the loose, the militant feminist fringe demonising him, hysterical teenage groupies establishing a fanclub for him, mature women wistfully comparing him to the son they never had. Would be interesting to see a female couple where one is purely a lesbian and is upset that her wife/girlfriend is attracted to a male. It could really do with a slightly higher rating too, the situation lends itself to adult/gender based humour but we don't really get to explore that too much which is a shame (amazed they got the scene where the young girl licks the picture of the male centerfold in not to mention the part where the female trick wants her gigilo to slap her around a bit as sexual foreplay). Funny bit where the hero effortlessly outpaces the pursuing female police officers, wouldn't it be hilarious if we also saw him dispose of a spider and change a tyre then get lost because he refuses to ask for directions? It would also be nice to see the flip side, an all male world where there is suddenly a woman introduced but I think that would have a very different (and frankly unpleasant) vibe to it.

All told I think it's ripe for a big budget remake.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Absolutely sucked!
flaman4529 July 2003
I realize this movie was released in 1999, and that most of the posts were written 2 or 3 years ago. But after catching this schlock on the sci-fi channel last night (07/28/03)(and I did miss the first 30 mins) I had to find someway of offering my comments somewhere, anywhere because the steam was still coming out of my ears! I didn't think any movie could p**s me off more then "The Stepford Husbands", but apparently I was wrong.

In a day and age when women jump in with machete's at the slightest hint of something sexist, how a movie could get made which routinely for 90 mins bombards the viewers about what sick and violent pigs men are is beyond me. Did a man actually write this drivel? It had to be either written by a very bitter woman, or a man who was going to redeem this crap with a hopeful ending. Neither one I'm afraid. The potential was there to save this at the end..but it didn't happen!

This movie was obviously written and made to appeal to a lesbian slumber party, because as a male I have never been so disgusted in my life. We may view women in a sexist manner, but we certainly don't fantasize about obliterating them off the face of the earth. A world without women would be a living nightmare. But apparently to some women, a world without men would be utopia.

Could there possibly be any more obligatory scenario's? The man urinating in the ally, (no penis envy there) the abusive father, referring to males as a "Y", and on and on. The whole planet has turned lesbian except for a few closet hetero's. While this may appeal to some adolescent fantasies in the teenage viewer, the thought that if this would to happen, and women would just let us die without a second thought is frightening! There is so much BS in this movie I cant even begin to cover it all!

This movie is every mans worst nightmare. And I should know because years ago I had a nightmare exactly like this! What I would like to see is the male equivalent of this and then sit back and see how fast the NOW starts a nationwide boycott of all retailers who sell it!

I'm not as much interested in reviewing this movie as much as I am just wanting to post my opinion as a man who is tired of the disrespect and male bashing crap that we have to put up with. Is every decent man going to have to pay for the sins of all other tyrants thruout history forever? I don't have that many years to wait.

I apologize if my verbiage is not as professional as some of the other reviewers that have seen this.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Not so far fetched anymore
drchazan14 October 2001
The idea of this film was that WWIII started in Afghanistan and their use of biological weapons forced their enemy allies (US, in particular) to develop a counter-biological weapon which went haywire and wiped out all but a handful of the male species on the planet. Today, in October of 2001, we know this isn't such a far fetched premise for a story line anymore. Sad, isn't it?

The film is interesting to think about because of recent events, but nothing spectacular or special - an average TV movie.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Quite clever and surprising
dougmj11 October 2001
After reading the title of this film, I must admit I didn't expect much to come from it but it was actually quite clever and inventive. The premise about how the world came to be 98% female is very interesting and clever and scary to think that it could actually one day happen. The performance of Julie Bowen is the highlight of this film as are the supporting cast. I have to agree the ending wasn't to my liking but it was still a good surprise of a film and well worth watching!
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Drifter-1322 July 2000
Is tension for violence genetic? My personal opinion is that over the years, men have been in more suitable conditions to exploit and develop this tension than women have, and violence has nothing to do with genetic predisposition. I'm not going to reveal the movie progress here, but as the story reveals itself, I had to draw but one conclusion: Alas, this is not an unlikely future, we men may be in serious trouble! A must see for men haters.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Ripped from today's headlines?
Steve9 March 2018
Warning: Spoilers
This film limns the limits of scientific implausibility, but this nearly 20 year old turkey has aged well in the sense that it was eerily prescient about early 21st century misandry and its manifestations (were they thinking of #killallmen?). There is even a female politician seeking the presidency, who collectively blames the male sex for its own misfortune of being wiped out by gendercide. Her speech (cut short by her assassination by a man, of course) presaged Hillary Clinton's comment that "Women are the first victims of war. They lose their husbands, their sons and their fathers..." Almost every bit of misandry in the film sounds like a regurgitation of the male bashing white noise that is part of our contemporary zeitgeist- I can almost imagine it was ghostwritten by Hanna Rosin or Maureen Dowd, and the anti male protesters in crowd scenes would fit in comfortable in contemporary feminist demonstration, except they are not suited up to resemble female genitalia (I suppose that would be redundant in an all female society). The few males that exist in this society, moreover, seem to exist primarily to validate the hatred and scorn of women- aging neanderthals called "the Reclaimers" who've been unsuccessfully ploting a coup against the "Lesbian dictatorship" from an abandoned football stadium, and unattractive, middle aged hustlers who supposedly serve the few women who haven heterosexual impulses. Even "Adam" serves as an anti male stereotype- since we're informed that the "violence gene" has been deleted from his genetic makeup, as if such a thing actually exists outside of rants about "testosterone poisoning" and "toxic masculinity" (the fictive "violence gene" must have been attached to a gene for androgenic hair, since Adam has none- this film also presaged manscaping).

A more interesting film would hae dealt with the problems of maintaining a single sex society- we're told, for instance, that younger women were all cloned. That would ultimately be destructive to the survival of the species, since it would preclude evolutionary adaptations (which is why asexual reproduction exists only in primitive species, like earthworms). Moreover, virtually all infrastructure- electrical grids, water and sewer systems, public transit systems, construction and mining is done by males. As worthless as many trendy females think the male sex is, replacing them with untrained and inexperienced women on a massive scale (we're told the male population was wiped out in a matter of a few months) woud be a hopeless task. It would be interesting to see women confront this challenge, and also deal with a world where over 92% of workplace fatalities were not male.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Surprisingly thought provoking
tmkara22 January 2017
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.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews