Plots(1)

This stylish, unclassifiable film depicts a future world in which sex is no longer an act that occurs naturally between two consenting adults, but rather an emotionless, business-like arrangement in which the man chooses his ideal mate... from a selection of perfectly-formed replicants. When successful businessman Sam Treadwell (David Andrews) finds that his android wife, the Cherry model 2000 (Pamela Gidley), malfunctions during a steamy clinch, he decides to leave the safety of his everyday life and brave the treacherous and lawless region of The Zone to find an exact replacement model from a remote factory warehouse. His guide for this dangerous journey is the renegade tracker E Johnson (Melanie Griffith), a fearless and undeniably real woman. (Signal One Entertainment)

(more)

Reviews (2)

JFL 

all reviews of this user

English Though Cherry 2000 has an entirely original premise involving a futuristic world in which sex has become an annoying matter of bureaucracy so that so love blossoms rather in relation to androids, it otherwise has too much in common with the meta-genre satire A Boy and His Dog, which was made twelve years prior and thus even before desert post-apocalyptic action flicks became one of the dominant genres of trash pop culture. In both films, the default McGuffin is the protagonist’s desire to get laid, most of the plot is set in the desert, the narrative shows various bizarre groups of people and bizarre forms of civilisation in the wasteland, and in each film the protagonist becomes an involuntary guest in a deranged community that looks like a dystopian version of a 1950s suburb with fake smiles, overblown gender archetypes and monstrous adoration of conformity. However, the two films are fundamentally different from each other in that, while in the earlier film the protagonist is accompanied on his journey by a hyper-intelligent dog, in Cherry 2000 his guide is a fearless warrior and smuggler played by Melanie Griffith, though their roles in the narrative, especially in the final point, are basically identical. But because of this shift, Cherry 2000 becomes a run-of-the-mill genre spectacle, unlike its unacknowledged inspiration. The only thing it retains from the sharp wit of A Boy and His Dog is its obvious use of the basic principle of post-apocalyptic films. The story of a man spoiled by big-city life who sets out into the wasteland, where he is transformed into a valiant warrior, literally shows that Mad Max and its countless imitators are nothing more than futuristic westerns that, instead of the unwanted effect of nostalgia for bygone romantic times, offer the heroically naïve  promise of a future in which classic virtues return at full strength. Compared to traditionally macho visions of the post-apocalypse, it may seem that Cherry 2000 even perhaps offers a feminist version with a strong female protagonist. On closer inspection, however, it is apparent that even though E. Johnson comes across as a seasoned, fearless heroine in the beginning, that’s only because we are waiting for the male hero to cast off the pampered nature of modern civilisation and grow into the role of a classic tough guy during his later adventures. In addition to her timidity in taking the initiative with respect to getting closer to the hero, the heroine’s inner passivity is made complete by Melanie Griffith’s fragile voice, which is reminiscent of a woman from a kitschy melodrama from the 1950s. As a result, Cherry 2000 is actually a bastardisation of A Boy and His Dog. Instead of social satire and mockery of classic adventure genres, its narrative is transformed into a mediocre genre flick precisely in the spirit of 1980s post-apocalyptic westerns. ()

lamps 

all reviews of this user

English A typical B-movie from an era when anybody could be a great action hero (here it’s model Melanie Griffith and casual clone Emilio Estevez), but this time in a more original setting and with a couple of interesting futurism motifs. The vision of the future, where the rich live in cities full of beautiful female robots and a post-apocalyptic countryside that’s not too far from Mad Max has quite some potential, likewise with the emancipatory undertones, but the script never goes further than cowardly exploiting proven or poorly drawn patters, and the attempts at originality after the promising beginning voluntarily give way to undemanding and often openly funny entertainment (the way they dispatch the villain is perfectly cute in a 1980s sort of way). The most important thing, though, is that it’s harmless. 55% ()