My god, the origonal heavy metal concept was grown out of the magazine. Each segment was directed and written by different people. It is called a anthology. Sorry I'm a lousy speller)It find...eventually they'll run out.was not designed to a feature length adult cartoon for a couple od directors and writers. Me? I burn every copy I find..in a fire.
The early bird might get the worm,
But the 2nd mouse gets the cheese!
Kindeyes
I was thinking the same thing. What went wrong? At least with a series of short stories, there's something every viewer can pick as a favorite but with one story it's even more hit or miss because if you don't like the story, well it's the only story in the movie. Another issue is what was up with the soundtrack? When I hear "Heavy Metal" I'm thinking more along the lines of Judas Priest, Black Sabbath, and Motorhead and not ICP, KMFDM, or Billy Idol who are in entirely different genres.
shareYes, film sucked, it was a poor story, the only thing linking it to the original was the green glow of the key, then it skewed off into a tacky sci-fi cartoon of little substance. The animation looked very dated, and while it probably was a nod to the orignal, the original utilised different styles, looks and attitudes from segment to segment - this was just stale all the way through.
I agree with the previous posters, small segmented stories served the original so well, it probably would have worked the same again? I'm surprised they didn't go down that route instead of picking a fairly lame idea and trying to stretch to feature length - maybe that was only way they could get finance for the film? I've heard that segmented stories are not very popular with film producers these days, their hay-days were very much 70's and 80's, I'm thinking tales from the Crypt, Creepshow, and the original film, of course.
I did enjoy the voice acting, and I'd have to disagree with the previous poster - I thought the music was the best thing about it - perhaps the one thing that did stand up. I know the original film used 80's metal and the new one utilised more industrial bands and some artists that basically are not metal acts per say, but I really enjoyed the tracks and thought when they popped up it lifted the film slightly above mediocrity for those short moments!
Overall though, a big let down.
Seems like they saw resident evil and thought "Whoa, a bad ass angry lesbian killing monsters!?!! That HAS to be what our movie is about!! Screw the original video!!"
Not to forget the horrendous audio/music and most everything about the plot..
I'm pretty sure Julie strain slept with the producers and that's why the movie is all about her. Even named the main Julie. Why else would they want her anywhere near a voice over studio?
share[deleted]
by kindeyes (Tue Sep 21 2010 15:41:43)
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
My god, the origonal heavy metal concept was grown out of the magazine. Each segment was directed and written by different people. It is called a anthology. Sorry I'm a lousy speller)It find...eventually they'll run out.was not designed to a feature length adult cartoon for a couple od directors and writers. Me? I burn every copy I find..in a fire.
The early bird might get the worm,
But the 2nd mouse gets the cheese!
Kindeyes
Good points, Blueghost.
The original "Heavy Metal" was borderline exploitation (often crossing that border), but it held my interest because of the variety of animation styles, the occasionally entertaining storylines and the killer soundtrack and score. This film just felt like a rejected video game, with no real artistry, a bland plot and forgettable songs. The counterculture aspect of the first film felt like the last gasp of an era (it was), but this film doesn't seem to stand for anything but cheap thrills and shocks.
"Heavy Metal" 1981: 6/10 stars
"Heavy Metal 2000": 4/10 stars
[deleted]
I just saw this movie on Youtube. It's nowhere as good as the original, but it's not as bad as people are making it out to be. It's actually a decent film, albeit one with a forgettable story. At least it's not as bad as Battlefield Earth, Batman and Robin, and Manos: The Hands of Fate.
Welcome to my Nightmare- Freddy Krueger
[deleted]
It would take a special talent to be worse than Manos: Hand of Fate.
Damion Crowley
All complaints about my post go to Helen Waite.
by WarpedRecord ยป Fri Nov 16 2012 15:00:06
IMDb member since April 2005
Good points, Blueghost.
The original "Heavy Metal" was borderline exploitation (often crossing that border), but it held my interest because of the variety of animation styles, the occasionally entertaining storylines and the killer soundtrack and score. This film just felt like a rejected video game, with no real artistry, a bland plot and forgettable songs. The counterculture aspect of the first film felt like the last gasp of an era (it was), but this film doesn't seem to stand for anything but cheap thrills and shocks.
"Heavy Metal" 1981: 6/10 stars
"Heavy Metal 2000": 4/10 stars
Very good points. I also great up with this counterculture โ for better and worse โ and I appreciate its contributions to music, literature and film. On the other hand, it has also resulted in a fair amount of disposable product.
Bottom line: If you have to be high to appreciate something, maybe it's not that great to begin with. That generally applies to the original "Heavy Metal." I like it in segments, but I just don't love it as a whole โ outside of the soundtrack, which I find uniformly excellent.
As for "Heavy Metal 2000," I don't like it at all, but I'm not in the demographic targeted here. Honestly, I'm not sure whom they were trying to reach, but it certainly wasn't me.
I wondered about that. I think they, the people envisioned the film, still think there's huge segments of teen and pre-teen males who heavily into metal and counter culture. That eras all but gone. There's still a good healthy following for rock music as a whole, but I think someone failed to do their research on who the target audience was.
shareWell, I should hope preteen males are still interested in heavy-metal music and counterculture, but it's hard to tell in this Internet age because -- at least in my perception -- folks seem rather unfocused and easily distracted. Of course, this film is from 15 years ago, before downloads and social media completely changed the face of entertainment and interaction.
shareWell, I think a new HM film would still attract a lot of viewers, but only as long as it had quality to it, as per the original film.
HM2000 lacked all that, such that even fans of the magazine and music genre who remembered the original film, went and saw the Julie Strain film, didn't like it.
To me that's a hard lesson for the morbidly overweight editor who cast his B-movie queen wife in the lead role. If you depend on consumer loyalty, but cut back on your product quality control, then don't be surprised if people bad mouth your new line of product when it rolls off the factory assembly line.
It seems like a lesson that Hollywood has a hard time learning. All except for Disney.
Ditto.
It reminds me of when Walt Disney wanted to make Jungle Book. He got the animators, Larry Clemmons specifically, together and asked who had read the book. None of them had. He said (paraphrasing) 'Good. don't'
The original was very good; subtle humour good stories and cutting edge animation.
I'm open to the possibility it's possible.
Is your mind open to the possibility it's impossible?