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.
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.