User reviews

If ever you want an example of a very 1980s movie, with soaring Pink Floyd imitation guitars, then make a note of Hardware. Hardware is actually, even at this early age, part of a robot tradition. Star Wars had been around for a while, and then there was The Black Hole (1979), Saturn 3 (1980), and Short Circuit (1986). I'm giving this movie a 7 because it entertained, but if I were a real movie critic I'd give it less. Almost all the camerawork is in a close-up range, and the robots field of vision was way too spludgey, a sort of amateur Predator vision. We needed wider shots to really see the robot, and we needed to see more of the city itself, not just the crazy lady's crazy artist's loft. Anyway, that's my take. I liked the soundtrack and the human characters, they were all really suitably post-apocalypse, and the general story made sense in a sci-fi fashion, and the ravages of the droid were suitably outrageous. I'd love to see it remade with a more modern take. This is definitely one for the archives.

This is a very cool little sci-fi flick. OK, it's no Aliens, but it has a lot of really interesting things happening. First off it has a slick look, filmed very well by first time director/writer Richard Stanley, a lot of strobes and brilliant colour give it a perfect setting for the `robot goes crazy' plot. I also liked the post-apocalyptic landscape, which I think worked well along with Iggy Pop's narration as `Angry Bob'. It takes a little while to build, but the ending packs a decent punch, along with just enough gratuitous violence to keep me happy. There are also plenty of religious references and imagery to look for, all centering around the `MARK 13 Cyborg.' So, if you like sci-fi, I think you should give this movie a try, it's a pretty cool ride with some very cool imagery.

I saw this movie in the theater the week it opened way back when. It was a very, very late showing, and there were approximately five other people in the theater. Two walked out during the film. As the film credits rolled, the two women sitting next to us said, "My god! That was the worst film I have ever seen!" My only thoughts were, "They have not seen Starcrash!"

Both my friend and I loved Hardware. I introduced my SO to it this weekend, and he loved it. I think what I like about it is that it's a small movie that manages to execute its space perfectly. The universe of Hardware is dark, dirty, claustrophobic (without being small). The narrative is pure dystopia, which fits very well with the droid gone wild theme. The droid is so unrelenting, as is the dreariness of existence in this post apocalyptic space. I like how tight the movie is. I also like how clean the narrative is. There isn't any extraneous fluff.

I think this movie will appeal to the slightly more sophisticated film lover. It doesn't have big movie pretensions. Hollywood did not destroy this movie. The symbolism is far more subtle than in big productions. The pacing is also different. I loved the slow buildup.

This movie worked, but it's not an easy movie. If you're willing to work a little with a movie that doesn't have the big movie facade of Terminator II or Independence Day, and you enjoy dystopic science fiction, I think you will like this one.

The 21st century world is a radioactive wasteland as a result of a nuclear war. A traveling scavenger comes across the remains of a cyborg named Mark 13 in the desert; He salvages pieces of it. The cyborg head ends up with a metal sculptress, who is unaware of the cyborg's infamy as a governmental killing machine project that was scrapped due to its defects. Mark 13 reconstructs itself utilizing household appliances and metal parts, and goes amok.

Hardware is a movie that relies on its post-modernistic stylings to bring out its flavor but most of the time it falls flat. It's full of oddly placed music, I heard somewhere that the director Richard Stanley used to direct music videos, so maybe that explains a few reasons as to why this movie is the way it is. The red filter used through at least 50% of the movie can become highly annoying and get in the way of viewing some potentially good, violent scenes. Also the scenes which slowly push the plots progression could have done without the distraction.

Luckily enough, when the movie really gets going (it takes almost an hour!) its quite a fun ride of just extremely painful death scenes as the clunky robot Mark-13 chases down all humans in his way.

Five out of ten stars is generous because this movie doesn't deliver on what it offers- a suspenseful fight for survival against a murderous monster fashioned from our own technology. The movie is set the better part of a century into our future. It is a future where humanity has nearly rendered the Earth uninhabitable by war and pollution. Life goes on, though. Huddling in their fortified and environmentally controlled shelters, pockets of humanity hang grimly onto life. Some occasionally go forth into the desert wasteland to scavenge what they can. One such scavenger unwittingly brings back a dangerous relic of the wars- a combat robot. Within the human compound- rather implausibly- the robot comes to life....

Thus ends the promising description on the VHS cassette case. And most viewers will be saving a good hour and a half of their lives if they stop right now and contemplate what a cool, suspenseful, and, yes, poignantly ironic story this movie could have been because, chances are, their imagination will be far more entertaining than what they'll get out of this movie. The acting was unconvincing, the plot ragged and badly tempoed, the special effects were not that effective. Worst of all, perhaps, what was supposed to be artistry and novel ingenuity came off as just plain weirdness for the sake of weirdness.

On the other hand, the film's music and scenery both did their parts to give the movie a definite "feel". As I watched it, I felt that the world in the movie was real, consistent, and believable. While hardly superb, these two aspects of the movie were, by far, the movie's high points and something cyberpunk aficionados could probably appreciate- so long as plot, acting, and dramatic tension aren't essential to enjoyment. Judging by the reviews of 9 and 10 out of ten, they were not needed hardly at all by plenty of viewers.

I give this movie eight out of ten for ambiance, music, and premise, and two out of five for acting, plot and story- they really were pretty abysmal. The quality of photography, editing, nor sound were not remarkable to me so don't influence my 5 out of 10. Only devoted future-punk or cyberpunk or post-apocalyptic sci-fi fans should give this film any consideration. I think just about everyone else will find the film pretty silly and boring.

Hardware is a quintessential cult film. Project of a young, troublesome director that was soon to vanish from the movie-making horizon. An ambitious but low budget science fiction that taps into a particular zeitgeist. An overwrought, philosophical flick that is fascinating even if it fails to deliver any real thrills.

Based on a short 2000 AD comic strip Shock!, Hardware is low on narrative content but it exploits its post-apocalyptic setting with a confidence and fidelity. Stanley manages to work around the budget restraints and turns all London based, indoor locations into a believably devastated landscape of a civilization in retreat. Flesh is consumed by overwhelming rusting metal and slowly decays amidst the ubiquitous pollution. It's a bleak even if not entirely original vision that here is pushed to the limit of being almost unpleasantly nihilistic.

Together with work of cyberpunk literature- Gibson's Neuromancer and some defining achievements of Japanese animé like Otomo's Akira (1988) and Fukutomi's Battle Angel Alita (1993) Stanley's film is a product of its times- anxious about the state of the environment and our place in the technological civilization on the threshold of the new millennium. It perhaps couldn't be made with the same infectious desperation pouring out of the screen at any other time in the history.

What it also shares with defining it literate and cinematic contexts is the same tendency towards gratuitous symbolism. Religious connotations (both Christian and Buddhist) between characters of Moses Baxter and deadly M.A.R.K.-13 are at times heavy handed but rewarding in the scale of the whole because of the consistency with which they are used and, at times, their detailed intricacy.

Exactly because philosophical rather than the narrative layer of Hardware comes to dominate the entire feature, Stanley's film becomes so dense, impenetrable and therefore intriguing. Film's colour palette, dominated by oligochromatic browns and reds adds to the overwhelming sense of endangerment even if the script, time and time again postpones the actual danger and fails to build up any tension. Added, voyeuristic sub-plot is appropriately disturbing and intense but serves little dramatic purpose.

Film delivers gore and sex, as expected but it's nowhere near as captivating or resonant as the overarching art style. In the last third, Stanley without any moderation delivers hypnotic and grotesque imagery that leaves the viewer confused but with a dominant sense of being a witness to a wonderful and bedazzling vision.

Verdict: Hardware is best approached not as it was advertised- a sci-fi action movie but rather a complex mantra; film of unified stylistic and philosophical vision that comes close to encapsulating both entertaining and intellectual properties of a masterful sci-fi. It is too aware of its real intentions too be fully appreciated by the mainstream audience but nevertheless remains a work of an intriguing and skillful director. If you fall for its depressing tone and appreciate cyberpunk influenced issues that it tackles you might find yourself coming back to it several times, despite its shortcomings.

I must admit I am a huge fan of this under-estimated, enigmatic South African director.

Like his magnificent masterpiece, Dust Devil, Hardware deals with similar themes - the desert, the Old Testament, and sexual violence.

I first saw this movie many years ago when still basically a kid before I went to film school and certain sequences have stayed with me forever.

Watching it again in 2005 the movie seems a little dated or rather post-rock video in places, but when it was made in 1990, this was all cutting-edge stuff. I am not giving anything away by saying that the plot is in many ways a re-working of The Terminator or Alien, when Dylan McDermott gives his girlfriend Jill (played by Stacey Travis)what he thinks is a load of unusual scrap metal salvaged from the desert. She is an artist and welds these robot parts to a sculpture she is making...

This is an extremely visceral movie, laced with religious iconography (mark-13 often adopts crucifixion poses and in the shower scene at the end, appears to be in a prayer position) and boosted by an extremely eclectic and unusual cast. Motorhead singer Lemmy crops up playing a sort of ferryman, Iggy Pop plays DJ Angry Bob, and John Lynch is excellent as my favourite character from this film, Shades.

The narrative is essentially straight-forward but what makes this movie different and memorable is Stanley's vision. The mise-en-scene is bleached red (post-appocalypse), the use of montage is often extremely effective and nightmarish and I was frequently reminded when watching it of Renaissence paintings, just in glimpses here and there (hell, maybe that's just me..!) There is also some American comment in this movie; mark-13 is adorned with a stars-and-stripes, and the deadly toxin it employs is described as 'smelling like apple pie'. This of course is akin to Dust Devil, where the demon is simply called 'Texas' by Wendy.

So, to conclude, if you haven't seen this movie or heard of this director before I urge you to seek him out. Anyone with a love for avant-garde and challenging cinema (like me) should have heard of this guy (proper auteur by the way) and his thematically-consistent visions.

This is still a fine film but probably hasn't aged as well as it might have done - it's strength is that it is far more complex than it first appears to be.

This movie is one of the best looks at a bleak future that I've seen. It's effective in every way, except one. I've never been a big fan of self-regeneration, and it seems like a less-than-subtle way to bring our "killer robot" into play. If you look past that, and write it off as Richard Stanley's only conceivable way to bring the robot into existence, you have a masterpiece of modern sci-fi. From the sick, obsessive neighbor, to the radio-active environment, to the incredible pieces of "cyber-punk" music (PIL, Ministry), to the casual look at substance abuse,...this movie will leave you dreading what the future might hold for the computer obsessed masses. It's not a movie about a killer robot, it's a movie about the future that we are making for ourselves.

Dylan McDermott stars as a scavenger who gives his girlfriend a robot head, his girlfriend an artist who smokes Mary Jane (Stacey Travis) and paints an American flag on such, doesn't realize that said robot has been built to destroy humans and so said robot reassembles itself and McDermott and Travis must stop it. Hardware is a movie that is often in its own way, quite brilliant. The movie has a fascination with the atmosphere and right away we want to learn more on how the future got to be like this. Also the reason for why the robot is made is never explained. The movie does works in the vein of Blade Runner, in that the less known about the film, the stronger it is. It's a movie that invites you to ponder the details, and with many experimental camera angles, suspenseful stalking sequences, well sketched characters and energetically staged action, Hardware works as one of the better in the genre of robots run amok. Indeed it's more in the science fiction approach with mood,atmosphere and style, and in my opinion is how they should've done Lawnmower Man and Johnny Mnemonic. Indeed director Richard Stanley would've made those movies great. Iggy Pop provides excellent comic relief with the opening and closing sequences.

* * * out of 4-(Good)

This movie was horrible! I can't believe I wasted $6? (whatever the full price of a movie was back in 1990) on this. At least half the people in the theater walked out (one of the only times I ever seen that happen.)

There was no plot (although I wasn't expecting any), but the special effects sucked and there was no suspense or horror or even decent action scenes. The only plus for me was the soundtrack from Ministry.

What can you expect from a movie who only recommendation came from "Freddie Krueger" of Nightmare fame?

Just for comparison, a few other movies on my 'worst list' are The Crow Part 2, Mr. Saturday Night (maybe funny if you're 60+ years old) and Battlefield Earth (which was bad, but not as bad as Hardware.)

After all the horrible things I heard about this movie, I wasn't expecting much when I found it for $3 in a pawn shop... and, after watching it a couple of times, I don't know what the hell people who say this is "the worst movie in the world" were smoking... because this is one of the best low-budget sci-fi flicks I have ever come across.

Though it is by no means a sublime piece of art, I find the fact that the plot concerns one woman and her boyfriend fighting off this robot in her apartment, with the collapsing world as a backdrop around them to be somewhat refreshing in an age of sci-fi films trying to be epic and ending up trite. Though clumsily written at times and with the robot looking almost ridiculous at points, we get a nicely shot, stylishly lit sci-fi thriller that takes place on a human scale and whose premise has enough depth, symbolism and irony to make it all worthwhile. Best film I have ever seen? Hardly. But the best deal I've had for $3 in a very, very long time.

In a post-apocalyptic future, Earth is taken by radioactivity and the ozone depletion causes high temperatures. A nomad (Carl McCoy) wanders in the desert and finds an android head and hand. He brings the parts to sell to the seller Alvy (Mark Northover), but the soldier Moses "Mo" (Dylan McDermott) buys the head to give to his girlfriend Jill (Stacey Travis), who is an artist that makes sculptures.

Mo and his friend Shades (John Lynch) go to New York to meet Jill and she uses the head in her sculpture. Meanwhile Alvy researches the origin of the head and discovers that it belongs to the dangerous project Mark 13 that was provided with artificial intelligence and programmed to rebuild itself, but deactivated by the authorities because of its vulnerability to the rain. He summons Mo to tell his discovery and Jill is left alone with the lethal machine that is rebuilding itself with the parts she uses in her sculptures.

"Hardware" is a sci-fi B-movie with a bleak view of the future of mankind. The story is very simple and the special effects and robots are great for a movie from the 90's. Unfortunately the cinematography is too dark, but the music score is magnificent. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Hardware - O Destruidor do Futuro" ("Hardware – The Destroyer of the Future")

I rented the video of Hardware after seeing it in the video stores frequently and wondering what it was all about.

The reference in the tagline to "it exterminates" suggested that it worked off the Terminator concept. However - it was either low budget or uninspired writing, because after the initial (slow) set-up it ends up in an inevitable way with few interesting turns - and really, quite a silly resolution.

[It may not have helped that the version I saw on video (legitimate copy but weather-worn) seemed to contain the colours red and blue - but virtually nothing else. (I hope that isn't the case in the proper film or better videos).]

In order to control reproduction,the goovernment conducted a secret miltary project to create Mark 13, a robot that inject people with drugs thru embedded needles and then murder them. The movie centers about one mark 13 that reassembed itself from the ruins of its dispersed parts in the home of a couple. The music in the movie is pretty cool, the atmosphere is scifi, the robot is not impressive but some jumpscares leveled things out. The girl is a beauty and she is a bad ass so that's a plus. Overall, fun film altho the tech is rudimentary by today's boston dynamics standards.

I saw this movie when it came out on VHS and from then on every few years. What is it that makes this movie so addictive? It is the GREAT soundtrack "The order Of Death (This is what you want... this is what you get)" from Public Image Ltd.? The song being 37 years old still is great. Is the atmosphere in the movie? Yes, certainly, this is the kind of movie where the creative mind goes all ways in every scene, adding the extra dimension only so few movies have of not only watching a movie, but being 'in' it. The effects, for it's time pretty good, nowadays not but just like "Blade Runner" the viewer will accept it. In my book, this movie is a classic.

First off, let's get my bias out the way, I'm a die-hard fan of this movie, and this review is definitely intended to get the reader to give it a chance.

The film is riddled with industrial (music) culture references and cameos, and if you're into that scene, there's a certain sick thrill about seeing Carl McCoy as the zone trooper, and seeing footage of proto-industrial performance artist Monte Cazazza in this. The general tone and ambiance of the whole piece of wonderfully clichéd cyberpunk.

And that's really the interesting thing about this film. While there are a plethora of terrible sci-fi slasher flicks out there desperately claiming the 'cyberpunk' moniker, here is a film that claims to be nothing more than a sci-fi slasher flick, and manages to be somewhat of a pulp-cyberpunk classic instead.

The whole movie is a mood piece, designed more for its ambiance and the feel of its world, than particularly flashy action sequences or on-screen 'wow' factor. It's meant to be a genre movie, but it manages to feel like a 'serious' film under the influence of some heavy drugs. Not a bad thing really, but your tastes may disagree. Personally I've always liked that sunset-filtered-through pollution look that Bladerunner was infamous for, and hardware utilizes the same rather well.

Genre movie it may be, but it shows far less cheese coating and terrible acting than any of the current glut of genre movies being produced for the Sci-Fi channel. In fact the whole movie feels more like a good pulpy cyberpunk novella than a genre movie by far. Calling the movie 'mood music for rivetheads' isn't really an insult to it.

In a post-apocalyptic future, drifter Moses (Dylan McDermott) returns 'home' bearing a gift for his girlfriend Jill (Stacey Travis): scrap robot parts, collected from the wastelands, for use in her art. Unfortunately, these components turn out to be from a Mark 13, a prototype military killing machine capable of self repair; as Jill sleeps, the robot rebuilds itself using material from her sculptures and goes on a murderous rampage.

"A highly original, mind-melding, Cyberpunk, horror/sci-fi cult classic"—so claims the copy on the back of my Hardware DVD; whoever wrote that clearly wasn't aware of the legal action taken by comic strip duo Steve MacManus and Kevin O'Neill after they discovered that their 2000AD story 'Shok!' had been turned into a film without their knowledge (the film now boasts a rather pathetic admission of guilt after the end credits). In addition to this blatant case of plagiarism, Hardware's writer/director Richard Stanley is also guilty of plundering numerous sci-fi classics, most notably Bladerunner and The Terminator, for a variety of visual tidbits. So much for 'highly original'...

As far as 'mind-melding, Cyberpunk' is concerned, the film offers a lumbering piece of clumsily animated hardware that flails about wildly like a demented Johnny 5, a lot of brightly coloured lights, strobes and filters, and a few dodgy computer generated Mandelbrot fractals of the sort you can create in Photoshop in five minutes with the right plug-in, whilst shoe-horning in some ill-conceived religious subtext and weak social commentary—hardly visionary stuff that is going to radically alter my perception of the world.

Although a semi-decent score by Simon Boswell, a cool nightmarish sequence in which Mark 13 acts like a demented metallic DJ at a rave, and a couple of impressively gory death scenes (best being the gruesome bisection of one poor sod by a hydraulic door) provide a little fun and prevent the film from being a complete waste of time, I still find this film extremely disappointing as a whole and am totally mystified by the cult following it seems to have garnered.