The Last Man on Planet Earth

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.