Heavy Metal 2000 - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Heavy Metal 2000 Reviews

Page 2 of 19
May 20, 2014
Worse than the original, full of eye rolling tropes but with a few interesting casting choices (Billy Idol, Michael Ironside and the fantastic 'queen of the Bs' Julie Strain). Unfortunately the convoluted plot and lackluster action kicks it out of the 'so bad it's good category, unlike its 1981 predecessor.
TheDudeLebowski65
Super Reviewer
May 18, 2014
I really enjoyed the original Heavy Metal, and thought it was a fine animated featured that blended many film genres. As well as that, the film boasted a great soundtrack filled some truly awesome hard rock, heavy metal songs. This sequel on the hands is a step down the classic film, and it never really becomes anything truly entertaining for the viewer. The problem with the film is that the music selection just doesn't work, and it's late 90's rock, metal music that just doesn't cut it. The original worked very well because the songs were varied, and each artist selected had some truly awesome tunes to bring to the film. With this follow up, the filmmakers offer up a good film, but it never realizes its full potential. The film is enjoyable, and entertaining, but the film could also have been better. I really wanted to enjoy the film a bit more, but I felt that stories didn't work, and that the original didn't need a sequel. Heavy Metal 2000 should mostly be seen as a curiosity, and in many ways that's how the film plays out. The film is average, but never becomes great by any means, and it's a shame because this could have been a great sequel. However the music just doesn't have that timeless quality that the original Heavy Metal did, and this one lack s any real memorable story. The original, every segment was great, original, funny, horrifying and action packed. This one just feels like the filmmakers tried to replicate the formula of the first, but it never realizes its potential because, the first picture was so good, and is a film classic. Nonetheless, this film is good, never great either and it's not that bad, but for a sequel, it suffers the same faith as so many other sequels have, and that's to make a sequel that matches or exceeds the original, which this one certainly doesn't do.
May 8, 2014
Death metal shit that made no sense.
½ February 18, 2014
Good plot, good Fx but a bit of heavy metal. I'd prefer the first movie.
January 31, 2014
One line summary: Not PC, guns blazing, swords slashing, revenge, spaceships, ample bosoms, aliens, and metal sound track.

----------------------

An ordinary space miner named Tyler touches a shard of a glowing rock that gives him a hunger for power and a thirst for immortality. He attacks a space colony, Eden, to kill people and collect survivors who have a precious substance in their blood. Unfortunately for Tyler, he kidnapped Kerrie, but left alive her sister Julie. Germain was in his crew, but when Germain tries to protect Kerrie, Tyler leaves Germain behind.

Jule dragoons Germain, and they follow Tyler on his journey to a jump point. They hitch a ride just before Tyler's ship enters the wormhole (the 'jump point'). Tyler tries to kill them. The results are really bad for both ships. They crash on a nearby planet where Julie meets Odin and his rock-like assistant. Odin is in search of the 'Key' (the glowing rock) which Julie is oblivious to.

Tyler becomes leader of a local race of lizard people. He searches for the pool of the pure substance that will give him immortality. Odin leads Julie to Tyler's ship, where she rescues Kerrie. They go back to the city that protects the pool and the chamber of immortality.

Will Julie and her new friends be able to protect the city from the lizard horde? Will they keep Tyler from his goal?

------Scores------

Art/Animation: 6/10 Varies from barely competent to good. It seems a bit weak for a film made around 2000. Also, the use of mixed productions modes (some flat, some hand drawn, some done by export of 3d modelling) is rather distracting.

Sound: 8/10 The sound levels might have been a bit better balanced. The metal background music seemed to be kept too low compared to the sound levels for gunfire, explosions and voices.

Voice: 10/10 Michael Ironside, Julie Strain, Billy Idol, and Pier Paquette were all fine.

Screenplay: 7/10 The twin quests for revenge and for immortality move the story right along. However, the story lacks the powerful heart and heroism of the first film.
January 29, 2014
Oh, fuck you! Really? Not one positive review? Well, here's one. Great animation. Great music. An awesome violent sci-fi fantasy erotica adventure ride with Michael Ironside as the badguy and starring the gorgeous B-movie queen Julie Strain who was the inspiration for the original F.A.K.K. 2. It is awesome comic book adventure ride that is clearly not for everyone given these pathetic scores. This movie is awesome! If you don't like it, you know what? It was meant for you in the first place.
August 12, 2013
Given that it is obviously crap, I actually kind of enjoyed it. Exactly like a Saturday morning kids cartoon as far as plot and quality of animation is concerned, except with an embarrassing amount if tits and gore.
April 27, 2013
I haven't gotten around to reading the Eastman/Bisley comic series yet, but this adaptation is dreadful. Despite the gorgeous source material, the animation looks terrible. If not for the tacky CGI, I would swear Ralph Bakshi made this in 1982.
½ February 14, 2013
While the film boast sleeker and cleaner animation it is a severe downgrade in terms of storytelling compared to it's predecessor. While the original 1981 film focused on a series of stories bridged together by a common element (the Loc-Nar) this film focuses solely on one overly drawn out, poorly written plot. The films soundtrack is also lacking compared to the previous and is more noise than anything. The voice acting also suffers with actors, Billy Idol aside, sounding monotonous when delevering lines. Overall there is little here that will attract fans of the previous and those looking for an animated sci-fi should look elsewhere.
½ February 6, 2013
"What does it take to get laid around here?"

The Nerd from "Robot Chicken" must have thrown this flick together, or at least some Mom's-Basement-Dweller with a clear obsession with BOOBIES(th), BOOBIES(th), and MORE BOOBIES(th)!

Even with all its mindless violence, gratuitous cartoonudies, and adolescent sex fantasies, this little animated adventure has its own quirky charm, foremost is that it's FREE on "Crackle."

If I had to pay any money to see this, I reckon I'd be madder than "Tyler," who gets a dinosaur tusk rammed into his windpipe when he's trying to bone "Julie."

Ah, but since this flick was free, I was free to enjoy its silliness with reckless abandon.
January 22, 2013
Every time this movie improves on something from the first movie, it loses points for things that suck about it. In the end, its just about as enjoyable as the original film. And that level of enjoyability is: barely enjoyable.
January 22, 2013
Ugh, why'd they have to call this "Heavy Metal"? It is not worthy of the title; it should've been its own original film. This is the film "Titan A.E.'s" R-rated brother would be. Alright sci-fi-fantasy film, but does not capture at all the magic and originality of the first film. And seriously, why are characters we meet 30 minutes before the end turn out to be the most important characters in the whole film!? Plus, Julie doesn't suffer a scratch, Taarna would eat her for breakfast!!!
½ January 2, 2013
try not to compare it to the origonal and its a decent movie
½ November 13, 2012
Perhaps the worst sequel of all time. Admittedly, the first movie isn't high art, but it at least managed to be entertaining. This film is basically a bunch of jerks who never grew up, watched the first movie, and decided they could make it more juvenile, less intelligent, and fill it with worse music in order to laugh at people for giving them free money. This movie should die for existing.
October 3, 2012
Much like in the original, the animation is bad, as is the story, voice acting, jokes, soundtrack and basicly everything else that makes a movie. This time around they added some computer graphics, but that just seems to make it worse. However, just like the original it's surprisingly entertaining, there's a quality to it I can't define, a bit like looking at a bar fight from a distance.
½ July 29, 2012
More of the same adolescent retardedness, although the first one had some anarchic charm. This one crap in every aspect, conventional, bad animation, direction and storyline. The poster has better art than the entire movie.
½ June 28, 2012
good animated movie with good soundtrack.
½ May 23, 2012
Vile, stupid and badly animated with weak voice work and a lousy soundtrack. On the bright side, there was a talking rock.
May 23, 2012
A very enjoyable, if somewhat clichéd, homage to the guns'n'tits genre. Somewhat campy, but in a cult sort of way.
Page 2 of 19