Heavy Metal 2000 (2000)

Scott Thill

For all the violence, Heavy Metal 2000's sexual iconography remains its major attraction, and that is mostly because it is everywhere.

Heavy Metal 2000 (superbit Collection)

Director: Michel Lemire
Cast: voices of): Michael Ironside, Julie Strain, Billy Idol
Studio: Columbia Tri-Star
Display Artist: Michael Coldewey, Michel Lemire
First date: 2000
US DVD Release Date: 2002-12-17

Anyone who knows the prolific output -- 92 B-movies since 1990! -- of cult goddess Julie Strain is aware that she knows dick very well. Her career has been built on that six-foot-one Jessica Rabbit-meets-Xena body, and it would be nearly impossible to count the number of male members that have saluted her presence on film, or the pages of horror and fantasy magazines devoted to her. She's a Star Trek-type fan industry unto herself.

The prototype for Strain's stacked assets first appeared within the pages of Heavy Metal, the groundbreaking adult comic, since it started showing up on the magazine racks in 1977. Heavy Metal was a guilty pleasure for every adolescent male growing up in the following decades, as well as one of the first major comics to successfully mix sex, gore, and sci-fi for an aging audience quickly tiring of the bland Archie mold.

This much was realized by Leonard Mogel, at the time the publisher of National Lampoon, as he set about building a brand that would later launch the initial Heavy Metal movie. The first film, released in 1978, was a moderate success until music copyright issues forced it into a legal morass (ironic, considering the soundtrack, starring lightweight '70s AOR staples like Sammy Hagar, Journey, Don Felder, and Blue Oyster Cult, is the very thing about the film that hasn't stood the test of time).

The magazine went through a variety of troubles until Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles-creator Kevin Eastman threw his growing fortunes into the ring and bought it, slightly before crushing the hearts of nerds worldwide when he married Strain. And although the couple's plan to position Strain as "The Queen of All Media" might not hold true in places other than the pages of Playboy, Penthouse, and Fangoria, when it came to Heavy Metal, this was a marketing marriage made in heaven. In other words, Strain and Eastman both know dick. Very well.

Enter Heavy Metal 2000, the second installment of the magazine's cinematic counterpart. While it does not follow the former film's episodic, rambling narrative blueprint, it is just as horny, violent, and action-packed. To the chagrin of pre-pubes across Earth, it has about the same amount of nudity but less actual sex. And, hey, these kids can see Strain naked whenever they want -- they don't need to see her animated doppelganger in the nude to get off. In other words, the violence (lots of it) wins out here, which I suppose is more in line with today's Generation X-Box, one that can snatch graphic pornography off of the Internet whenever it wants. The world of adult entertainment is not what it was in 1978.

The plot is relatively simple, but highly charged with erotic meaning, as it should be given its legacy. A distant planet of so-called wise men lord over a "chamber" containing the fount of immortality, the phallic key to which they have not so wisely flung into space to be found by any miscreant with a drill. Get it?

Sure enough, a brute named Tyler (Michael Ironside) is drilling -- yes, drilling -- one day, when he is possessed by madness the minute he uncovers the key. Shortly after, he's laid gory waste to everything in his path -- including an entire Gaia-style agrarian society home to Julie (Strain) -- on an Ahabian mission to possess the chamber of immortality. The fact that the key allows Tyler to regenerate whenever he's shot, stabbed or torn makes it hard for anyone to counter his sadistic and homicidal acts. Even so, Julie goes Rambo in an attempt to avenge the death of her people.

For all the violence, the film's sexual iconography remains its major attraction, and that is mostly because it is everywhere: Strain's clothes become thinner and thinner; monstrously phallic guns tear massive crimson holes into bodies ad nauseam; the key to the chamber of immortality looks like a glowing white penis; Tyler's insatiable thirst for violence is tempered only by his overwhelmingly violent sexual hunger, which, of course, only Julie can satisfy as she tries to get close enough to assassinate him (with a phallus, I mean, a long blade of her own); the hall in which the chamber is held looks like a huge vagina; the list goes on and on.

Indeed, it is in laying out these many sexual signifiers that Heavy Metal 2000 is most effective. The animation is erratic, vacillating between compelling hand-drawings and clunky, obsolete computer graphics, and the dialogue and voice-overs are by-the-numbers. (That said, Julie thankfully starts out a foul-mouthed bad-ass and stays one, while Tyler starts out an asshole and stays one too). And the music, while miles ahead of that found on the first film, juts uncomfortably up against the action rather than seamlessly blending into it. There are only so many times that speed metal can be used as background for a marching army or wanton pillage, even if it is Queens of the Stone Age or Puya, before it gets old.

In other words, Heavy Metal 2000 is a movie built, like Strain, to satisfy dick. Its depth, as postmodernists used to enjoy arguing, lies on the surface; that's where its signifiers float and that's where the horny gaze lands. Cahiers du Cinema aficionados need not apply (although they might sneak in under cover of a trenchcoat), unless they're engaged by gratuitous gore, soft-core nudity, and more Freudian red flags than Michael Jackson's Neverland ranch. But the usual slew of testosterone-driven headbangers should feel right at home here, warm and safe between Julie Strain's animated assets. That's all they're really asking for anyway.

So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.