Replikator (1994) Poster

(1994)

User Reviews

Review this title
13 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
3/10
Confusing and boring B movie
zeppo-215 February 2005
When did the future become so bleak? I seem to remember growing up in the late fifties and early sixties, that the future was going to be a great place. Robots and other machines doing all the work, the future was going to be paradise for the human race! Then it suddenly went dark, grim and gritty. Can't place the exact time or film when it happened, although, Bladerunner comes to mind. And this film is in a similar vein, all slightly out of focus shots and raining a lot.

Unlike the aforementioned, Bladerunner, this doesn't have a coherent plot or story and just meanders along till the conclusion. One of those films that seem to go on far longer than the actual running time. After a while, your mind just switches off trying to follow the story and you're just waiting for it to end.

There were a lot of low-budget SF films made around this period and all I assume went straight to video and then straight to the bargain bins. Low grade cash-ins to better movies. Watch Bladerunner or the Terminator films instead.
3 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Trying too hard
JoeB13121 August 2016
Warning: Spoilers
This movie tries to be an edgy Cyber-punk movie about the dangers of technology. It has too much stuff going on, where you just can't follow the plot.

So you have a situation where they've developed Star Trek style Replicators and someone wants to make organic material out of it. Two companies race to the goal, and during the course of some sabotage, one of the designers is copied, but his copy is evil. Because copies are always evil in movies like this.

The dialog is clunky, and there's an outsized role for Ned Beatty, probably because he was the only actor involved anyone has heard of in mainstream movies. That and the girl playing the mannish VR stripper. Not sure why her character was even in there, other than when she was younger, she was big in blue films.

I think another two or three rewrites by people who knew what they were doing could have made this a better movie. And it did have some interesting concepts of what a horrible time 2014 is going to be.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Typical cyperpunk sf with some `The Fly' elements
cashimor24 October 1998
One of the better things of this movie, which unfortunately repeats itself a bit too much, is the `justice channel' which allows any viewer to vote for the guilt and innocence of people. The movie itself seems partly based on `The Fly' but with less psychology, and therefore much less atmosphere. The fights in the movie frequently look rather unrealistic: the script is better than the execution.
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
So, So Bad
Tiny-1313 January 2003
There's almost no reason to write comments for this title beyond saying that this film is bad, very bad. It's Michael Pare's first film with Producers Network Associates (PNA)/Greystone Entertainment, marking the beginning of the actor's steep fall into bad, B-movie oblivion.
4 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
An Okay Cyberpunk Science-Fiction Film
Uriah4319 March 2019
This film takes place in a futuristic environment with a brilliant computer scientist named "Ludo Ludovic" (Michael St. Gerard) having recently been paroled from prison for counterfeiting and remanded to a firm named Biodesign Technologies who hope to use his genius to develop a device which can replicate other objects. As it so happens, another nearby firm named Zyklor Future Technologies is also working on this project and they have Ludovic's former girlfriend "Kathy Moskow" (Brigitte Bako) working on it. Needless to say, both firms want to be the first to complete their projects but the problem is that the man in charge of Zyklor Future Technologies named "Byron Scott" (Ron Lea) has absolutely no scruples in the process-and he has high-powered friends who are equally sinister. Now rather than reveal any more I will just say that, although it had a modest budget, this cyberpunk science-fiction film wasn't too bad, all things considered. Admittedly, the graphics weren't exactly state-of-the-art and it could have used a bit more suspense here and there, but even so I thought this movie was good enough for the time spent and I have rated it accordingly. Average.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Cybertrash
harveygreen21 April 2003
This movie is a real piece of cybertrash, being so badly put together it is more like a comedy. Its also filled with some bizarre props and settings... there is one bit in a futuristic video game arcade which advertises the latest reality game titled "Tank Commander in Tienanmen Square..." !!!

1/10
1 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Devoid of merit
Leofwine_draca10 August 2018
Warning: Spoilers
REPLIKATOR is an incredibly poor, Z-grade Canadian B-movie set in a futuristic world affected by a depleted ozone layer. The thrust of the plot is something to do with cloning technology, but this all takes second place to what is a very boring conspiracy-type thriller in which the heroes battle murky forces. Half the film seems to be set in a strip joint where an ageing former porn actress regularly takes her clothes off while the male onlookers look on. It's a slow and sedate affair, with no action or proper acting, devoid entirely of entertainment value.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Replicator is a better B picture.
M. Genese13 February 2001
This is the good side of B movies. Someone didn't think the audience is total dumb. Some neat ideas, and although the special FX are not expensive looking some have a lot of humor (See the Justice Channel bit)and neat graphic looks. Dialogue runs with the confidence that we humble viewers might get more than the B movie plot, (film it and they will see!) and the film is layered and feels like a different, interesting world.

I like Ned Beaty here. Brigit Bako is cool too. I want to see more with her.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Tiny 13 Wrong title
Altuniverz3 July 2005
Tiny 13 must be thinking of another title in his review. He says the film he finds so so bad stars Michael Pare, who is not to be seen in this picture. I'd say Replikator has a pretty decent cast, Ned Beatty, Bridget Bako, Lisa Howard, La Cicciolina (!)in a 'tong in cheek' bit, -it's pretty cool babe-wise, and a funky tech-noir look that was more than a bit ahead of ahead of it's time in 1993. (The Justice channel bit is a cool concept and is still funny now. Compare this film shot for about a million bucks to Jonhny Neumonic for 30 million bucks at the same time and I'd say you see why this little picture stays cult in many countries while the other, we'll, n'uff said.

For a cool look and good edge on a low budget before everyone else beat the look to death I give this an 8 or a 9.

Hope they come out with a wide screen re-mastered on DVD. (An interview with La Cicco wouldn't hurt
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Quirky and funny in a good B sci-fi way.
Robert-A-Collins4 September 2007
Zepo 2's film was "out of focus" and grainy... My copy isn't - perhaps you were sold a counterfeited copy accounting for the poor visuals.

BTW,I saw it first in theater (local Cineplex, 1993 I think). I can't say this little film had a long run, but wasn't ever direct to video.

I agree with Zepo 2 it's not "Blade Runner", but for a 1 million dollar budget it's not bad, seen many a B flick with more money do way way worse so I say give it a break. I mean the look is cool, -can't say it isn't original that way.

OK, it's not perfect but, but it is quirky and funny in a good B sci-fi way.
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
B+
cmcain21 February 2002
This movie is better than your average LB flick. Michael St.Girard is charming (and sexy)in the two leading roles. The plot is a little confusing at times, but the mood and look of the film will hold you. I thought it was stylish and watchable. (Make sure to fast forward the scenes with Italian tacky queen, Cicalina. YUK)
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Perhaps the worst of all movies I have ever seen.
nz man21 June 2001
On the video cover it says "Entertains and fascinates... futuristic FX...terrific cast!" DON'T BELIEVE THIS ! This is a BAD movie - don't waste your time. I could only stomach the first 30 minutes (with a heavy finger on the fast forward button) and did not see any special effects. And the Italian porn star? Yeeesh - give us a break - a few floppies here and there - yuk.
2 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed