vgerdjk You can't give a movie a 0, but Tina Cote was in it, so I gave it a 2. This movie went nowhere. What sucks is - there was a lot that could have been done to make this movie much better. Not an 8 or 9 but at least a 5 or 6. The droids were way too human. The dialog was too human. The special effects could have been better, it was made in '96, not '76. I was expecting something better given that Rutger Hauer was in it. He didn't do enough. Marko was the worst depiction of a droid on screen, ever. This would be a great movie to overdub, in the way "What's Up, Tiger Lily?" was done. It seems like this movie was to have a different ending but they just gave up because of either time or money problems.

ivytheplant-1 Nah, I don't think it's a horrible movie. Sure it lacks a lot of action that movies of the period had, but I never thought of this as an action movie anyway. It seemed to me to be more like a comic book/graphic novel meets 70's samurai movie meets spaghetti western. Despite the obvious overarching situation (apocalypse, possibility of humans returning, obvious society gone to hell), it pretty much all but ignores that and focuses on the problem at hand: ridding the robot town of the "bad guys." It ends with a sense that Omega Doom has really done nothing more than put a band-aid on the whole situation, but his actions are more along the lines of self-preservation than anything else. He just showed up for a drink and gets sucked into a fight. That's how pretty much any of the same genre starts. Someone comes along, wanting to be left alone, but some dumb schmuck picks a fight and then our hero has to teach them a lesson. Nothing is resolved, the world is still as crummy as it ever was, but the hero gets to get back on the road in one piece. Lather, rinse, repeat.That's why this kind of movie appeals to me. I don't think it's boring or a waste of time. It's interesting enough in it's hopeless nothingness. I don't always want to see a happily ever after ending or some Matrix-y, save-the-human-race type of fight. Those are a dime a dozen. That's what has always appealed to me in old samurai movies, though those tend to focus more on making things better. This movie was very reminiscent of Philip K. Dick stories: bleak futures with small stories that just are what they are.Of course this kind of movie doesn't appeal to everyone, not by a long shot. I think my little brother fell asleep. Van Damme movies were more his thing. Lots of fight scenes and the bad guys get their due. Not that I don't like those movies, I do. It's just that something of the type of movie that Omega Doom is, is a breath of fresh air. There's a pointless despair to it that I enjoy. Something is done, and yet it isn't.Also, I know the special effects are bad, but I honestly thought it was an 80's movie. I was surprised to see 1995-1997 as a release date. I think it's much better thinking of it as an 80's movie if you're the type of person who just can't get past special effects not being as good as LotR or Star Wars.So this gets 6 stars from me. Not the greatest, but not the worst. Despite IMDb's plot description, it doesn't try to be anything other than it is, it fulfills my comic book/graphic novel pleasures, and I much enjoyed some of the talent in it compared to, say Van Damme.

carlos_b84 I've always tried to watch all the films Albert Pyun has done, ever since I watched "Mean Guns". His way of directing is weird, his usage of special effects generally is bad, but I can't say I do not enjoy his films. Unfortunately, American straight-to-video releases of this kind seldom make it to my country, and cable TV every once in a while blesses me with them.Like "Adrenalin", "Omega Doom" is another of his apocalyptical future films, and like "Cyborg", there are cyborgs involved (redundant I've been called). The title character is a human-robot hybrid who arrives at a place where he finds two different kinds of robots who would normally be "killing" each other. Apparently, they are looking for guns for when "the humans come to destroy them", so they are in a sort of truce. Of course, and because otherwise it would not be interesting, OD (a.k.a. Guardian Angel) soon makes the two groups (which are composed of 3 members each) angry with him.The main problem with this film is that, albeit similar to "Cyborg", it lacks action. While Jean Claude Van Damme surely provides that, Rutger Hauer gives more acting, and keeps you all the film waiting for him to use a sword he carries. THere are a couple of badly-made short-lived western-like fights, yet I confess the final fight was better than expected.As for the performances, Rutger is Rutger. One will always like him. The bar woman is fairly decently played. As for the cyborgs, they were somewhat, if a bit exaggerated, believable. Tina Cotè playing BlackHeart looks so sensual, and her look will remind you of "The Matrix"'s Trinity, but not only this movie is older, Tina looks better!Concluding, this is a futuristic film. It lacks the depth of "Nirvana", the effects of "The Matrix", or the action of "Equilibrium". But if you were looking for any of these, you would not rent an Albert Pyun's film, would you?

Deviator-4 Man-o-man does this movie suck a whole lot. It is so bad that its worth watching to laugh at it and pull an MST3K with friends. I don't know if its important or not, but the plot was lifted from Yojimbo and crunched into one day's time.