ThedevilChoose When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

Kaelan Mccaffrey Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

Anoushka Slater While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Maleeha Vincent It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

atomicgirl-34996 I've watched plenty of bad movies in my day, but I never, ever felt they were a waste of time. I might've rolled my eyes at how poorly executed they were, laughed derisively at the ineptitude or even fallen asleep. But I never felt, "Wow. I wasted two hours of my life watching this."Well, as they say, there's a first time for everything, and Cherry 2000 is officially the first film that made me feel as if I completely wasted my time. I should've immediately bailed; the only reason why I stuck with it is that whenever I see a movie that's obviously going to be a stinking pile, I try to see it through to the end because you never know. Sometimes a movie that starts out really bad lands a surprising payoff that makes sitting through it worthwhile. Sometimes a movie that seems like it's going nowhere actually shows that it has a point. But Cherry 2000 is pure garbage from beginning to end. It has no point. It has no payoff. And the worst part of it is that it's predictable as hell got out. As soon as the two main characters meet, you know exactly what will happen. You might as well just shut off the movie at that point; that's how predictable it is. The only unpredictable thing about the rest of the movie is how surprisingly predictable it is; even the worst movies try to change things up a little. Cherry 2000 is as paint by numbers as you can get.What a shame, too, because the movie had potential. In case you don't know, it's about a Yuppie who has a sex robot as a girlfriend named "Cherry". She breaks down. Problem is, they don't make her model anymore. His only option is to go out to some extremely dangerous area to a robot graveyard to get another one. Because the area is so dangerous, he has to hire a "tracker" to get him one. So far, so good, right? Melanie Griffith, who plays the Tracker, is an interesting character and very likable. Too bad Sam Treadwell (played by David Andrews) is as wooden as two by four and everyone and everything in this movie boring and pointless. Too bad nothing in the movie makes sense. For example, the reason why Cherry malfunctions is that Sam decides to have sex with her as a nearby laundry machine overflows and floods the floor with soap and water. You'd think someone who's been around electronics and bought something as expensive and rare as Cherry would've been smart enough to realize that water and electronics don't mix. Other things don't make sense. Why would a robot graveyard that has so many priceless models be out in the middle of a no man's land wasteland full of bandits? Or not have been looted if they were so valuable? Why has a handsome, young Yuppie turned to a sex robot when he's not only successful in life and seems socially well adjusted but has had normal relationships with real women in the past?Everything else is bad in this movie, too. The editing is atrocious, lots of weird jump cuts and shots. The action scenes are terrible; the first major action scene when E and Sam leave town looks like a staged pyrotechnics show, so fake. Other action scenes are pointless and drawn out. The villain in the movie has no point other than to add some fake tension to an otherwise threadbare script with no real plot. The soundtrack is lame and forgettable. And there's no real chemistry between the two leads or any real buildup to when the inevitable happens. I've seen more chemistry between cubes of ice.The only positive thing I can say for the movie is that the cinematography and costume is great, very Miami Vice. Too bad it didn't fit the post-apocalyptic theme of the movie whatsoever.All in all, a terrible film from start to finish. Don't waste your time like I did or listen to the reviewers "gushing" about it. It's bad. I'd rate it even lower than Battlefield Earth.

BA_Harrison A recent article in The Telegraph predicted that, by the year 2050, human-on-robot sex would have overtaken human-on-human sex; I reckon they could be right if the robots look anything like this film's titular model, the Cherry 2000, created to fulfil its owner's every desire. Blonde, beautiful and obedient, Cherry (Pamela Gidley) seems like the perfect match for Sam Treadwell (David Andrews), which is why he goes to such great lengths to find a replacement body for her memory chip when a frolic on the kitchen floor results in some serious blown circuits. With the only Cherries still in existence to be found in the robot graveyard of Zone 7, a desert wasteland inhabited by dangerous psychopaths, Sam hires the help of pretty 'tracker' E. Johnson (Melanie Griffith), and comes to realise that his ideal woman might not be battery powered after all.Director Steve De Jarnatt's other film, Miracle Mile, is an almost flawless example of '80s apocalyptic cinema—an extremely tense, darkly humorous, and touching example of low-budget film-making revolving around a compelling dilemma—what would you do if you discovered that WWIII was imminent?Cherry 2000, a post-apocalyptic adventure that takes place in the near future of 2017 (next year, as I type), also poses an interesting question—will sex with a machine ever be as satisfying as the real thing?—but despite a much bigger budget than Miracle Mile, the film proves far less successful, thanks to an awkward blend of genres, its clumsy, episodic nature, and questionable performances. Writer Michael Almereyda and rookie director De Jarnatt must shoulder much of the blame, the slapdash story and chaotic direction leading to some really disjointed sequences, including one spectacularly ill-conceived action set-piece in which our heroes cross an obstacle via electromagnet. Griffith is the film's other obvious weakness—she looks lovely (even with her bad hairdo and dubious wardrobe of tasselled post-apocalyptic attire), but fails to convince as a tough cookie who can handle almost any situation.Cult actors Robert Z'dar (Maniac Cop), Tim Thomerson (Trancers, Dollman), and Brion James (Bladerunner, Enemy Mine) join in the 'fun', but can do very little with the messy material (which might explain why Thomerson doesn't even seem to try). Also keep an eye out for an early appearance from The Matrix star Laurence Fishburne in a role that he'd most likely rather forget about.

SMS_Emden In an age of CG everything, Cherry 2000 shines even more now than it did in the eighties. Great story, gritty landscape, wonderful cast of characters, and a cave full of toaster ovens. Don't let the age of this flick put you off if you haven't seen it and have even a passing interest in post apocalyptic and/or sci-fi flicks.The special effects are live action which really stand out if you haven't watched an older movie without CG in awhile. The setting is thoroughly appropriate for the story and genre. Is any movie truly "worth" a 10 out of 10? They will all have flaws, but in my book if at the end of the flick you are thoroughly entertained and transported to another time or place and have a smile on your face then the crew succeeded in their mission in movie-making.

axlrhodes Filmed in 1985, but shelved and not released on VHS until 1987, perhaps the most telling thing about Cherry 2000, is that it's producer, Edward R. Pressman, reportedly confessed that the films distributors, Orion Pictures, were "stumped" by the films confusion of genres, which led to the long delay in it's initial release.Seeing it for the first time, it's easy to see why it was such a marketing headache. For starters, it isn't really any good, however, in being a crazy mish-mash of bits of everything, and having the good sense to never take itself too seriously, it's hard to feel annoyed with it.The film is set in the year 2020. Mankind has progressed to the extent that it's now possible to own a fully functional, supermodel, stay at home girlfriend (Cherry) who knows exactly how to treat her man – we never see male model counterparts. In the first scene, our lead character, Sam Tredwell, ( David Andrews) has a soapy, after dinner mishap with his own Cherry 2000 doll, which kick-starts the plot of him having to travel the wastelands of 'Zone 7′, to find another one. Yes folks, it's as ridiculous as it sounds. Co-starring with Andrews is a jaunty looking Melanie Griffith, who seems to be playing a female 'Rambo', running and gunning her way through her scenes. Surprisingly, some of the stunt work, locations and set pieces are genuinely quite stunning, which makes it all the more a shame that the end result is such an elaborate mess.Cherry 2000 is like Mad Max, but madder. It doesn't really seem to know what it wants to be, and ends up being not much of anything. That said, there is fun to be salvaged amongst it's bonkers sense of humour, and the people in it seem to be having a good time. A guilty pleasure for some, perhaps.