Post-apocalyptic sci-fi setting, check. Vehicle and costume designs left over from the last 'Mad Max' film, check. Gratuitous nudity and a "nightclub" that doubles as a brothel, check. Add in a few recognizable names and faces that somehow got drawn into the project (Malcolm McDowell, Richard Lynch, Zach Galligan), acting that exists on spectrum from underwhelming to slightly overdone (and occasionally feeling duly appropriate), and a story that follows a preceding film but retcons the ending, and voila! - welcome to 'Cyborg 3.'
And here I thought 'Cyborg 2: Glass shadow' was an oddity. Whether the curiosities here can be chalked up more to returning filmmaker Michael Schroeder or to new writing team Barry Victor, Troy Bolotnick, and Straw Weisman I don't know, but either way the result is a weird mixed bag of a grab bag. Some inclusions are rather weak-kneed in writing or execution, while others inspire a quizzical "what?"; some moments surely reflect the low-budget nature of the production, some feel peculiarly obligatory for the genre, and others, as noted, simply come across as gratuitous - or common, or clichéd. This goes for designs of this or that in the visuals, most any facet of the writing (dialogue, characters, scene writing, the narrative at large), choices of acting, even some stunts, and so on down the line. Watch for the moment when several secondary supporting characters discuss their backgrounds in a very On The Nose way, only to be interrupted by plot development. Mind the bizarrely ableist flourishes. Observe how characters' attitudes change, seemingly on a whim.
It's not that this movie is altogether bad. I've seen far worse, and for all the strangeness, I can't say 'The recycler' didn't keep me watching. It's that most aspects are altogether inconsistent, alternating between insufficient, overcooked, or maybe Just Right, with endless possibilities between. The way protagonist Cash is written is one example, and a better one is Galligan's acting. Sometimes it seems like he's earnestly trying; at other points, I swear I can hear the self-hatred in his voice, as though he can't stand being in a position of delivering some lines, or being in this feature. And I can understand why, as there's a decided lack of subtlety or nuance across the board; watching Andrew Bryniarski's performance as "Jocko," for instance, is particularly painful. 'Glass shadow' could at least claim some tact and cleverness, despite its more dubious facets (i.e. A sex scene with then-underage Angelina Jolie) and wild notions. Try as anyone might here, including Lynch - whether it's the material or Schroeder's realization of it, or maybe both, too much of 'Cyborg 3' is achingly exact. Here's another example: watch for the moment Galligan's character "Evans" "welds" a couple firearms onto an ally's broken limbs, and that ally's subsequent reactions.
I'll say this much: the crew did, in fact, turn in good work; the production design, costume design, and makeup work aren't bad. I like Phil Parmet's cinematography, and Schroeder demonstrates a keen eye every now and again for arranging a particularly fetching shot or scene. Kim Bullard and Julian Raymond's original music is actually pretty fun. Most stunts (though again, not all), effects, and action sequences come off really well. I don't agree with all the choices made, but there are select instances that are so riotously funny (that is to say, totally overblown) that it seems everyone has at last had an epiphany of the kind of film they're in, and they've decided to just lean into it. As the climax rolls around, it seems like everyone is letting loose after all the bluster of the storytelling and finally at a point where they can just enjoy themselves. On the other hand, all this must be weighed against the most confounding element of all: major plot that is grossly, infuriatingly regressive, anti-feminist and anti-choice in how the maintenance of Cash's unlikely pregnancy is rather emphatically forced upon her, then upheld as a Big Picture necessity, then magically changes her. All that, before the screenplay turns even more heavy-handed and anti-scientific as it seems to further denounce then-topical stem cell research. Disgusting. Much as this title's antecedent had one distinctly questionable component, this one is ultimately no better, just in a very different way. And the somewhat garish last shot, pure CGI, is... Well, it feeds into the most tawdry detail as noted, and to be blunt, is a poor finish to the movie.
This isn't abjectly terrible. Despite all the decisions of writing, direction, acting, or craftsmanship that raise a skeptical eyebrow, I can't say I didn't have a good time. What favor I might have to offer, such as it is, takes a critical hit by default given the unseemly, unwelcome slant of the plot; it was reactionary in 1994, and thirty years later that label is too kind. This could have been more fun than it is, but - oh, who am I kidding, I just don't know. If you can't get enough of post-apocalyptic sci-fi, if you're a diehard fan of someone involved, or if you're just downright curious, then this could be well worth checking out. For the average viewer, however, there's probably no real need, and given the worst parts of the screenplay, maybe it should just be tossed in an incinerator in the first place. Watch 'Cyborg 3' if you like, for it is not without value, but watch knowing well what you're getting into.
