646f9e108c In a post-apocalyptic world, a warrior wandering through the desert comes upon a group of settlers who are being menaced by a murderous gang that is after the water they control. The outline (plot may be too strong a word) of this movie is set in the future when water is scarce, and civilization is a dusty one-bar town. Our hero (Swayze) must prevent the evil cattle (oops!) Water baron from owning everything and defiling everyone. To be truly evil, our villain has to get an evil warrior to be Swayzes' warrior nemesis.<br/><br/>Think of this movie as "Road House" after the apocalypse. Swayze plays the troubled warrior; uneasy with the violence he must commit for a higher purpose, yet wise in literature and sensitive to a woman's needs (Sounds kinda like "Next Of Kin" too, doesn't it?).<br/><br/>While unworthy of an Academy Award, it is a fun movie that provides the kind of entertainment you expect from a modern swashbuckler. The good people are really good (or flawed in an OK way like the ranch foreman), and the bad people are really bad – except for Swayzes' nemesis who is bad, but has a code of honor that is almost as complex as Swayzes' character.<br/><br/>I like it; it has a place on my shelf and I've probably watched it 3 or 4 times since it came out. This movie contained every cliche used in the postapocalyptic genre; mysterious loner, ragtag clothing,<br/><br/>a lot of dirt, the evil warlord (hey haven't we seen innumerable westerns like this?). Worse yet, it was poorly paced, the fight scenes routine, and there were no interesting characters. In the end, do we really care what becomes of the hero, or the girl for that matter. Also, isn't Arnold Vosloo wearing the same get up he wore in the Mummy?
Subfgreassoftli Admin replied
344 weeks ago