A pretentious film...

Just 'cause you didn't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there. I didn't see it either, but having read the OP, I see the metaphors that I didn't in the film (I'm not used to looking at films in that way, so it wasn't as obvious (to me) as the OP suggests)).

I actually enjoyed the film, but I think that the original poster has summed up its points in a nutshell! The movie seems to be made up of symbols and messages. Obviously it is making some sort of statement about technology. The viewer's not so off the mark. For some reason, though, I found it a fairly powerful way of presenting a perhaps cliched statement about the future.

It's been almost a year since I wrote that initial (quite outraged) post, so I thought I'd post my penny-worth...

>I back up the idea that this film is about as simple as you can get, it's a robot slasher film with some interesting cinematography.

I can't think of many other slasher films where the plot doesn't start for half an hour. And as for the slashing, I think it was about an hour in, no? Interesting cinematography... if it was, I don't remember it. But at least we agree that the film LOOKS good. :)

>you gotta give the movie credit for having webcams about eight years before they were invented though.

Yeah, okay, I agree with that.

>Also this film got you worked up enough to write a pretty involved post so it least it got you thinking.

Afraid not. I don't need Stanley to "get me thinking". And Hardware didn't do that anyway; it just wound me up!

>I'm curious why you had to import it from Germany though, couldn't you have picked it up at a Best Buy or something? Maybe you're not in the states.

No, I'm in the UK. It's surprising what is and isn't available in the UK. Germany also had the supposed uncut, longest version of the film, so that's why I got it from there.

I hated this movie too. I hink the OP is spot on. Pretentous, slow, and self important. It just sucked.

>I am not entirely sure what to make of this movie. It's like... well, as the OP said, it clearly has an intellectual/analytical angle. That is very clear. And somehow it's been sliced together with some awful 80's horror flick.

Yeah, I wasn't sure what to make of it at first either. My conclusion was that Stanley had started off making the film as one thing, and then gradually veered towards the other because of lack of talent. So either it was originally a slash/horror flick that went intellectual through desperation, or it was an intellectual/arty film that went slash because it just wasn't clever enough.

>The OP clearly knows more about film than I do, as I have no clue who "Garth Marenghi" is, perhaps leaving me out of some cinematic, elitist, loop.

No, not at all. Garth Marenghi is a fictional character, a pastiche of bad horror meisters and their various pretensions: www.garthmarenghi.com.

>I acquired this film on the premise that it is a masterpiece of the Cyberpunk genre. And believe you me, I love Cyberpunk. However, very early on in the film, it became quite clear to me that this is not a good movie. I would actually consider it to be a blasphemy upon the Cyberpunk genre, frankly.

Yes, Hardware's failings as a film become very obvious about 15 minutes in when you realise that nothing has happened plot-wise, and nothing has been "given" to provoke thought. However, it is at this stage in the film that the characters are saying things like...

"It's like a battle between me and the metal. And I feel like the metal's winning."

*beep* GROAN... That line of dialogue knocked my expectations stone dead, I have to say. As soon as she said that, I knew I was watching a film that thought it was really clever, but simply wasn't. I mean if that's the level of subtlety with which we are treated to a "debate" on the man vs. machine problem, then nobody should be surprised when Stanley gives up altogether and turns the "debate" into a physical fight between the main character and the robot. When you've exhausted all the intellectual fibre you have, what do you do? Bring out the fists.

And then you've got further insults. The robot having the American bloody flag on it, for god's sake. Let's hope Stanley gave himself a pat on the back when he thought of that masterstroke.

And then there's Lemmy's comedy cameo as the taxi driver. That was murderously unfunny - mainly because it was a moment of "humour" in an otherwise humour-free film.

>Unlike the OP, I think that the first scene is the best. Throughout the entire film. I hoped that the character who appeared in that early scene would re-appear.

No no, agreed. I thought that actor had more character than any of the characters. But he does turn up, IIRC, in the very last scene. I seem to remember he walks away from the camera as the credits roll up. How I wished that desert was my living room as I realised just how thoroughly I'd been snookered by Richard bloody Stanley.

>This movie tries to be way more than it actually is. It carries this message, which I'm not even entirely clear on. I understand what is attempted to be portrayed here, but... the execution is simply awful. All in all, it's a bad horror flick. Don't take it for more than it is, even though the director clearly intended as such.

I think the message is the stuff I listed in my original post. It boils down to this: technology looks pretty, is cool etc., but can be used for fancy assertions that you need never back up provided you've got a long, drawn-out robot fight and an overbearing sense of self-importance as a director.

I mean take a look at some comparisons:

With $20,000, Darren Aronofsky made Pi.
With $300,000, Vincenzo Natali made Cube.
With $1,500,000, Richard Stanley made Hardware.
With $6,400,000, James Cameron made Terminator.

Spot the tw*t.