About a decade ago, I worked in the marketing department of the local AFB. The local Blockbuster would send us their VHS stool to give away--mostly clipped promos (i.e., the Blair Witch Project with the ending removed), straight-to-video dreck, crummy foreign films, and soft-core pornography. Y2K: Year 2 Kill came across my desk in late 1999, and my boss tasked me with watching it; she wanted to play it as a lark at the base's millennium bash.
Imagine, if you will, a young director who wanted to be the next Tarantino. Said director decides to make a very Tarantinoesque thriller a la Reservoir Dogs, but lacking any of the mise-en-scene or scripting panache that makes his muse's works so compelling. Indeed, his work is unspeakably dreadful; so dreadful that it is in danger of disappearing into bargain bins around the country altogether. How does said director distinguish his film from other pseudo-Tarantino films that infected the video stores of the late 90s? The answer is clear. He must tie it in with the then-flourishing Y2k scare.
The problem is that the Y2k material is welded onto the film with a complete lack of artistry. Much is made of the food shortages caused by the Y2k disaster, but one gunfight takes place among the well-stocked shelves of a supermarket. The Y2k references peak in the first half-hour, then are never mentioned again, which removes the whole point of releasing something like this. The only possible value a movie like this might have would be to capture the Y2K zeitgeist, the change of the millennium combined with the threat of looming disaster. This movie fails to do even this; there are like a dozen made-for-TV movies made at the same time which accomplish this meager task with a more professional sheen. That is not the main problem with the film, however.
No, apart from the gimmick of Y2k, the film itself is horrible; perhaps the worst I've ever seen--and I'm a dedicated MST3k fan. The plot is nonsensical. It tried to capture some of Tarantino's knack for nonlinearity, but it ultimately collapsed into incoherence. The cast was atrocious; the acting was uniformly poor, but the leads were particularly uninspired. Going back to MST3K, the closest comparison would be the works of Coleman Francis, particularly Red Zone Cuba. Like Red Zone Cuba, Y2KY2K is terribly-filmed, horribly-paced movie about amoral scumbags played by non-actors that cashes in on a current event (the Y2K crisis standing in for the Bay of Pigs invasion).
I returned this to my boss with a recommendation to burn the tape; I never saw it again. In the end, I was the only one in Wichita to see this movie; indeed, I may have been the only person in this time zone to see it. I do not feel like a member of a select elite who have partook in a unique experience; that is definitely not the impression Y2K: Year to Kill imparted on me. Instead, being among the few to have watched Y2K: Year to Kill makes me feel like I've survived a rare disease.
So, in conclusion, this is the worst movie I have ever seen. I suggest you avoid this movie at all costs (given that it was barely released to video, this shouldn't be difficult).
Imagine, if you will, a young director who wanted to be the next Tarantino. Said director decides to make a very Tarantinoesque thriller a la Reservoir Dogs, but lacking any of the mise-en-scene or scripting panache that makes his muse's works so compelling. Indeed, his work is unspeakably dreadful; so dreadful that it is in danger of disappearing into bargain bins around the country altogether. How does said director distinguish his film from other pseudo-Tarantino films that infected the video stores of the late 90s? The answer is clear. He must tie it in with the then-flourishing Y2k scare.
The problem is that the Y2k material is welded onto the film with a complete lack of artistry. Much is made of the food shortages caused by the Y2k disaster, but one gunfight takes place among the well-stocked shelves of a supermarket. The Y2k references peak in the first half-hour, then are never mentioned again, which removes the whole point of releasing something like this. The only possible value a movie like this might have would be to capture the Y2K zeitgeist, the change of the millennium combined with the threat of looming disaster. This movie fails to do even this; there are like a dozen made-for-TV movies made at the same time which accomplish this meager task with a more professional sheen. That is not the main problem with the film, however.
No, apart from the gimmick of Y2k, the film itself is horrible; perhaps the worst I've ever seen--and I'm a dedicated MST3k fan. The plot is nonsensical. It tried to capture some of Tarantino's knack for nonlinearity, but it ultimately collapsed into incoherence. The cast was atrocious; the acting was uniformly poor, but the leads were particularly uninspired. Going back to MST3K, the closest comparison would be the works of Coleman Francis, particularly Red Zone Cuba. Like Red Zone Cuba, Y2KY2K is terribly-filmed, horribly-paced movie about amoral scumbags played by non-actors that cashes in on a current event (the Y2K crisis standing in for the Bay of Pigs invasion).
I returned this to my boss with a recommendation to burn the tape; I never saw it again. In the end, I was the only one in Wichita to see this movie; indeed, I may have been the only person in this time zone to see it. I do not feel like a member of a select elite who have partook in a unique experience; that is definitely not the impression Y2K: Year to Kill imparted on me. Instead, being among the few to have watched Y2K: Year to Kill makes me feel like I've survived a rare disease.
So, in conclusion, this is the worst movie I have ever seen. I suggest you avoid this movie at all costs (given that it was barely released to video, this shouldn't be difficult).
