Battle Queen 2020 (2000) from Tuna

Battle Queen 2020 (2000) is a Roger Corman production that is half post-apocalyptic actioner/sci-fi, and half gratuitous nudity.  The plot was mainly voice-over, including the entire first 5 minutes.

An asteroid has hit the Earth, and created nuclear winter.
The new world includes the normal people, who are starving in the underground; and the elite, who live above ground, grab the best looking women from below to become "mistresses," and live forever by stealing organs from young healthy common people. There is also a resistance movement. 

Julie Strain plays the head of the mistresses, and sleeps with the head of the elite. I am sure you can guess the ending by now, and how the mighty Julie kicks elite butt and helps the rebels win. 


Most of the nudity is from Julie Strain with lots of breast, some buns, and one beaver. Not only does she serve as decoration, but she shows some martial arts skills as well. There was breast exposure from several unknowns, some identified and some not.
There is an interview with Julie on the DVD, and I have to say I was as charmed by her as everyone who interviews her seems to be. She is earthy and honest, and not full of herself. Corman asked her once at lunch what made her so special, and she could think of no answer. The next day, she thought of one, and called him to say that her appeal was that she was tall (6' 1"). She said that made her a super-hero of sorts, with a good body that she was willing to show. I can vouch for the good body.

DVD info from Amazon.

no widescreen, no features

This is a straight to vid, and doesn't even have enough IMDB votes to pay attention to. The film looks great, and is only missing a good plot to be a real film.   

The Critics Vote

  • No major reviews online 

The People Vote ...

  • With their votes ... IMDB summary: IMDb voters score it 4.3
IMDb guideline: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence, about like three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, about like two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, about like two stars from the critics. Films under five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film, equivalent to about one and a half stars from the critics - or less, depending on just how far below five the rating is.

My own guideline: A means the movie is so good it will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not good enough to win you over if you hate the genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an open mind about this type of film. C means it will only appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover appeal. D means you'll hate it even if you like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if you love the genre. F means that the film is not only unappealing across-the-board, but technically inept as well.

Based on this description, this film is a C. Let's call it a titty-flick. Julie certainly has those, so it is a C in that genre, but only worth watching for the eye candy.

Return to the Movie House home page