Eve of Destruction (1992) from Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski) and Tuna

Renee Soutendijk is a respected and sexy Dutch actress who appeared in a couple of early Paul Verhoeven films (Spetters, The Fourth Man). I guess it's all well and good to star in acclaimed European cinema, but those European actresses can't help but notice that Cameron Diaz receives $20 million per picture, so the siren song of Hollywood is powerful. After all, the Dutch and Scandinavian films pay their performers in herring.

This movie was supposed to be Soutendijk's shot in Hollywood. It wasn't much of a shot. It's an evil robot film. They thought of Renee for the part because, gosh darn it, Dutch performers make great evil androids. Look how good Rutger Hauer was in Blade Runner.

Renee actually plays two roles. One is a scientist who specializes in robotics, the other is the robot created in her own image. The purpose of the robot is to infiltrate terrorist organizations, perform assassinations, and so forth. It is even armed with a nuclear capability. The scientist is named Eve, as is her robot (Eve VIII). When the robot goes out of control and threatens to explode in downtown Manhattan, she becomes the Eve of Destruction, get it?

Gregory Hines is a special tough-ass counter-terrorism guy who is brought in to pursue and destroy the berserk robot.


  • The production values and F/X are no better than an episode of The Bionic Woman. This is particularly unimpressive given that this film was made about 15 years after The Bionic Woman went off the air.
  • The guns in this film never run out of bullets. At one point, Robot Renee must get off about 1500 rounds without reloading.

  • The film rushes to an ending with everyone staring at timer clocks every couple of minutes as the robot's 24 hour nuclear activation ticks down.

  • Would you give major federal grants to a scientist using this advanced computer technology? You just know that's gonna result in a sophisticated  robot. Best of all, no need for a bikini wax. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
  • Renee was not good at all in either role, but the writing was so bad than I just don't know how much, if any, of the two bad performances was her fault. Her American accent was certainly not believable, but they covered that up by saying that she lived in Europe as a child before returning to the States for high school. Then, at Klaus Kinski High School, when the other kids majored in French or Spanish, she majored in English with an Accent.

  • I have admired what Gregory Hines has done in roles suited to his personality and talents. He is not, however, the go-to guy when you need a snarling tough guy who has little in his life but efficient killing. I guess Alan Alda turned the role down.

  • Have you seen many four star generals with long bushy sideburns and long mussed-up hair? OK, maybe General Burnside, but that was the Civil War, and he only had two stars. >>>

  • By the way, this four-star general stays personally in touch with all the guys in the field, and is always sitting at the radio, in full dress uniform, whenever they call in, 24-7.

DVD info from Amazon

  • no widescreen

  • no meaningful features


Renee Soutendijk exposes her breasts in an undressing scene.

The Critics Vote

  • Rotten Tomatoes summary. 0% positive. Not only did the five reviewers give negative scores, but three out of the five gave their lowest possible score.

The People Vote ...

  • It grossed $5.4 million in the USA. It's difficult for me to believe that people paid to see this film in 1992.


The meaning of the IMDb score: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence equivalent to about three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, comparable to approximately two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, equivalent to about a two star rating from the critics, or a C- from our system. Films rated below five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film - this score is roughly equivalent to one and a half stars from the critics or a D on our scale. (Possibly even 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. (C+ means it has no crossover appeal, but will be considered excellent by genre fans, while C- indicates that it we found it to be a poor movie although genre addicts find it watchable). 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. Any film rated C- or better is recommended for fans of that type of film. Any film rated B- or better is recommended for just about anyone. We don't score films below C- that often, because we like movies and we think that most of them have at least a solid niche audience. Now that you know that, you should have serious reservations about any movie below C-.

Based on this description, this is a D. It is not good. Poor production values, cartoon characterizations, miscast actors, lame F/X, choppy editing, you name it. Tuna says, "Gregory Hines's role in this film is a case of serious mis-casting akin to having Chip and Dale, the cartoon chipmunks, play the Loch Ness monster. Hollywood need more Samuel Jacksons. The story follows most of the clichés, and never really builds any suspense. The robot was too evil to create any doubt as to what she would do, and Soutendijk the scientist didn't really have any depth as a character. On the other hand, it kept me awake, I didn't hit fast forward, and Soutendijk showed her breasts, which merit a C- for the film."

Return to the Movie House home page