After the Dark (2013)

Drama, Fantasy, Sci-Fi
Bonnie Wright, James D'Arcy, Rhys Wakefield, Maia Mitchell
At an international school in Jakarta, a philosophy teacher challenges his class of twenty graduating seniors to choose which ten of them would take shelter underground and reboot the human race in the event of a nuclear apocalypse.
  • Phase 4 Films Company:
  • R Rated:
  • IMDB link IMDB:
  • 10 Oct 2013 Released:
  • N/A DVD Release:
  • N/A Box office:
  • John Huddles Writer:
  • John Huddles Director:
  • N/A Website:

All subtitles:



Trailer:

This movie made me ANGRY!1/10
This movie made me extremely angry. Don't get me wrong i'm not some kind of easily agitated, I've seen some real crappy movies before and would be like 'meh', but this movie managed to get me real angry, like real p%$$3d off! Let me analyse why. From checking out the trailer I've started watching the movie with good expectations about a philosophical mystery with interesting twists. It would be too nice to just say that this movie did not contain neither mystery, neither twists and neither any philosophy, and calling a few, known-by-all examples of some mind games philosophy is insult to viewers intelligence, but yet again this movies existence is insulting to begin with. So OK, movie was crap, but so are so many others, why am i angry about this particular one? - It is because it managed to disappoint not once, like it would be normal but dozen times during the course of it. You'd be thinking "OK, OK something interesting is about to happen" and no, nothing, sorry just crap acting and stupid story. Then you might be thinking "Ok maybe not interesting, but something provocative is surely going on here", but no, sorry, same crap. Disappoint. And on and on like this, until the culmination - "This movie better have a stunning twist at the end, so it's rating would be somehow justified!" And guess what? THE OPPOSITE HAPPENED! Not just disappointing, the ending was agonizing to watch. To watch as any hope leaves your mind, to begin comprehending how meaningless and stupid the last 90 minutes were - this is real pain. It is truly amazing to me how you could ruin something so much. I've seen movies that created astonishing scenarios over a root that seemed irrelevant at start, but I've not seen someone diminishing EVERYTHING he possibly could over a pretty good looking starting point! One last thing - the main actress(not even gonna bother scrolling to see her name) was just soooo bad. That twilight girl is 10/10 in comparison. A freshly cut small tree carried around by set crew would play her role much better.

Don't watch this movie!
Worst. School. Ever.2/10
A bunch of kids who all seem to have arrived from the same toothpaste or shampoo commercial turn up for their last day at school ever. The teacher decides to run a philosophy role-play as a kind of review session. What follows are momentous life-and-death decisions with huge consequences for the fate of the human race.

Or not, as it turns out - because it is a classroom exercise. All the exotic settings, CGI explosions, and crisp cinematography cannot distract us from the fact that all that is at stake here is an A, B or C grade. There isn't even a mention that someone might FAIL the class - the stakes are that low! The teacher threatens the lead girl with losing her A+ in a manner that, if taken seriously, would see him fired for power harassment and incompetence. Are we meant to fear for her in this ludicrous moment? Unfortunately, that is as dramatic as this film gets.

The so-called philosophy is preachy and immature. The pupils all kind of blend into each other as characterisation is one-note. And absolutely nothing of value is tested or put at risk here. It's like The Breakfast Club was never made.

How this screenplay made it to the top of anyone's pile is a crime that should be investigated. Two stars - one for the cinematography, the other for the huge drinking game potential.
"Statistically there has to be one more homosexual in this class..." - "Damn! How did you know?"1/10
Yes, that line is really in this movie. IT'S LOGIC! More spoilers on the way: Another thing to learn from the film: Everybody really likes Arwen Evenstar (who is called Petra in this film) because she is really smart and has the mimic spectrum of a cow and is the only blonde woman. And by the way: If you have to decide which people to take with you into a bunker for one year - don't leave out the psychopath who suddenly commits mass murder and explains that by saying: "Well, they wanted me to do it. So I just shot them all. No problemo!" Because in a realistic scenario like this, he could very well be the bunker builder of all bunkers ever who builds them in a way so nobody else can ever leave them without him. What a great and mysterious bunker builder he is. IT'S LOGIC! If you ever happen to be in a class, where you are to perform a theoretical survival game and the teacher himself ensures that every attempt to survive fails by constantly killing people or trying to rape them... Well, then you might happen to be at the film set of "Return of the Philosophers" or "G.I. PHILOSOPHY" or "The philosophy teacher who still wants to make philosophical sex to his best student so badly". And in that case you better leave the room. Otherwise you will inevitably be in the second worst movie ever made. Now for some serious criticism: "The fact that I am gay doesn't mean I don't love you, Arwen Evenstar (Petra)! It just means I am never gonna have sex with you ever. And you shouldn't have sex with anyone else ever. And me being gay also means that I think I should not reproduce myself." Now that is from the movie. Gay people should not reproduce themselves. The movie calls it "Evolution by refusal to reproduce." IT'S LOGIC! Did I mention the fact that they are able to get rid of the teacher in the third round of the experiment because they still know the door code from the first experiment? IT'S LOGIC! So you want more? There is more: People enter a bunker because of atomic apocalypse - apocalypse NOT taking place - teacher is hiding from radiation in a very deeeeeep cave and also survives. IT'S LOGIC! Guy gets killed by radiation and then gets eaten by a dog. ATOMIC APOCALYPSE SURVIVAL DOG IN THE HOUSE! So the people have to decide who may get into the bunker and who not. Suddenly someone has the keys to a funny little boat that will take people to an island without any radiation. You know, the no-atomic- apocalypse-island. IT'S LOGIC! Or the girl that gets voted out of the bunker because she will have cancer... in about 3 years. IT'S LOGIC!

Okay, now seriously. The film is full of philosophy so it is good for people with huge brains. Philosophy is the science of little riddles. Plato for example was a great riddle-maker, just like Wittgenstein or Superman or Nacho Libre. These people had huge brains. They had such huge brains that even their heads were extremely big.

"I know the world is ending and also 11 of us are going to die but I kinda have to ask you this question: Should I take these turtles with me into the bunker? I just found them at the river and they are sooo cute!"

Actually the whole film is a metaphor! It is about mentality and the way we look at life! And about loooooove! And about generations! And about lived philosophy! And about how everything is not always about logic! And to make that more clear they chose a bad script, crappy actors and let the guy who wrote the nonsense also be the director - all just so that he can get his message across! Plus there were some explosions, temples, beaches and bikinis, too. And a gay love scene which the actors obviously could not really perform for some reason so they just made it look as if they kissed each other. In the mysterious bunker-love-bed (which they have because after building a fitness room, a lounge, a light-therapy-room and several driving ranges inside the bunker, there simply was no more space for separate sleeping rooms, so they all sleep in the same room and share one huge love-bed for reproducing and stuff). Don't miss it! IT'S LOGIC!

0/10 Stars. Stars?

(Btw, I really want to see the girl in the classroom saying: "Okay, in this this thought experiment I had sex with that guy next to me. Thought-sex. Now, it seems to me that I am not getting pregnant. You know, thought-pregnant." And then the teacher is like: "Hmmm... Then we must rape you all! You know, thought-rape!")
Had a lot of potential but ultimately it was a let down5/10
The concept of this movie seemed promising; a philosophical thought experiment where you must decide who should live and who should die, all presented in a way that was both entertaining and involving for the audience. In the end though, I came away feeling that the script had been written by two people: the first 2 thirds were written by someone who did a crash course in philosophy and had only a vague understanding of the ideas they were trying to explore, and the final third was written by someone who manages to pull off the challenge of being unbelievably self-righteous despite their IQ of 70.

At the start, it (very) quickly glances over some other thought experiments which involve conflicts of rationality and morality (5 people tied to one train track, 1 person tied to parallel track, train coming down track with 5 people, but you have a switch that will change the track the train goes down to the one with only 1 person on, do you flip the switch?). They're well known to anyone who's familiar with utilitarianism, but anyone who's not covered them before will probably be left confused as to how the movie concludes immediately after asking the question that the switch flippers are murderers and offering no explanation as to why. But it's at least getting people warmed up for actively participating in the thought experiment rather than just being passive observers.

The main thought experiment, deciding who should get to live, is pretty interesting at first. Rationality and logic will be most peoples tools for deciding; the people who bring the greatest benefit to humanity should live. The movie then tries to test the boundaries of how far you'll stay rational for the greater good in situations which you may find immoral. Can 'bad' actions be justified if they're for the greater good (e.g. dropping the atom bomb to end WW2)? While this is good in concept, the script and characters fail to pull it off in a convincing way. The characters put up fights on grounds of morality in such petty issues that they come across as just being whiny children throwing a tantrum rather than humans stretched to the limits of what they'll do in pursuit of the greater good and finally drawing a line in what they can bear to justify to themselves as 'the rational thing to do'.

It was the final third that really ruined the film though. Up until then it may not have been great, but it was at least trying to explore philosophical problems. But at this point the self-righteous writer who can barely spell philosophy, let alone comprehend it, takes over. They completely ignore every concept of right and wrong the film has previously been exploring. The writer goes off on their own tangent with their view of what's 'good', which doesn't seem too bad at first, except it appears to be written by someone who has never actually stopped to consider why they judge something as 'good'. There is neither rationality nor logic behind their ideas, no concept of the greater good, in fact, you'd be hard pushed to find any interpretation of morality where the final writers 'good' may fit in to. It's just selfish, unbelievably stupid and defies any kind of logic. The writer isn't trying to write a thought provoking script, he's trying to write a 'feel good' story that ignores reality and is completely unrelated to anything previously discussed in the movie. I believe the writer was trying to convey something along the lines of rationality and logic not being the gold standard when it comes to morality, but he failed in showing anyone why this might be. His attempt to show this may have actually being so poor that, inadvertently, he actually reinforced the importance of rationality.

I think the movie does deserve some credit for presenting a story that will get viewers thinking about some interesting concepts, for that I would still recommend it for people unfamiliar with philosophy, but if you are familiar with the concepts covered then I don't think it's worth watching as it will add nothing new to what you already know and will probably end up just irritating you.
i am speechless1/10
i had high hopes for this one and the first 15 minutes were pretty cool and from that on it turned more and more into the most illogical, pretentious, ridiculous crapfest i have ever witnessed. at half the film all i wanted was for it to be over and the only reason i watched it until the end was, because i wanted to know how they would conclude it, but that was a pretty dumb move from my side, because it just turned weirder and dumber and even more silly. afterwards i wished i would have just ended it at the half into movie mark and forgot about it, because the conclusion turned out to be even more silly. the basic idea for the story was great, but thy could not make anything worse out of it than this. terrible. insanely terrible.