Urban Exploration. The practice of investigating areas not designed for public use. But strange things can happen in the dark, closed-off areas of history beneath the streets of Moscow, and what started as a way for Nate to escape his grief quickly turns into a journey that forces him to confront it head-on, with nothing less than his eternal destiny hanging in the balance.
Similar titles
Reviews
What a terrible waste of time, effort and money. Save yourself the excruciating frustration and run, run away from this film. An absolute piece of malarky not worthy of the celluloid it rests within. All of the enlightened reviewers who find cosmic awareness and answers in this mess are just fooling themselves. Don't get me wrong. I love "difficult" movies. This however is not one of them. I concur with a prior reviewer who stated it appears somebody was locked in an editing room and not allowed to leave until they concocted something that ran 90 minutes. What's wrong? A crappy script you can see coming from almost the beginning, bad acting, horrendous camera angles (note: pretentious camera angles do not make poop like this into art), really bad music that sounds like outtakes from a rave and the fact that somebody somewhere greenlighted this atrocity. Not a so-bad-it's-good type film. Pass on this unless you have a masochistic streak or more time to waste than I do.
Watch this if...you don't oppose excessive shaky camera work, blaring music every few minutes, questionable cinematography, and strange storytelling. Some may find this movie great, but I think they are in the minority.Acting/Casting: 5* - This is the one area of the film that I thought was average. The actors are second rate, but do an average job and don't stand out as being terrible. Nothing great, but just average work here.Directing/Cinematography/Technical: 2* - Let's not confuse good cinematography with cinematography that greatly takes away from the film. While some movies capture the chaos with their camera work and music, this movie just makes it aggravating. The flashback scenes are blared with white contrast to the point that it hurts your eyes and you can't see what is taking place. I can write a book about this category, but I will leave it as one word - UNFORTUNATE.Plot/Characters: 2* - The movie starts well and grabs your attention, but ends up taking you on a journey of ridiculousness. Prepare to be confused for a while and although some sense is made in the end, I wouldn't say that all of it is necessary or has relevance. An avid film watcher could tell you how this movie was going to end 2/3 of the way through, but only because that was the only thing that could marginally save the film.Entertainment Value: 3* - It starts well, but ends disappointing. There is a reason it has a 3.2 rating and it isn't because people "don't get it". Some do "get it" and just think it isn't very good.My Score: 5+2+2+3 = 12/4 = 3.0Email your thoughts to [email protected]
Erratic camera-work, extreme close-ups, shifting focus, and rapid cuts: when utilised sparingly by a proficient director working in conjunction with a skilled editor, these movie-making techniques can help to effectively convey urgency, panic, and terror; however, in the hands of a less talented film-maker, one who lacks the finesse and experience to make judicious use of such methods, the results can be virtually unwatchable. Such is the case with David L. Cunningham's After.I've seen a lot of bad films in my time, but there are very few that I loathe with such intensity as this virtually unwatchable mess, 76 minutes of migraine inducing garbage during which Cunningham never once uses a tripod, rarely sustains a shot for over a second, dispenses with such trivialities as keeping his picture in focus, and shines as many bright lights directly into the camera lens as humanly possible.If all of that wasn't bad enough, the plot is completely unfathomable for 99% of the running time, after which all becomes clear(ish) with a trite twist ending that didn't even seem all that fresh over two decades ago when Adrian Lyne used it for Jacob's Ladder (a film that After clearly strives to emulate).
Aufull movie!!! We can't really tell what's going on and what that is all about. What was their first objective ? Why did they gone there anyway ? What were they looking for ? Did they pretended to get away in first place ? What happened to the guy who survived ? Did he really survived and got out of there? Why did the bodies disappear ?it makes no sense and it has too many flashbacks from the children witch were simply irrelevant to the understanding of the movie. And finally, it's supposed to put you scared, but even that they made wrong, the cameras don't get clear pictures and they're always moving around to fast... To put it in plain English: A MESS