Aftermath: Population Zero (TV Movie 2008) Poster

(2008 TV Movie)

User Reviews

Review this title
15 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
Life will find a way, no matter what.
bobgordon-556-54049315 October 2009
Don't quite understand the people bashing statement made earlier.

This would be akin to bashing the dinosaurs when they disappeared. Aftermath merely showed the recovery rate which this planet has after any change it is given.

Interesting to see our infrastructure's "lifespan" when not maintained.

Also amazing, our ancient structures survival through the years.

Yes it would have been great to see how the entire planet faired through all this. Modern cities there would deal with the same breakdown time line as the north.

Perhaps a part 2 to show this .
24 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
A bit of a waste of time...
useless-id16 September 2008
It was interesting.. however the documentary had a lot of flaws. The narration was very repetitive and was not constructed well at all.

The worst thing about it was they only showed the effects in Northern America and parts of Europe. Absolutely no mention of the rest of the world whatsoever. Effects would be different in other parts of the world... It was just ignorant.

Rather than repeating some of the same effects in the US they could have focused on effects in densely populated parts of the world like Mexico, China and India.... They talked so much about monuments like the Statue of Liberty... yet no mention of the Great Wall of China that has stood for thousands of years.... or the great Taj Mahal.

As interesting as some parts were... there was just too many flaws for me to recommend this documentary to anyone else.

I am sure most people who have seen this will agree with me.
60 out of 94 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Fiction portrayed as documentary fact
tim-243618 January 2009
The movie itself was well done as far as graphics, effects, and realism. The thing that was disappointing was how far fledged and inaccurate the predictions were when compared to solid science. It always bothers me when I watch a documentary that portrays fiction as fact.

It would be nice to see a scientific documentary where science and fact is used to educate without being riddled with politics and opinion that stretch the facts or even outright lie to support an agenda. Science is interesting and beautiful in itself.

Don't take my word for it though.If you do watch the movie, do some research to decipher fact from fiction:) I did some quick searches online and found a lot of solid information that offered scientific basis contrary to those portrayed in the movie.
17 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Nope. It's Not Nice To Mess With Mother Nature!
strong-122-47888517 October 2015
Seriously, folks - I think that this documentary should be required viewing for any aliens ("green-minded" aliens, that is) who might be planning to invade Earth with the sole purpose of wiping out the entire human race.... 'Cause, if you ask me, I'm sure that after watching this documentary those aliens would be quite convinced that by annihilating the whole lot of us they'd be doing this planet a humongous favour. Indeed.

And, with all of that in mind - This documentary (about the survival of the planet Earth, sans humans) certainly did lay it on extra-Extra-EXTRA thick when it came to telling us just how much man (and everything he's done) has totally fukked this planet beyond anything imaginable (outside that, of course, of a real-life, Sci-Fi/Horror show).

Unfortunately, what the producers of "Aftermath" forgot to do was to offer us "disillusioned ones" some real hope that man just may turn his destructive ways around and finally get himself in tune with good, old Mother Nature (who has sure taken one helluva beating) and, thus, live happily ever after(math).

Anyway - Regardless of all of the impending gloom and doom that seemed to prevail in "Aftermath", I still thought that it was well-worth a view (even though it was an extremely sobering view, at that).
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Absolute Utter Trash
jmstettner23 February 2009
Warning: Spoilers
While the special effects are entertaining in some cases, that is far, far overwhelmed by the sheer exaggerations, assumptions, and out right fabrications perpetrated by the creators of this farce. This program is clearly geared to evoke a variety of politically correct responses to the fuzzy and questionable pseudo-science prevalent in society today.

Firstly, the way humanity "steps off this mortal coil" makes a huge, tremendous difference in how events would play out. Simply vanishing is a dramatic but narrow-minded way to captivate the viewer and instills a "do not question" attitude that, again, is so prevalent with pseudo-science.

We are shown elephants in a suburban neighborhood where all the trees are denuded. This would be understandable if the elephants were late comers to the feast, but they are first arrivals. It is June, but the filming must have been done in autumn or very early spring. Just lousy editing.

We are shown lions hunting a baboon in a playground and the poor felines can't get the ape because it's on a plastic tube-slide. However, the slide comes off a wooden play structure that has a flight of stairs, but we're expected to believe the lions are such lousy hunters they don't circle the structure and go up the stairs.

We are told that "birds fly south and more will survive this year" because the lights in the cities are off. The narrator explains that birds navigate by the stars and in cities at night many "circle the buildings till they tire and die." Now, I've seen a dead bird or two in cities, but the suggestion here would have us find hundreds or thousands every morning. It's patently ridiculous.

Many of the mechanical catastrophes depicted seem on the whole accurate, however, since most people do not visit their Waste Water Facilities they are unaware of how they work and this shockumentary takes advantage of that ignorance to outright lie about it's failure.

Further, there is a claim, directly from the EPA and the IPCC, that automobiles pump out 19 pounds of CO2 per gallon of gasoline. Now, the fuzzy pseudo-science crowd adore the EPA and IPCC mainly because these agencies do not use the scientific method when doing science. They start from a solution and work backwards to prove it as opposed to asking the question and experimenting to determine the answer. Gasoline is basically 8 Carbons with 18 Hydrogen. In one pound of gasoline there is about 0.84 pounds Carbon and when burned in the combustion engine combines with about 2.24 pounds Oxygen to become 3.08 pounds of CO2, nowhere near 19 pounds.

Why is it, the pseudo-science crowd always lies about their claims? They'd get more mileage from the truth, but then they wouldn't get any money from the average Joe who can't be bothered to study the real science.

Watch this movie for the entertainment value, but please, please, please educate yourself and your children as you watch so you don't get caught believing the hype and dogma.
17 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Not what I expected
jmdist1 December 2009
Being aired on NATGEO, "Aftermath Population Zero" it must be factual, right???. Wrong!!! I first noticed that there was no mention of water expanding when frozen, causing concrete cracks to expand. Then they said that the cracks exposed the re-bar in the concrete to carbon dioxide, causing the re-bar to rust. ??? Excuse me, but air consists of only 0.038% carbon dioxide, but oxygen is about 20.95%. Rust is ferrous oxide. The oxygen in the air is going to contribute 500 times more to the rusting process than carbon dioxide. Then I remembered having heard "carbon dioxide" several times before the concrete part, and noticed "carbon dioxide" continuing to be mentioned again and again. It was then that I suspected that this was more an example of poor science and propaganda than factual. I lost interest, but do not recall any mention of plant-life absorbing carbon dioxide and giving off oxygen.
14 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
A two hour misanthropic festival
namor20005 June 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I've always had a certain fascination with Sci Fi movies containing end of the world scenarios. That's why I tuned into this NatGeo show a while back, thinking I'd like its "what if" scenario. Unfortunately, the more I watched, the more it irritated me. Why? Because of the narrative style.

If National Geographic kept the narration simple, limited to what the planet would become without human upkeep, it would have been more interesting. But as the show progressed, the narration took on a downbeat and condescending tone. Let's cut to the chase: It slams all human beings as the poison of planet earth! They deride every conceivable achievement we've made over the centuries to make our lives more livable, claiming that it's come at the expense of all plant and animal life. Last time I checked, the plants and animals were still there.

Mankind has made mistakes (pollution, deforestation, hunting whales to the brink of extinction, etc.) but we've shown the ability to reverse and correct the mistakes, too. The very last sentence "All we have to do is get out of the way", insinuating that earth is better off without us, were the nails in this coffin. I will give it three stars though, but only for the special effects.

National Geographic, the next time you produce a show like this, could you please keep the misanthropy out of it?
9 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Terrible movie
lad-685-39720914 March 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I rented this movie without seeing or reading any previews. This is my first review on IMDb and I only registered to tell you not to watch it, it's just a waste of time.

Why? 1. Terrible filming, editing, animation and graphics. 2 Much of the movie is just filming of some animals running around and it looks like an amateur have filmed/edited it. 3. Why do they show the same uninteresting pictures/movie clips again and again? 4. Almost everything is about North America and some Europe and is not representing the whole world. 5. A lot of arguable "facts", sounds more like fiction than actual facts.

The idea of the movies is great and it could be a really great movie. But someone else, with bigger budgets and more pro people should be the producers.

Sorry for my poor English, I wrote this in a hurry and my grammar is not great either.
10 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Would never watch again
virus67922 October 2008
One of the worst people bashing inaccurate and fictional so-called documentaries I have ever seen.

I sure hope people don't believe the garbage they spew out of this one.

I will give it that the CG in it was pretty cool, in that it was similar to "I am Legend" in the effects on NYC and was equal in educational value.

It would of been nice to see effects on more of the world than its narrow focus on North America and Europe.

I do not recommend this to anyone, if you are looking to learn something, look elsewhere.
22 out of 73 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
it's so bad it's actually fun
Andyfro865 December 2014
If you wanna know what the lousiest documentary can be like, watch this movie. I watched it with a friend, we actually had great fun watching it. i laughed myself to tears i tell you!

Gimme three hours of wikipedia and i'll put together a better show. what i can't conceive is how national geographic actually funded this movie. i have lost all respect for them. completely unexpected epic fail.

I just can't... words just aren't enough. you need to see it with your own eyes and judge it with your own brains.

this is my first IMDb review ever, as some one else already stated in this thread. i really want to encourage people to watch this epic fail. i'll just leave the final quote of the movie. the conclusion. it was something like. the earth can survive without us but we can't survive without the earth...

and it took an hour of nonsense to reach to this very obvious verdict. unbelievable!!!
4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
I'm not sure if this is more "Green" propaganda or not.
IKillOmega19 January 2009
There is no doubt, from the beginning of this "documentary" that there is a definite bias here. The film claims to be about man's impact on the world but it is really just a film about how man has damaged it, and despite our constant chaos, the Earth will thrive if it weren't for us. This was obviously written by a Green Freak and me, being a man who refuses to buy into the corporate and political lie that is the Green Movement, finds this film condescending, ugly, and unremarkable. It has hard to show an impact when the film continues to show recycled stock footage of the same forests and fields over and over. They overgrown landmarks of man look like late 90s video game graphics and the overall look of the film is just ugly. It tries to persuade its viewers into thinking it's a smart hypothetical by showing the chaos that will ensue immediately after man disappears. However, this is quickly drowned out by the narrator's condescending tone and downbeat morality. I hated this doc. It is certainly no Planet Earth.
15 out of 59 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Interesting but slanted, tells us what we already know
HorrorFilmHellion23 July 2022
Instead of using actual science to extrapolate very interesting and political-absent educational decay rates of modern society if people vanished, we get to hear a slanted narrative. It is all man-made pollution-based interruption of the planet's will to reset us back to ground zero, that we so desperately need. The fish just want to swim back upstream and spawn, after-all, and they have to wait until the evil human dams suddenly "burst" from slow gradual erosion of spillways. Sigh... This really could have been neat if it wasn't an extension of the green movement, or if it didn't take up so many eye-rolling assertions. For Example: At about the 25K AH year mark, the earth's orbit has drifted further away from the sun (no reason given) to where there will be an ice age that will last for 100K years. Are we supposed to connect the dots, that this is somehow because humans are no longer on the planet? Some parts are interesting/entertaining though, in an assertive-accepted point of view, but I was really quite stupefied that there was no mention of natural fire to help reset nature's balance. Really? It's all we can do to keep the earth from going up in flames as it is today. A single lightning strike rages hardcore fires across thousands of acres on a regular basis, except now there will be no humans to put it out. By regular basis, I mean more than 17,000 lightning caused fires per year. Seems like that is a factor worth mentioning on what happens when humans are gone.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Poorly chosen music and bad foley and sound mixing ruin this documentary.
dave-8038215 August 2020
In the middle of this show there could be a fairly interesting documentary. There are some well researched facts such as those about nuclear facilities and the way concrete buildings collapse. There's also a lot of repetition and a lot of *DUNK*DUNK* very obvious statements. Still, it might have been an ok doc IF they had got rid of whatever idiot made the decisions about music and foley (sound effects). In film, the number one thing music and foley have to do it NOT intrude on the narrative, but they do the opposite in this one. Every five seconds there's a different godawful breakbeat sample or over-dramatic sound effect that totally drowns out the voiceover. It seems as if it was edited to the lowest common denominator, that is IF WE DON'T CONSTANTLY SCREAM AT THE ATTENTION DEFICIENT FOUR YEAR OLD WHO WE THINK IS OUR AUDIENCE THEY'LL TURN THE CHANNEL!! Take the narration, cut out the repetition, use subtle music and foley, cut the weird obsession about what will happen to first world landmarks and you could have had an ok documentary.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Badly executed propaganda movie
pieterboddaert3 February 2023
This is anti-nuclear propaganda, for nothing about what is told about nuclear power plants is true.

Abandoned nuclear reactors will NOT explode as shown. The cooling systems will cool the fuel to safe levels, even when all systems go down.

The movie contradicts itself in an almost funny way: at 28 min in: "If people were still on the planet, the radiation would cause cancer with millions of people". But the premise of the entire movie is THERE ARE NO PEOPLE.

Later the movie continues fearmongering against nuclear energy - which is actually the only form of energy that can save the planet from a climate disaster.

What a hoax.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
The name of the director or writer? There's a reason it's not listed.
logicology8 May 2022
I have a theory on why this is so ... because this isn't a documentary, it's a fantasy ... a fantasy by people who decry extinction, but in reality long for the extinction of one species. It's not hard to figure out which group they belong to and what their ultimate goal is.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed