"Aftermath" cannot really stand up to films like The Day After or Threads, nor books like Alas Babylon or On The Beach or One Minute After, but it does alright. The movie's success is to serve as a warning to avoid nuclear war. I wasn't going to comment until I saw a 1/10 review grumping about smoking around a pregnant woman; was the commenter oblivious to the ionizing radiation permeating the countryside? If it ever comes to this, pray you go out in a blazing flash. Misery awaits those who survive the initial exchange. 6/10
46 Reviews
It's the end of the world as we know it!
angelxx-745-694079 November 2014
OK, so here goes, my first review. I could have chosen a thousand better movies to review, so why this one? Well, as an apocalyptic movie goes, this is the second most depressing film about nuclear war that I have ever seen. The first being an animated film (yes I know how that sounds!), When the wind blows by Raymond Briggs (the guy who wrote The Snowman), It's one of the saddest films I have ever seen. Anyhoo back to The Aftermath, some scenes are pretty far fetched. There is no real explanation as to why events take place. The characters are not fully developed and a ton of other minor foibles, but that being said, this is a film that makes you think, what would you do?. Would you try and battle through?, would you resign yourself to the inevitable? or would you curl up and die? Pretty depressing stuff all in all, but in this climate, in which we are destroying ourselves by the minute, it is an all too realistic scenario. Unfortunately.
Need a Valium hit after this depressing movie
clarkmick3320 October 2015
Apocalypse movies are meant to have explosions, huge special effects and people fleeing from one place to the next to survive!!!....well if you are looking for that sort of apocalyptic survival movie you have stumbled to the wrong place. Ultimately the movie stars 9 peps in a cellar for one and half hours...which is quite realistic I suppose but realism is kinda boring hence the point of watch a movie to "escape from reality" Kudos to the make up team - the actors and actresses did look like they were slow succumbing to the effects of radiation. However the acting at times was just strange, especially when they are fighting off people - they seem to go all Rambo then at other times they seem quite timid. So if you want to watch a movie and have all hope washed away then sit back and enjoy the micro-scale fall of humanity.
It was just OK, didn't fully click with me
bbickley13-921-5866426 July 2014
The poster to the movie was far cooler than the movie itself.
It feels like the filmmakers allowed their love of Zombie films to influence the movie they made. The plot is about a nuclear holocaust that seem to come out of nowhere hitting on American soil and focuses on a handful of people who are dealing with the whole thing.
The cast of characters are all locked in a seller waiting for the radiation to clear up enough for them to surface. Like most small movies of it's caliber, the movie focuses mostly on the inner turmoil between the characters, who I did not find that interesting. This small crew also had to deal with others from the outside who minds have been altered do to what's happening on the surface.
Not much to the story but it did not need to be, but I my interest in the characters was lacking.
It feels like the filmmakers allowed their love of Zombie films to influence the movie they made. The plot is about a nuclear holocaust that seem to come out of nowhere hitting on American soil and focuses on a handful of people who are dealing with the whole thing.
The cast of characters are all locked in a seller waiting for the radiation to clear up enough for them to surface. Like most small movies of it's caliber, the movie focuses mostly on the inner turmoil between the characters, who I did not find that interesting. This small crew also had to deal with others from the outside who minds have been altered do to what's happening on the surface.
Not much to the story but it did not need to be, but I my interest in the characters was lacking.
Ehhh
wesperkins31 July 2023
Warning: Spoilers
This movie starts out okay, but It uses the tried and true method of characters doing stupid stuff to advance the plot. Hey let's go bury somebody upstairs when everybody's trying to break in and it's radioactive.. let's draw as much attention to our bunker as we possibly can.
The characters are kind of cliched. You've got the pregnant woman, the blind kid, The neighbor who acts irrational and tells his pregnant girlfriend to quit being sick. The characters are all pretty standard in act in extremes.
After hunkering down, then the movie turns into a zombie movie. Apparently radioactivity gives the neighbors superpowers. One dude takes three shots and he's still killing them. None of them can speak and just grunt at the people. They can survive outside fine for weeks but the people in the bunker can't last a couple of days outside. None of it makes sense. Why leave the shelter of a bunker just to die outside after all you fought for. The ending is depressing and insane and just not realistic.
It's like they made an end of the World movie and decided to make a zombie movie at the end. Don't waste your time.
The characters are kind of cliched. You've got the pregnant woman, the blind kid, The neighbor who acts irrational and tells his pregnant girlfriend to quit being sick. The characters are all pretty standard in act in extremes.
After hunkering down, then the movie turns into a zombie movie. Apparently radioactivity gives the neighbors superpowers. One dude takes three shots and he's still killing them. None of them can speak and just grunt at the people. They can survive outside fine for weeks but the people in the bunker can't last a couple of days outside. None of it makes sense. Why leave the shelter of a bunker just to die outside after all you fought for. The ending is depressing and insane and just not realistic.
It's like they made an end of the World movie and decided to make a zombie movie at the end. Don't waste your time.
Unremarkable, unexplained & pointless.
waffle2471 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
There are many unanswered questions in this movie or as I like to think of them "plot holes". After a semi-promising couple of minutes at the start the movie quickly becomes a small scale lock in hide from the zombie things outside suspense drama with no suspense that leaves the audience wondering not "What's outside!?" but instead "Why is any of this happening?".
If you like shiny movies where the characters lack motivation & do many stupid things to move the plot forward, this is the movie for you. You will have the unarmed lead character getting shot with no warning for apparently walking up to a strangers porch in search of shelter. You get the joys of never quite working out what any of the characters were actually doing in the middle of nowhere to get into this position in the first place. You get to wonder why any of the nukes were fired to start the whole film off. These questions and many more will fail to be answered in any meaningful way.
This is a movie based on bad plot lines & has a wholly unremarkable script. The only reason this gets 3 stars is because the production was good & most of the actors were able to transcend the shoddy regurgitated script to show some of their talents, even though it would appear the plot was worked out by Spongbob Squarepants best friend.
If you like shiny movies where the characters lack motivation & do many stupid things to move the plot forward, this is the movie for you. You will have the unarmed lead character getting shot with no warning for apparently walking up to a strangers porch in search of shelter. You get the joys of never quite working out what any of the characters were actually doing in the middle of nowhere to get into this position in the first place. You get to wonder why any of the nukes were fired to start the whole film off. These questions and many more will fail to be answered in any meaningful way.
This is a movie based on bad plot lines & has a wholly unremarkable script. The only reason this gets 3 stars is because the production was good & most of the actors were able to transcend the shoddy regurgitated script to show some of their talents, even though it would appear the plot was worked out by Spongbob Squarepants best friend.
Not bad for this kind of movie
Wizard-86 October 2014
Warning: Spoilers
When I first found out about this movie, I looked it up here and read the previous user comments, and I was intrigued that people were pretty much split on the movie, some liking it and some hating it. This intrigued me enough to go out and rent the Blu-ray.
I thought in the end it was pretty good. Now, I feel I should mention that I have an interest in post-apocalypse movies as well as low budget B movies, so there was some appeal for me that other viewers might not find.
But there is some other stuff - good stuff - that I think might please other viewers. It is well acted, with even fallen actor Edward Furlong gives a good performance. The direction is very atmospheric - you can really feel the grit and gloom the characters are experiencing. The movie definitely does not sugar-coat the situation, and what it portrays I think would be accurate if the situation did happen in real life.
There are a few unanswered questions, like how the survivors happened to have a stethoscope, but such questions didn't concern me that much since most of the rest of the movie is solid. If I have any real complaint, it is that the direction is too up and close to the actors at times. I realize that 90% of the movie takes place in a basement, but I think the director still could have given a somewhat wider view of the situation at times. Despite that, however, I would recommend this movie.
I thought in the end it was pretty good. Now, I feel I should mention that I have an interest in post-apocalypse movies as well as low budget B movies, so there was some appeal for me that other viewers might not find.
But there is some other stuff - good stuff - that I think might please other viewers. It is well acted, with even fallen actor Edward Furlong gives a good performance. The direction is very atmospheric - you can really feel the grit and gloom the characters are experiencing. The movie definitely does not sugar-coat the situation, and what it portrays I think would be accurate if the situation did happen in real life.
There are a few unanswered questions, like how the survivors happened to have a stethoscope, but such questions didn't concern me that much since most of the rest of the movie is solid. If I have any real complaint, it is that the direction is too up and close to the actors at times. I realize that 90% of the movie takes place in a basement, but I think the director still could have given a somewhat wider view of the situation at times. Despite that, however, I would recommend this movie.
Surprisingly better than most in the genre
rmmil2 March 2021
Warning: Spoilers
My review has to be taken with the grain of salt that I'm grading it partially on the fact that most "the world ended" films are just awful, and this is watchable, so bonus points for that.
I can tell the writers of this film took a good amount of time to research a realistic look at what would actually happen in a all-out nuclear exchange for regular people, and for the most part I think they got it right.
I have no doubt the government would abandon the people to save themselves. I have no doubt common citizens would kill each other for food and supplies. And I have no doubt we are not ready and would all eventually die in this scenario. So that all rings true.
My only issues are very uneven acting by some of the performers, a low budget that occasionally shows, and some inconsistencies/stupidly in some of the character behavior. That being said, the stupidity is not nearly as rampant as it usually is in this genre, so that helps make the film better overall.
Yes, everyone can plainly see Edward Furlong disintegrating on camera in this, but I suppose a man going crazy as the world ends is fitting casting for him.
I can tell the writers of this film took a good amount of time to research a realistic look at what would actually happen in a all-out nuclear exchange for regular people, and for the most part I think they got it right.
I have no doubt the government would abandon the people to save themselves. I have no doubt common citizens would kill each other for food and supplies. And I have no doubt we are not ready and would all eventually die in this scenario. So that all rings true.
My only issues are very uneven acting by some of the performers, a low budget that occasionally shows, and some inconsistencies/stupidly in some of the character behavior. That being said, the stupidity is not nearly as rampant as it usually is in this genre, so that helps make the film better overall.
Yes, everyone can plainly see Edward Furlong disintegrating on camera in this, but I suppose a man going crazy as the world ends is fitting casting for him.
Do not watch
rob23076613 November 2014
Warning: Spoilers
We stuck it out on Sky Box Office.
Depressing acting, writing and a monotonous whirring noise in the background. Even the final action scenes were stilted by continuous freeze-motion captures. This works for NCIS every ten minutes but not in a movie every five seconds for a minute.
After twenty minutes, we no longer cared but watched it purely to see if anyone survived - there was little hope of it improving.
You never find out what happened to start the holocaust. You never found out how 24 litres of water lasts for a month for nine people. Or how one toilet bucket lasts ... But you cease caring.
After growing up with the threat of a nuclear holocaust, we were prepared to watch good acting. But there was none. Hunter was a powerful leader for the first thirty minutes, but after that seemed to lose interest.
Very disappointed.
Depressing acting, writing and a monotonous whirring noise in the background. Even the final action scenes were stilted by continuous freeze-motion captures. This works for NCIS every ten minutes but not in a movie every five seconds for a minute.
After twenty minutes, we no longer cared but watched it purely to see if anyone survived - there was little hope of it improving.
You never find out what happened to start the holocaust. You never found out how 24 litres of water lasts for a month for nine people. Or how one toilet bucket lasts ... But you cease caring.
After growing up with the threat of a nuclear holocaust, we were prepared to watch good acting. But there was none. Hunter was a powerful leader for the first thirty minutes, but after that seemed to lose interest.
Very disappointed.
The Nuclear Apocalypse movie
borleyalpha19 June 2015
I want to give it a higher rating. They got so many things right. Script, direction acting all well done. The top review had a good summary, except that he thought some engineers would be able to tell him where the movie was wrong about radiation. They wouldn't. One of the few times that the cinema ever got remotely close, and this by far was the closest. The things some might want to quibble about would go the way depicted if people didn't know what they were doing. Which is the case here. No one for a change is given the role of brainiac of the universe. They really don't know what they're doing. They also don't have a prepper/survivalist who has been training for this contingency to help them out. Just some regular folks who are trying to deal. Supply issues are glossed over, but so are most character introductions because in the real world people don't run and announce their profession/helpful hobbies and quirky humanizing interests to those they've known for a long time, and even less so to strangers.
A+ for apocalypse vs humanity. A- for humanity survival needs. A for not hand holding the nincompoops who need every little detail explained to the. Although with all the good effort, and work in this wrongly maligned little gem, somehow it never gels to be more of a movie than an apocalypse movie. In that niche genre, where it doesn't intersect with action (cough The Road Warrior cough) it's the best you'll find.
A+ for apocalypse vs humanity. A- for humanity survival needs. A for not hand holding the nincompoops who need every little detail explained to the. Although with all the good effort, and work in this wrongly maligned little gem, somehow it never gels to be more of a movie than an apocalypse movie. In that niche genre, where it doesn't intersect with action (cough The Road Warrior cough) it's the best you'll find.
I wish I could give it a zero
mhorg20188 January 2016
The people who gave this the great reviews it didn't deserve must be friends of the filmmakers. Done on the cheap, the acting is bad, the story is dull and predictable (I think they were going to make a zombie movie and changed their minds), and the scientific accuracy is laughable. These people out in the open when the bombs dropped, aren't going to survive even 30 minutes, let alone days. Where were the firestorms? the great winds that the release of nuclear weapons causes? These were just many of the gaffs. This was like a low budget version of The Day After. Want to see a truly great terrifying nuclear war film? Get a hold of Peter Watkin's The War Games or Threads. As for this, I wish I could just forget I've seen it.
Incredibly well made...but awful.
planktonrules28 August 2014
Tonight, I watched "Aftermath"--a tense and scary film about a small group hunkered down in a basement after a nuclear apocalypse. While it's a pretty good film, the film I expected to see was "Aftermath"--a film about a Polish-American man who is returning to Poland for a visit. Somehow, Netflix just released the film...the wrong film. I called them and they said that the company NEVER ordered the apocalyptic film...and others are apparently reporting that they, too, got this film instead! Well, I guess it was just meant to be that I saw the other film instead!
Both films were made in 2012--so I can understand the mix-up. The Aftermath I saw was directed by Peter Engert and stars a variety of talented but relatively unknown actors. This was a good thing, as the movie is about ordinary people and how they react to a nuclear war. Having Brad Pitt or Meryl Streep in the film might have been cool...but it wouldn't have worked with a picture like this.
When the movie, you learn that several nations have begun detonating nuclear weapons on each other. Exactly how and why isn't important-- what IS important is that somehow a chain reaction occurred and nations are now nuking each other! The film is set in rural Texas and even there they are impacted as soon bombs start detonating all around them. A young doctor, Brad (C.J. Thomason) is backpacking when the bombs start going off nearby--and he and a woman and her blinded brother rush to find supplies and shelter before the effects of the blasts kill them. Finding the supplies is amazingly easy as is a vehicle, but the shelter is another thing. Brad and his two new friends aren't sure if they'll ever find a basement or bomb shelter, as the first place they try results in Brad getting shot! He's going to survive but what about the next place they try? And, even if they find a shelter, what will happen when the folks that remain start to behave like animals...as they most certainly will.
If you are looking for a feel-good movie or a date film, then you need to keep looking. Not surprisingly, "Aftermath" is incredibly depressing and eventually looks a lot like a zombie movie in many ways. But that does not mean it's a bad film--and nuclear apocalypse, unless I am mistaken, SHOULD be incredibly depressing!! Christian McDonald's script is very intelligently written and SEEMS probable. While I am sure nuclear physicists and engineers would find lots of plot holes, it sure seemed real and kept my attention. I also appreciated it because it was a great look at human nature--at least for us pessimists who assume such a horrific event would be made even worse by many of the survivors and near-survivors.
In some ways, the film reminded me a bit of the classic film "On the Beach"--but without all the movie star cameos. In this 1959, the world also starts to slowly die because of a widespread nuclear exchange but too many of the characters seemed amazingly nice, decent and orderly in the face of certain death. I am not knocking it--it's a good film despite this. But it lacks the grittiness and ugliness you see in "Aftermath". Ugly, tense and awful--all good reasons to give this independent film a chance. However, also very good reasons NOT to watch this with your kids!! In fact, I really think it's perhaps too tense, depressing and bloody for many adults--but it STILL is a very good film because it never falls back on sentiment or clichés. It's worth a look...for the right viewers.
Both films were made in 2012--so I can understand the mix-up. The Aftermath I saw was directed by Peter Engert and stars a variety of talented but relatively unknown actors. This was a good thing, as the movie is about ordinary people and how they react to a nuclear war. Having Brad Pitt or Meryl Streep in the film might have been cool...but it wouldn't have worked with a picture like this.
When the movie, you learn that several nations have begun detonating nuclear weapons on each other. Exactly how and why isn't important-- what IS important is that somehow a chain reaction occurred and nations are now nuking each other! The film is set in rural Texas and even there they are impacted as soon bombs start detonating all around them. A young doctor, Brad (C.J. Thomason) is backpacking when the bombs start going off nearby--and he and a woman and her blinded brother rush to find supplies and shelter before the effects of the blasts kill them. Finding the supplies is amazingly easy as is a vehicle, but the shelter is another thing. Brad and his two new friends aren't sure if they'll ever find a basement or bomb shelter, as the first place they try results in Brad getting shot! He's going to survive but what about the next place they try? And, even if they find a shelter, what will happen when the folks that remain start to behave like animals...as they most certainly will.
If you are looking for a feel-good movie or a date film, then you need to keep looking. Not surprisingly, "Aftermath" is incredibly depressing and eventually looks a lot like a zombie movie in many ways. But that does not mean it's a bad film--and nuclear apocalypse, unless I am mistaken, SHOULD be incredibly depressing!! Christian McDonald's script is very intelligently written and SEEMS probable. While I am sure nuclear physicists and engineers would find lots of plot holes, it sure seemed real and kept my attention. I also appreciated it because it was a great look at human nature--at least for us pessimists who assume such a horrific event would be made even worse by many of the survivors and near-survivors.
In some ways, the film reminded me a bit of the classic film "On the Beach"--but without all the movie star cameos. In this 1959, the world also starts to slowly die because of a widespread nuclear exchange but too many of the characters seemed amazingly nice, decent and orderly in the face of certain death. I am not knocking it--it's a good film despite this. But it lacks the grittiness and ugliness you see in "Aftermath". Ugly, tense and awful--all good reasons to give this independent film a chance. However, also very good reasons NOT to watch this with your kids!! In fact, I really think it's perhaps too tense, depressing and bloody for many adults--but it STILL is a very good film because it never falls back on sentiment or clichés. It's worth a look...for the right viewers.
IS THERE ANYBODY OUT THERE?
nogodnomasters9 April 2019
Warning: Spoilers
The film centers on Hunter (C.J. Thomason ) a young doctor who knows something about what to do when the big ones start falling. He meets and woman and a young boy along the road. They steal a vehicle, loot a store and seek shelter in rural Oklahoma/Texas, a place that has far more many guns than basements. They eventually find refuge in a basement to the dismay of Brad (Edward Furlong) who supplies us with internal conflict until the wanting, looting neighbors show up.
The film is more realistic than most. Who fired the nukes at us is not known. The war started when Pakistan launched nukes against Israel and India. They don't have many warheads and certainly don't have the capability to reach the US so they had to come from either the Soviets or China, most likely the Soviets, but there is no reason given or why NORAD failed to protect and warn us.
A makeshift fallout shelter is great, but unless you have a filtered air system, you only have half the problem licked. The dose rate meter shown typically doesn't click. That appears to have been added for effect. The rate of 4 Rem/hr will give radiation sickness to most people after a day or two of exposure and kill half the people exposed after 4-5 days. We didn't get any idea how long they were exposed to that level. Radiation sickness first effects the digestive system. You lose it all. It also makes people lethargic as you feel sick. The very idea that infected people are out marauding around is something to spur slumping gun sales, but not a likely scenario. Most likely it would be uninfected people out to scrounge food, of which only sealed goods are safe after you wipe off any exterior fallout, but that makes a boring film, like that Viggo Mortensen thing everyone seemed to love.
Parental Guide: Frequent F-bombs. No sex or nudity.
The film is more realistic than most. Who fired the nukes at us is not known. The war started when Pakistan launched nukes against Israel and India. They don't have many warheads and certainly don't have the capability to reach the US so they had to come from either the Soviets or China, most likely the Soviets, but there is no reason given or why NORAD failed to protect and warn us.
A makeshift fallout shelter is great, but unless you have a filtered air system, you only have half the problem licked. The dose rate meter shown typically doesn't click. That appears to have been added for effect. The rate of 4 Rem/hr will give radiation sickness to most people after a day or two of exposure and kill half the people exposed after 4-5 days. We didn't get any idea how long they were exposed to that level. Radiation sickness first effects the digestive system. You lose it all. It also makes people lethargic as you feel sick. The very idea that infected people are out marauding around is something to spur slumping gun sales, but not a likely scenario. Most likely it would be uninfected people out to scrounge food, of which only sealed goods are safe after you wipe off any exterior fallout, but that makes a boring film, like that Viggo Mortensen thing everyone seemed to love.
Parental Guide: Frequent F-bombs. No sex or nudity.
Wrong movie, wrong time, wrong everything.
mikechinea31 August 2014
Calling this movie depressing would be uplifting it. Through some mix up at Netflix we ended up receiving this sad and miserable movie that was nothing at all what we ordered and expected. I love post-apocalyptic movies so I gave it a shot. Just about when I thought it could not get any worse, it did. The AFTERMATH we were waiting for is no longer available through Netflix which is too bad since I was looking forward to it. I'm sure the script was probably much better than the execution. Interesting production values was just about all it had for me, if that much. This might be one of those movie that the sequel turns out to be way better than the original. That's my opinion and your mileage may vary.
Why do people make movies in locations they have never been too?
slvrfoxk4 June 2019
The movie was pretty dreadful. Nothing original here. Pace was slow and the story line was boring. Characters were predicable cardboard cut outs and for the most part, did not engage me enough to care about them. Quite obvious the writer had never been to Texas, knew nothing about the locations of Texas towns and cities in general and no idea where the town of Cameron Texas was in particular. Characters, who were mostly supposed to be from Texas, had no Texas accents and didn't speak or react like Texas natives.
I usually have a high tolerance for low budget SciFi/Horror/post apocalyptic movies but this one is pretty hard to stomach. Even though people associated with the film have made an obvious effort to prop up the ratings, this is a real dog. Don't waste your time.
Painful to watch!
infinitech-mcp12 September 2014
Warning: Spoilers
The overall story line of this movie was a good idea but the script, acting, and unrealistic events made it almost unbearable to watch.
To start with the script contained too much information at the beginning and continued slightly throughout the movie. It wasn't as bad as telling you every action the character was going to do but pretty close.
The acting was sub par but that is to be expected when using lower grade actors.
The unrealistic events are numerous. From raiding a grocery store and nobody else being there, to groups of people attacking this specific house away from town for no apparent reason and fully knowing that the people within are armed. The attackers make no demands, they are all in zombie like states of mind until someone in the house recognizes them as a friend. One of the characters is shot in the beginning while trying to find shelter in a home and then later removes the bullet from his shoulder even though you see an exit wound.
To start with the script contained too much information at the beginning and continued slightly throughout the movie. It wasn't as bad as telling you every action the character was going to do but pretty close.
The acting was sub par but that is to be expected when using lower grade actors.
The unrealistic events are numerous. From raiding a grocery store and nobody else being there, to groups of people attacking this specific house away from town for no apparent reason and fully knowing that the people within are armed. The attackers make no demands, they are all in zombie like states of mind until someone in the house recognizes them as a friend. One of the characters is shot in the beginning while trying to find shelter in a home and then later removes the bullet from his shoulder even though you see an exit wound.
Mon Deiu! What a shame eh!?
bbstring12 November 2014
This maybe 'Dark', 'Gory' and 'Brutal' but for me it just lacked 'Fascinating!' Every part of the story seemed to have been hand picked from a 'Guide to Post-Apocalyptic Film Making'.
So it felt really predictable, the acting wasn't great and sets were very standard, low budget CGI (the nuclear clouds)and although he was heavily credited William Bladwin, is not in this movie, repeat NOT in this movie (its a five second sound clip which to be honest may as well have been a voice-a-like).
My highlight was the makeup, which was pretty good actually.
I love B-movies and low budget but this was areal disappointment. Shame too as I was really looking forward to Edward Furlon's return to the big screen!
So it felt really predictable, the acting wasn't great and sets were very standard, low budget CGI (the nuclear clouds)and although he was heavily credited William Bladwin, is not in this movie, repeat NOT in this movie (its a five second sound clip which to be honest may as well have been a voice-a-like).
My highlight was the makeup, which was pretty good actually.
I love B-movies and low budget but this was areal disappointment. Shame too as I was really looking forward to Edward Furlon's return to the big screen!
Not spectacular. BUT
whatch-1793130 September 2020
It's a pretty good and honest "what if".
But, Furlong's work here is great. He's got solid acting chops.
I just wonder with Dark Fate, is there nobody in Hollywood that can put these pieces together? You want your sheboot? Well fine, why not have a John Connor who didn't have the life he was grown up to expect and has become a drunk ass loser?
It's not that Hollywood is out of ideas, Hollywood is too fat and flabby to even know the difference. This is just embarrassing.
But, Furlong's work here is great. He's got solid acting chops.
I just wonder with Dark Fate, is there nobody in Hollywood that can put these pieces together? You want your sheboot? Well fine, why not have a John Connor who didn't have the life he was grown up to expect and has become a drunk ass loser?
It's not that Hollywood is out of ideas, Hollywood is too fat and flabby to even know the difference. This is just embarrassing.
The return of the feel good movie.
Saiph909 November 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Actually no, I had a particular busy week and as I work Saturdays I enjoy a glass of wine and a movie on a Saturday night. This was one of the most pointless films I have endured, I can sum the film up quickly, nuclear attack on America, a group of strangers dying of radiation poison in a basement. So why score the film 1? we just have no empathy with the characters, we simply have no background and the whole film is a depressing mess, why not have some background on the characters? we simply go from start to nuclear attack to basement to death. There are huge holes in the plot which I can not be bothered to list. There are people giving this 10, do not be fooled they must have a vested interest in the movie.
Reality TV-ish film reminiscent of the TV movie "The Day After"
junktodelete-155-3601715 July 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I probably should of rated this movie an 8 instead of a seven but it wasn't an "A" movie ("A" movies start at an 8 rating for me or else they're not "A" movies... ) If you, as well as I, love: B-movies, independent films, low-budget movies, documentaries/docu-dramas and of course the "post-apocalyptic" genre then you will like this movie. It has a reality TV feel to it and is along the lines of the made for TV movie "The Day After" but with a smaller cast and budget etc.
I've been watching the "Doomsday Prepper" shows on TV for the past season or so and know much about the survival situation that is to come after the bombs drop, esp now with us letting Iran get nukes and ICBM missiles to deliver them, in the next 5-10 years (as of 7-14-2015) and only a fool or extreme optimist can't see this coming. Well this movie has one leader who sort of knows some of the the things needed to survive at least the initial onslaught...
By watching this movie I've learned that I'm not as prepared as I thought I was. I learned various things about not only vulnerabilities to exposure but how essential medical supplies and training are.
This movie should be a wake up call for civilians to learn about how to survive large scale disasters. It's more a "warn-a-mentary" than an entertainment pill.
I've been watching the "Doomsday Prepper" shows on TV for the past season or so and know much about the survival situation that is to come after the bombs drop, esp now with us letting Iran get nukes and ICBM missiles to deliver them, in the next 5-10 years (as of 7-14-2015) and only a fool or extreme optimist can't see this coming. Well this movie has one leader who sort of knows some of the the things needed to survive at least the initial onslaught...
By watching this movie I've learned that I'm not as prepared as I thought I was. I learned various things about not only vulnerabilities to exposure but how essential medical supplies and training are.
This movie should be a wake up call for civilians to learn about how to survive large scale disasters. It's more a "warn-a-mentary" than an entertainment pill.
Horrible.....simply Horrible
lord-nailz20 December 2014
Warning: Spoilers
This movie makes "the attack of the killer tomatoes" seem like an Oscar winning movie anyone saying this is comparable to "the road" or that this is not a bad movie (because i've read the reviews here) is delusional. i've never written a review but for this movie i had too.
the cinematography was good,as well as the make up. but within the opening 5 minutes you knew this was low budget but getting past the opening scene where "hunter" (C.J. Thomason) is standing there listening to the radio broadcast about the impending war you just know this is going to be cheese. for a little while it seems watchable but around the 29:33 mark where Jonathan (Ross Britz) who plays a "nerd" (think the love child of screech from saved by the bell and Forrest Gump) when you blurt out a guffaw at the incredibly bad acting (facial expression and crossing of the eyes from a scene i would assume is supposed to be touching) as he care's to his "gran-unc" you know this movie is irredeemable....but i made it past that part. some other drama happens and well i quit at the 1:01:50 mark....i cite stupidity for my reason for quitting watching this tripe it's not worth watching....i don't even want to know how it ends
Eastlake Films,and LightWave Entertainment owe me $10. not for the purchase price of watching this, but for wasting an hour of my time,because making it a hour into this movie was work....and if i was watching movies and reviewing them for minimum wage thats what the cost would be....so give me my $10
the cinematography was good,as well as the make up. but within the opening 5 minutes you knew this was low budget but getting past the opening scene where "hunter" (C.J. Thomason) is standing there listening to the radio broadcast about the impending war you just know this is going to be cheese. for a little while it seems watchable but around the 29:33 mark where Jonathan (Ross Britz) who plays a "nerd" (think the love child of screech from saved by the bell and Forrest Gump) when you blurt out a guffaw at the incredibly bad acting (facial expression and crossing of the eyes from a scene i would assume is supposed to be touching) as he care's to his "gran-unc" you know this movie is irredeemable....but i made it past that part. some other drama happens and well i quit at the 1:01:50 mark....i cite stupidity for my reason for quitting watching this tripe it's not worth watching....i don't even want to know how it ends
Eastlake Films,and LightWave Entertainment owe me $10. not for the purchase price of watching this, but for wasting an hour of my time,because making it a hour into this movie was work....and if i was watching movies and reviewing them for minimum wage thats what the cost would be....so give me my $10
Brilliant
Michael_Takes5 September 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I loved it! This is a great movie!
So the nukes have dropped all over the world. The movie focuses on a group who hide in a basement and try to survive. Until the end there is not much more to it then that.
HOWEVER the acting is terrific. C.J. Thomason is incredible! Edward Furlong and Monica Keena are awesome too (for a change). The story and characterization really draws the viewer in and the direction is so claustrophobic and intense that you cant help but be moved by what happens.
I am a fan of the apocalyptic film so I really enjoyed it. I give it an 8
So the nukes have dropped all over the world. The movie focuses on a group who hide in a basement and try to survive. Until the end there is not much more to it then that.
HOWEVER the acting is terrific. C.J. Thomason is incredible! Edward Furlong and Monica Keena are awesome too (for a change). The story and characterization really draws the viewer in and the direction is so claustrophobic and intense that you cant help but be moved by what happens.
I am a fan of the apocalyptic film so I really enjoyed it. I give it an 8
7/10
kimberleyg-6081114 April 2019
Just okay... nothing special
coflorida6 June 2020
Child Support Due...
Krackoon19 September 2014
Warning: Spoilers
It seems like whenever Edward Furlong needs to pay child support, we end up with about three of these stinkers per year.
Is it really all that bad? Pretty much.
'Aftermath' is about a group of strangers (original) locked up together inside of a basement during a nuclear apocalypse. It's supposed to be a realistic view on how we would act during such a tragic event. Why this needs a 90 minute runtime is beyond me, because the character development still ends up being awful, even though the entire film is based around that factor. When the action finally does set it, it ends up being entirely unnecessary. Why not just end the film the way you began it? Did we really need a group of zombie hillbillies that have no clue what the hell they're doing? The film wouldn't have been any worse.
Random Ramblings Of A Madman: Looking at Monica Keena for 92 minutes will never be thought of as a negative, and she makes the time fly by, but your film's success should never be based around that factor alone. As for Eddie Furlong - Those 'T2' paychecks no longer cover life's responsibilities, so unless his local dealer decides to have a clearance sale, we should be seeing more Furlong 'greats' in the near future.
Is it really all that bad? Pretty much.
'Aftermath' is about a group of strangers (original) locked up together inside of a basement during a nuclear apocalypse. It's supposed to be a realistic view on how we would act during such a tragic event. Why this needs a 90 minute runtime is beyond me, because the character development still ends up being awful, even though the entire film is based around that factor. When the action finally does set it, it ends up being entirely unnecessary. Why not just end the film the way you began it? Did we really need a group of zombie hillbillies that have no clue what the hell they're doing? The film wouldn't have been any worse.
Random Ramblings Of A Madman: Looking at Monica Keena for 92 minutes will never be thought of as a negative, and she makes the time fly by, but your film's success should never be based around that factor alone. As for Eddie Furlong - Those 'T2' paychecks no longer cover life's responsibilities, so unless his local dealer decides to have a clearance sale, we should be seeing more Furlong 'greats' in the near future.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
