SYNOPSICS
After... (2006) is a English movie. David L. Cunningham has directed this movie. Daniel Caltagirone,Flora Montgomery,Nicholas Aaron,Madi Grace Cunningham are the starring of this movie. It was released in 2006. After... (2006) is considered one of the best Horror,Thriller movie in India and around the world.
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. Featuring Music from The Crystal Method.
After... (2006) Trailers
After... (2006) Reviews
Starts good, ends bad
The film starts out well, with urban explorers doing their thing. They film their exploits and post them to a web site, gaining fame and friends along the way. Then they go on a trip to Moscow and things go haywire. It's a good movie up to that point, but when the surrealism starts the fun is all over. You can't tell what is really happening, what parts are just surrealism, and what is just some kind of flashback. That spoils the whole intent of the movie - if you don't know what's going on, it's hard to enjoy. It's not a bad movie, and I liked watching it, but the whole thing was spoiled for me by the repeated flashbacks, people coming back to life, people disappearing, walls fluctuating, etc. I lost the thread of what was really happening at that point, and so stopped caring. In a lot of ways it reminds me of Primer, another movie that was good but somewhat hard to keep track of.
After.....Is a Mess
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 = 3.0 Email your thoughts to filmwatchinfool@gmail.com
I hated every single frame of this film.
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).
this movie gave me a headache
The director over used funky lighting effects and camera angles. My girlfriend and I both got headaches from it. I didn't really see the reason for their overuse. It was also hard to follow. People were appearing and disappearing, things were happening randomly - it just really didn't make much sense. I turned it off after a while. I don't care if I didn't get it or whatever, because I don't really think this movie is worth a terrible headache. To get a similar effect, sit in a dark room, turn on a strobe light and try to read a book in a foreign language.
You've got it wrong - AFTER is a good film.
I do not understand the negative comments posted here. This film is definitely worth watching. The movie held me to the very last frame. Maybe because I "got it" where some didn't. This film makes you think, and the cinematography, editing and sound fit perfectly with the style of story telling. I found the characters very believable and the tunnel shots kept me on the edge of my seat the entire time. And the music - the music provided the perfect ambiance. I normally don't react to the comments of others but their negativity is uncalled. There are really bad movies out and this is NOT one of them. Maybe the other reviewers expected a formulaic piece of fluff - AFTER is definitely not that. Give this movie a chance. It's a very good film.