The Lost Future

Many of the SyFy Channel's original made-for-TV movies have been disappointing, to say the least. Their latest entry however, "The Lost Future", proved to be fairly entertaining. Which is something to say since I'm not usually into post-apocalypse-themed movies. Here are some observations:

1) special effects - though there were not that many required, the ones present were well done, eg. the big monster-creature. The cinematography was good also. 2) acting - decent and believable. 3) story line - starts out with clan interaction followed by its relationship to the tribe. Then branches out to conflict with main enemy, then adds additional allies (and adversaries). The Huck Finn raft was a nice touch.

This movie seemed more believable and "realistic" than other SyFy movies, albeit at the end the future still seems pretty lost to me. All-in-all, "The Lost Future" was a step above the usual SyFy movie fare.

I must have watched a different film from some of the reviewers. This was awful. The acting was rubbish, the script seemed to be written by a child, the CGI was amateurish. In short, I couldn't find a single good thing to say about it. I can't even think of anything more to say in order to fill up the ten lines I'm supposed to fill up. Everything about the film was so bad that I'm guessing even the catering made the actors ill. Oh, the weapons wouldn't have stood up to any use either and the costumes were almost as bad as 1 Million Years BC (which I think someone else mentioned). So there we have it, no saving graces whatsoever except it probably paid for Sean Bean's new house extension.

A post-pandemic world is the setting for a very watchable morality tale about obligation to others and sacrifice for the collective good.

Some klunk here and there but the sets, costumes, performances and themes are well above the very, very, very, very low bar set by SyFy (e.g., "Mega Python vs. Gatoroid"), in fact far enough above that this is a decent movie in its own right.

Sean Bean is a decent actor and does well in this movie along with no- name cast, to a unusually deep level. Good action scenes, too; fights from horseback, group hand-to-hand combat, interiors and exteriors.

The major characters all have interesting conflicts and the interaction is believable (though as some have said, they are all waaaay too pretty). No eye candy shouting their lines; the actors modulate well and for a very large part play their roles believably.

There's also a nice structural component with parallel story lines, unusually nuanced for the media. The story lines alternate well between the questing leads, the tribespeople trapped in the cave, and Gagen's self-justifying depravity, are better than expected for the genre.

One of the other reviews said "Good bones, bad carpeting". That's well put - I'd say the carpeting is cheap, not bad, but that's just semantics.

To be clear - this is not an A-list movie; it's entertaining but low budget. The primitive tribespeople are groomed to the max and comically articulate, the effects are serviceable but still almost all CGI, one of the leads father seems to have somehow taught -himself- to read in the absence of any other literate persons (??), etc.

All of that notwithstanding, I have sat through way worse Hollywood crap with 100X the budget and one-tenth the script. Not Inception or anything epic, but worth a watch if you are looking for a couple of hours of entertainment.

I make all these points because the people who make these movies work just as hard as the Hollywood A_listers but don't get the recognition.

Just because it's a B movie doesn't mean there should be no standards. When a movie crew puts time and effort into making a structurally good movie, it deserves recognition even if it's never going to be on "Entertainment Tonight".

There should be a genre name for these films which not quite A-list but better than traditional "B movies" - decently made, not great art, but decent entertainment. Maybe "paperback movie" is a better title - other examples are "Snitch", "The Naked Kiss", "Love and a .45", or "Red Eye".

There are movies that you watch and think! How did they manage to get money to make movies like this? (similar like Tomatoes Killers(and sequels) I do realize we all have our own taste in movies, but seriously!!! Story line, logic, the way people look, their believes...etc. They could of make movies like this back in 60. What happens when we watch some fantasy or Sci-Fi movies of 60's? we giggle and think... "this does not seams real... nether this... this would not evolve into that... this is just silly..." and so on! Just like this movie! What is the verdict? Do not watch this movies unless your only alternative for evening entertainment is smashing your head against the wall. This movies will not give you any idea of what would world look like after post-apocalyptic event! It will not wider your horizons of imagination or what ever.... p.s. Sean Bean is a good actor! He must of had money problems why he accepted this role, or it was a favor to some producer...

As I've used this site to build up my library of movies i feel obliged to warn you. This is my first review, and i only write this to warn you against; poor performance from actors (poor acting), poor story and poor effects. Sean Bean is always good and thats why i gave it 2 stars. I bought this garbage on blue ray and i'm tempted to sell it on E-bay for half price, don't waste your time watching this and for heaven sake don't buy it.

Much better in the same genre is "the postman" and "the road". Those movies got fabulous acting, a good story and are worth a place in a respectable collection.