After...

i may have to watch it a few times to get it but ..other than trying to watch it during the dark tunnel scenes.. its pleasing to the eye and the dialog doesn't make me wanna puke and the music is great! I could actually feel dads grief. i am kinda confused about the ending but i am still trying to muddle thru realty and whatever was going on elsewhere.So all in all give this movie a chance.. maybe have a shot of tequila to keep you company and just enjoy the visual effects and the movie and maybe in a dream it will all come together for you. I did watch it on an HD 70 inch LCD so i think that helped a little and i paused it when i was confused.. which was quite a few times.

Director David L. Cunningham takes the audience on a rough-edged ride with three extreme thrill-seekers, running us out of the blocks with a dramatic BASE jump and hauling us into Moscow's underground subways, chiefly the infamously secret Metro-2 line purportedly built in Stalin's time. Guerrilla-style in the actual tunnels, this is head-spinning film-making, an experience where rushing trains rattle your teeth; when a character scratches his neck, your neck itches too; and you feel irradiated an hour in. Without giving it away, the movie's a head- flip on a story level too, as screenwriter Kevin Miller and Cunningham rope in themes of love, guilt, regret, and bottomless loss so densely with the adventure that you're still sifting through them long after the credits have played.

The sharp intimate scenes and claustrophobic mood are highly suited for DVD view.

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.

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).

Some movies are critically panned and deserve it; they're poorly made, badly acted, directed or written. There are others that are simply misunderstood. "After" is one of these. At first glance, it's another film about a hedonistic group of thrill-seekers in a dangerous, surrealistic environment. The mood of the film is established early on through the use of POV "Blair Witch" style camera work. The nervous, frenetic movements of the frame convey the adrenalin rush of the characters as they infiltrate buildings, tunnels and other forbidden places, "…simply because they can." The action moves to Moscow where the mission is to explore Stalin's legendary "Metro 2" underground. Seen through the point of view of "Nate," the journey quickly becomes a nightmare as the line between what is real and unreal disappears entirely. I found the dreamlike sequences fascinating, especially the effect of characters disappearing as though they were digital ghosts. After's unusual style of direction kept me slightly off-balance, right to the end. The truth remains out of reach, like the indistinct walls of the tunnel just beyond the light. A good movie lingers on in memory, giving food for thought…After.