A Feral World

I saw the movie "A feral world" and I really liked it. The post-apocalyptic worldview is very good. I liked the locations and the character progression.

It seems that the budget and the banalities matter more to the "wise" of cinema than other aspects. What laziness.

Good job.

Just check a few of the reviewers links and you'll quickly see, these people are pumping up each other's works by adding 10 star reviews for each other. It's a "you scratch my back, I scratch yours" world for them. And I guess it worked, this utterly terrible, incredibly shoddily produced movie is now in IMDB's most recommended despite the 3.7 rating, because there are so many good reviews of it...

What this really is, is a by the numbers boring post-apocalypse movie. You have seen one of these, you have seen them all. Woman who is surprisingly well off living alone in the apocalypse - and even has a cute little dog - takes in a lone kid and helps him survive, then they face some evil warlord who is basically Fagin from Oliver Twist and enslaves children for work. Oh and all this is topped by nanobot clouds which look like the transforming effects of the KSI robots from Transformers - Age of Extinction, but done with technology from 2000. I was reminded of morphing effects I have seen on Cleopatra 2525.

The acting is incredibly bad, both the woman and the kid are wooden planks who put Neil Breen to shame. This thing should be reviewed by Red Letter Media, not recommended as high art. I give it 2 stars for being entertainingly bad.

It's not a bad movie but certainly not a good movie. I gave it a kindly four stars because three was accurate, but since I like the subject of nanotechnology it was more interesting to me. It was a boring, predictable movie. You'd think as an Indie movie the writer/director would be more imaginative and take some chances. You know, show Hollywood his best. However, Hollywood doesn't believe in being original or taking chances, so the guy pretending to be the writer/director isn't risking his. Wannabe future either.

The acting is flat, the plot is slow and typical. The best actor is a dog. The nonabots are interesting, but typical. Definitely not on a Michael Crichton level. The scenery is mostly free and cheap old buildings. No cgi except a few short nano scenes that a laptop and simple program can do using the background and repeating about two loops over and over.

If your not into bad movies or nano bugs chewing people skip this movie. Go watch Logan's Run online or rent it.

Ignore the terrible acting, horrible directing and silly special effects. What made this a great film was the insanity of being intrigued by all of the above. It was art, in its purest and simplest form because it was so dreadfully produced and acted that it became a focal point of fascination. After all, The Rocky Horror Picture show is in its own way a disaster of acting and producing yet it endures as a classic.

This is obviously a pretty low budget film, and some of the early CGI is rough. However that CGI is such a small part of the overall runtime, I found it easy lo look past.

The acting was really pretty great. Finding good child actors is something even major studios struggle with, and this cast somehow found half a dozen kids that all played their roles without ruining my immersion. Dialog was actually funny in a few places, which was pleasant surprise.

I liked the story overall. Interesting premise with decent pacing, ending felt a little rushed, but the resolution was satisfying.

As long as you're the sort of person that can enjoy a film with a few blemishes, you'll probably stick through the whole runtime. Check it out, its free on youtube.

6.5/10.