After...

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.

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.

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).

I thought AFTER... was a well conceived film. The foreshadowing was well executed. I like the "passengers" traveling with you under 16 reference. The chemistry between characters was good. I don't understand why they didn't turn off their lights doing scenes where they could be caught. His guilt was well established throughout as well.

Like I said about the lights and stuff, I guess the situation of "where" we were in the film explains much of it. It makes sense in the end.

All the locations looked really good, too.

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.