2149: The Aftermath

I would suppose this has a low rating because it's cerebral fiction and doesn't have enough action/adventure to appease today's adrenaline junkies. Further, zero bad language, no nudity, no violence. Most unusual for a post-apocalyptic sci fi film

This film has a great premise, good writing, good directing, good acting, music, and great use of limited scenery. A slow-burner for sure, but post-apocalyptic doesn't have to be Mad Max. Sometimes it's just people adapting.

I can't get into the strengths and weaknesses without spoilers, so suffice to say that the plot generally makes good, logical sense. Some people complain about 'missing information' but they haven't thought through the concept of a war that destroyed most of humanity, the remaining government trying to retain a viable workforce / civilization (as meager as it is), and survivors just trying to get by day to day (without going on sadistic rampages).

On the downside, the movie would have been better without narration... giving the audience a chance to figure a few things out. One doesn't have to know all the background details to understand the life the characters have been thrown in to. Remove the narration, it would have been a better, more immersive film.

This is a movie about people adapting to the needs of everyday life and discovering more about that life as time passes. Science fiction isn't always about giant robots and planet-conquering aliens. Sometimes great science fiction is just about people.

As stated in other review this is a reissue / rename of a 2016 movie however I had not seen it before. I quite enjoyed it for what it was, a movie with minimal cast with no expensive backdrops etc. It's almost a snapshot of a part of the whole story and yet it held my interest. If you like end of the world SF then I think you will like this, it's not going to get any awards or make big bucks but kept my interest.

On IMDb this is called Darwin and also Confinement but on Amazon it's known as 2149:The Aftermath. I've watched a lot of movies but never seen 3 completely separate movie titles before. I haven't even watched it yet but when you can't get past the title without a mess you know it's gonna be trouble.

Just read the reviews for DARWIN (2016).... Money grab re-issue of the exact same film.

The original was meh. This renamed title is obviously still meh.

Disappointed to see the great Molly Parker here.

This is one of those insufferable cases where a great idea was executed clumsily, and it seems to be largely due to the format at hand. Other reviewers point out the obvious that this is a story that ultimately could not fit the scope it is intended to (a feature length film). It would make for a great singular TV episode type thing, or a short novel.

Ultimately as a 90 minute movie, it is too light on content and storytelling to maintain itself. It is quite literally the kind of film where you could fade in and out of and not lose step with it as long as you are paying attention to the first and last 15 minutes or so.

It's all very interesting and neat, but that's it.