Seuls sur Terre

Its a slow paced movie and although its categorized as sci-fi, don't expect aliens or such things. Watching this movie feels like you're given parts of the story and not the whole thing which leaves a lot of questions but makes you think about the story and the people rather than just numbingly staring at the screen.

I wanted to like this movie more than I do. Great performances by the whole cast, and I liked how they approached the post-apocalyptic wasteland concept in a more benign way. Production quality seemed decent enough as well.

What I didn't like:

• The audio. Subtitles are basically a requirement. The audio levels are terrible: the dialog is barely audible at twice the volume I normally watch movies at. The soft and mumbled dialog throughout, although fits the atmosphere, made it that much harder to understand really Any of the actors speak. When you think you finally have the volume level ok in the near silent dialog scenes, they suddenly cut to high volume music that blasts your ears. Possibly the strongest example of a 'volume-up/volume-down' movie I've seen and it was frustrating me throughout the movie.

• Slow and meandering, both plot-wise and pacing-wise. Not a whole lot happens in this movie. A number of arbitrary scenes of them simply living their everyday lives in the empty city and doesn't really add anything to the story. Many of the shots moved very slow and took what seemed like forever to play out, with a few done entirely in slow-mo. I found myself skipping ahead 10 seconds at a time in parts and not missing anything of importance. Not sure if they were trying to go for a more artistic look or build a sense of stagnation/boredom in their basically empty world, it felt more like they were padding the run-time in my opinion.

• The ending. I don't want to spoil anything but it felt like the writers ran out of ideas and didn't know how to end it, so they threw in some completely random 'twist' out of left-field that had nothing to do with anything up to that point in the movie prior. You'll probably be left with a puzzled look on your face thinking, "...What?"

It still held my attention for the most part and it was a bit of a different take on the apocalypse-type movie. I might recommend watching it if you are a Peter Dinklage fan or have nothing else to watch, but I wouldn't schedule a movie night with friends around this or anything.

The trouble with that movie is easy explained - top cast and top acting (Peter Dinklage, Elle Fanning) vs. a slow story with a badly executed "twist".

All in all watchable but with that scenario and those fine actors I Think We're Alone Now had the potential to be a new classic on the post-apocalyptic genre front, but the plot is very slow and especially the final act feels forced and rushed and not well thought thru (and its kinda cliche).

Anyway, all in all a rather ambivalent experience but still watchable - for fans of the genre and/or the actors.

Great to see a film where it's all about the acting and not an explosion a minute.

I wish they would speak up though; the atmospheric music is so loud, and all of their dialogue is so quiet and so mumbled.

Peter Dinklage is a national treasure. I became a fan of his through his performance in Game of Thrones and I've really come to enjoy his acting. He is the reason that I Think We're Alone Now is decent and worth a watch. I am a fan of post-apocalyptic stories in general so that contributed to my enjoyment.

However, this movie does have some flaws. The plot is slow moving, has weird abrupt tonal changes, unanswered question/plot holes and the final act is just weird. They shoehorn in a side plot that becomes a huge part of the ending and it just felt off to me. Plus I can't articulate just why, but I think the title of this movie is stupid. I guess it just doesn't fit in with the actual story, plus it makes everyone think of that song of the same name.

Recommended to fans of post-apocalyptic movies who enjoy strong acting. Not recommended to watchers looking for action or adventure movies.