User reviews

The World's End, Silence Included: A Review of Year 10

Ah, post-apocalyptic movies-where humanity's worst instincts play out under a blood-orange sky, and the phrase "survival of the fittest" seems like an unreasonably optimistic mantra. Year 10, directed by someone who clearly thinks dialogue is overrated, throws us headfirst into a bleak, no-holds-barred landscape where civilization has crumbled, cannibals roam the countryside, and even a whisper can ruin your day. Think Mad Max meets A Quiet Place, but with fewer explosions and more uncomfortable silences.

Let's talk stars: Alexander Anderson, Emma Cole, and Joseph Coleman. Three names you've probably never heard of unless you're their parents or overly enthusiastic IMDb users. But hey, fresh faces are a welcome change from the usual Hollywood line-up. I mean, how many more times can we watch Chris Pratt save the world while smirking? These newcomers bring a raw, unpolished energy that fits the film's gritty vibe, even if they occasionally look like they're figuring out their motivations mid-scene.

The Plot: A Mute Tale of Woe

The plot? Oh, it's a doozy. Anderson's character (we'll call him "Broody Hero" since names are apparently as scarce as dialogue in this film) embarks on a mission to retrieve stolen medicine from a gang of cannibals who murdered his dad. By the way, the medicine is the only thing keeping his girlfriend alive. No pressure. It's a classic hero's journey, except instead of wise mentors and epic training montages, he's got silent stares and bad decisions.

Here's the kicker: Year 10 doesn't just dabble in the art of silence-it commits. There is zero dialogue for the film's entire runtime. That's right, not a single word. Just grunts, meaningful looks, and the occasional scream. It's a bold choice, sure, but also one that made me feel like I accidentally sat through a 90-minute mime performance. While it amps up the tension, it also made me want to shout, "Somebody, for the love of all things apocalyptic, say something!" What I Loved

Post-Apocalyptic Vibes: I don't know what it says about me, but I can't get enough of dystopian wastelands. There's something endlessly fascinating about watching society crumble under its own weight-or, in this case, a vaguely defined catastrophic event. The film nails the aesthetic: barren landscapes, crumbling infrastructure, and enough dust to make you cough just watching it.

Tense Scenes: There are moments in Year 10 that had me gripping my seat like it owed me money. One particular sequence, where Broody Hero sneaks into the cannibals' lair, is so nerve-wracking you'll find yourself holding your breath. Bonus points for making silence work as a weapon; every creak and footstep feels like a gunshot in the void.

Unknown Cast: This isn't your standard blockbuster fare with A-list actors chewing scenery. Anderson, Cole, and Coleman bring a fresh, grounded quality to their performances. You believe they're survivors, not just actors pretending to be miserable in designer rags.

What Made Me Roll My Eyes

Silent Treatment: Look, I appreciate the artistic ambition of ditching dialogue, but after a while, it felt like the film was playing a game of "how much can we frustrate the audience?" Spoiler alert: it wins. It's eerie, sure, but it also creates an emotional disconnect. There's only so much I can glean from furrowed brows and prolonged eye contact.

Silly Choices: Broody Hero's strategy-or lack thereof-left me screaming internally. Who ventures into enemy territory alone without a solid plan? Did we learn nothing from literally every heist movie ever? It's like the guy watched The Walking Dead but skipped all the survival tips.

The Ending: Without giving too much away, let's just say the conclusion is less "satisfying resolution" and more "frustrated groan." It's ambiguous in that artsy way that filmmakers love and audiences often don't. After investing so much tension and silence, I wanted a payoff, not a shrug.

Final Thoughts

Year 10 is an ambitious, moody film that's equal parts thrilling and maddening. It takes risks-some of which pay off, others that feel like artsy overreach. If you're a fan of post-apocalyptic stories and enjoy yelling "Why would you do that?!" at the screen, this one's worth a watch. Just don't expect it to hold your hand or give you closure.

Rating: 6.5/10.

It's a solid effort with moments of brilliance, but the silence and questionable character choices keep it from being a must-watch.

It's a no dialogue movie and ok to watch. Do not expect great or exciting scenes.

Movie shows about survival in the doomed world. Characters are average and with very normal story line. In movie Boy is after his father's killer and his girl's medicine, story revolves around this situation.

Acting: Good Actors: Good Storyline: ok Direction: good

Movie lacks in binding audience, its really an average movie. Nothing wow or amazing. Couple of scenes are good. If you have spare time then watch it and no problem in skipping as well. Depends on your interest about movie genre.

Overall giving 5/10.

Year 10 is a survival horror movie set in some post apocalyptic Britain of the future.

Written and directed by Ben Goodger. It is in essence a morality tale. One family seeking to look out for each other.

Another family who have succumbed to cannibalism and the survival of the self. At the expense of anyone else.

Jake (Toby Goodger) is the young man who has lost his father to the cannibals. Not before the father placed Luke and the girl somewhere safe but smelly. The girl is injured and needs medication which is now in the hands of the cannibals.

Jake needs to get hold of the medicine. Although it seems he too has been ruthless in the past.

The movie seems to be inspired by films such as The Road, Threads and A Quiet Place. There is not much dialogue which can be problematic. The music does not always compensate.

Despite its low budget. Year 10 might actually have something to say about what is happening in today's polarised society.

There is no dialog at all. Apparently people forgot to talk after 10 years. The plot holes and all the things the director missed to many to count. Would be surprised if he got to work again. Very lazily laid out and took short cuts because they had no clue on what they were doing. I would expect something like this to be written by some college kids looking to get into the business with only a $1000 budget. Not sure what else i can write in this review. I have put more thought into the review than the director put into writing this script. The overall concept wasn't bad. Just didn't have enough brain power to put in speaking rolls.

The story of this post-apocalyptic thriller is rather one-dimensional: a young guy follows the path of the (cannibalistic!) thugs that killed his father, there's a lot of running and chasing and harsh fighting, before we get to a satisfying closure. But it's nonetheless pretty involving, the pace is for most of the time high, with a fair amount of suspense and action, and you more and more root for the main character, hoping to see him get awarded for all his tireless efforts.

It's obviously a low-budget production: the settings hardly vary, there are just of few actors, and no special effects or CGI (as far as I could see), and there was certainly no need for a dialogues coach, because there aren't any dialogues. I have no idea why not, it impressed me as an arty director's whim, for why would all surviving mankind within 10 years after the apocalypse loose their ability to speak?! But to be honest, after some 20 minutes you get used to it and don't miss it anymore.

The young hero is played by Toby Goodger. Since the director is Ben Goodger, they are probably brothers, or at least family. According to IMDb Ben Goodger made a short movie in 2010, called "Coming of Age", with as synopsis: "A young boy battles with new responsibilities in a brutal post-apocalyptic future". So apparently the premise of this full length feature already originated 15 years ago. And guess who the main actor was in 2010: young Toby Goodger! And I have to say, that the mature Toby Goodger in 2024 looks awesome, he has a great screen presence, and he did an absolutely fine job in his difficult and very physical role.

Think 1984 "Threads" (YES People would lose their language, Long term PTSD will do that) Also this reminded me of."The Survivalist" 2016, which is excellent if you haven't seen it. Others have said "The Road" and its true it is like that movie a little bit.

I also wondered why they were not hunting dogs, there sure were a lot of dogs for eating The acting in Year 10 is excellent , the production is low tech , and its low budget film making at its finest. Its also well directed.

Give this director $5million and he could really produce.

Its gritty, suspenseful and not cheesy at all I really liked it.

Everything but the obvious. Once again, plot holes and such stupidity. Yes, it goes without saying that the 7th grade consumer service industry mentality would probably drool through it. But, is deliberate writing to not make sense?

Is survival so be careless. Is living like an animal, so don't be sure footed.

After disposing of first savage, whatever you do DO NOT take the knives, small axe, and be sure to loose the big axe.

But then, who thinks of that when the movie is about the "spirit of transcendence of mythos and pathos of morality to cannibalism and..." WHAT? Their killing each other and eating. Just like would happen. Your neighbor isn't going to do an art critique with you after about day 3 of no power in this world and finds out you have medicine.

But, who cares, right? Another Cannes Film Festival winner no doubt. With olive branch enshrined accolades. Power grid won't ever go out.

This movie has a great concept but extremely poor concept. The writing is lazy. The characters are typical. The main character is so poor written and portrayed he doesn't make sense. His storyline makes no sense. In this movie, you will be rooting for the killers to please just end it. And the hiding and eating the cookies??? Who wrote that?? R u serious? Was that a space filler?

And it's so predictable. You can almost call out the next situation that's about to happen. And then the "silent thriller" label. Where is the thriller? Where is the horror? Where is the action? Where is the story??? If you find it, let me know.

Shoked to see the rating , how on earth this movie is 5 rated ? .it's such a film that after few years people are going to call the masterpiece.acting is so par level , direction superb and not a single dialogue in entire movie makes it authentic.creators are so right about the homo sapiens evolution if things go wrong .

Pros 1. Screenplay 2.strong visual story telling 3.not for faint hearted 4. Raw 5.simple plot makes authentic 6.acting 7.creative

No cos at all Some movies stick to you and shaken you upside that's this movie for me , insane .

Thanks creators ,actors and cinematographer for their par excellence work ..thank you team .

This movie looked like something I would certainly enjoy, even though the poster appears a little trashy and, now that I've seen the film, is rather misleading. We follow a young man and his father as they try to survive after an unknown catastrophic event destroys civilization. While navigating the wilderness, filled with hungry wild dogs and cannibals, they also attempt to keep the young man's girlfriend alive.

The movie definitely reminded me of The Road (2009), and since it completely omits dialogue, films like Azrael (2024) and A Quiet Place (2018) also come to mind. Year 10, however, lacks the production quality and strengths those films had. It keeps everything to a bare minimum and does not offer the viewer a deeper look into this post-apocalyptic world. We never really learn what the catastrophic event was and are simply thrown into this scenario without many answers.

The decision to eliminate dialogue felt unnecessary and didn't add anything meaningful to the story. While it's clear that silence is crucial due to the cannibals and wild dogs, there's no compelling reason for the characters not to speak at all. This choice made it difficult to connect with them, as we know almost nothing about their backgrounds or personalities. Much of the film is simply spent watching the young man try to take on a group of cannibals in silence.

That said, the movie is very well shot and includes a few striking cinematic images of the bleak wasteland they inhabit. I would have loved to see more of this world and get to know the characters better, but likely due to budgetary constraints, the worldbuilding remains underdeveloped.

Overall, it's a decent survival thriller with a few strengths but notable flaws in its story and character decisions. If you enjoy this kind of film, Year 10 is certainly worth a watch, but it's far from remarkable. [5.7/10]

Wow, a dystopian thriller that actually missed presenting the obvious and best thriller fight sequence, and after setting it up so well, but then nothing. It could have been great, really great, but no. Nothing.

Oh well, mustn't grumble, it's not like this film was actually making that much of an effort to be convincing. The protagonist was presented as a clumsy idiot, stumbling around and generally messing up. Go figure.

I can't say I've ever seen a film with plot holes in it so large and so obvious. Quite bizarre. Who on earth thought this up and who directed it?

The best element was the soundtrack.

An interesting idea imagining what life would be like 10 years after the collapse of civilization, but the individual ideas didn't make sense. Anyone who has survived 10 years in this situation would 1. Have better survival skills, and 2. Make WAY better use of any resources.

The decisions made by all of the individuals, "good" and "bad," would not have kept them alive for 1 year, much less 10.

The atmosphere and mood in the movie were both good. It just needed a bit more sensible writing.

Oh, yeah, they'd also still speak. I'm sorry, but unless there was some kind of brain virus, people aren't going to just stop speaking. Superfluous plot gimmick.

In the landscape of post-apocalyptic cinema, few films manage to strike a balance between sheer survivalism and profound human values. This particular movie-stripped of dialogue, reliant solely on visual storytelling and sound design-accomplishes precisely that. It isn't just a tale of survival against the odds; it's a mirror to our fractured present, where compassion and trust are slipping through our fingers, almost unnoticed.

Critics may have pointed out flaws in certain aspects of the film-perhaps pacing issues, unanswered questions, or moments that felt deliberately ambiguous. Yet in doing so, they risk missing the film's deeper purpose. At its core, the movie isn't just about navigating a hostile, desolate world; it's about the rediscovery of empathy and generosity in times when such virtues seem obsolete. In the rubble of society's collapse, the film quietly but powerfully asks: what truly matters when all structures fail?

The absence of dialogue isn't a limitation-it's the film's greatest strength. Every gesture, every breath, every footstep echoes in the silence, urging the viewer to lean in and engage with the story on an instinctual level. The post-apocalyptic setting, raw and unforgiving, serves as both a physical and emotional backdrop. It's not just the harsh terrain or the packs of wild dogs that pose a threat-it's the erosion of trust among the survivors that's the real danger.

The film's underlying brilliance lies in how it subtly portrays our gradual drift from human connection. In our current world, overwhelmed by digital interactions and self-interest, the idea of trust has become fragile. This movie positions that theme front and center. Through the protagonist's journey-fraught with isolation, danger, and fleeting moments of tenderness-it becomes clear that survival isn't just about food, shelter, or evading danger. It's about rebuilding the bonds we've so carelessly abandoned.

The performances, though wordless, are gripping. The cast communicates volumes through expression and movement alone. Their struggles, fears, and rare glimpses of hope feel tangible. The antagonist's ability to evade the wild dogs remains a deliberately unanswered question, adding an intriguing layer of mystery. It's less about the literal how, and more about what this survival signifies-perhaps a metaphor for adaptability, hidden knowledge, or simply the unknowable aspects of human resilience.

Technically, the film is a triumph. The cinematography captures the bleak beauty of the abandoned world, and the sound design fills the absence of dialogue with palpable tension and emotional weight. The distant sirens, the growls of the wild dogs, the crunch of footsteps on debris-all these sounds create an immersive atmosphere that never feels empty, despite the lack of words.

In conclusion, this movie is not just an exercise in survival storytelling. It is a reflection of our times, a cautionary tale about the cost of losing compassion, and a reminder of the trust we must strive to rebuild-before we too find ourselves wandering in silence. It may leave some questions unanswered, but perhaps that's the point: not all stories need closure when the world itself remains unresolved.

Brightly coloured fields, unusual rock formations/colours and gentle breezes. Visually, this film is perfect and the soulful and calm scoring by Stephen Wright only adds to the contemplative aura of Hendrick's short film.

Sundown is an excellent viewing, made so by the aforementioned points and by a superb pair of leads in Blackwood and Hines, who many may recall appeared in Doctor Who. In fact the role of Abi was written for Blackwood and she is a powerful presence in the part and works well as a beacon of strength for .it is an amazing movie.it is a movie of no dialogue.we all have been sleeping on this movie.

Throughout movie no dialogue. No language problem, sub title not required. From first frame story started. Nice movie. Excellent photography and music. Toby nd Luke acting added credit to movie . It is a new post-apocalyptic survival thriller.

It talks of the world being over in a day, and people being forced to eat the dead to survive, before progressing to having to eat the living. Absolutely gripping and tense film. Top cast11 ; Alexander Anderson · Charger ; Emma Cole · Lover ; Joseph Coleman · Boy ; Tom Gaskin · Straggler ; King Gayle · Lieutenant. Nice week end movie . Enjoy a silent thriller.

I loved how good this movie is given its relatively new actors and they did fantastic with limited resources. Great lead acting and enjoyed the great shots, and you could feel the moment, words weren't needed. Thats because of the brilliant acting with thrilling plot. I've always enjoyed apocalyptic type movie, and I also like nature so this movie did a great service providing both. The protagonist looked good and suite the part well. I also like the climax of the story and how each scene had the right pace going. I'll have to watch it again and again. I also like how they have the storyline developed on the son, and the actor delivered as main.

I was a little dubious at the beginning of this film, the lack of dialogue was very odd. However as it progressed this lack of mundane chattering, the excellent visuals and solid music score, actually enhanced the story. Whilst not wholly original in concept, the story managed to more than hold my attention. Some great physical work by the lead actor, solid performances by the supporting cast and the scenes of bleak desolation, with society imploding on itself in the most basic and visceral way, was well portrayed. The brutality was there, but not overdone with excessive blood and gore.

No zombies, no huge budget, a small cast and what turned out to be a decent film.