20 Years After

I vote level 1 for this movie for I cannot vote any less. This movie is worse than anything you have ever seen as "movie" This is not a movie, this is a disaster! Not only a waste of time but a great insult to the art of cinema!

I request only one thing from Mr.Torres and his accomplices: PLEASE do not make any movie or any other production in the future. That will be your BEST contribution to the art of cinema and world audiences will like you better if you do not appear in credits at all.

Geez, I cannot believe I had to write a commentary on such a waste but I guess it's my civic duty to warn other cinema fans.

I've read a lot of the reviews for this movie and I believe it has been judged a little too harshly.There are far worse movies out there than this but hey,that's other reviewers opinions and I respect that.

This is yet another low budget,after the apocalypse effort that for a change actually has actors that act and not just turn up for the pay cheque.

As the title suggests,this is set 20 years after the apocalypse,that had forced people to live underground in basements,bunkers and caves.Now,in a slowly recovering world,people are venturing up and outwards in an effort to continue civilisation. We have the seemingly obligatory,(for movies of this type) "radio" man Joshua,playing music and messages from his bunker,to anybody left in the world with equipment to hear him. We have pregnant Sarah,who's husband was killed 6 months before,with her mother Margaret,surviving in an abandoned basement,until the homes real owner Samuel arrives on the scene and convinces them to venture forth to find or start a better life. And we have the also obligatory bad guys,this time searching for the as yet unborn baby.

So what was it that let this movie down?

It certainly wasn't the acting.Whilst not overly convincing,everyone plays their part reasonably well and special mention should go to Reg E. Cathey as Samuel as a stand out (though he doesn't get enough screen time here). Some of the bad guys/henchmen were a bit naff but nothing awful. Even the minimal action scenes were done reasonably well.

What lets this one down is the fact that so much that happens doesn't make a lot of sense.

No explanation is made as to why the bad guys want the baby. One of the bad guys is actually pregnant Sarah's brother.He has no idea the baby he is searching for is his sisters.Why?No back story or explanation is given. Apparently Sarah is THE only pregnant woman left despite the fact there are plenty of seemingly healthy men and women left.Why?

There were many head scratching moments......

However,this was for me still a watchable movie despite it's flaws and I remained reasonably entertained until the end.

So to quote a many repeated IMDb phrase from so many reviews......

Not the best,but very far from being the worst.

I should have read the comments from the production company "Everything that could go wrong did go wrong". It would be reasonable to believe that the makers were referring to the movie itself.

At this point, it would be fair to say that I don't mind small budget and video productions (hey, I even liked Blair Witch 1 & Cloverfield), but this piece of garbage doesn't even deserve a star - but 1 is the lowest that can be given.

I genuinely tried to sit through 20 minutes of this dross and couldn't stomach any more. Perhaps it got better (but I seriously doubt it).

It's so bad, that it's not even worth commenting on what was supposed to be going on in the script.

The bottom line is don't bother.

I like post-apocalyptic fiction so I thought this movie would be at least marginally entertaining. Things start well but the arrival of the jolly jester was when the alarm bells started ringing for me. All of a sudden the whole story turns limper than a puppets handshake and the violin rises to an annoying pitch and stays there till the credits.

My main problem with this film is that while it presents you with some interesting imagery the story has all the depth and meaning of a dirty fart. I still can't get over that pathetic jester-doctor character, was that supposed to be heart warming? Were we supposed to be spellbound by his juggling, unexplained magical antics and wise words? Because I wasn't, I was just irritated to realise that the guy who designed the cover for this movie had more imagination than the people making it.

Also, and this is a cheap shot, that woman with the ginger hair (Diane Salinger) looks like The Predator with his helmet off.

I read the comments on this movie here before I saw it, so I expected nothing - and was pleasantly surprised. It's actually not that bad, suffers the same flaws that bothered nobody in "Children of Men".

Yes, the acting is sometimes bad, but not without it's moments: Reg E. Cathey gave a good performance, for instance. Acting is not the problem of this movie; directing and sound (effects) are.

As I said, I was pleasantly surprised and watched all through it, which I don't do on REALLY bad flicks. I'm giving it 4/10 because it had it's moments but I couldn't honestly recommend this to any of my friends (unless there is really nothing else at hand), who are not such nutters about movies as I am.