After the Dark (2013)

A bunch of kids who all seem to have arrived from the same toothpaste or shampoo commercial turn up for their last day at school ever. The teacher decides to run a philosophy role-play as a kind of review session. What follows are momentous life-and-death decisions with huge consequences for the fate of the human race.

Or not, as it turns out - because it is a classroom exercise. All the exotic settings, CGI explosions, and crisp cinematography cannot distract us from the fact that all that is at stake here is an A, B or C grade. There isn't even a mention that someone might FAIL the class - the stakes are that low! The teacher threatens the lead girl with losing her A+ in a manner that, if taken seriously, would see him fired for power harassment and incompetence. Are we meant to fear for her in this ludicrous moment? Unfortunately, that is as dramatic as this film gets.

The so-called philosophy is preachy and immature. The pupils all kind of blend into each other as characterisation is one-note. And absolutely nothing of value is tested or put at risk here. It's like The Breakfast Club was never made.

How this screenplay made it to the top of anyone's pile is a crime that should be investigated. Two stars - one for the cinematography, the other for the huge drinking game potential.

Fmovies: This movie made me extremely angry. Don't get me wrong i'm not some kind of easily agitated, I've seen some real crappy movies before and would be like 'meh', but this movie managed to get me real angry, like real p%$$3d off! Let me analyse why. From checking out the trailer I've started watching the movie with good expectations about a philosophical mystery with interesting twists. It would be too nice to just say that this movie did not contain neither mystery, neither twists and neither any philosophy, and calling a few, known-by-all examples of some mind games philosophy is insult to viewers intelligence, but yet again this movies existence is insulting to begin with. So OK, movie was crap, but so are so many others, why am i angry about this particular one? - It is because it managed to disappoint not once, like it would be normal but dozen times during the course of it. You'd be thinking "OK, OK something interesting is about to happen" and no, nothing, sorry just crap acting and stupid story. Then you might be thinking "Ok maybe not interesting, but something provocative is surely going on here", but no, sorry, same crap. Disappoint. And on and on like this, until the culmination - "This movie better have a stunning twist at the end, so it's rating would be somehow justified!" And guess what? THE OPPOSITE HAPPENED! Not just disappointing, the ending was agonizing to watch. To watch as any hope leaves your mind, to begin comprehending how meaningless and stupid the last 90 minutes were - this is real pain. It is truly amazing to me how you could ruin something so much. I've seen movies that created astonishing scenarios over a root that seemed irrelevant at start, but I've not seen someone diminishing EVERYTHING he possibly could over a pretty good looking starting point! One last thing - the main actress(not even gonna bother scrolling to see her name) was just soooo bad. That twilight girl is 10/10 in comparison. A freshly cut small tree carried around by set crew would play her role much better.

Don't watch this movie!

This movie had a lot of potential, but appears to have been written by somebody who has spent a day browsing "philosophy" on Wikipedia and Reddit, after smoking a joint.

Some interesting and well know philosophical concepts are introduced, after which we are treated to some truly shallow exploration of an otherwise interesting thought experiment.

This movie was notable for me in that it was one of the few movies that left me empty and unfulfilled. Kind of like going to an expensive restaurant where food is an art form, only you get very little of it, and it doesn't taste very nice.

However, to be balanced, the cinematography was not bad, and the story is likely what would happen if you throw a bunch of abercrombie & fitch models in a room to discuss philosophy. It also carries the same level of depth and intellectual challenge.

Waste of time.

After the Dark fmovies. The beginning is interesting, I would say until the second half. Nothing wildly exciting, has some nice little twist in there but very minimal. It is shot in a dreamy kind of atmosphere. For some completely non-constructive and no where plot related reason the class is in Jakarta (pronounced Yanky style Djakardda) and you can tell this by the teak hardwood furniture and the crickets in the back (duh). The second half is hopeless. All the close ups of clearasil clean pouts, island shots and fuzzy broken sunlight (a lot if it) can't disguise the mouth-breathy throaty delivered "philosophy" to be no more than pretentious romanticism. The ending is a joke. Or maybe it is 'so deep' we all didn't get it. I give it a 5 for the first half.

I admit I had very high expectations for this movie, simply because I love riddles and movies that stimulate one's brain. Sadly, it was a huge disappointment.

At the beginning, the movie seemed pretty promising and I rather enjoyed it till about the middle. That's when things started taking the turn for the worse. For all the logic that movie tries depict, it truly lacks that very same logic badly. There were so many absolutely illogical and dumb scenes I can't even begin to name them. What was a highly interesting scenario with great potential became just another one of these movies you are likely to forget pretty soon.

I enjoyed it while it lasted, with the exception of the ending (I'd rather they just deleted it all together), and the acting was pretty great, too. Over all, it's entertaining to a certain degree but don't expect anything mind-blowing. The movie doesn't live up to what it promises.

The concept of this movie seemed promising; a philosophical thought experiment where you must decide who should live and who should die, all presented in a way that was both entertaining and involving for the audience. In the end though, I came away feeling that the script had been written by two people: the first 2 thirds were written by someone who did a crash course in philosophy and had only a vague understanding of the ideas they were trying to explore, and the final third was written by someone who manages to pull off the challenge of being unbelievably self-righteous despite their IQ of 70.

At the start, it (very) quickly glances over some other thought experiments which involve conflicts of rationality and morality (5 people tied to one train track, 1 person tied to parallel track, train coming down track with 5 people, but you have a switch that will change the track the train goes down to the one with only 1 person on, do you flip the switch?). They're well known to anyone who's familiar with utilitarianism, but anyone who's not covered them before will probably be left confused as to how the movie concludes immediately after asking the question that the switch flippers are murderers and offering no explanation as to why. But it's at least getting people warmed up for actively participating in the thought experiment rather than just being passive observers.

The main thought experiment, deciding who should get to live, is pretty interesting at first. Rationality and logic will be most peoples tools for deciding; the people who bring the greatest benefit to humanity should live. The movie then tries to test the boundaries of how far you'll stay rational for the greater good in situations which you may find immoral. Can 'bad' actions be justified if they're for the greater good (e.g. dropping the atom bomb to end WW2)? While this is good in concept, the script and characters fail to pull it off in a convincing way. The characters put up fights on grounds of morality in such petty issues that they come across as just being whiny children throwing a tantrum rather than humans stretched to the limits of what they'll do in pursuit of the greater good and finally drawing a line in what they can bear to justify to themselves as 'the rational thing to do'.

It was the final third that really ruined the film though. Up until then it may not have been great, but it was at least trying to explore philosophical problems. But at this point the self-righteous writer who can barely spell philosophy, let alone comprehend it, takes over. They completely ignore every concept of right and wrong the film has previously been exploring. The writer goes off on their own tangent with their view of what's 'good', which doesn't seem too bad at first, except it appears to be written by someone who has never actually stopped to consider why they judge something as 'good'. There is neither rationality nor logic behind their ideas, no concept of the greater good, in fact, you'd be hard pushed to find any interpretation of morality where the final writers 'good' may fit in to. It's just selfish, unbelievably stupid and defies any kind of logic. The writer isn't trying to write a thought provoking script, he's trying to write a 'feel good' story that ignores reality and is completely unrelated to anything previously discussed in the movie. I believe the writer was trying to convey something along the lines of rationality and logic