peteypiper My housemate recommended this to me and being a student whose sleeping pattern is ruined, I decided to put it on. Safe to say, I really liked it! Let me state the obvious and say that it's not the best film in the world. However, it's definitely not the worst. I've seen worse apocalypse films, trust me! I feel that people are dissecting it, which therefore makes it not enjoyable. When it comes to philosophy and logic, granted, the film doesn't make sense (the whole idea that there's nothing to fear as at the end of the day, it's all in their heads!) Yet, that is exactly what makes it good. Your imagination is literally the worst place you can be in when it comes to this scenario. It's designed to make you think of the scenario and apply that same mindset and thought process into a real life scenario. For example, when Petra decides to choose the people that provide fun and entertainment for a year as opposed to people who have skills that can ensure survival, that's basically telling you that there are other ways of figuring things out as well as saying that it isn't just about survival! I wasn't a fan of the whole "teacher and student affair" part of the narrative at the end. I thought that did ruin it a bit and wasn't a good climax. All that aside and focussing on the point of the movie, it was good! If you want a film that makes you think, then this is definitely one to watch. Just, when you watch, don't say things like "that's not philosophy" and "this makes no sense as it's in their heads." Just watch it and enjoy it for what it is and you may find you enjoy it more.

ashishagupta The movie is a story within a story. Unlike most intelligent movies, where the outer story looks at the inner story, this movie has both looking at each other in turn. It is this reversal that has lost this movie most of its audience. The angry reviews reflect this. In a sense, the movie itself transcends its celluloid prison and envelopes everyone that comes in touch with it and we all become a part of that ongoing narrative. In this sense, the movie is work of an outstandingly brilliant writer. The story within the movie has three acts. The first act is smart and reassuring to smart audience. The second act begins with a smarter premise and it seems that some manner of higher wisdom will be achieved at the end of this act. However, that is when the movie begins to unravel. The constructive efforts towards a solution that progressively incorporates unknowns turns almost unexpectedly into an emotional mess. The movie is very self-aware. It makes references to this unexpected turn of events. The smart audience is personified by a character in the movie, who is undergoing the same train of thoughts as the audience. It is brilliant. The third act begins bad and ends worse. The fools of this world have taken over! A rational universally optimal solution has been abandoned by narrow partisan interests and essentially chaos. To add insult to injury, the smarts are now ostracized, which surely touches a nerve with smart audience members. One can not but help read the reviews here with bemusement. Since, most people who would bother watching this movie are smart folks, it is guaranteed they would be indignant by the later half of it.What this movie intentionally omits, is a big Q.E.D. in the end. That is supremely frustrating. In lieu of a QED, the movie provides a Greek definition of apocalypse, which also provides the movie its name. This movie will put you in the 'dark' while the credits roll. You will be annoyed. But you think about it for a while, you might just be rewarded by a bitter-sweet insight 'after the dark'!

Rolf Magnus I thought it was a great film. Sure, I didn't like the female lead because of her horrible acting but I personally didn't think it took away from the movie much. As others have said, the ideas are good and I think they executed it very well. Definitely worth a watch. I felt like it went by in a flash, I enjoyed it so much. But just a side note, I was originally interested in some philosophy before so you may not see it the same as I did. It's a bit different from the average movie, as in I feel it's best to watch while imagining yourself as one of the students and making your own judgments on the choices made throughout. It's quite thought provoking and a nice movie to watch if you want to relax (not much action) and, although it sounds contradictory to my comment about pretending to be a student, it's a movie where you can just take a backseat approach.

Leofwine_draca AFTER THE DARK is a non-starter of a film, financed by the USA but shot in a teaching school in Indonesia somewhere. The plot - if it can be called such - involves an eccentric teacher who takes a class of pupils on a metaphysical journey to explore the ethics and morality of an end-of-the-world scenario.That's it - this is a single location drama with a few excursions to make-believe worlds where the characters watch CGI mushroom clouds and the like. And it's not really a film at all, just a collection of scenes in which characters explore the human dynamics and relationships that would evolve if the world did collapse and a new society needed to be built from scratch.A project like this smacks of pretension, for me; why not just have the scenario play out properly instead of making it this quasi-fantasy teaching project? It could still have been achieved on a low budget. Watching the flights of fancy play out is extremely boring, and even worse, the characters are dull stereotypes. AFTER THE DARK raises a little interest by having some interesting actors in it (James D'Arcy as the teacher has done better work elsewhere, and Darl Sabara, Bonnie Wright, and George Blagden have all had better parts in other projects) but then squanders it by making the viewer feel like they're sitting in on a boring philosophy class.