Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: After Earth

This is topic After Earth in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001954

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 06-06-2013, 06:12 PM:

Ugh...

*might contain slight "spoilers"*

M. Night Shyamalan should have his "directors license" revoked after this latest piece of sh*t that he managed to push out.

Set in a future, where everything, including spaceships is constructed out of plastic wrap and bed sheets, Will Smith and his son (sorry, I forgot the character names) crash-land with their plastic spaceship on Earth (their destination wasn't Earth, it wasn't even close, but they end up there anyway). Earth has been deserted a while back for whatever reasons and for some other unexplained reasons they also carry some kind of alien bug around, which only seems to be interested in killing those nasty humans.

Their ship breaks in two parts, unfortunately, the emergency beacon in their half of the ship is broken. Also broken are both legs of old Smith. So, young Smith heads out to the other part to find said emergency beacon.

The quest for the emergency beacon (which, besides all the modern technology needs to be hand-activated and only works on an active volcano with huge smoke plumes above it), is interwoven with bad special effects, some of the worst acting in years, lame flashbacks (some of which are endlessly recycled) and visions of deceased relatives.

Shyamalan is showing some Ed Wood qualities here: He believes his general audience is far too stupid to notice the flaws that are all over his logic. He also throws up all kinds of "mysteries", but never even gives the audience a clue.

Earth now freezes over every night. It's deadly for humans and most animals, but not for jungle vegetation. Humans now also need some kind of inhalers to breathe on Earth. Deadly space aliens that only "see" you if you fear them. If you're fearless, they won't even notice you if you're right in front of them.

The best thing about the movie is the short run time: just about 100 minutes.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 06-08-2013, 03:42 PM:

Did anyone else notice that this "M. Night" movie wasn't billed as the next "M. Night" movie? His name is nowhere in the trailers. I didn't know it was him that directed it until someone pointed it out to me.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-08-2013, 03:54 PM:

His name used to be a boxoffice draw. It isn't anymore. If/when he gets another hit his name will be prominent again.

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 06-08-2013, 07:07 PM:

Shyamalan was only a hired hand on this. The story came from the Smith family, they produced and pretty much drove the project home. M. Night was asked by Smith to punch up the script and direct.

But it doesn't matter, because at this point Shyamalan could write, produce and direct the next Citizen Kane and people would still pull the knives out. The problem with the guy is easy: his second film worked so well and pulled the rug out from under people so completely that that is all anybody wants from him now, and he hasn't bothered (or wanted) to repeat the act. There are still internet "movie reviewer" trolls that are busting the guy's chops about twist endings, yet only one of his pictures truly had one (OK, maybe The Village too, but not in the same way).

quote: Marcel Birgelen
Shyamalan is showing some Ed Wood qualities here: He believes his general audience is far too stupid to notice the flaws that are all over his logic. He also throws up all kinds of "mysteries", but never even gives the audience a clue.

He must have taken his cue on this from Saint J.J. Abrams, because frankly, Star Trek Into Darkness has every bit as many logical flaws, internal inconstancies and things to call "bullshit" over as After Earth does, and possibly more. You yourself, Marcel, pointed this out in your review of that picture, while suggesting that people who would be bothered by it "see another movie". I wonder why Abrams gets to slide by on good graces, but Shyamalan is somehow obliged to fit all the pieces together logically or else be lumped in with Ed Wood. Hmmmm.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-08-2013, 08:39 PM:

Every director' going to have his fans and his detractors. I myself haven't thought any of his movies were good since The Sixth Sense except Signs, and it was only good until the last half hour when it got stupid.

Plus, I have to admit that I base some of my opinion on a movie on whether it puts a lot of butts in seats, and we haven't had an M Night Shymalan movie do that in years.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 06-09-2013, 12:10 PM:

quote: Mark Ogden
He must have taken his cue on this from Saint J.J. Abrams, because frankly, Star Trek Into Darkness has every bit as many logical flaws, internal inconstancies and things to call "bullshit" over as After Earth does, and possibly more. You yourself, Marcel, pointed this out in your review of that picture, while suggesting that people who would be bothered by it "see another movie". I wonder why Abrams gets to slide by on good graces, but Shyamalan is somehow obliged to fit all the pieces together logically or else be lumped in with Ed Wood. Hmmmm.

I watched this movie without any prejudice, and if somebody else whould've directed this piece of garbage, he would get the same bashing from me. Part of the story apparently came from the Smith family, they deserve to be blamed too, because of the lame, self serving story and the lame acting that's been portrayed.

I would not consider myself an J.J. Abrams fan, but I happen to appreciate or like some of his work. I also happen to appreciate some of the work of Shyamalan, but it is quite clear to me that he totally lost it somewhere around Lady in the Water. And in this case, he is credited for the story, the script and the directing, so I guess he deserves to be in front of the fan when the sh*t hits it.

There are tons of bullshit in the last TWO Star Trek movies, but at least they are entertaining. This movie is just so goddamn boring and devoid of any interesting story, that you just cannot get into the movie. Once that happens, you cannot help but to focus on all the irrational stuff happening on screen. And lets be honest here, all recent Shyamalan movies have so much of it, that it is VERY hard to ignore, even if you're trying very very hard.

Additionally, and that really helps a lot in creating some kind of charisma to the stuff happening in screen: Compare this movie to e.g. the last two Star Trek movies, they don't take themselves so goddamn serious like this movie does.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 06-09-2013, 10:40 PM:

you couldn't pay me to see this, and from what my friends have been saying who've endured this, is that I ain't missing anything by not seeing it.

Posted by Tony Gallimore (Member # 5358) on 06-18-2013, 09:48 PM:

I took this submission to be a Smith financed opportunity for Jayden's exposure to the world of acting because the storyline and movie were in my honest opinion pretty run-of-the-mill. Even the opening dialogue by Jayden was amateurish. I thought he was much better in "The Day The Earth Stood Still" along side Keano Reeves. But that is just my warped viewpoint.