IMDb > 20 Years After (2008) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
20 Years After
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
20 Years After More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 4:[1] [2] [3] [4] [Next]
Index 34 reviews in total 

43 out of 59 people found the following review useful:

Low Budget / Bad Story / Bad Acting / Terrible....

1/10
Author: Mark LeD from United States
25 September 2008

I am not against low budget films and when I caught a screening of this movie I was actually a little excited. The excitement quickly turned into agony as I forced myself to sit through it. The story was just plain boring, the acting was less then convincing and the effects were cheesy. There were parts that made no sense and didn't have anything to do with the story. I could see they tried to develop the characters but it was done so poorly and confusing that it just became a complete train wreck.

This reminded me of something that a High School drama club would have put together....

Was the above review useful to you?

36 out of 52 people found the following review useful:

by the book low budget

4/10
Author: Jo Farmer from Germany
29 September 2008

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

50 out of 81 people found the following review useful:

Read This First

1/10
Author: ChrisMichael81 from United States
26 September 2008

First off I had to fill out a app here to comment on this as this movie is terrible. The people that made this should be ashamed of themselves including every actor, the writer(s), director, and who ever produced this and said they would invest in this. It really didn't make any sense. The person who wrote this was trying so hard to make the dialog artistic that the entire screenplay and interaction of the characters is painful to watch. Because of a nuclear blast and a some type of weather disaster (of which they don't name or explain in the movie) technology such as automobiles, computers, telephones cease to exist. Oh and everyone in the future becomes a trashy hippie according to this film. Not to mention you will notice that the entire movie is filmed in the same field. The lowest you can rate a movie here is a ONE which this movie did not deserve.

Was the above review useful to you?

20 out of 22 people found the following review useful:

This is going nowhere really slow …

3/10
Author: Great-Cthulhu from Germany
23 April 2009

One can't help but wonder how on earth anybody could read the script of this dross and then participate. Because, the actors are not half bad (for a movie of this category) and, while still in the land of zero budget, the overall look was okay too.

This flick's biggest problem is the storyline, or to be frank, the absence of one. Things just happen here, then there, the characters move from point A to B – its all very random and I really could not grasp the idea behind this whole sorry effort. It just makes no sense.

Watching this movie left me kinda blank in the head, like having tried to read a book in a language I don't understand.

Had the makers of 20 Years After bothered with a coherent story, this could have been okay – so it is just a way to waste 1.5 h of your life (in a very boring fashion).

Was the above review useful to you?

23 out of 28 people found the following review useful:

Beware!

2/10
Author: jaddis01 from United States
7 January 2009

I went to a red box, saw the cover (which looked interesting), and thought I'd give it a shot. From the beginning until the end it was one big snooze fest. The mediocre acting was all that kept this film slightly afloat. I've never commented on a movie here before, but I had to register to warn the public. It is a boring and pointless story. It was as interesting as finding a box of a strangers old home movies and sitting through them thanking heaven that you are not friends with these people. I cannot believe money was wasted on this movie, i.e., the cost to make it, rent it, even the electricity needed to play it. The character build up was all this movie had going for it and it failed. A big snore!

Was the above review useful to you?

13 out of 18 people found the following review useful:

Lets leave this wasteland for another wasteland

2/10
Author: frequency-2 from United States
4 November 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Most of the acting was interesting and done well. The story was a real drag that is a little difficult to pin down.

I would say it's mostly about some sort of romantic idea of the radio being a way people communicate. There's a pregnant woman whose main reason for leaving one place to go to another to give birth is to get away from her mother, because I didn't see any advantage for her ending up in an abandoned city.

The sci-fi premise just doesn't work. Whatever happened 20 years ago is not made clear in relation to why no children have been born. So the impetus of Sci-fi is cut off at the knees and is never even partially explained as to what happened beyond some sort of limited nuclear war.

I could live with that sort sort of premise, that nobody know what happened, but the world in the film just didn't look that bad, even at the end when they got to the city.

I spose it was meant to be ironic that the woman who wanted not to have her baby in a cave or in a basement ended up giving birth in an underground parking garage, but it came off more to me that that was all the set the production could afford at that point.

The movie does establish a sense of mood...but it's kinda sleepy coming down from smoking a dooby mood.

Was the above review useful to you?

10 out of 14 people found the following review useful:

My Review

2/10
Author: joemamaohio from United States
5 November 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

20 years after the world comes to an end, Sarah (Azura Skye) is pregnant and about to give birth to the first baby in 15 years. She is pursued by people who want her baby, and she tries to find the mysterious voice on the radio (Joshua Leonard), who could help her.

Think "Children of Men" only without the great acting, effects and storyline. All this film is is a boring, lackluster hour and a half of worthless crap. Azura Skye was hardly in the film, and when she was acting, it was so quiet and monotone that it lacked any sense of urgency. And Michael (Leonard) is your typical end-of-the-world antagonist who talks about how life was like before it all happened. I would've loved to see what happened, I bet it would've been way more entertaining.

Was the above review useful to you?

12 out of 20 people found the following review useful:

Existential, poetic, a little dull...

7/10
Author: Michael-d-duncan from United States
14 December 2009

Okay, firstly most of the reviews on here are really REALLY terrible, and I agree this movie was okay at best.

I don't care about budgets and such, so the fact that the cinematography had a kind of unfinished feel to it didn't bother me, however I know it bothers some.

Next, and most detrimentally, there is very little forward movement. The plot is severely lacking, in the special features they mention that this was a stage performance before a film and I think the cutting floor scooped up a lot of explanations that could have really helped the audience to understand.

Now that being said this movie had some things that even most blockbuster films don't. One: SOME REALLY GOOD ACTORS. The actors are not wooden and don't pander to the camera (at least not most of them). The character Sara is specifically very convincing and easy to empathize with. Two: ORIGINALITY. This movie was not a typically post-apocalyptic mess. No radiation freaks, no scantily clad bikini babes, no dune-buggy rally... Finally: many of the visuals were stunning. (I'm thinking specifically about the blue bottle tree).

The existential feel of the movie is kind of like Darjeeling Limited, and really I give this movie a six not a seven, but I'd like to see another star on it's rating.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Slow paced, boring, and scored with horrible music

3/10
Author: Matt Kracht (krachtm@yahoo.com) from New York
14 May 2013

The plot: A DJ, a pregnant woman, and some others try to survive in a post-apocalyptic world.

I don't know. I tried to give this film a chance. I saw all the negative reviews, and I thought to myself, "Maybe I'll like it. I don't mind slow pacing or low budgets, and I often like existential dramas." However, this was just too much to take. For vast stretches of time, nothing happens except people talking cryptically about stuff I really didn't care about. The music really annoyed me, but I figured they would move on from playing this horrible country music, eventually -- but, no, it just kept going on and on. I glanced at my screen and saw there was still another 30 minutes left. I admit it. I bailed. I couldn't take it any more. No more pointless dialogue about mystical crap, detestable music, or boring characters.

The plot is a ripoff of Children of Men, the actors are from TV shows, and the music will annoy anyone under 60. I really don't know who this film was made for, but it wasn't made for people like me. I guess it's meant to be an uplifting story about plucky survivors and their metaphysical journey to rediscover America, which has been blah blah blah. Who cares? I sure don't. It takes the worst of New Age hippies and low budget, B movies, throws them together, and mixes in a bunch of country music. Ugh. Truthfully, I would have preferred yet another mindless ripoff of Mad Max than this.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

A clunker spoiler sorta

Author: JDsivraj from United States
8 February 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Picture if someone had a good simple plot that was easy to relate to, had an interesting situation, borrowed a little from the fallout games and then totally screwed up the film, that's this movie.

It's incoherent at times and tries way too hard to have a message and be deep. It could have tried a little less psychological/metaphysical analysis and a tiny bit of coherence.

There is a dual or maybe triple quest going on here among the protagonists that is poorly developed and difficult to give a darn about.

SPOILER: Oh look one of the main characters is pregnant. No one has seen a kid in at least 15 years and some characters haven't ever seen a pregnant woman and yet it's still treated as a ho-hum sort of situation.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 4:[1] [2] [3] [4] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Awards
External reviews Official site Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history