The Colony (2013) Poster

(I) (2013)

User Reviews

Review this title
142 Reviews
Sort by:
Probably realistic, because people are naturally stupid
siderite30 July 2013
Warning: Spoilers
The Colony started a lot better than other post apocalyptic movies. It presented a cataclysm (one pretty hard to believe, but let's just assume we can go past it), a survivor colony, with characters and ideas and rules and an event that changes the status quo. I was beginning to feel good. Not only a decent film, but a sci-fi horror as well.

Then audience profiling cast its ugly head. The characters have to be cardboard clichés that we've seen in so other bad films. The old people have to be surpassed and replaced by the young. The villains just want to destroy and snarl. In the end, it just turned into a joke: a highly organised team of survivors run away aimlessly firing guns in every direction but the enemy, while a pack of wild humans attack with machetes and other similar devices, like a bad remake of the Anglo-Zulu war.

Bottom line: started good, continued bad, ended stupid. So an average Hollywood sci-fi.

Good actors like Bill Paxton and Laurence Fishburne are stuck in films like this. They do their best, but really, that is limited by the single dimension of the script. In the end they have to be either good or bad and anyway they have to die for the main, young, beautiful, incredibly stupid main characters to rise to the opportunity. Things like these make me not trust the hope of humanity surviving a disaster.
109 out of 146 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Film is watchable but should have been much better
highwaytourist16 March 2014
The filmmakers decided to combine a post-apocalyptic adventure with a zombie picture, and it was a pretty good idea. Here, Earth has entered a second ice age, killing most of the human race, but scattered outposts of survivors remain in underground locations. One such place is Colony 7, where about 50 people hunker down in an abandoned factory and try to survive off of some saved seeds used for farming in a greenhouse along with melted water. It's not easy, with the common cold being fatal and infected people forced to either leave or be shot. There are several stories going on, the efforts to survive, the well-meaning but not entirely successful leadership of Briggs (Laurence Fishbourne) the love story between Sam (Kevin Zegers) a young resident loyal to Briggs and pretty botanist Kai (Charlotte Sullivan) who is in charge of the seed inventory, and militant army veteran Mason (Bill Paxon) who wants to install himself as the colony's dictator. This comes to a head when a distress signal is picked up from Colony 5,a similar outpost a couple of days away. When Briggs, Sam, and another resident (Atticus Dean Mitchell) hike there to provide aid, disaster strikes. The film boasts convincing sets and snow, good photography, decent acting, and a some intelligent ideas. So why isn't it all that exciting? For some reason, the writers never do anything new or novel with their material and everything dissolves into routine zombie mayhem, except that these zombies are just too clever to be believable. Not only are the various stories not resolved successfully, it's becomes increasingly unbelievable. Clear footprints in the snow when it's snowed non-stop for 48 hours is one of the more ridiculous events. There are others, as well. The ending is also so rushed and abrupt, I felt cheated and so did many other viewers, judging from the reviews.
21 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Just a film that could have been much better
Moriaty Moriaty23 July 2013
Interesting atmosphere, solid set of actors, good opening of movie which draws you somewhat in, waiting what will happen next.

Solid graphics...

Film moves on and somewhere in the end of first third of it, CUT!.

Its like somebody came in to the set and said: "Wrap it up guys, we are closing!".

End is terrible, and over all everything that happens in first part of the movie is blown in the rest of the movie.

Nothing special, already seen, and definitely not gonna see it again. Not even recommended.

Its like short B-movie based on a short survival comic book story. Like I said i don't see what they where thinking, or what went wrong and who is a guilty party.

Graphics, actors, set, atmosphere, story, it all holds separately as parts of good movie but all together just fails terribly.
114 out of 158 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Slow to start, predictable, horrible ending.
jasonbolduc27 April 2013
Warning: Spoilers
The movie starts off slow, but there is some attention to detail about how life would be like in an underground Colony.

The acting in general is average - the actors did well given the plodding pace of the story. Laurence Fishburne, Kvin Zegers and Charlotte Sullivan worked their parts but were hurt by shallow/wooden acting from Bill Paxton.

The CGI and general set construction was good. Quite realistic setup - might be good to see just for all the hydro/aquaponic setups... at least I found that interesting.

I didn't appreciate how the movie ended, but no spoilers. Just don't expect great things.

All in all, an OK movie but not worth the current 7.0 rating!
114 out of 173 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Great start but goes flat quickly
Jay Walker24 July 2013
Warning: Spoilers
The movie went with a good start. Developing the characters and the storyline. But somehow it all went downhill about halfway through. It would seem as if the director lost interest in making a movie. They never gave any reason for the cannibals, why they existed and who their leader was.. Just lots of snarling and teeth baring. Even the big fight scene to kill the cannibal leader was finished off quickly leaving me with a "huh?" The action and fight scenes were not very inspiring and quite predictable. The sudden predictability of whats to happen next dragged all the way to the end. After the end, I got the feel that the story ended very abruptly and everything was left hanging.. I must say Fishburne put in a good performance but lending his name did nothing to save this movie.
68 out of 102 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Why doing bad when yo can do good?
Albert Marcos24 July 2013
When I first heard about this film I thought it was going to be like "It" (80's version, of course)or even "30 days of night". I love apocalyptic movies mixed with frozen world and eventually with monsters. Unfortunately, "The collony" turned to be another inconsistent and time- wasting entertainment movie. Yes, I'm talking about usual empty characters, boring plot and of course a good looking hero unable to express anything. A bit of action at the beginning but after knowing the villains you realize nothing good will come. Hollywood guys, please, you have huge resources, spend some more bucks on the script and on the casting and save on fx, anybody can create explosions on the computer but doing a good film is beyond that.
56 out of 83 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A cold day in hell when logic ruins disbelief
Quebec_Dragon24 September 2014
Warning: Spoilers
So we're in a near-future, an ice age has come and small pockets of humanity survive in bunkers called colonies. Any disease is dangerous, survival is precarious and a distress call is heard from another colony. Three people go there, see that cannibals have taken over. Not that bad of a premise although with global warning, drought would be more likely. Still, I did like the start and I thought it had potential. It wasn't so bad until roughly the halfway mark after the bridge confrontation. Speaking of which, the ruins covered in snow were pretty nice looking, although looking a bit CGI, and the whole dilapidated bridge full of holes was memorable.

So the movie went wrong and threw logic out the window after that bridge collapse. First, since the cannibals would have had to make a huge detour and since it was snowing all the time, they could not have possibly tracked the hero back to base. Second, the more numerous besieged humans had firearms, home-field advantage, were warned beforehand with at least one man who was in the military, and they were up against less than 20 gun-less cannibals, those that survived the bridge. Those cannibals aren't zombies who can take lots of damage, they're feral humans probably malnourished. There's no way they could have posed the threat they did. Then again, if they didn't, there wouldn't have been much of a climax.

Laurence Fishburne's solid yet lacklustre performance did elevate things a bit until his heroic sacrifice that was basically pointless. I also liked Bill Paxton's character. The main actress with the blonde dreadlocks looked stunning but unfortunately her personality wasn't shown much. In fact, lack of personality and character development hurt everything else since I didn't really care for the protagonists. I did like the intensity and closeness of the final battle, but I thought the battles before weren't that good since they were cut too quick. As for suspense and atmosphere, first half was doing pretty well, but the second part kinda lost me turning into more of action movie. The cannibals could have been better. It felt as if only their bald leader was given enough exposure. I doubt I'll remember very much about this movie except the bridge.

Rating: 4 out of 10 (poor)
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Pretty good. Bad. Worse. OMG!!!
Flow21 July 2013
I was really looking forward into seeing The colony, nice couple of actors, huge fan of Paxton, love the Apocalypse theme, love the mix with the winter and freaking HATE, The Colony!!

And here are the reasons: the dialogue is pure cliché, you can predict almost every word that comes out of somebody's mouth, especially during those intense moments. There is always a hot head in such movies, but this one here, was simply, purely, retarded! Not to mention he had previous experience in the domain of apocalypse breakthrough but nooo, he decides to repeat the mistakes seen before. After around 40 minutes, logic breaks lose, runs far far away and we remain with so many unanswered questions, you can't even keep track of them. How? Why? Again How? Pretty much, a lot of HOWs, that's the real main problem. I know there are many gems out there, where you need to go logic free and just enjoy what you're seeing, but this time, it's beyond anything remotely acceptable.

The ending itself is truly pitiful, I seriously couldn't believe it whatsoever, I knew it was about to hit its last minutes, yet I never gave up on it, always hoped for something to happen and leave me with a so-so feeling about it.

This movie is truly bad, no reason to recommend it whatsoever. Some comments said it is innocent fun, others an "alright" movie, above average scifi, I completely disagree tho. I hated it! I'm sorry to say it, but I did.

Therefore, I will not recommend it, not even worth a download, but if you do decide to watch it, lower your expectations as much as possible, and maybe, just maybe, it will work better for you.

A movie with same theme, apocalypse on our beloved Earth, with men eating men, you can find Tooth and Nail, more of an independent movie, but works out way better. I wish you the best!
117 out of 191 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Actually a 7.5/10, but I'll give it an 8 since it's a B-movie done well
tetraslash22 July 2013
First off, since IMDb doesn't allow half-ratings and the current IMDb average is way below what the movie's truly worth, I decided to up my rating to an 8. I've been giving thought as to whether I should settle on a 7, but knowing that The Colony was a B-movie, I generously gave it an 8.

This movie is surprisingly done well. I have a personal liking for post-apocalyptic settings, and this one hits the nail on the spot, for what they chose. As the plot states, a small colony of survivors attempt to survive an ice age, and some unforeseen circumstances occur.

There isn't much I can say about the movie, apart from the fact that I felt that it was definitely worth the time to watch. It's a really solid movie, and you won't regret watching it. The acting was fine, there were no outrageous moments, and there were no issues with the other details in the movie, such as the CG (which was done pretty good).

The pacing of the movie is relatively nice, and the movie finishes just right. The movie wasn't stretched out, nor cut short. Any post-apocalyptic movie can easily be over- or underdone (trying to cram in too many subplots in a small timeframe, or not putting in enough to take full availability of the setting), but this one has just enough.

There's not much else I can say without spoiling the movie, so I'll just say that if you like post-apocalyptic movies, you're sure to have a kick out of watching this one.
127 out of 211 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Alex Vojacek21 July 2013
I don't know what the makers were thinking, why will you cast Lawrence Fishburn if you're not going to use it in any meaningful way?.

The movie portraits humanity after the ice age has begun. The Colony only explains partially what happened to the planet and why we as humans destroyed it burning all the fossil fuel which contributed to a new ice age, all humanity is lost and the only remains are some "colonies" beneath the earth.

The starting point is quite good, the first minutes of the movie too. Although it is clichéd, it is standard sci-fi, it develop it's characters sufficiently enough but then.. it speeds up its downward spiral once the "enemies" appear on the scene.

The movie has an incredible change of pace once the enemies arrives with poorly execution on the director's side and just god awful fight scenes... Hardcore music and slaughter, i'm in the 80's again?, is this a joke?, I could accept that kind of embarrassment on a B low movie, I just can't accept it in a movie with Lawrence Fishburn that began as well as this one.

It's like the director throw away the script and said "just put the rock music and kill everyone, because that's cool!"... He appears to just shoot himself in the foot with the directing the movie takes.

It goes without saying that this was actually an incredible missed opportunity to tell a interesting story of the survivors of humanity... and a potential hope for the story.

The conclusion to this mess is, kill your opponents swiftly and survive.

I wanna kill myself for wasting all this time. How can they ruin their own potentially good story is beyond me. It seems Hollywood is full of stupid people that takes stupid decisions in the making of movies these days.

Avoid it, if you want to see killing, see it with some meaning added to it. If you want action and scares, go watch Dawn of the Dead, is 1000 times better than this horrendous mess.
99 out of 162 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Decent beginning horrible 2nd half.
robfisherking5725 July 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I had some hope for this movie which had some great talent in it with Laurence Fishburne Bill Paxton Kevin Zegers all did a fine job.Some one said Bill Paxton acting was wooden well maybe that's how the part was written but what ever it's not really that important. The first half of this movie sets up a post apocalyptic world where every thing is frozen and the temperature hasn't risen in years.So their living in this big installation where they have to grown their own food and raise live stock.It's a place where the flu can be very deadly and they have to kill a few people to make sure the flu doesn't spread . This sets up a dire and bleak world . But the hope lies in some day finding a way to reverse some of the extreme weather.

In the middle of the movie they loose communications mysteriously with another colony close by . The mystery of the lose of communication is set up nicely and you wonder why they went dark. I wish we never found out because after traveling to the other colony (Both Laurence's character and Zegers along with a 3rd person)the movie breaks down into a stupid c horror film . Well the reason **spoiler alert** Is cannibals . These cannibals look like zombies for some reason with pointy teeth.It's explained latter that they are "feral humans" it seems that if humans go with out food for a period of time they turn into this ..WTF? what ever. Anyways the cannibals follow the Laurence's char and zegers back to their own colony well Laurence doesn't make it and sacrifices himself to save the others.Zegers unwittingly leads the feral humans to his colony. and that where it gets really stupid.

The ferals break into the colony so easily .I mean you guys had decades to prepare for an attack wouldn't they have shored up the doors and reinforced everything?But what ever. Th ferals are also magic it seems going thru vents and popping out of the cabinets to attack the humans . WTF again? How do these ferals know every nook and cranny of the installation better then the humans that were their almost half of their lives. Well anyways it's stupid and ends stupidly of course the ferals die not before they kill a bunch of humans that we don't care about.Including Paxton's character.Oh yeah they also located an area of green warmth on the map thats like a nirvana thats where the try to travel towards at the end. But at this point nobody cares.
18 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Not Scary. Pretty Good. There is a message in here.
bob-rutzel-121 October 2013
Warning: Spoilers
An ice-age fell upon the Earth and people went underground to survive. Problems escalated when Colony-7 could no longer contact Colony-5 and leader Briggs (Lawrence Fishburne) decided on a team to see what was wrong there. Oh, oh this can't be good. Don't go, don't go, but they did.

What we find at Colony-5 is almost unspeakable, as human cannibals killed everyone except one man and relished at the sight of the new meat from Colony-7. Now, the race was on for the team to get back to Colony-7. The cannibals were never explained. They were just there. An argument could be made that these people living underground, without sunlight, without food and high disease rates went mad and lost all control.

The cannibals are portrayed as though they were Zombies, but wait a minute - they were human, alive and could speak. But, they didn't. And, no one from the Colony-7 team made any attempt at dialogue with them. I thought that was strange. Why no attempt to talk? Were the cannibals too far gone? Apparently so. Near the end, Sam (Kevin Zegers) asks the cannibal leader, "what do you want?" To which the leader replies, "More."

This was not as scary as it could have been, perhaps because it was known what Colony-7 was dealing with. There were a couple brief scenes that showed some bloody gore as the cannibals were finishing up hacking those from Colony-5; and one final one at the end that was kind of hard to take for the way it happened.

The suspense, tension and pacing were very good. The cinematography was outstanding and the acting all around was also good.

Will this be the way it goes when the next ice age comes upon us? Save your seeds for when the sun again appears. They will be needed. Oh, load up on ammo. Pretty sure that will be needed too. (7/10)

Violence: Yes. Sex: No. Nudity: No. Bloody gore: Yes, briefly. Language: Some F-bombs, not too many.
16 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Fun throwback B-movie
mpetrillo26 May 2013
If you have an affinity for movies like The Warriors, Mad Max, Carpenter's The Thing, Craven's The Hills Have Eyes, you will be game for this fun b-movie. Imaginative and well-paced. Don't expect a 100 million dollar special-effects extravaganza with every little detail and character fleshed out to the extreme. That's not what these type of movies are for. The Colony is an economically told, well written, nicely shot, low-budget affair with engaging performances from all. You'll be surprised and impressed with how much the filmmakers accomplished with less than 20 million dollars. The authenticity of the underground colony is great (it doesn't feel like a film set) considering they filmed at the decommissioned NORAD facility in Northern Ontario.
127 out of 220 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Bad Science
Theo Robertson4 February 2014
Warning: Spoilers
In the near future a second ice age has destroyed civilisation . In an underground base dubbed Colony 7 a handful of survivors make radio contact with another underground colony - Colony 5 -and a three man expedition track through the icy wasteland to make contact with Colony 5

This had all the makings of a good film . A couple of well known names and a fascinating premise where mankind struggles to survive against an eco-disaster . Very quickly the film shoots itself in the foot and long before the end credits start you'll be shaking your head wondering why it turned out so mediocre . It's not dreadful but if you took out the names of Fishburne and Paxton you'd think you were watching one of this productions that are constantly churned out by the SyFy channel night after night

You can easily forgive the very clumsy clunky exposition given at the start of the film because it exists to merely fill the audience in on the scenario and it's very difficult to make exposition sound natural . What is less difficult to forgive is the dodgy science used through out the movie

From the outset it's difficult to buy in to a colony like the one shown here surviving . People live underground but even if they were able to grow tomatoes and other plants as seen here it's difficult to believe they'd be able to grow them in large enough quantities to keep the colony alive . Someone does point out that rabbits are their main source of protein but throws a major spanner in the works because rabbits are so rich in protein that they lack essential fats and minerals to sustain human life in the long term . Look up " rabbit starvation " to find out what I mean . This leads me to ask what are the colonists doing about fats and carbohydrates in order to survive ? There's also a subplot about infections and flu outbreaks which leads characters being quarantined but in reality viruses have an incubation period so a quarantine wouldn't be effective because people would the carry the virus before they display any symptoms . Mind you this is to probably to illustrate Paxton's character Mason as a potential despot so may be it's not a valid criticism

The story then quickly takes a turn of a quest to explore Colony 5 and when the expedition reaches here the movie turns in to an action adventure horror that you've seen before where the colony has degenerated in to barbaric cannibalism . I've no idea why but for some reason eating human flesh seems to interfere with the powers of speech so the cannibals run around communicating via growls and snarls . It's also at this point we learn that a weather station has pushed back the ice age in a 8 mile radius . Hmmm . That's very convenient if say the cannibals chase a lone survivor back to Colony 5 and have a battle where Colony 5 is destroyed down to the fact that the colonists don't shoot the cannibals every chance they get

THE COLONY had a lot of potential but blows it by concentrating far too much on the action and horror aspects . Like so many American films it sets up a post apocalypse scenario merely to use it as an excuse to have action sequences and a high body count . One does lament the British apocalyptic literature of Wyndham and John Christopher who would have come up with a similar scenario but would have developed the storyline so in a much more credible and thought provoking way
24 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A mixed-up mess leads to a missed opportunity
synthboy20009 April 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Firstly, let's make this clear: "The Colony" is a B movie and needs to be reviewed as such. Unfortunately "The Colony" doesn't actually know what sort of B movie it is. It's sure enough that it's post-apocalyptic but after that it gets a bit lost. Is it an intelligent, sci-fi thriller? Or would it rather be a full-on zombie-style action flick complete with blood and gore? In the end it tries to be both and ends up falling somewhere between the two.

It starts well enough, setting up a slightly preposterous but logically thought out apocalypse, taking time to explore that and also the relationships between the survivors, highlighting tensions and foreshadowing future conflict. However, after that it chucks all that to one side and devotes an awful to of time and effort to a conflict with zombie-style cannibals. Before going back to the original conflicts. And then repeating itself with another cannibals showdown.

This flitting back and forth means that neither section really gets developed enough or receives the conclusion that it deserves. If they'd either done away with the cannibals and focused on the internal conflict between the survivors or brushed over the actually reasons behind the apocalypse to free up time for full-on, seat-of-your-pants cannibal terror then "The Colony" could have ended up a cult gem. Instead in ends up as a highly forgettable mess.

Which is a real shame as you've got a good cast and a great setting. Both Laurence Fishburne and Bill Paxton do the best they can with the material they've been given but neither really gets enough screen time and there really isn't enough time of them facing off against each other. The former NORAD headquarters has a great post-apocalyptic vibe and makes for a very pretty backdrop but if more time had been spent in one of the silos rather than dividing time between two then it could really have come to life. I wanted to see crawlspaces, walls blown through, traps made with the facilities. We get none of that.

So, in summation, a missed opportunity due to the writer failing to actually decide which film he wanted to make before he started writing.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A Frozen & Scary Dystopia
in198424 July 2013
7.4 of 10. Saw this close to Oblivion and preferred Colony. Both are solid dystopian sci-fi, with this having the far more solid science behind it, which helps with the believability and immersion. The only other qualities they share involves isolation and some annoying narration by the lead character.

Colony has a strong horror aspect to it, including an answer to the question of what might be the middle-ground between human and zombie. There's very little tech involved, contrary to what those seeing Lawrence Fishburne in it might expect. The action, however, is almost entirely fight related, with some connected to the extreme climate conditions and the decaying nature of the cities they're using for shelter.

Outside of a forced end kill and gaps in how the enemy creatures manage to get to certain places, there are no horrible or weak scenes. Budget issues are more evident in undeveloped story elements than the FX.
67 out of 116 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Decent movie!
Andrew29 April 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I really enjoyed this movie. I thought that Lawrence Fishburne and Bill Paxton had great roles and I was impressed with Kevin Zegers as Sam.

It was refreshing to see Bill Paxton in that type of role in the movie.

I thought the movie had a good flow and there was no instance where I was bored.

This is an independent and a low budget movie so don't expect amazing CGI scenes or backgrounds. With that being said, they did a great visual job to this movie.

I did have two issues with the movie. At the beginning it started out with a promising feel of isolation at a colony base, but they had incorporated a cheesy chase scene. It's not that the chase scene wouldn't work, but the way it was shot reminded me of some corny horror movie which didn't take its self seriously.

After that the movie was just fine, which made this scene seem awkward in the movie.

As for the ending- without giving away too much- Pretty much left the audience hanging. I was hoping they would at least follow through with a plot point which was expected to conclude at the end of the movie, instead, we never saw the outcome.

I believe they did this to catch the audience off guard and not follow through with predictable results. I think this gives the movie its own spin, but I felt it would have enhanced the conclusion and the story if they had actually concluded that plot point. Because this is not done in the movie, the great story you are following just ends abruptly making you wonder why they ended it this way. Are they going to make sequel and explain this? It's unlikely.

With all this being said, I enjoyed the movie and I would definitely buy this on DVD. If you are a sci-fi/horror fan, I recommend you go see this movie!
44 out of 76 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Too quick of and end
JohnZMG5223 February 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I'm a die-hard apocalypse type movie fan and I've accepted most movies whether its cliché or not but this movie just ended too short, after the problem comes up that reveals the after problem that causes the story to set in motion it just ends just ends. The CGI and music were good and the story line could've been more thought out instead of The Hills Have Eyes snow edition, it reminded me a lot of the Chernobyl Diaries which wasn't that great either. Anyways the characters weren't really developed, the leader of the cannibal pack I think was supposed to be this bad-ass guy but all he ever did was walk in a trench coat and roar as for Briggs his sacrifice didn't feel as terrible because it wasn't really developed. The blonde was also supposed to be this bad-ass but frankly wasn't. Mason was supposed to be the stubborn leader but he only showed it a few times. And the most annoying moment is that instead of telling mason about the safe zone the lovebirds keep it closed. Its full of clichés and you should only watch it only if its on TV
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A very solid movie
petarmatic22 October 2013
I was surprised to find how low grade this film received, since I found it be very good actually. With a low budget of what it had to deal with it turned out very good.

It deals with post apocalyptic colony underground while it is constantly snowing outside. It is showing very well how people turn into animals in self defense. We had a similar situation in Sarajevo in 1992-1995. When society fails, community is either doomed or it receives help from outside. Since in this film there was no help from outside even the remnants of the civilization left in the colony were attacked by a gang of cannibals.

If you like sci fi post apocalyptic films this one is for you.
18 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Bleak, Useless Direct to DVD Movie - Avoid
imdb-391818 October 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I gave this turkey of a dystopian SF movie a 2 because of great visuals and because they tried, a little. Overall it was a waste of 1:30 of my life.

In short, it's dystopian SF based on the usual people-crammed-together-in-a-stronghold theme with the overlay of harsh authoritarian community policing. It takes forever to get to anything really happening. The "monsters" are a highly inferior ripoff of "The Ghosts of Mars". Laurence Fishburne did this movie a huge favor (and his career a huge disservice) by appearing but he bites it 3/4 of the way through.

No logic, no explanation why the residents of the other colony went mad, no real backstory on the weather modification technology, and no satisfaction with the conclusion of the movie.

I watched it on Netflix and I regret wasting the time.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
So many glaring "whys"
nomen_meltdown2 January 2014
Warning: Spoilers
As in... (spoilers!) WHY would Briggs, Colony-7's best shot at maintaining strong-but-humane leadership, go all dead man's switch with the dynamite instead of setting it down and running? WHY would the roving cannibals choose to live such a stupid existence? Because if you're on the ragged edge of survival and you come across a safe, warm place where 50-some people are renewably cultivating food and long-term survival is a viable option-- yeah, slaughtering those people for meat and wrecking up the place is a *stupid* choice.

WHY did the cannibals apparently forget how to speak when it would have helped them coordinate their senseless violence? Why just ineffective howling and grunting? WHY would Mason try to force people who wanted to leave to stay, under conditions he'd resolved to make miserable (virtually guaranteeing an erosion in his leadership capital), if he didn't believe that danger really was coming? Why not let them leave with what little they can carry (up to what you can afford to part with) and then you aren't responsible for taking care of them anymore? But making them stay-- and what, work?-- at gunpoint is a recipe for bad work and inevitable mutiny.

And finally, WHY the transparent, hackneyed attempt at the end to draw some kind of equivalence between the cannibals-- who kill people wantonly-- and Sam beating the 'feral leader' to death in justifiable defense of himself and his people? Because the long, "look at his savagery" shot of Sam was clearly intended to depict him as not much better when his reason for violence was completely different. Hell, he *wanted* to run, not fight, and he only flipped out because he was cornered by a relentless aggressor.

I gave it three stars for the design/use of sets and for the visual effects, and Fishburne's competent acting of his character despite writing that didn't stand out at all. That said, I really can't recommend this. It's too formulaic, too superficial, and the motivations of the antagonists are absent-- they're just stereotypically 'bad' for no good reason.
8 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Painfully disappointing
maggeboiii24 July 2013
By the looks of the trailers, I actually had a slight hope for this flick. I'm a sucker for survival-movies and it starred Fishbourne and Paxton, cool right? No! This movie had everything going for it, but they managed to ruin it.

First of all, how did Fishbourne and Paxton do? They did alright, it's just that their characters are horrible clichés. Fishbourne is obviously the wise, great leader everybody loves and Paxton is his counter-part. A trigger-happy redneck who wants to have a tighter regime among the survivors, this character could be exciting, but with no development nor a lot of screen-time, he becomes too boring..

Speaking of survivors, I forgot to mention the 'Day after tomorrow'-plot here. We get to know that it just started snowing, that's why the entire globe has entered a new ice age, well okay, now I feel wiser. The plot is also told though the narration of the protagonist Sam, who looks a lot like Emile Hirsch, just more wooden. After receiving a distress call from another group of survivors, Fishbourne, Sam and some random dead- beat who brings pornography on expeditions (Fishbourne even asks if he wants to be alone when he pulls the magazine out, I'm not kidding)goes to investigate. After they find a skinnier version of Sharlto Copley, we meet the bad guys, who are basically a bunch of exaggerated orcs. The movie also tries to create some minor sub-plots, but fails. The tedious nightmare with flashbacks from Sam's childhood doesn't add anything to the story, and is explained by Fishbourne after 30 minutes, there goes the potential mystery.

I must admit this film is on the verge of becoming a B-movie. The effects are horrendous, the camera gets a seizure during the fight- scenes and the ending was predicted during the first five minutes. It's sad to see such great actors get involved in garbage such as this now a days.
24 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Terribly Disappointing.
vassago148826 July 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I disliked this movie strongly enough to make an IMDb account just so that I could review it to warn others away.

Don't get me wrong, there was a great premise for a story here. The producers just failed miserably in making it past the first third, as another reviewer stated.

The acting was strong, special effects were up to par, but the story just dropped off. There was no background for characters, with one little story about the main character about halfway through the movie.

This was one of those movies you could watch in the background and pick your toes to. Mindless violence without real reason for it. Semi suspenseful moments, although completely predictable. Irrational behavior from the main characters.


After the initial entrance by the "bad guys", you are led to believe that one specifically is the leader, and the rest appeared, at least to me, to be mindless drones, with some superhuman strength, taking numerous bullets to kill in some cases. There is obviously something different about them vs a normal human in the movie, sharpened teeth, walking on all fours, sleeping together on the ground as a pack, things like this. Yet none of it is explained beyond "hunger drives men to do crazy things". So as I understood it, the other colony went crazy from hunger, started cannibalizing each other, and yet once their bellies were full, remained in this animalistic state. But the one normal survivor that they initially make contact with has been starved for days hiding from the cannibals, and never makes any attempt at random cannibalism, only fearful type behavior when they try to get him to join them and run. The absolute lack of depth was just horrible. I think perhaps the producers junior high aged nephew wrote a screenplay that they decided to make into a movie that flopped. Unless you're just looking for an hour and 25 minute semi interesting time waster, find something else to watch. This just sucked.
15 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Could have been better - full of holes
Dave Pinsent29 December 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I had hopes for the story but its a waste of your and apparently my time. If you can get past the few holes in the story it is not to bad but I can not do that. And I do not normally pick apart movies but it was big holes. I am only going to do 4 bigger holes that I saw. The acting was decent though.

1. Snow?? Always snowing they said, stormy etc. Yet the (zombies) could follow them after hrs of walking due to the tracks they had in the snow. I live in a winter climate here and on a normal snow day a track can be filled in rather quickly if the wind is blowing. Thus no tracking unless they got out very fast and could see them. Oh and it was after the night they stayed in the chopper.

2. The Chopper for safety sleep. Why is this chopper that looks like it has been there for a long time since the 18yr old boy didn't know what it was used for. And yet it was on the very top of the snow, now a mountain or anything on a huge pile of snow.

3. I would shoot. I know they have to make the movie exciting but if a normal person who had 20 or so people after them and they already shot a few of them would shoot at the rest. No, instead lets look at the zombies in all their glory while they get closer and come after us. Ah sorry I have a gun, bye zombie. I found myself saying shoot, shoot, shoot over and over. There you go, they finally heard me through the TV. :)

END SPOILER 4. Main bad guy. This guy is the strongest etc, but who really can take a beating at the end with whack after whack and have no damage at all other then a little blood.

Could have been much better if there was a bit of thought to plot holes, but alas, they do this kinda thing in so many movies now.
9 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A cold movie without the cold
Paul CF29 January 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Watched this movie last nite, sad to see Bill Paxton and Laurence Fisburne in such a terrible event.

It's got so many technical 'holes' in it I won't even go there, many of which have been addressed already in other reviews.

You could easily see that Mason/Paxton would be the renegade turned hero and Fishburne would be the hero, yada, yada...a very predictable event. The Zombies are nothing new now of course, and as such are a weak attempt to introduce horror and plot to scare you when they could not think of anything else.

The bad ending: OMG, let's just carry some seeds and plant them in the next colony that has a hole in the clouds...

And I love it when it is supposed to be cold and you hardly see their frosty breath outside. Or in the helicopter with holes all around and it seems as warm as inside a house, etc...etc...

Just another end of the world movie based on a committee plot borrowing from many other ideas...yawn, a really terrible move for some great actors who deserve a lot better!
10 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews