User reviews

While Embers' story is not completely original (Memento did it first) it blows up this idea to a much larger scale but it isn't nearly as intriguing or thought-provoking as it should have been.

The plot of Embers is the reason I watched the movie in the first place. The idea of short-term amnesia spread across a population sounded very interesting and brimming with possibilities. This movie could have been awesome had it focused on the social possibilities and scenarios regarding the situation, rather than following a few uninteresting characters wander around while mumbling philosophies. The thing is though, these characters don't even relate to one another. They never meet each other or interact whatsoever. The characters are never placed in any interesting scenarios either so what is the point really? The characters are never developed and the idea of world-wide amnesia is never built upon, so at the end, what really even happened? Well... nothing really. Embers builds up to literally nothing. The only part of the story that is even remotely interesting is a couple trying to maintain a relationship despite them forgetting each other every time they wake up. Every morning they have to re-learn who they both are and this portion of the story is actually fantastic. It feels realistic and understandable. I would've much rather had the movie revolve around this story, but this is only a portion of the film's plot. The rest is boring, dull, preachy and extremely pretentious. Instead of following the entertaining part of the story we follow a crazy man who runs around and attempts to rape women, a little kid who says nothing and displays no emotion, and a family in their underground safety bunker. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if I forgot another major character entirely because that is just how dull and uninteresting these other characters are.

Embers was a very frustrating viewing experience because I so desperately wanted something interesting to happen within the story, but as the run time ticked down, I realized that this movie is going nowhere and will end up nowhere.

It did look technically okay, but we only see the aftermath of this apocalypse on a small scale so it was kind of hard to be immersed within the environment even if the few destroyed buildings did look realistic.

Embers is a film that tries so hard to be so much more than it needs to be. It had an interesting premise that held some amazing possibilities but instead this idea is wasted on a preachy and pretentious plot that goes nowhere. Only about 30 minutes of Embers are enjoyable but after that part of the story concludes, we are forced to sit through the extremely dull side-stories that share no relation to each other. Embers left me feeling more than unsatisfied. I was thoroughly frustrated that better concepts and scenarios weren't explored within this idea. Instead Embers gives me an experience that I wish I could forget as easily as the characters within the story.

I could not help but keep thinking about the Gabriel Garcia Marquez novel "100 Years of Solitude" and the insomnia plague that invaded the town of Macondo along with contagious amnesia that attacked many of Macondo's residents. They would have to write notes like "this is a cow, you must milk it daily" and label the chairs and tables. I also kept waiting for Embers to take me to a similar place of magical wonder. It almost did but then the movie was over.

There were also many technical inconsistencies in the plot that, for a thought-provoking movie proved too much of a distraction for viewers' busy minds that are trying to absorb every detail on the screen and make something out of them. If Miranda and her father had been in the bunker for 9 years, why does everything outside have such a "recently abandoned" appearance? Is the whole thing an experiment? a hoax? Nobody is dirty, people are relatively neatly groomed (i.e. nobody has 9 years' worth of unkempt hair). Also, why do Miranda and her father speak Spanish if she was born in Singapore? Is she really who she thinks she is? Was the "self-check" a way to overcome the amnesia? a trick developed to help her be Miranda? was she really sick without her own knowledge? I mentally gave the movie the excuse that perhaps they were diplomats and moved on. But, after seeing the ending, it would have been so nice if the plot could have gone in any of all those other directions.

Perhaps I should mention that my father suffers from Alzheimer's, so lately I find myself looking for movies that play with the concept of memory and the memory of love. My mother recently told me the story of how the dog across the street "decided" to love my dad and how the dog would come over every morning, and how my dad would meet the dog every morning (sometimes "for the first time") and feel the happiness of new friendship. My mother would feel happy for my dad in those moments, even though my dad is very sick. She found the feelings conflicting. For those very personal reasons, the story of Ben/Mark and Katie in Embers was to me the only redeeming part of this movie. I kept hoping that they would stumble upon the child, then find a matching bracelet, and the child would love them... like my dad must do in his mind... but Embers never went there either.

True love is not something one decides to do, I believe it is a form of knowledge. We know that we love, we don't remember that we do. And that is the look I see on my father, even when he doesn't quite remember my name or thinks that I am my brother. If only the movie had gone there more. Then again, as some already hinted, we have seen that before in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

Ironically, if I could forget reading that Marquez' novel, I might have liked this movie more.

I saw some favorable comments about this, and it was sci-fi which sometimes opens up interesting possibilities, so I really wanted to like this movie. Unfortunately I did not see this going anywhere. It was very predictable, shallow and clichéd, even naive. Toward the end I was hoping to see some kind of point to justify the favorable reviews - instead the movie just ended. Technically it was OK. The actors were OK. And yes, it was not that generic Hollywood garbage, as mentioned in another review. Yet, the ideas of this movie have already been seen and used so much better in many other movies. If you have not seen those other movies yet, good for you, you are in for a treat! Unfortunately for me, I have seen those other movies.

I suspect this movie set out to be clever and artful. Sadly it did not have any content so while some scenes are almost artful in their presentation, they have no content. A story must engage with the listener/viewer so that want to continue reading/watching. There's no point watching out of curiosity you want to watch because you're interested in what the story is showing you. This story does not engage and does not tell you anything. There were some scenes that left me utterly perplexed because they meant nothing and had no connection to other scenes. Art is great when it has a point and a purpose that you can communicate to others. If you can't communicate the point and purpose it's not art except to you, it's just uninteresting and nonsensical.

This is a movie that will grab your attention. You will develop interest in the characters and the story that they are in. However, the movie doesn't take you anywhere and that seems to be the glaring problem. All movies need an arc. Stories are suppose to have some sort of end. While the beginning and even middle of this story draw you in and end falls flat. While the acting in the movie is above average and while production value is very good the obvious whole is too much to look past. What we are left with is the script that simply has no idea where it is going. This is why this movie is rated as 6/10 on the site.

We get an interest in these characters and their story but it doesn't actually have any interesting story to tell you about them. The whole movie is simply a waiting for the climax that never comes. As if they pieced together scenes to generate interest but then take it nowhere.

I love the concept, the acting, the production. But this is a script that needed a lot of work before being shot. As the story needs to be more than simply the effects of the disease. We are expecting more from these characters story lines. Stories about nothing tend to be nothing anyone wants to watch. The last thing a movie should do is leave the audience wanting in a bad way at the end. I give it a 7/10 which is more than most rated it. Because there is a fair bit of quality work here. It's not that the movie isn't interesting. It is. It just lets you down after such a good start.

I really liked the premise of this movie. It's a post-apocalyptic story, but unlike most movies in that genre this one doesn't feature zombies or other mutants - it just features people. Everyday, normal people - but the result of the epidemic that has decimated humanity is that almost everyone has lost their memory and their ability to create and retain new memories. So relationships have to start anew every single day - if those in the relationships can remember that they're in a relationship. People are lost and drifting. They have nowhere to go and no particular reason to go anywhere anyway. The story seems truly intriguing and on the basis of that premise alone I was pulled in and wanted to see this. And, in the end, it left me disappointed.

Like the people wandering aimlessly, this movie just didn't really seem to go anywhere. It was lifeless and listless. It packed no real punch; it had no real point. There was no particular storyline - aside from the global epidemic - and there was really no resolution at all to anything that we saw. In fact, if anything, the movie ended on as hopeless a note as was struck all the way through. There were moments when I felt some emotional connection (or at least some sympathy) with the characters as they struggled through this insane situation, but I have to say that those moments were few and far between.

Overall, I was disappointed. I really did think that the premise of this story was interesting. It just wasn't well executed. (2/10)

After a global neurological epidemic, those who remain search for meaning and connection in a world without memory.

On its surface, "Embers" is a very simple movie. We have a series of people who have lost their memory to varying degrees. Some can remember for a day, some only minutes. A few seem to be able to push the limits a little bit further. Good science fiction is taking reality as we know it, and pushing the edges out just a bit to what is not yet actual, but possible. And "Embers" succeeds in that endeavor.

Writer-director Claire Carre was fully aware of the importance of keeping the infection idea grounded in reality. "I did a ton of research, looking at different neurological case studies, and specially looking at the lives of people with amnesia… The characters in the film suffer from symptoms similar to the type of brain damage you might get from viral encephalitis." Thus, what we see in "Embers" is entirely possible, as unlikely as it might be that amnesia would occur on a (presumably) global scale.

Whether intentional or not, the film evokes the idea of location as a character in its own right. The filmmakers went out of their way to find just the right settings: an abandoned church in Gary, Indiana and an underground bunker in Poland are two prominent examples. The bunker shown in the film is not a set, but was built as part of the Nazi line of defense during WWII. The spiral staircase scene is real: the stairs run ten stories deep with over twenty miles of underground tunnels to explore. The locations serve as characters because they tell as much of the story – perhaps more – than the humans, showing how much the world has fallen into decay.

Within the simple plot structure, we are left to find subtle messages on our own. At least two dichotomies are evident: Hope versus Chaos, and Freedom versus Safety. Freedom versus Safety is a bit more obvious, as the character of Miranda and her father have a discussion touching on these themes. After years of isolation, she longs to be free, to search for her mother or just to see new surroundings. Her father, perhaps wiser, tries to explain how she is the safest she could ever be: one step outside, and she risks falling victim just like everyone else. So which is the right way to live: alone and safe, or free and struggling?

The character of Chaos is in the form of a man, but could just as easily be a metaphor for chaos in general. The world, left to its own devices, will inevitably decay and turn to dust. He is part of that process, just working at an accelerated rate, killing and smashing as he plows through life like a hurricane. Countering him is Boy, who stands as a metaphor for hope. Just as Chaos wanders, so does Boy, and we get the impression that maybe, possibly, he has not been affected by the virus. Because he is mute we can never fully gauge his memory, but he seems to comprehend the passing of days better than anyone else. If there are more Boys (and Girls) in the world, it may not decay and chaos may not reign after all. This one character (Boy) inverts the whole narrative from a tragic, depressing tale into one of hope.

"Embers" is a complicated film disguised as a simple one. For anyone who wants to see a film about a glimmer of hope in a world at its lowest, this is the film for you. "Embers" premieres July 22 at the Fantasia International Film Festival.

People probably expected something very sciency, with special effects, with the big contagion that gets solved by the brilliant scientist, but it is nothing like that. It just describes, in a pretty slow pace, the aftermath of a global contagion that makes everybody amnesic. People that love each other forget the other exists at random moments, smart intellectuals fight all day to remember who they were by reading their own books (man, that should be another movie altogether!), rich people have built bunkers in which they educate their children who, unfortunately, reach adolescence and become stupid, and so on. There is no storyline, no explanation, no closure. Nothing too brutal, nothing too bloody, just people being people without being themselves.

It is not a great movie, it will not be remembered throughout the ages as a classic of direction or acting or storytelling, but it's not bad either. It's a "what if?" scenario played close to the end and well interpreted.

Took me a while to figure out how to rate this thing, which is always a good high gauge on my barometer of film excellence. Many reviews wanted this to go somewhere. But the complete absence of memory in stark reality, says you wont, because you wont remember where to go. And for those who still have memory, is it worth having if you are isolated? And if you have intelligence, how do you fight this plague? It also gives a stark look at the ID. Who are we without memory, when all we have left, is our basic nature? I have seen many memory loss movies, but this is by far the best. The acting is superlative, on all fronts. Just like any film buff, I like a good conclusion. But I was happy with this negative one, because of the very nature of the subject matter. In this case, the beginning was the ending, and well, visa versa.

This movie takes place in a post apocalyptic future in which some sort of plague has wiped out everyone's short term memory, so everyone is like the main character in Memento. It's an interesting premise, and the atmosphere of the film is great; however, although the film definitely has some artful and well crafted "moments", it never quite comes together as a whole. Worth watching, but not particularly memorable (no pun intended).

I feel like the movie did a good job of portraying the scenario it set out to explore. But it made me really sad, not in an Eternal Sunshine kind of way either, but in an existential way.

Too much fridge horror for my liking. If humanity got hit by a virus like this, our species would essentially be extinct. Given that this is a drama and not a horror movie, it made it all the worse, the stakes are too high and the odds of fixing anything are too low.

It was a disturbing thing because I have personally experienced bouts of amnesia and I can't think of anything scarier than this. I recall how I felt when I saw 50 First Dates, this is taking that concept to a global level and it is very unsettling to explore that on screen.

3/31/18. This was a visual meditation about the importance of memory. When you lose your memory you lose your humanity. There is very little in terms of story lines, just little vignettes of people trying to make it through the day with little memory of who they are and what just happened to them. Very sad. Just think of all these people having Alzheimers and you will understand just how tragic it is to lose one's ability to remember memory. In some ways it's better to have bad memories than to have no memories at all.

Watched this on Amazon. Truly one of the worst movies I have ever watched. Stupid premise... Humanity has been decimated by a virus that causes humans to be incapable of forming memories. If humans could not form memories, we would not remember how to use language and would be incapable of talking to each other.... end of movie.

Embers reveals to us the most valuable, and at the same time, perhaps least-valuable, of human assets: "memory".

Claire Carre takes viewers to a dytopian future in which a virus plaguing a certain civilization forces it to forget all previous events upon waking up from sleep. Through the eyes of a lost couple, seeking refuge in the chaos, the eyes of a psycho sadist, and the eyes of a mute young kid, viewers are guided through the important decisions of what it means to be human.

Unfortunately, the plot offers little more than this metaphor to the meaning of humanity, and how we derive value from life. Those seeking more opinionated or deeper messages in the hard science- fiction genre may have to look elsewhere (or within, as this film would have it). The plot consists of characters struggling to decipher their previous messages they left for themselves, of walking around in a seemingly abandoned city, and acts of humility. Very much like Blindness.

Acting is on point, sets are detailed and accurate, and the music emotes a sombre, melancholy feeling of disarray felt by the confused civilization. However, the lack of character development prevents viewers from becoming attached to any one character. It becomes difficult to track how each story overlaps. Embers leaves most interpretation up to the viewer, perhaps in a recursive fashion, emphasizing the aforementioned "memory" theme. The very metaphorical nature of this film, which makes this film so unique, in fact, plays to its detriment.

Before watching Embers, ask yourself these questions: would I risk forgetting my past and all my memories to not be alone? What is love without memory? Do the people we know define us, and if so, is this just for our own benefit? Are we truly alone in our experience, and if experience isn't subjective, what IS real?

If you'd like to experience the mood of a post-apocalyptic world, then this movie delivers. Not too scientific, not too spectacular (although they did find a number of really cool places to shoot), and not too deeply thought-provoking. But it's compelling, and worth a watch for movie enthusiasts who are hunting for a rarity.

The cinematograpy and soundtrack is brilliant (maybe a few too long shots got in there, but oh well) and the actors do a good job once the movie "kicks in". The first few minutes are awkward though, and yes, I'm talking about umbrella man. :D.

The movie lacks a usual "heros's arch" or any type of plot beyond its premise - maybe intentionally so. Although it shows us what I believe to be basic archetypes of characters humans can be in a situation like this. Some are an incoherent mess, some resort to violence to get what they want, and others try to be smart, finding workarounds to their new kinds of problems.

All in all, I do not regret watching it, and even look forward to seeing other works from the director in the future.

Originality is a rare treat in modern cinema and more likely found in small independent productions. Huge marketing budgets for mainstream movies flood us with hype to overshadow gems like Embers (2015). Labelled a 'sci-fi drama' it is only loosely based on the tropes and conventions of science fiction. Brilliantly filmed against a dystopian background, the essence of the story could have been presented in any timeframe or setting.

Embers is a direction-less story framed around several unconnected vignettes that depict daily life for people without memory. It is set at a time and place several years after a devastating global catastrophe unleashed a neurological disease that destroyed memory functions. Amidst the ruins of civilisation, we meet a wealthy father and daughter who have survived the virus by sheltering deep inside their fully equipped high-tech bunker. The bored daughter is desperate to see the outside but the father warns that once she leaves there is no turning back. Outside we encounter several scenarios of victims whose every day starts and ends nowhere in particular because they do not remember their name, where they have been, where they are going or who they are. Their only preoccupation is finding food and staying alive. We see a former professor reading the lines of a book again and again, unable to connect their meaning to anything he learnt before. A small boy wanders from stranger to stranger without fear or memory of where he belongs. A violent youth is in a constant rampage, smashing whatever he can, but he cannot remember what has made him so angry. A couple greet each other every day as if they never met, but sense they might be related only because they are wearing similar wristbands. All are eerie scenarios that hang in limbo without connection to anything or anyone else.

This film is an open book to be interpreted as metaphor, philosophy or narrative. By depicting life without memory, we can imagine what would happen if the neurological thread that connects us to time and space suddenly unravelled. Memory is the ultimate hyper-link that connects moments to years, us to others, and a single idea to knowledge of the ages. Unlike instincts in animals, human memory allows complex learning. The professor falls back on instinct when he cannot remember how to chop wood but with axe in hand his body responds in the correct sequence. Without memory, the violent youth cannot control his instinct to destroy, just like nations that do not learn from history and wage wars long after the threat or insult is forgotten. At all levels of interpretation, it is memory that joins the dots of life.

The line between science fiction and fantasy rests entirely on plausibility. Putting a sci-fi label on this film has kept it out of view for many audiences. It is a deep, thought-provoking film that is light on action but rich in dialogue that explores a taken-for-granted human function. It is not that far removed from reality, as amnesia or other mental conditions are well known. This film's production values are disproportionate to its budget; it is cleverly filmed and well-acted with a script full of complex ideas that can leave you pondering deeply for days. It's an original gem of a film.

A couple (Jason Ritter, Iva Gocheva) wakes up in a rundown place with no memories. It's a world suffering memory lost after some unknown trauma. The movie follows various characters, each with varying degrees of memory lost.

I like the little kid's journey. I feared the couple would be siblings right from the start. I don't know why they don't consider that possibility. I would prefer to follow the kid only and have a point with the journey. The other characters can interact with the kid along the way. It's an intriguing premise. It constructs an interesting world but the meandering don't always deliver a required story punch.

This is a good subject to play, but he made a stream of consciousness. The storylines of couples and children can be separated into separate stories. Four lines, without any intersection, cut the whole movie apart.

A film about memory that will trigger future memories for me of its many haunting moments and images. An incredibly ambitious accomplishment of genuine independent filmmaking (both in theme, design, and execution). The always delightful Jason Ritter (here in a heartbreaking role; a simple beat he takes with a water bottle is among the most poignant scenes in recent cinema), and some thoroughly confident and brilliant actors new-to-me whom I hope to see again (Iva Gocheva, Roberto Cots, Greta Fernandez) made this well worth the viewing, along with the surprise of discovering a director (Claire Carre) who will surely deliver many fascinating films in the future.

A sometimes fascinating film with great atmosphere and an original premise. However, it's a film with no point whatsoever. It goes nowhere. You learn nothing from it. It hasn't a real ending as there apparently is no ending to this science fiction tale of, I assume, planet wide memory loss. The two leads, more or less, Jason Ritter and Iva Gocheva, are very attractive, very appealing and both do a good job here. There are other characters, but none have much of an impact other than the odd presence of a character portrayed by Karl Glusman. He's violent as hell, apparently over and over again, but there is no interaction with the primary characters, so what the point of his presence is escapes me. There are some, I assume very rich, that can retain their memory, but the life they need to lead is no better than the ones with no memory. This had a lot of potential and I must admit I was a captive audience, but the writers seemed to have forgotten what the ending was supposed to be.

. . .

well, pardon my bizarre humor as i know those who liked this movie very much (its makers in particular) may be offended by what i just said but please believe me you: being offensive wasn't even the least i had in mind when saying that ...

yes, this is a good 'artistic films festival' movie, certainly not intended for tv or movie theaters showing the usual everyday kind of movies for profit more than for art ... and it surely has some important social commentary in it as well, which is what i like in any genre of art after all ... it's also good to see some people in the younger generations of movie makers still do this sort of thing ...

but having been away from the art film festivals for a long several decades since the 1970s, i find such movies not exactly boring, but not quite 'entertaining' either ...

agreed; i'm kind of old school i have to admit, preferring to watch the kind of movies that can satisfy all kinds of viewers in one single package rather than aiming at an intellectual minority audience only ...

take Chaplin or Keaton or the Marx Brothers and many others whose movies can make you laugh this minute and cry the next ... sounds kind of 'manic depressive' perhaps but no matter how empty people's pockets may be, such movies gain a much larger crowd going to pay dearly to watch such works of art for example ...

hence why i said this kind of story wold probably be better if it were a 'bright comedy' instead of a dark drama ... or a mixture of both ... although i have to also add it's not too dark after all ... which is a positive point of course ... but when we're living in an overall dark period of time historically, would it really help us if we spend our 'leisure time' dealing with more dark stuff too? i really like to find a good answer for that ...