Matcollis This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.

PiraBit if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Ava-Grace Willis Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

Quiet Muffin This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

Joel Waite A 3.5 rating goes to those films that have acting from a high school play, crappy special effects, and a weak story. This film may be a bit slow, but it's not overly so. The acting may not be Hollywood, but it's rather decent. The bad rating is probably in part because it's not an action film. This is more a 'day in the life' story. As they say; 'combat is 90% boredom and 10% shear terror', and so this story goes. The bad rating might also be because the bad guys story isn't strong and distinct, with each character not fully fleshed out. This makes the overall story weak. Add in the slow pace and there you have it..Generally it was interesting, and it deserves at least a 5.3 rating.

tizianoscott This is one of those films I'm glad I took the "risk" and decided to watch no matter how many poor reviews were on this site. I'm learning to be suspicious when a movie'a been rated by as few as 100 people, let alone 22!I love post-apocalyptic movies for how they envision humanity will survive. That's the gist of this film.I've seen a lot of Hollywood movies with tons of effects and absolutely no story; of course "2012" comes to mind. The effects were lots of fun but what a disappointment "story"-wise. Why even waste the money if there's no story?Here is a film with basically no effects that I found very satisfying for the storyline, the acting and interactions between the characters.Parts were nebulous, but that added to the story; it mixed things up a bit.So overall very entertaining and a great use of my time.I recommend it.

Argemaluco In the last years,there has been an explosion of movies with a post-apocalyptic subject and I think there are two reasons for that : worldwide situation is everyday more dangerous and unpredictable and that inspires to speculate what life is going to be like in the days after our civilization goes down because of its vices and mistakes.The other reason is technical : the easy access to audio and video equipment,accompanied with the edition and digital distribution,makes easier the creation of cheap movies about the future world which will be full of danger (translation : filmmaker aspirants,who have more enthusiasm than talent,call some of their friends,and on their free time,they make a semi-improvised movie using old clothes,artificial blood and a location lent by some member of their family).20 Years After could have been one of that generic movies because of the amateur performances,mistakes on the art direction and an irregular visual style.However,I give credit to this movie because it avoids a lot of clichés from this kind of movies (for example,the zombies)and because it tried to do something deeper,more realistic and meditative about the future world.In other words,the element I mostly appreciated from this movie is its ambition.I also appreciated the deepness put on the characters because,thinking it well,they all represent different aspects of the humanity.I may be giving this movie too much credit but I noticed that behind the various fails from this movie (for example,the screenplay is irregular and there are some boring moments),there are solid concepts and a clear porpoise...although the movie did not completely achieve that.The story from this movie sounds as an ultra-modest version of the film Children of Men and,of course,this film very far away from that brilliant movie.But,inside its limited possibilities,it tries to make us think at the same time it entertains us.20 Years After does not always get that difficult point but I still respect this film because it tried to go a bit more far away.So,I can recommend this movie as a failed but interesting experiment.In summary,what I mostly appreciated from 20 Years After is that it risked to fail for making something more creative and ambitious than what this kind of post-apocalyptic low-budget films usually do.As I have said many times,it's better to see a movie which failed for trying to go beyond its limits than a movie which failed for not risking.So,because of that,20 Years After deserves respect.

dazzleddb This movie is only any good if you like horrible movies.Nothing made sense. And when I say nothing, I mean: nothing. I don't think I've ever asked the question "What?" so many times in the span of a couple hours.The music never seemed to match the scene. The dummy was completely unnecessary. The acting was horrendous. Azura's character was not okay with having her baby in a cave (w/fresh spring water) but was perfectly fine with giving birth in an abandoned building. My biggest problem is with the baby crazed woman. She gives birth to a less than perfect baby (large birth marks and mentally handicapped) and is extremely bitter about it, so much so that she's abusive towards him.