MovieChat Forums > Aftershock (2014) Discussion > What ruined this film...

What ruined this film...

posted 11 years ago by Protecious
21 replies | jump to latest

I hate to say this but as the viewer of the film you expect from the start that Eli Roth is the star of the film and will be in it from beginning to end, however that is not the case and then the film basically shifts from there, and not in a good way, if you had another supporting character you actually cared about that would then takeover the main character after Eli Roth dies then it would be interesting, however, this film does not offer such a thing, this film is a failure because if this character situation...IMO

[–] cpheonix 11 years ago

To be fair that doesn't happen until 3 quarters of the way through and i guess it was more for shock value. But I agree it needed a strong main character for us to feel empathy with.

However, I wouldn't say that ruined the film. I just could've been better with one.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] totallynavy 11 years ago

Actually, that's probably the only part I liked. To me, it seemed pretty obvious Eli Roth's character would be a survivor...until he totally got burned to death. It upended my expectations, which I always enjoy in a horror movie. Predicting who gets picked off first gets pretty dull after about the first 200 horror movies that do it. I feel the short haired girl character picks up the role of 'sort-of-survivor girl' pretty well, though she probably needed a little more backstory (we get the random abortion story, need for anxiety meds, and that goes absolutely nowhere).

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Black_Dahlia 11 years ago

Why did he give up the girls to the prisoners? Not only did it turn his sympathetic character into a lout, it made no sense as he was already a dead man. In that being pinned under ten tons of concrete and coughing up blood from mashed internal organs makes one a dead man.

[–] clownfishboy 10 years ago

He never gave them up. The first girl just jumped out when they were right about to set him on fire. Just watched it yesterday.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] A-Zupreme 10 years ago

He was a father ("I have a daughter!") and was forced into a 'save myself or save them' situation and he took the non-heroic route, probably because he didn't know the two ladies that well and he wanted to survive to see his daughter again.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] darkness_surroundz 9 years ago

i actually think that as the prisoner put the lighter next to him and said "Where are the girls-or else"-he kind of looked in their direction and then the one girl jumped out;

All these pretty pussies in tight skirts and 8" heels-what a great time for an EQ

[–] askmonroville 9 years ago

I think it had something to do with him being in shock, pain and being threatened with being burned alive. Frankly, I'm surprised the girls came back (since they knew the criminals were following them), much less continue to run back down the corridor.

[–] ScorpionTDC 11 years ago

Agreed :/
The death order was REALLY surprising... But I just didn't really care for them asides from Eli, Ariel, and kinda the girl who got shot right after Eli died.

I just wasn't invested in the rest. Not bad, just not interesting or likeable

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ScorpionTDC 11 years ago

I have an imagination, and I loved the bait-and-switch in Hostel :/
I just DON'T think it worked well in this because I disliked the replacement leads

Death Awaits you (Horror forum)
http://w11.zetaboards.com/Death_Awaits/index/

[–] Tutankhamun (85) 6 years ago

Death order was pure ass, the two most likeable chars died early, and the two least too late

[–] volkstraum 11 years ago

What ruined this film?

*The unrealistic deaths and blood soaking everything. It got irritating how implausible the death sequences were. Pollo's friend and like 30 natives slid down the tram track like 30 feet and into a collapsible wood house. Yet they all died in a pile of bloody meat like they were from a plane crash. It only got worse from there.

*The low production values. We were supposed to assume it was populated, metro area. Then everyone vanished during attempted dramatic sequences. Even during the crowd scenes, everything looked so sparse and small. The constant interactions with three or four people seem like its out of a Lifetime movie.

*The pervasive violence. The first instance of police on the street shows about seven looters equipped with molotov cocktails and they attack a sad contingient of maybe six police around a VW microbus dressed like a riot tank. Lame, lame, lame.

*The Ending. A day after the initial tremor? Really?

"I can't help but notice that there are skulls all over everything. Are we the baddies?"

[–] steve112547 11 years ago

Just for perspective, consider that the entire city was in ruins and the police were spread thin to the breaking point (as were the fire crews). The few riot police on that particular street were trying to stop the looting and arson.

The armored car is very common in Chile for riot control (disasters, student or political demonstrations, etc), the nickname is "Guanacos" because the water cannons are reminiscent of that small llama-like animal that spits if provoked.

Everything happens to me! Now Im shot by a child! (Tom Chaney)

[–] askmonroville 9 years ago

I thought it was more like 4 to 6 hours. Remember how they were staying up till 4 to 5 AM in the morning, and they posted the time stamps?

I can see your point, but I think I liked this better than SAN ANDREAS. I actually appreciated the lower key approach, as well as showing what happens to humans when caught in a natural disaster (sorry, but it IS going to be messy).

[–] Digital_excitation 10 years ago

You are probably too young to know this, but in the 80s there were plenty of such movies where everything went bad and where there actually weren't 'main characters'. It was refreshing!

Your/our assumption that 'there must be at least one survivor' (in a story), is like a 'good over evil'-fairytale. It doesn't happen in real life... That's what I liked about this one, 'the good ol' days'. Save to say that stories like these aren't popular. No one wants to have that feeling of despair afterwards (except...).

The killing of main characters is on the rebound though: Game of Thrones killed Sean Bean, Under the Dome killed Jeff Fahey to name a few.

[–] Mathias001 10 years ago

You are probably too young to know this, but in the 80s there were plenty of such movies where everything went bad and where there actually weren't 'main characters'. It was refreshing!

I'm definitely old enough to remember those types of movies. I grew up on 70's and early 80's movies. Call me weird or heartless but I like movies (especially horror) where nobody survives. What ruined movies for me is that Final Girl crap that's been done to death (no pun). I really liked Bereavement (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1100051/) because the "Final Girl" gets it. I only wish more movies did that instead of following the same old boring formula.

Now regarding this movie. Nothing really ruined it for me but I did notice something that was disturbing. It was really mean spirited towards the male characters. Every male character (the core 3 and secondary ones) suffered to some degree (very horribly in Eli Roth's case) before they died whereas the female ones didn't. IIRC the females died instantly without any suffering. Well the one in the tunnel with the "fireman" suffered a little but nowhere near the degree of the males. This is a disturbing trend I've noticed in movies and on network TV. One example is the show Stalker. On one episode a man is set on fire and dies horribly in front of his fiancee. Now I can't remember ever seeing a TV show where a woman dies like that.

Hell one guy loses his hand and spends a portion of the movie without it. That would be extremely painful. I don't know. Movies don't usually faze me but this one did.

---------------------
Long live the 70s!

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]