MovieChat Forums > Afterschool (2008) Discussion > Why I didn't like this movie

Why I didn't like this movie

posted 14 years ago by DefLowd
7 replies | jump to latest

1. None of these characters seemed like actual human beings to me. There was no humor or depth to any of them. They seemed like emotionless robots moving from scene to scene and acting either sullen, cruel or detached, especially the protagonist Rob. The conversation between Rob and his teacher when the teacher says "Your mom has crabs so big I ride them to work," which is supposed to be comical is just another example of how the writer is unable to write pleasant interaction between human beings, which DOES happen in the real world. Not everyone is a complete *beep* even in High School.

2. The direction is mostly just long single shots of the scene from a distance, without cutting or even focusing on the the attention of the scene. It gets really old very quickly, and could not keep my attention.

3. The point? What was it? That the internet culture makes you sullen, cruel, and detached? That Rob is unable to interact with girls and openly share himself without putting a camera on them like a reality tv show/youtube clip, and that he then will want to recreate despicable acts that he saw in porn? The idea that Rob can only interact with people through his camera/other people's camera has been done before like in the film "Peeping Tom" which is far more entertaining. Also, the only people who think that way are aspiring film directors (i.e. the writer/director of the film) and film fanatics who only can understand reality through watching movies. Most of the population does not think this way and cannot relate to this, myself included.

4. In the end I was disappointed because I was hoping the film would have something fresh and new to say about Internet culture, as it's so revolutionary and integral to our lives, with very little great art exploring that point. Instead it was the same point that filmmakers have made before, that some people (namely film people) use film as a means to interact with people/life.

5. This article http://nymag.com/news/features/27341/ does a much better job describing how internet social networking/videos/pictures has changed society and human interaction. I would recommend reading this article instead of spending two hours watching Afterschool fail to make a similar point.

[–] lcoelho2 14 years ago

totally missed dah point =D
nuff' said

[–] Demian Cypher 13 years ago

I agree with the second post - the first poster missed the point entirely. Though, if one has completely bought into the "internet is such a wonderful revolutionary advancement" hype and can't admit to any possible negative effects on those who (over)use it, and thus tries to psychologically distance oneself from a character who displays these effects by ridiculously claiming that only film people (whoever they are) feel that way, one is liable to miss the point, of the film and of many other things. For example, saying the cinematography "didn't hold your attention" because it rarely cut to multiple angles on the same scene ... it's not up to a filmmaker to "capture" or "hold" the audience's attention; it's up to the audience to pay attention (otherwise they have no business watching a film).

[–] clancy6969 13 years ago

I felt the ending was a bit cheap, like it was added for shock value.
What was his reason for doing that? His motives weren't very clear. I do not think this was the directors intention, I just don't think he properly developed the main character enough.

[–] Tattoed_Hippie_Momma 13 years ago

I totally agree with you that the ending gave no answers like motive for him doing that. And that they did not develop the main character properly. There was a lot of potential for this film but I feel like it fell short and they should have added more substance to the movie instead of some of the meaningless shots.

"You're to sweet for Rock and Roll" Penny Lane (Almost Famous)

[–] dankohner1 11 years ago

What are you talking about " it's not up to a filmmaker to "capture" or "hold" the audience's attention". Are you just that blind. That is the exact point of film makers job, to "capture" or "hold" the audience's attention. If not people are going to get up and walk out. People go to the movies to watch the movie ie. pay attention. If the movie is as pointless, boaring and just plain dumb as this film, people walk out. If this film was any better it would have been on more then just one screen.

[–] Tattoed_Hippie_Momma 10 years ago

I agree with you. If the movie was good it would keep your attention and it is the filmmakers job that's what they get paid to do!!! You can't make yourself pay attention to something that isn't worth wasting your attention on:)

"Imperfection is Beauty" Marilyn Monroe

[–] saad_sa11 13 years ago

You were expecting this film to tell you a new message? This theme of video obsession has been done before, like you mentioned "Peeping Tom" and also "Videodrome". As long as it's a fresh take on it, this time just changing the setting to a prep school with a young creepy student, with post-Columbine shock. Every theme in existence has been done already in all mediums of art.

I was mostly impressed with the film with how "dead" the cinematography is, which matches the atmosphere of the private school. My 6th form school was just like this, the people were not very enthusiastic or "human" as you would describe. I don't mind the supporting characters being one-note, because this is a character study of the protagonist. I haven't seen such an emotionally caged character in quite a while, since "American Psycho".