MovieChat Forums > The Last Seven Discussion > What just.. what the.. what the hell is ...

What just.. what the.. what the hell is this bs?


Dont even try watching this, i mean watch twilight or something if your after something crap but this? this is just another level of complete *beep* i dont even know what to say.

reply

You're a moron.

reply

No, that's a fairly accurate assessment of the quality of the film.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

sorry, gotta agree, the only people who claim to enjoy this conclusion are the ones who want to feel smart.

reply

gotta agree with you Justin, about the few people who claim this movie is great :P ...the movie wasn't enjoyable or great

reply

Bah.
I just watched it, and I liked it, honestly I loved it.
But I won't hold you responsible for your wrong opinion :P

reply

I must agree it wasn't great, but it wasn't bad either. I don't want to sound smart at all. I really enjoyed this film from the middle to the end (the beginning was a bad 28 Days Later rip-off). Pretty decent movie with nice plot, mediocre acting and some great cinematography of London.

reply

Spot on. What an awful film. Its like a student film or something. I had to laugh a danny dyer, he is a real joke.

'just lost the last thought in my head...what happens now?'

reply

Yep, watched it and wish I hadn't. If you like the scenario, England all vacant and whatnot, without a crap ending. Get A Quiet Earth.

reply

The movie you referred to is titled The Quiet Earth and it's not set in London, it's set in New Zealand and it's a a science fiction classic, everybody should see it.

reply

Yes, the film is mostly terrible. But I would say it's the directing and some of the acting. What I did like was the 'twist' at the end, the general meaning of the movie which I didn't expect.

Very cool idea, too bad they did such a crap job on it. Perhaps a decent director in the US can present a good remake, though knowing the end kills it anyways.....

reply

I personally didn't like it, but that doesn't mean theres anything wrong with those who did. Maybe you guys have family & friends who worked on the film, who knows.

I disagree with saying they did a crap job on the film. Theres always more to it. The director, writers, editors, etc., all had a hand in the final product, so who's to say where it went wrong. As far a a remake? Why & what for? For all you know that could have film exactly as written. Having a decent US director? Umm, sorry but that has to be the dumbest comment so far in this thread. If you're gonna dump on the directing, simply saying "A better director" would suffice. Great directors are not limited to the US...in fact 80% of the all time greatest are not American.

reply

Dumbest comment? I didn't mean to imply that American director's are better in any matter, just different. I prefer foreign films BEFORE someone in the US has remade the film, so that's my bias. In this case, I was thinking that a different approach might be better, regardless of where it's from (just using the common UK to US history).......

It might also be other positions that had a part, but I look to the director as the final say. Especially things like the lame, over used sound effects. It was just a mess. The end product should be the 'vision' of the director, regardless of who works the film.

reply

this film was poorly written, good idea but very very badly executed, poor actors, poor direction, what can i say?, this was one of the worst films i have ever seen and i have watched some crap, yes i got the story and it didn't make the film any better, honestly some people put their names to some bad films, shame on everyone involved in this film, it was over complicated when it really didn't need to be it was a simple idea they had for this film and overcomplicate it with stupid flashbacks that didn't tell what it should of, honestly forget this waste of time

reply

[deleted]

The problem with this film is the way they set out to make it: They had half the story worked out (maybe less than), with the idea that certain characters must have xyz happen to them at some point. Then they asked writers to submit their ideas/treatments for the second half of the film. They also had a cast list of characters (complete with actors they either wanted to play the roles or for the writers to use these actors as inspiration). To me, this is not how you write a screenplay - limiting the writer by stating "Its got to start off being about xyz, and feature these people..."... why not just let the writer come up with the whole story and characters themselves?

reply

*beep* all of u i hate imdb sometimes i can talk and sometimes i need to verify my *beep* account i mean wtf cmon i neevr has trouble in the past posting i *beep* U MOTHER IMDB *beep* YOUR MOM I *beep* YOUR MOM *beep* HERR TILL SHE LOVES ME

reply

I can see why people dislike the movie, it's production values isn't top notch. But if you honestly think this movie is the worst you've ever seen, I'd say you haven't seen a lot of movies or perhaps you like crap? Since I can name a ton of movies, many that you probably have seen, that I personally think is worse but also those that really are way worse as a fact when it comes to writing, acting and production.

Now personally I enjoyed this film, just watched it. I'm not saying it's a masterpiece in any way, but as a low budget independet (?) film it was certainly an interesting take, and as I said, enjoyable (at least to me). Now I did have a problem with some of the casting. Might be spoilers below.

1. Sebastian Street as Robert Kendrick. This was the type of character that was made out as the leader of the group. Now he didn't look at all like a "Captain", his boyish looks didn't make me respect him. Him bossing around Tamer Hassan as Jack Mason was just hilarious. Mostly ridicilous.

2. John Mawson as Henry Chambers. I can see why he got to play a minister, they got his look right. But his acting was a horrid mess. Don't think I can find a minutes length of decent acting out of him. God, who is this guy. Did they find him in the streets?

Somone I liked though was Daisy Head as Chloe, I thought she delivered a solid performance, mostly pretty good actually. There where some other decent/good performances aswell, but I was mostly surprised to see such a young and inexperienced actress that still delivered. Definetly will keep an eye out for any other role she might take up. Tamer Hassan I thought also delivered but not surprised since he's particapated in a lot more films. Simon Philips was alright aswell, not all the way through sadly.



One who knows nothing, can understand...nothing.

reply

I only watched half of it before I couldn't stand it anymore.

After the first 15 minutes I should've turned it off, but I guess I was bored and in a silly mood.

Here's what happens in the first 15 minutes:

0:00 - 2:30 The opening. I'm sure it meant something, and I won't trash it.
2:30 - 13:30 Guy walks around an empty city. ELEVEN MINUTES OF LITERALLY JUST THIS.
13:30 Guy thinks he hears voices. Thank god finally something's happening.
13:30 - 15:30 Guy walks around an empty city again. 13 total minutes now. That's almost 1/6 of the running time.

I took a break at 50:00 then came back in a more sensible mood. Since still nothing interesting had happened I was SO through patronizing this ridiculous horse crap.

reply