Comments on: Review: Philosophical Thriller ‘After The Dark’ Collapses Under A Nifty Concept

By: Matt

Matt — Fri, 13 May 2016 08:12:08 +0000

I still quite like the movie. I mean, you wish for it to be a very intellectual thing, you seek plot holes and you want to destroy it. But it's not so much about philosophy, it's just a metaphor of the relation between the teacher and the girl. See those "plot-holes", they are hints that this is not logical, because the characters want to prove a point, and drift from philosophy (human nature is flawed, they talked about that if I remember. Because the movie also drifted from what you wanted to see, doesn't mean that it's bad

By: Try to understand

Try to understand — Fri, 13 May 2016 08:12:08 +0000

What it appears this reviewer is missing, and possibly the majority of viewers, is that this movie is ITSELF a thought experiment.

The professor taking the role of "Wildcard" forces the group to realize they are unaware of their ignorance, and understanding that is a first step.

In the first act, the principles relevant to the proper involvement in this experiment are explained by the Socratic method. The first iteration of the experiment demonstrates the layman thought process, and the usual consequences of it. The second iteration showed the educated thought process, and the consequences. The THIRD iteration showed the enlightened thought process, and that enlightened thinking isn't affected by the outcome at all.

The movie wasn't perfect, but it shows the starting point of philosophical thought, and promises the peace that can be attained by commitment to a lifestyle devoted to it. The relationship between the professor, and Petra; demonstrates the professor trying to regain the happiness he sacrificed by following philosophy, while Petra demonstrates that his loss of happiness was due to his pursuing it too narrowly.

Petra finally breaks from the student role she was playing, showing that to perpetually seek knowledge is the key to everything, even though she had already surpassed her teacher. Yet she understood that there is truth to be found in everything, and a thought experiment is a workout for the brain. She concluded the class by flexing her strength, and showing the professor that there is a solution to the impossible problem he tried to create, and that it was his limited view of what philosophy is which caused him to "fail" in his task. Ultimately, the class following Petra, and abandoning the professor; demonstrates the defeat of his elitism, in favour of insight.

There is an incalculable distance for the characters in this movie to journey after walking out of the class, but it is their own task to follow the path. Such is the fact in real life as well. Finishing school tends to be seen as the end of one chapter, and on to a new one, but it is actually a means to acquire the education one requires to educate themself. It is still, and will always be, up to the student to continue their education.

Nobody said the answers would come easy, or that they would be obvious.

By: Maxagain

Maxagain — Fri, 13 May 2016 08:12:08 +0000

Another look at this entire movie reveals that it really comes down to the teachers way of doing things which is by way of logic and critical thinking, and the young student he's in love with goes by emotion and joy and all three thought experiments are manifestations of where they are at in life and how they think, feel and live. Ultimately at the end it's revealed that their relationship can't contiue as the young student doesn't will it. It's an interesting look although at two different approach two life. This is a movie you could watch more then once and get more and more out of it.

By: Max

Max — Fri, 13 May 2016 08:12:08 +0000

I think it's pretty clear what the movie is about. The teach is trying to push logical thinking but the students buck that plan by showing that sometimes even picking the most logical candidates for the bunker doesn't necessarily mean things are going to work out for the better. The students are showing that chaos often overtakes logic in situations like this. They run through the experiment three different times and largely get the same result, only in the final one most are happier even though they reach the same conclusion.

The ending may confuse some. The teacher pulls the gun and shoots himself, lost without the young teenage girl who is his love and his muse. But then we see him walk up the stairs again as well as sit and look out a window. The teacher is in his own thought experiment on how to deal with the fact that he cannot be with the student.

By: Scott

Scott — Fri, 13 May 2016 08:12:08 +0000

I liked the movie despite seeming long and having a few holes like the remembering of the code as I felt the scenarios should independently solve the problems of survival. I did feel the ending was somewhat weak but fitting. The teacher that was so damn worried about his student's scenarios saving the human race could not cope and save his own life. The depiction of Allegory of a Cave was interesting as that by far is my favorite bit of philosophy. I feel the teacher fit what Plato wrote as Socrates describing the unsuitability for someone whose education never ends being unfit to handle the matters of the State. The best leaders are those who have seen the truth and are willing to reenter the cave and do the work even though that work is not enjoyable. In the end, we are evolved animals and spiritual beings with both our unique qualities and persistence in the face of certain defeat being required for survival. After all, did the last carrier pigeon not feed her young because the situation was hopeless. The teacher would have, but none of his students would. Socrates was right.

By: Dan

Dan — Fri, 13 May 2016 08:12:08 +0000

Doesn't this show that our society is being held back by things like religion and sexuality? We shouldn't care as much about those things, and care more about making the world a better place and striving to perpetuate the human race.
I'd say this is a really good movie and makes you think a lot, if you keep an open mind and look at all angles of the story.

By: rhea

rhea — Fri, 13 May 2016 08:12:08 +0000

i am no expert in philosophy.the teacher advertises the idea where survival is done through facts(as he shoots the poet because he wont be any useful)
and petra choses survival through living life fully by enjoying their last year on earth.though i have to say that i did not understand the relationship between the teacher and student until james confronts the teacher.

By: Samuel Agu

Samuel Agu — Fri, 13 May 2016 08:12:08 +0000

the movie great,

By: John

John — Fri, 13 May 2016 08:12:08 +0000

Typical movie-making drivel, where at the end we learn the impetus for the discussion is a secret affair between the teacher and a student. Waste of time.

By: Caitie

Caitie — Fri, 13 May 2016 08:12:08 +0000

This movie was awesome. The ending was yes a mind trick that I can't solve but otherwise you understand that the story is indeed a love story of the teaching trying to show the student how he was the better choice using the only methods he knows; phliosophy.

By: Dustin

Dustin — Fri, 13 May 2016 08:12:08 +0000

I think the director tried to tie the whole movie up just as we all try to tie our justifications and reasons for our own lives. All the teacher wanted was the student, everything else was nonsense. Maybe the teacher shot the Petra's boyfriend and was walking back up the stairs and to his desk? Maybe he believes our human struggle is one of our grasp on love and it becomes our own demise with the murder from the mans perspective. Then the shower scene with Petra being insincere when her boyfriend tells her he loves her is the women's version of undoing by not knowing what she wants.

By: Guru

Guru — Fri, 13 May 2016 08:12:08 +0000

Regarding comment: "The final shot could literally be experienced as one big âf**k youâ to the whole study of philosoph".. Well, the writer lost it all, after I was thinking Wow this writer must be scrutinising every theory in phlosophy in his/her mind while watching the movie. The final shot was actually a revelation as well as a culmination of what started off: Ego-clash. Ego-clash between TWO strong protaganists: 1 the Girl (Sophie) & other Professor. In first 2 iterations, professor was trying to convey the message to Sophie's lover that he was not worthy of Sophie's affection and that he is the most important man for her, but then Sophie understood his plot and took over in 3rd iteration when she discarded Professor from being super-important and giving a different take on LOGIC of choosing right people (by not going by logic, but her heart)..What ever she did was to defy the professor, even by not choosing her for bunker in last iteration. Hence, the movie was clash of egoes between Prof who want to win her from her bf and her trying to take lead in making him realise that he is actually her past and that she want to spend rest of her life with her new lover.

By: Amit Heaven

Amit Heaven — Fri, 13 May 2016 08:12:08 +0000

I agree completely with this review. I found the movie very intriguing throughout the first 3/4 of the movie, during the last quarter, however, the real underlying premise was revealed. This revelation sabotaged the value of the entire film as we pretty much feel like wasting the entire time going through a rigged thought experiment for a jealous and shallow philosophical teacher's selfish and irresponsible attempt to prove he has better genes than one of his students so he can get the girl, at the expense of everyone else in the class and "in the theater". That simply cheapens EVERYTHING about this film, and makes his dedication to philosophy hypocritical.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Fri, 13 May 2016 08:12:08 +0000

Here's my take on this movie;
The first and second act were the professor trying to show why he was eventually the best partner for Petra and that Rhys (boyfriend) was not and would also leave her if circumstances called for it (he turning gay). The third act was her showing the professor why she took her boyfriend, who was in every rational way inferior to the professor, over him by convincing the whole class from the importance of qualifications to other attributes like culture and simple enjoyment.

By: Ong

Ong — Fri, 13 May 2016 08:12:08 +0000

Something interesting to note. The experiment was performed 3 times, and the ending scene has 3 iterations. Could it be related?

By: Ben

Ben — Fri, 13 May 2016 08:12:08 +0000

This movie was a hard to grasp one at that. I recently took a philosophy class and, although it was me and two or three others who actually participated in any in class discussion, even setting up class studying, I thought this movie played well on the ideas that were presented in the beginning.
The end scenario or whatever it was actually called was a play on the fact that ignorance is bliss. The idea was to have fun in the bunker and to be human. Not superior than human and it's debatable whether that was a good gene pool or not.

She was making a point to the professor and this statement was reinforced later that "The perfect match isn't the most best/compatible match." Recall that the professor said that he and her would be a better match by meaning of proper genes. I think truly this movie was more of a point against eugenics and the more perfect world we would be in. The one girl reminded the professor that no strong nation was ever built with out a strong working class. This is why some saw so many plot holes. I also thought why drag on these bunker scenes until after the fact now that I understand why. As someone who has debated both for and against eugenics this is a popular theme for a debate against eugenics.

Truly a good movie and a must watch. Sorry for rambling on, but I came to figure out what the point if this movie was about and I completely answered it myself and for others. I tried to tone myself down but I love writing essays.

By: panos

panos — Fri, 13 May 2016 08:12:08 +0000

im not a top notch smart person, but i start to worry about the intelligence of the westerners. smart and innovative film? the plotholes were so numerous that you cannot watch this film even as a whole big allegory. it cant even happen if you consider we were watching the possible scenarios unfoldling in front of our eyes in a movie form but that would be impossible since we have 20 people anyone with his own character and opinions. how all these synchrinize and blend perfectly in a unified whole without any problems? the very rules were so loose in that "though experiment" that you could put whatever crap the thoughts they did were also not so smart and the plans they made were super flawed. the wholeyou wanted in there. in the end meaning was like, no brains are needed, screw mechanical engineers and all, we just need poets, harpists and philosophers (i bet colleges like that did were the major sponsors of the movie. come to us! it doesnt matter that you wont find a job afterwards…). and also dont forget gay rights and gay genes that should pass were an important issue here (puke from all aspects). wow that was a bad movie, but could give you some food for that of what could be a good movie with similar basis…

By: Jack

Jack — Fri, 13 May 2016 08:12:08 +0000

Okay this review bothered me in many ways. I'll take a select couple:

"There could be those viewers who may be able to watch this film and not mind its message, but then we'd have to put our philosophy hats on and question wether these viewers ever attended a philosophy class…"

That's just it. This movie doesn't require you to take a philosophy class. All that you're given is discussed within the movie. And what this does is invite thoughts derived outside of philosophy and logic. That's the whole message of the story. Even the movie points out that philosophy applied to reality, is like masturbation is to sex. There is no monkey on a typewriter; there is no infinite time.

"…but once that lever was pulled and the film's concept was rendered pointless, we only cared about the answer to one question: 'when is this going to end?'"

Good God. Another use of "we" in order to convince our minds into thinking that if you loved this movie, you would be the minority. Why don't you use a more fitting word: "I"? You're as pretentious as you claim the movie to be.

The third act was to illustrate defiance. It's not about common sense. The teacher didn't use any in his given scenarios, so why should the students live according to his rules back. They basically said, we choose those that entertain so they can enjoy their short life, and then implode. You have a teacher who dictates logic to be the guiding principle to survival, yet his whole reason for this was out of emotion. That's why he was so trigger-happy. Shooting the poet without even considering the second part of him (that could be valuable) is the same thing as shooting himself. Why? Because the teacher said he was a wild card. Nobody knew his value until it was too late. Same with the poet.

I think what you failed to realize was there was no logic because the teacher created this world of falling atomic bombs to get his way. So there is no "realism" applied to the thought experiment in the first place.

By: K.S.Subramanian

K.S.Subramanian — Fri, 13 May 2016 08:12:08 +0000

First point of philosophy is that one should be true in thought, words and deeds.

By: MrsLanham

MrsLanham — Fri, 13 May 2016 08:12:08 +0000

I feel like I discovered a treasure when I found this movie yesterday. The other reviewers have made good points, and I don't wish to come up against them, but I have a few addt'l thoughts. First, and I truly don't mean to be dense but I want to know, there were said to be 3 different endings. (SPOILERS AHEAD) I will watch again, but I really only noticed 2- the prof coming home and shooting himself, and spending the rest of his life brooding over Petra's desertion of him. What was the 3rd? Thank you to anyone who can point it out to me. Next, I don't think Petra's stoicism was wooden acting or irritating. It was intriguing, even if I have to admit that I would have liked to see her show more emotion. Once you get past her unrealistic insight, you begin to see that her character only exists to prove that living a fulfilled but short life is better than a long life based totally on the coldness of Logic, absent of what the heart wants. Now, I have questions about other things, however. Why keep going back and looking at the Prof's decaying body over and over. It was interesting, but what was it saying? Also, she says several times she loved James, but I never truly believed it, and the shower scene only concreted that for me. Lastly, Petra and Zimit's relationship never made sense. She was sleeping with James AND Zimit? That's a bit weird. Anyway, overall, I really liked this movie. The settings were powerful, the back and forth between the thought world and the real world felt seamless, and the defeat of the Prof's felt satisfying for James as well as Petra. He never could understand that she wanted more out of life than cold, passionless logical decision. She desired the beauty of risk, of taking leaps of faith, and, well, I think she embodied the phrase "Taking the road less traveled".

By: Moneywell@aol.com

Moneywell@aol.com — Fri, 13 May 2016 08:12:08 +0000

superb movie. The point had nothing to do with philosophy. Teacher was satanic figure debating with angelic/God figure. That\’s what they met by students not "knowing about them" That\’s why the lined indifferent side.. Angle told devil to leave her friend alone as devil will go on and on. The key is to rid oneself of fear of death and realize it is a welcome thing

By: Michelle

Michelle — Fri, 13 May 2016 08:12:08 +0000

Correction -resonated was supposed to be responded. I am using my phone to write this and clearly my anger and disgust has caused me to overlook grammar and spelling in some places. Please excuse phone induced errors.

By: Michelle

Michelle — Fri, 13 May 2016 08:12:08 +0000

This movie was a terrific and monumental waste of nearly 2 hours of my life that I will never get back and i am pretty upset about it.
I waited and waited…and… …wait – ed for "the point" to come and I am still waiting. After watching these ironically beautiful, desperately over emotional teenagers go round and round with each other in the same way that Joey, Pacey, and Dawson from Dawson\’s Creek did ….I Feel as though I deserve some sort of recognizable reason for this Epic Tragedy to have been created.
First and foremost, there are NO teenagers, even the porcelain skinned , super intelligent , sub-royalty students that obviously attend this extremely well decorated fantasy high school, complete with dormitories fit for celebrity honeymoons, that talk the way the kids in this movie talk. The irrational and over dramatic way in which the students resonated to the scenarios was actually just annoying.
The script was crap. So you have genius students -yet none of them can see that even though a woman what can speak 7 languages (a vital communication skill post – fallout in their eyes), who will be nearly dead in 3 years is not worthy of a place in the bunker…..even thoug: a – she can teach her language skills to the others while they\’re all sequestered and b- yyou\’re only in the bunker for one year!!!! There were just way too many stupid mistakes and poorly thought out dialogues for supposed geniuses.
And honestly, I don\’t even fee Ike I need to talk about how the end completely fell apart. So I kept thinking that the end would beautifully tie together all of the mismatched, trash that I thought were planned errors that would be addressed in the conclusion somehow but ohhh for the love of Jehovah, they weren\’t. It turned into a lame and hastily thrown together love triangle involving an inappropriate teacher/student teacher – obsessed-with-star-student sex thing where the teacher may or may not have committed suicide? ?? And the whole movie was the teachers attempt to win the heart of his pubescent love interest? ?
Umm…..what the hell? ??
Angry. Angry at how my time was wasted. Angry enough to write this comment in order to save others from the multi sesnsory shit – fest that was After The Dark. Angry at the script, the soap opera worthy acting and angry at the douche-lord who conceptualized that movie.
Fail. Fail on all accounts, and a hearty Boooooooooo, to go with it.

By: LB

LB — Fri, 13 May 2016 08:12:08 +0000

Don\’t over analyze. The professor created the scenario so that Petra would see that people of similar (and higher) intelligence have better chance of surviving and thriving. He was trying to get her to see that if the two of them stay with him they would be happy together for a long time, but if she stayed with her boyfriend it would end in disaster. She took control of the last scenario (and the direction of the relationship) when she said, "Who cares about intelligence (or how smart you are vs how unintelligent my boyfriend is)? Who cares how long we last? It\’s all about what (and who) makes us happy. Even if it is short lived and ends in disaster."
But the 3 scenarios with the stairs…what was that about? Not sure. Any ideas?

By: CRISTIAN

CRISTIAN — Fri, 13 May 2016 08:12:08 +0000

It may be just my imagination, but don\’t you feel that this movie is a punch in the face of philosophers? Zimit is a hypocritical, he speaks a lot about philosofy, he teaches philosofy, he may even love philosofy, but he doesn\’t live it. Deep inside he is a very emotional person. The REAL philosopher is Petra, she doesn\’t need to show off her inteligence, she doesn\’t need to pretend she is a logic and rational person because she IS A LOGIC AND RATIONAL PERSON, she uses logic, rethoric and persuasion to get what she wants, she never told James that she loved him (because she didn\’t), and she didn\’t get any bit emotional saying goodbye to Zimit. I feel the message of this movie was like: "Hey, you hipocritical self-titled philosopher, stop thinking and talking about logics and rationality. If you don\’t LIVE and PRACTICE this, you\’re lying to yourself, you\’re not a bit better than "most people" wich never heard of philosophy. If you know philosophy and doesn\’t live it, then you\’re better dead."
Someone agrees with me? Anyone else think that was the message of this movie?