2013 / Director. M Night Shyamalan.
I am feeling ambivalent about AFTER EARTH. There are several ways to approach the film, each baring their own conclusions. On one hand it's a formulaic sci-fi adventure and on the other hand it's an M Night Shyamalan movie. It's also a big budget Hollywood blockbuster as well as a Smith family venture. So having watched it, I am taking it on face value and responding to be as a straight up sci-fi adventure. I enjoyed it. Set 1000 years after the human race abandoned Earth, a military convoy is destroyed in a meteor shower and left with no option but to land on the quarantined and prohibited Earth. The only survivors are a soldier (ranger) and his teenage son. The father is badly wounded and the only hope of survival is for the son to trek 100 kilometres to the rest of the ship's wreckage, where a distress beacon is located. That's pretty much the gist of it. From that description you can tell that AFTER EARTH is fairly uninspired and there really isn't much here that we haven't already seen. Personally, that didn't bother me - after all, the same can be said about most films. The adventure is well paced and exciting enough. The performances are sufficient and the slightly-evolved Earthscape is appealing. What lets the movie down are poorly conceived CGI creatures and a really stupid Alien-monster subplot. While on his mission the teenage son is being stalked by a ferocious alien predator. Totally lame if you ask me. It would have been a far more captivating and thrilling adventure with out that shit. In terms of AFTER EARTH being an M Night Shyamalan film, it's nothing great but passable. Far from his best, but also far from his worst (Last Airbender) ... and so my advice would be to watch this generously. Ignore it's shortcomings and give yourself to the adventure... Consume it like gallati rather than Soufflé.