Released in 2012, and presently available on Amazon prime (and Youtube), Robert Thompson’s Aftermath is another zombie film among many. Part of its IMDb summary asks, “In a world where those infected kill and eat the living, how much time does anyone really have?” Many people will understandably say, “Been there, done that.” In fact, I would say that as well, if I’m being honest. Still, I try to be fair and kind with my reviews. While Aftermath doesn’t have much unique stuff to offer, I can’t help but feel this movie just wasn’t made for this hyper-critical, whiny era. I know the saying “Everyone’s a critic” isn’t new, but that seems more and more true in this day and age.
In fact, I guarantee you that, had Aftermath come out substantially earlier in time, it would have had more fans by now. A lot of decent films considered classics were low budget, and not particularly well done in all aspects. A good example is Children Shouldn’t Play with Dead Things. That movie kind of sucks, but I know people like it. In fact, I’m probably one of them (though I haven’t watched that film in many years). So yes, I’m going for the “Modern horror audiences are spoiled argument” here. The point is, Aftermathisn’t a masterpiece, but it’s actually not that bad, either. I actually kind of like it.
Basically, this was a low-budget production, but made with a detectable bit of heart. I get the sense that they really tried with this one, then face the standard critique that it has bad acting, bad special effects, bad whatever (Bad weather? Sure, pepper than one in, too). Regarding the “bad acting” critique, I could mention how I used to feel that way about Keanu Reeves — until I met more than one person who spoke just like the dude in real life. In other words, bad acting critiques are a dime a dozen, especially in the horror genre. They are to be taken with a grain of salt.
Something good about Aftermath?
While this movie isn’t particularly memorable, I do remember it has some pretty realistic fight scenes. In fact, I was actually a little impressed by that aspect of it. The scenes look like the people are really fighting, and kind of brutally at times. Honestly, I can’t say that about every Hollywood production.
Now, I’ve read a negative review lamenting how Aftermath tries to be an action movie. That critic adds that the Dawn of the Dead remake failed for that reason, too. To that I say, “Well, there’s your problem!” I mean, if even a big budget, well-done effort like the Dawn of the Dead re-make isn’t good enough, then why bother watching something like this? That just does not compute, if you ask me.
So, ultimately, I feel bad for prospective low-to-no-budget filmmakers out there. They will have to run the gauntlet of negative criticism, while knowing they actually gave it an effort. There’s just no way to prove yourself if you barely can find a semi-receptive audience. So, to me it gets to that age-old question: Should the artist creative for his/her self, or for the audience? To me, Aftermath hints at the answer.
If you want any authenticity, you create primarily for yourself and hope there’s an audience. Maybe your own idea won’t be the most original anyway, but you do it because you want to, and not because you expect critical praise or respect for your efforts. That era is past, and horror fans and filmmakers alike need to understand that.
Have any thoughts on Aftermath? Let us know in the comments!
However, trying to fit in, Iris starts to discover a terrifying secret within this tight-knit group of friends. A deadly secret…
THOUGHTS ON COMPANION (SPOILER-FREE)
Never would I have thought I would be saying that a writer of ‘Fred: the TV Show’ and ‘Fred 3: Camp Fred’ wrote a damn fine film. But here we are.
Writer/director, Drew Hancock, created a funny, clever and interesting gem of a horror film. COMPANION is a great adventure film in the horror genre, focusing on the ideas of identity, self-preservation, the cogito, ergo sum of life, and women’s rights.
And, trust me, I know that sounds like a lot, but that’s pulled off by the superb writing and the acting – it flows together really well. It’s an incredibly precarious job to balance humor, horror and drama. If you go too hard with humor and it’s cringey. You give too much drama and it’s tonal dissonance. If there’s too much horror…well, that’s okay, actually.
But with heavy hitters with incredible comedic timing like Harvey Guillén and Jack Quaid, the cast only elevates the writing and story. Quaid and Sophie Thatcher have so much chemistry and work so well together that the drama feels authentic and raw. Thatcher is such an engaging actress, working with what could have been a very flat role. But she portrays Iris with such intelligence, wit and vulnerability, it sells the idea of COMPANION that would usually require more suspension of disbelief.
I liked the soundtrack by Hrishikesh Hirway. Both the original soundtrack and the songs chosen work well with the tone and plot. Super fun bop. You can tell that the song selections were picked with intent and care, for example, the Goo Goo Dolls’ song playing in Josh’s apartment.
The effects in COMPANION were terrific by being used sparingly but grotesquely, for example, the scene with the slow, tortuous scene with the candle. Most of it is practical, but there are some key scenes with CGI that are really well done.
BRAINROLL JUICE: THIS HAS VAGUE SPOILERS
I love horror films. Yeah, I know, big surprise. But this type of film highlights why horror is such an important and crucial part of our history and culture. Horror is a lens of a society of the times. Looking back, we can see what creatures scared us. What people were afraid of or should be afraid of.
Horror, by large, is a very social and progressive genre. Monster movies and mad scientist movies of the 1950’s were en vogue due to the rising fears of the atomic bomb and the Cold War. The same is true for the rise in space horror as we had the Space Race and landed on the moon.
Coralie Fargeat has been exploring this with great success with her most recent film, ‘The Substance‘, but first really dove into this with her fan-favorite, ‘Revenge‘. ‘Freaky‘ and ‘Happy Death Day‘, while comedic, explore girlhood, femininity and social expectations. ‘Don’t Breathe‘ turns the trope on it’s head (in a still gross way). ‘Babadook‘ shows the difficulty with being a mother, and ‘Hereditary‘ is a deep drama on matriarchal generational trauma.
What does this have to do with horror and COMPANION? Well, pretty much everything. COMPANION is about what it means to be a woman. Her fears are real and reflect the fears of our society currently. Loss of agency. Loss of identity. Loss of her voice and decisions.
But like all good horror, it will stand the test of time. It will be on the right side of history, as they say. With an incel proxy as the villain and a woman learning about herself, it’s clear what Hancock envisioned for COMPANION. It’s a film about empowerment and reflection of our society right now. And unlike the newest Black Christmas, it doesn’t shove a diva cup down your throat.
“The Demon of Sex” is the third episode of Evil’s season 3, created by Michelle King and Robert King. The central cast includes Katja Herbers, Mike Colter, Aasif Mandvi, Michael Emerson, Christine Lahti, and Andrea Martin. As of this review, it’s available through Netflix and Paramount+ and its add-ons.
The assessors investigate a new marriage that struggles with intimacy. Kristen (Katja Herbers) takes control of her family. Ben (Aasif Mandvi) has an existential crisis after facing plumbing difficulties. Sheryl (Christine Lahti) struggles with the new work culture. Sister Andrea (Andrea Martin) battles a demon.
What I Like about “The Demon of Sex”
Ben usually seems underutilized as a character, especially in personal development, but season 3 works hard to rectify that issue. A skeptic’s disillusionment is an obvious choice for this type of character, but the writing and Aasif Mandvi’s performance drive the execution. It also adds another dynamic to his character referenced throughout the series, if rarely shown again, in the Science League.
“The Demon of Sex” is also a good episode for Sheryl, who struggles and triumphs in her new position. While her character trajectory teeters back and forth, “The Demon of Sex” shows what her development can look like when given the attention it deserves.
Last update on 2025-01-31 / Affiliate links / Images from Amazon Product Advertising API
“The Demon of Sex” also furthers the frenemy relationship between Kristen and Sister Andrea, providing ample material for both characters to explore. “The Demon of Sex” shows Kristen’s willingness to compromise and furthers Sister Andrea’s character flaws.
Leland (Michael Emerson) finally finds an attack that might work on Sister Andrea, beginning a plot thread to explore across the season. Commenting on this plot point might give credit to future episodes, but it’s a compelling example of Leland actually being devious and in control.
“The Demon of Sex” leans on Evil’s dark comedic tone, not intending to haunt the viewer but to entertain them. It dives further into the comical nature of corporate evil and marketing, showing a general shallowness in both arenas in which exploitation occurs. It’s dark, troubling, and entertaining without pulling its punches.
Tired Tropes and Triggers
In an episode titled “The Demon of Sex,” the titular demon seems to hold conflicting motives. First, it grows strong in the married couple’s abstinence, which suggests a different focus. But when acts become carnal, it’s the general kinkiness that makes the demon strong. Considering the couple talks about their troubles with a licensed therapist, it seems to evoke a general kink shame to the execution. However, the therapy also fails to resolve the underlying issues.
A slightly gory moment might unsettle some viewers, but it’s a single moment in an otherwise goreless episode.
What I Dislike about “The Demon of Sex”
As mentioned in a previous review, another demon seems to indicate a more direct concept of “sex,” while the motives of this demon seem more complex. It’s a minor point, but I can’t fathom why they didn’t connect this title with the more literal succubus that’s plagued this season already. Addressing that demon also seems like a more logical entry point as the audience sees what it’s been doing.
“The Demon of Sex” sets the groundwork for future plot points. While not a fault of the episode, it blends in the background, doing what it needs to and little more. I don’t mean to pretend this is a negative, but it doesn’t haunt the viewer like past or future episodes.
Final Thoughts
“The Demon of Sex” delivers but remains buried around more memorable episodes with more lasting power. It sets up key points for several characters and allows some to shine, but it doesn’t hold iconic moments to look back on. Ultimately, it functions as intended and keeps the audience eager for future developments.
Dark City (1998) is a Cosmic Horror film directed by Alex Proyas, though I’ve seen labels of tech noir, which certainly fits. This R-rated film stars Rufus Sewell, Kiefer Sutherland, Jennifer Connelly, and William Hurt. As of this review, Dark City is available to Kanopy and Amazon Prime Video subscribers, with additional purchase options on other services.
John Murdoch (Rufus Sewell) wakes up in a hotel bathtub, plagued with strange memories and amnesia. Chased by strangers, he follows his memories of Emma (Jennifer Connelly), avoiding those who hunt him in his desperate attempt to understand his situation. As mysterious forces hinder him, Dr. Daniel Schreber (Kiefer Sutherland) claims to know secrets that might help. Emma Murdock (Jennifer Connelly) haunts him.
What I Like about Dark City
Dark City earned 12 awards and an additional 19 nominations. These recognitions include the 1999 Saturn Award from the Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy & Horror Films and the 1998 Bram Stoker Award. In short, Dark City earns a strong critical reception.
Part detective tale and part cosmic horror, Dark City lures its viewer in with its aesthetic and premise. I hesitate in saying that the mystery drives the film as the beginning narration does spill most of the finer points. However, Rufus Sewell delivers a performance of someone so overwhelmed and out of his element that the terror shows despite our knowledge. This film wants the audience to know the mystery, focusing on characters learning the truth to hook them.
Rufus Sewell, William Hurt, Kiefer Sutherland (Actors)
Alex Proyas (Director) – Alex Proyas (Writer) – Andrew Mason (Producer)
Last update on 2025-01-31 / Affiliate links / Images from Amazon Product Advertising API
Every performance nails its particular niche. From Kiefer Sutherland’s Dr. Schreber’s untrustworthy scientist to Jennifer Connelly’s mysterious Emma, each performance enriches the plot. This praise belongs to the entire cast, as many performances hold nuances that make sense after learning the entire truth.
Dark City maintains tension for most of its runtime, with the ending being an exception. That isn’t to say that the film fails to create a haunting story, but the focus shifts as the characters learn more about their situation. While both parts of the film accomplish their objectives, it does minimize the horror.
Tired Tropes and Triggers
At the backdrop of this story, there’s a serial killer murdering sex workers. It’s a familiar plotline, and Dark City doesn’t push against its familiarity in most aspects. However, the reasons behind this plot are somewhat more complex beyond simple shock value.
There was one notable voyeuristic nude scene, but the first naked body is Rufus Sewell’s John. Besides these moments, Dark City doesn’t lend itself to voyeurism. Instead, it prefers a largely sexless and detached perspective, which seems common among Lovecraftian-inspired properties.
What I Dislike about Dark City
As briefly mentioned, Dark City doesn’t deliver a traditional mystery because the beginning narration spoils most of that mystery. While this doesn’t inherently hinder the film, it’s a decision that doesn’t seem to make much sense. Most of the narration gets shown or told to the audience later. It’s as if the audience isn’t trusted to understand these elements. However, this film repeats this information or shows it with better execution, making the narration unnecessary.
Without divulging too much, the ending empowers a particular character that hinders the cosmic horror influences. It’s hard to believe the danger of cosmic forces when they prove to be your equal.
While not a fault of Dark City, The Matrix would focus more on empowering its main character through realizing some truth. Since The Matrix came out a year after this film, Dark City holds a stronger claim to the trend. However, the execution of this plot point goes to The Matrix. Despite the drastically different focus and genres, I can’t help but wonder how much The Matrix’s success has overshadowed this film’s lasting power.
Final Thoughts
Dark City creates a tense journey for audiences to follow, combining cosmic horror and tech noir to create something unique. It’s a cult classic that earned an award after its digital re-release because few films provide its unique mix of genres. If you crave a dark mystery where humanity must adapt to overcome the impossible with a flare of cosmic horror, this film might satisfy your craving.