jdxcrow-49035

This 2013 movie was repackaged and called "American Apocalypse" in 2021 after COVID broke out. They added some text at the beginning of the movie referring to "the first pandemic of the 21st century" and how this was the second.

It is clearly very low budget. When the characters are outside, they do a lot of long shots where you can't see anyone's lips moving, so that they could add the dialogue later. (I gather that getting clean sound outside is too expensive for their budget.) Overall, they really made the most of every dollar. The acting is pretty good, the story had some issues but wasn't bad. It is very well put together in terms of the filming and the editing.

What's it about? Well it's typical post-apocalyptic fare. Everybody's got to eat, and food is more scarce than ammo. There's a group here, and another group there, and another one down the road aways, and one or two others. It's definitely not a bad use of 75 minutes.

In 2010, there was a movie released called Monsters. It was about an American fixer sent down to retrieve some rich guy's daughter. These large monsters had surfaced in Central America, and their plans didn't include letting these happy meals with feet march on back to the safety of the U. S. A. It was a great movie, as is nearly anything with Scoot McNairy in it. Check it out.

This is not that movie. This is nominally a sequel, but really it's more like a second cousin once removed. Also, this a British movie, not an American movie, and those who came in expecting the latter were setting themselves up for a problem. The monsters are back, this time in the Middle East, and very visible, but they don't have to do with the plot.

After some initial action, a troop of soldiers is assigned a task. Four soldiers have gone non-communicado in an area that is filled with people who don't appreciate what a great country the U. S. is. So, off goes the troop of eight, to their inevitable conclusion.

This is an incredible movie to watch. They bring out a whole lot of tricks from their cinematography bag that are impressive, and beautiful, and replace the need for exposition several times. Similarly, the sound and the music contribute to the overall mood tremendously. They do a good job of getting in and getting out of the scenes in their script.

That leaves us with the monsters. Was that just bad writing, or was it something really good that I just didn't get? I know in truth that the conditions on taking on the project was that it had to have the monster in it, that was non-negotiable. Everything else was fair game.

My assessment is that they knocked it out of the park. The monsters in my view are a physical embodiment that represents in general. They are always there, whether you can see them or not. They have a big perspective, allowing them to see them wherever you are. War comes, but in getting "solved" they are planting the seeds for the next war. We see the monsters in their full grown state, in their adult state, their teenage state, and as little children.

The performance by Johnny Harris is terrific, and well-directed by. Tom Green. This is definitely a movie to watch, as long as you understand that you are watching a different movie from the last one.

I had expected that this would be another one of Amazon's home movie project, where they give a kid a teenager and let him go wild. It ends up being what you expect.

Somebody mentioned Rat Patrol, I think that's a good comparison. I would throw in that movie about the Ameicans in the vietnam wars, Toour of Duty

Not this one. It does look low-budget. Unknown actors, very little in terms of sets.a script that's a little bit clunky. Except, it's watchable clunky. And the stories they are telling are quite well constructed.

I watched twp episodes per day. But I could have done it in one shot. It holds the attention that long.