After the Dark a.k.a The Philosopher

How do we define a philosophical idea ?

After the dark a.k.a The Philosopher argues the very question by representing the entire existential pathos of the movie as to answer a philosophical question in the event of apocalypse. I respectfully dissent. Though there are some valid arguments on philosophical nature of the question posed, the movie itself is not entirely philosophical. The movie is better represented in the form of game theory approach than that of philosophical.

The movie begin by a thought exercise posit by Mr Zimit (portrayed by James D'Arcy), where, in theoretical situation of imminent catastrophe, how should a group of 20 students and their teacher choose to decide who shall live for a year in a bunker and going through rebuilding of human civilizations. Deciding factor is critical since the bunker can hold 10 people.

I am entertained for the best part of first 2/3 of the movie. The movie then embarked into the last stretch which essentially when all hell break loose. The entire philosophical exercise is a moot point by now. What is even worse is when the movie start to try to tie a nice little conclusion whereby the supposedly brightest student in the class Petra (Portrayed by Sophie Lowe) envision her own scenario.

There is nothing wrong to try making a less dark conclusion in a movie, however the movie argued for the better part of one hour on how to survive in a catastrophe. Every decision should be logical, it is highly entertaining, even though the entire exercise is hypothetical. Suddenly, out of nothing two of the student (Petra and his boy toy) hijacked the exercise and essentially turn the tables. The chosen group from previous exercise which argued to be able to provide best gene pool are left to survive by trying to run out of blast zone (atomic bomb) while the rest hide in the bunker. The rest being these group of individuals argued to contribute almost nothing to the society in previous exercises.

After a year, as it turns out, the catastrophe does not even occurred (again still hypothetical). As matter of facts, the bomb had just landed on the island. Lastly, in the event of stunning act of (I don't know what) this groups embraced death and let the atomic bomb blew (yes the bomb did not goes off, they pressed the button). There is no philosophical argument that can be construed from their willingness to die from the blast. They defy the earlier logical foundation build in the movie, cooked up some sacrificial utterance to argue it is better to have fun before death without regret than to live.

The whole exercise in the last part does not shows reasoning as pointed out in earlier exercises. As matter of facts, the only sound reasoning in the last part, provided by Chips character (portrayed by Daryl Sabara) has more logical reasoning despite the only reasons his lines, are for comedic purposes. In the end, Lowe character kills off the earlier remark that shows she is a smart student. Made her character into another cliche protagonist, which frankly I had enough from Ender's Game.

The last part of the movie made me wish that I did not see the high rating from rotten tomatoes site which prompted me to waste money to rent this movies. The character do not show necessary depth to show their realness. The movie does not even follow it's own rule. Lastly the argument of the movie is as if to stipulate philosophical question is devoid of moral, even though in reality moral is one of the subset of philosophical subject.