Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

Keeley Coleman The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

Arianna Moses Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Hattie I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

Sebastian Midence This is perhaps the most austere feature film I have ever seen. Comprised exclusively of static wide and medium-wide shots of abandoned man-made landscapes, these images are presented without commentary, musical accompaniment, or title cards (save a few brief credits at the beginning and end.) After the first few minutes, I knew this viewing experience was going to be a slog, but I pressed on out of a personal commitment to finish any movie I start. (It's only a few hours anyway, right?)All of that said, I eventually came to develop a certain appreciation for the experience this movie provides (although I can't help but wonder if it didn't involve some version of the placebo effect or whether this might be the film equivalent of John Cage's 4'33".) As someone firmly entrenched within the overstimulated media and technological landscape of the 2010s, it was indeed rather soothing to simply focus my attention on... not much in particular. Certainly skill and craft were required of the filmmakers to select suitable locations, camera placement, and picturesque shots derived therein. The audio deserves particular remark, as the ambiance of each environment is what really sets this apart from, say, a coffee table book of still images. As mentioned, the shots themselves are entirely static, with most containing only the barest traces of movement. Occasionally a small animal will flutter or hop into frame, but the runtime largely consists of empty spaces where people once stood. Given the absence of title cards, it became a banal guessing game to try to recognize where each location might be or what circumstances might have led these environments into such disrepair. I believe a number of shots depict the more famous abandoned locales of the Chernobyl and Fukushima exclusion zones and the Korean DMZ - but again, these are only guesses. I have purposely avoided reading for any further context before writing this review, so I can also only speculate on the filmmakers' intentions or pretensions with this production. The obvious question raised, especially given the glut of post-apocalyptic fiction in recent years, is whether our entire civilization might one day resemble the ruins onscreen; however, given that the various locations have been forsaken at different times and places and for different reasons, it is difficult to discern any larger statement being made. (As one might if the film consisted solely of radioactive towns or failed businesses, etc.)My middle-of-the-road rating reflects my ambivalence on the question of whether this movie is worth watching or whether, frankly, it's any good. I certainly don't regret watching it, but it's definitely a hard sell. If you're still intrigued after reading this review, I recommend you view it the way I did: alone, in a quiet room, perhaps even in daylight (all of the shots appear to be lit by the sun), and with as few interruptions or distractions as possible. It will almost certainly be an endurance and concentration exercise, but by that token it may also be an opiate for the overstimulated mind.

Simon J Stuart SPOILERS!!! This shouldn't be on IMBD. it's not a film, it's a collection of images - that's it! No narration, no explanation, no music, no text, just images. If you're the type of art snob that has their head up their own.... - then you'll love this. But if you have half a brain, watch something else. This would also suit a musician or artist that's looking to project images onto a wall.

Martin Bradley Like the films of Godfrey Reggio, Nikolaus Geyrhalter's "Homo Sapiens"is a wordless look at the state of our planet but unlike Reggio's films we are not even permitted a music score to distract us, just a discordant soundtrack made of the noises of humanity and of nature and the sounds are just as important as the images, (the sound 'design' is credited to Florian Kindlinger and Peter Kutin). Where are we and what has happened? The empty, and often wrecked, buildings we see could be Earth after The Apocalypse. Consequently the film is as much sci-fi as it is documentary and like a number of such 'experimental' works is perhaps best viewed as a video installation in a gallery rather than in a cinema or on television. Did Geyrhalter stage this or simply record it? Either way, this is not a world you would want to inhabit yet in the back of your mind you know this is the world we do inhabit and it's far from a welcoming place. The Homo Sapiens of the title, by the way, are conspicuous by their absence.

Theodor Director Nikolaus Geyrhalter revisits buildings and places that once had human life and a pulsating community around them. Those places are now exposed to rain and weather, some of them inhabited by birds, insects and plants reclaiming the territory. Geyrhalter doesn't comment with any soundtrack or camera movements. You can only hear the (excellently integrated) sounds of objects and nature.So, dear audience, what do you feel while watching human-built places without humans in slow decay? Nostalgia for the life that had been there? Relief that the intruders are finally gone? Melancholy in view of death and disintegration of all things? - A strong, challenging film for introspective people. Highly recommended.