A group of university friends make a party to celebrate the New Year. However, a strange epidemic of violence erupts all around the world, apparently related to social networks, and they are forced to fight for survival as everything goes mad around them.
It sounds good, it feels good. My thoughts, as I first read about this film and started watching it, was that this could be like a 'Pontypool' type of zombie/outbreak film mixed with 'Pulse's technology based horror. A try at social commentary, which could work well with this horror style.
Well, I guess I shouldn't have been expecting an intelligent horror. The comparison to 'Pulse', rather than the much better and original 'Kairo', was the only of my expectations to be met.
The whole 'social network zombies' concept the film seemed aimed for (and some reviewers seemed to believe make it deep and original) ends up as nothing but a half-assed excuse to indulge on the usual horror clichés (in special, the zombie ones). Weak, drowzy acting cast performing stereotyped or disengaging characters prone to stupid and nonsensical decisions, together with a complete disregard for logic on the plot development or even in basic research (the way the 'virus' spreads... seriously?).
The set-up is relatively promising, and the concept could be developed nicely. A problem most modern horror makers do is believing everything needs to be fast-paced; 'Antisocial' ends up moving so fast it rushes through the good parts of the concept. Rather than doing like 'Invasion of Body Snatchers' or 'The Thing' and building up the suspense, playing with the whole paranoia situation the film could easily create, they instead rush through for the zombie gore and Resident Evil-like 'action girl fights zombies' 'action'.
As it turns out, the conflict and the tension are far too phony to work, the characters are both moronic and cannot bring the audience to care about them, and the only thing this whole film offers is the usual clichés rather than something new.
Some reviewers here are trying to defend the film with the 'argument' that it pretty much 'tries to be socially engaged, exploring new themes for an horror'. It is not exploring or engaged at all; it is just the same old with a half-assed excuse to try and hide the film's shallowness. Trying something new is good, but if you do so like 'Antisocial' it is better not to try at all.
It sounds good, it feels good. My thoughts, as I first read about this film and started watching it, was that this could be like a 'Pontypool' type of zombie/outbreak film mixed with 'Pulse's technology based horror. A try at social commentary, which could work well with this horror style.
Well, I guess I shouldn't have been expecting an intelligent horror. The comparison to 'Pulse', rather than the much better and original 'Kairo', was the only of my expectations to be met.
The whole 'social network zombies' concept the film seemed aimed for (and some reviewers seemed to believe make it deep and original) ends up as nothing but a half-assed excuse to indulge on the usual horror clichés (in special, the zombie ones). Weak, drowzy acting cast performing stereotyped or disengaging characters prone to stupid and nonsensical decisions, together with a complete disregard for logic on the plot development or even in basic research (the way the 'virus' spreads... seriously?).
The set-up is relatively promising, and the concept could be developed nicely. A problem most modern horror makers do is believing everything needs to be fast-paced; 'Antisocial' ends up moving so fast it rushes through the good parts of the concept. Rather than doing like 'Invasion of Body Snatchers' or 'The Thing' and building up the suspense, playing with the whole paranoia situation the film could easily create, they instead rush through for the zombie gore and Resident Evil-like 'action girl fights zombies' 'action'.
As it turns out, the conflict and the tension are far too phony to work, the characters are both moronic and cannot bring the audience to care about them, and the only thing this whole film offers is the usual clichés rather than something new.
Some reviewers here are trying to defend the film with the 'argument' that it pretty much 'tries to be socially engaged, exploring new themes for an horror'. It is not exploring or engaged at all; it is just the same old with a half-assed excuse to try and hide the film's shallowness. Trying something new is good, but if you do so like 'Antisocial' it is better not to try at all.