Why Dylan Sprouse’s ‘Aftermath’ Is Generating Controversy on Netflix!

by

Netflix’s lesser-known action movies have once again scored a big hit with “Aftermath“, an action-packed thriller that some liken to the classic “Die Hard”. The film debuted on Netflix this week after a fleeting theatrical release in November 2024, and has quickly climbed to the #2 spot on the movie chart, suggesting it’s another pulse-pounding adventure for the streaming service, following in the footsteps of 2024 hits like “Rebel Ridge” and “Carry-On”.

Following the explosion, the movie titled “Aftermath” features Dylan Sprouse and Mason Gooding in lead roles, with Patrick Lussier directing. The plot revolves around a former Army Ranger who finds himself stranded on Boston’s Tobin Bridge after a bomb detonates. In order to rescue his sister and other hostages, he employs his exceptional military skills against a band of ruthless ex-military contractors, headed by a deranged war criminal.

The scenario presented here seems extremely captivating and suspenseful, sparking curiosity among action enthusiasts who are Netflix subscribers. As such, the movie, titled Aftermath, has generated immediate interest since its release on the platform due to its initial setup that resembles the kind of human-focused narratives found in many successful action films from the past decade. However, despite being labeled as “the new Die Hard” – which is a common claim for such movies – the reactions to the film following its widespread viewing have been surprisingly underwhelming.

‘Aftermath’ Doesn’t Leave a Lasting Impression

The movie titled “Aftermath” received little attention and barely left a mark when it was first released in cinemas, with no critical reviews available on Rotten Tomatoes. Conversely, viewers have been quite harsh in their opinions of the film, making it clear that it is not a worthy successor to the action-packed style of “Die Hard”.

1. Markus A found the movie confusing, convoluted, fake, ridiculous, poorly acted, and with insufficient development of central characters. He criticized the pathetic villain, weak hero, and subpar storyline. James M wasn’t more complimentary, stating that it would have been a decent film if it were an 8th-grade class project. The script seemed immature, and the overacting of the antagonists was so bad that he had to finish watching it. In short, Nicholas A summed up his opinion by saying it’s really terrible.

2. Markus A considered the movie puzzling, tangled, false, absurd, poorly enacted, and with inadequate focus on key characters. He disapproved of the pitiful villain, feeble hero, and substandard plotline. James M didn’t offer more praise, asserting that it could have been a decent film if it were an 8th-grade class project. The script appeared juvenile, and the exaggerated acting of the antagonists was so poor that he had to complete watching it. To put it simply, Nicholas A concluded that it’s truly awful.

3. Markus A deemed the movie bewildering, intricate, fake, preposterous, poorly performed, and with minimal investment in main characters. He denounced the pathetic villain, frail hero, and subpar storyline. James M didn’t provide more compliments, saying that it could have been a decent film if it were an 8th-grade class project. The script seemed childish, and the overacting of the antagonists was so poor that he had to finish watching it. In essence, Nicholas A concluded that it’s terribly bad.

4. Markus A thought the movie was complex, convoluted, fake, laughable, poorly acted, and with inadequate development of central characters. He criticized the weak hero, pathetic villain, and subpar storyline. James M didn’t offer more praise, stating that it could have been a decent film if it were an 8th-grade class project. The script seemed immature, and the exaggerated acting of the antagonists was so poor that he had to complete watching it. To summarize, Nicholas A concluded that it’s really terrible.

5. Markus A found the movie perplexing, intricate, false, absurd, poorly performed, and with insufficient attention given to key characters. He denounced the weak hero, pitiful villain, and substandard plotline. James M didn’t provide more compliments, saying that it could have been a decent film if it were an 8th-grade class project. The script seemed childish, and the overacting of the antagonists was so poor that he had to finish watching it. In brief, Nicholas A concluded that it’s really awful.

However, not everyone feels like the film is a mishmash of genre tropes, half-committed action, and uninspiring action. On Letterboxd, user Nicholas G said, “A great under-the-radar Die Hard chamber action film. Oozes analog action. A nail-biter that carries traits of the book, Nothing Lasts Forever by Roderick Thorp, of which, the 1987 film was based off of. For instance, here the Bruce Willis character is too suffering from war veteran PTSD and they are truly political terrorists. It starts fast and shoots like a bullet in intensity.”

Even the most critically panned film has its devoted admirers, and that’s certainly true for the movie Aftermath. Some viewers appreciate it for its melodramatic B-movie action style. While it likely won’t be joining the ranks of blockbuster franchises like Die Hard, if you’re seeking a quick 97-minute distraction and are already subscribed to Netflix, then watching Aftermath may not be the worst choice available.

Read More

2025-02-13 02:32