NekoHomey Purely Joyful Movie!

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Darin One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

denisejhale-555-694384 I admit that this film's horror/sci-fi genre is not one that interests me these days and the only reason I watched this movie was because Gregory Fittoussi was in it. (He won an award for this role). Living in UK this did not come to local cinema's so I had to wait till released in streaming media. Genre has more appeal to my husband so we watched together. Juliette is trying to find food for group in post-apocalyptic American, landscape is arid and desserted. Due to the presence of mutant humaniods she has to return to base before dusk. A photo of her with a man is stuck to the visor in her vechicle. The film osocilates between Juliette's present dilemma of returning to base and her pre-apocalyptic, past relationship with Jack, a rich French art gallery owner living in New York. Watching it, I became involved with Juliette's dilemma and with her relationship with Jack, who looked passed the ugliness of Juliette's life to see the beauty within her. Without spoiling it, I just want to say the ending haunted me long after the credits had rolled. My husband also enjoyed this movie terming it 'diffierent' which in his case means 'not formulaic.' This movie deserved a wider release I hope it now finds it.

smoke0 Not just another film about surviving the apocalypse, Hostile strives to be more and succeeds for the most part. My only complaint is that the lead actress looked believable in her actions and expressions, but her line delivery left a lot to be desired. Almost every time she spoke, she took me out of the story. Dubbing her with an accomplished voice actress would elevate this film, and hopefully this actress will get a voice coach, because she did carry the movie.

S. Soma There are reviewers here on IMDb that whinge on relentlessly about this or that movie not being "original" or "nothing new". Well, as far as I know, HOSTILE is completely original at least insofar as it synthesizes a post-apocalyptic/zombie story with a hand-wringing, chest-beating love story, which is certainly something I'VE never seen before. And as original as it may be, it did nothing for me. I found this very surprising because the originality whingers certainly seem to be of the opinion that originality and "freshness" is virtually the single attribute to which all movies should aspire. And yet, here I am, all unimpressed with HOSTILE, originality and all.HOSTILE generally appears to be two movies in one with the heroin character apparently the only shared element between the two parallel plot lines. Until the very last scene of the movie, with the single exception of the heroin, the two plot lines appear to be completely unconnected. It LOOKS as if we are simply watching our heroin's life as it is in the post-apocalyptic time as contrasted with her life in the "before time", prior to whatever happened which resulted in the apocalypse.The movie opens with the more or less stereotypical collection of scenes depicting post-apocalyptic life for your average survivor. A bundled up character (our heroin) going about a dry and dusty, desert-y landscape, everything looking completely dilapidated and rusty and run down, trying to collect what survival resources she can find. She's armed and very careful, always on the lookout for what are apparently post-apocalyptic monsters (which are HOSTILE's version of zombies).And then suddenly, with an abrupt scene change, we're in a metropolitan art gallery in the context of an art show where we see our same previously dusty heroin attending an art show but only for the purposes of getting out of the pouring rain outside. Within moments, the interminable flirtiness and romance with the owner of the art gallery commences, and with all the Kleenex-inducing vicissitudes of a stormy romance and blah blah blah.And so it goes for the rest of the movie, flipping back and forth between these two disparate plot lines; a few minutes of life and death struggle between our heroin and a post-apocalyptic zombie-thing (which looks for all the world like a concentration-camp-victim with a terrible skin problem) which is apparently grimly determined to eat her, and then we jarringly swap over to some romantically angsty moments in the before time, and then meanwhile back at the apocalypse...Certainly the pre-apocalyptic through line has all the great romantic elements for the unimaginative: the male romantic interest is wealthy, tall, darkly handsome, has an accent, and "saves" our heroin from her own self-destructive tendencies and... snore.It's never made clear what caused the apocalypse. Toward the end of the movie there is some vaguely referenced rather small scale terrorist chemical attack which does significant damage to the art gallery owner, but there is no clear relationship established between this event and the apocalypse. At all. But I think we're supposed to make that assumption.Only at the very last moments of the movie are the deeper connections between the pre-and-post-apocalypse made clear. Depending upon your taste I suppose SOME people may view it as very romantical, but it struck me as utter twaddle and as believable as a winged pig.

cdcrb Probably a masterpiece. a morality "western". in the 1880's, a soldier, with a very violent and clear conscience, is about to be discharged. as his last assignment, he is charged with taking a group of Indians back to montana. along the way he meets violence and his past. you really need to just get into the movie. let it take you on its journey.