Ever Since the World Ended

I really wanted to like this movie, and I think the concept is a great one. I also think a fair amount of the footage is good, but there were just too many things wrong with it to give an above average rating.

The biggest thing I got out of it was, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Society is supposedly gone, yet these people are still trying to fit into old stereotypical groups. You've got your rationalists, scientists, slackers, conspiracy theorists, the feminist coven, crazy people, violent people, my way or the highway people and just about every other group that exists today. And teenagers still thing they know more then the adults.

I just couldn't buy into it 100% for several reasons. I won't go into some of the massive plot holes (the whole "Mad Mark" story) and just stick to some of the small things. First of all, the Golden Gate Bridge falls apart in 12 years (which I can maybe accept) but everyone is very well groomed, and the women still wear makeup? Not only that but everyone's clothes are in perfect condition. And people still dye their hair? This is really glaring with the character who has been living in the tree tops for several years, by himself, yet he has a perfect haircut, sideburns, a soul patch, but otherwise cleanly shaved? If those kind of things don't bother you, you'll probably like this film much more then I did. It does have potential and I like the documentary style, but there were too many things that didn't seem right too me.

Of course, perhaps the virus that killed most of the people had a weird side effect for the living in that it stopped all hair growth. After all, this is sci-fi.

Not a complete waste of time, but it is flawed.

I teach a upper-level class on The Apocalypse at a Long Island College. This film was one that I chose, first for its brevity--75 minutes--but also for its totally thought-provoking exploration of humanity. Of course, one could quibble over some of the unexplainable aspects--for example, how do most of the characters remain so smartly dressed if there haven't been department stores in 12 years? But overall, it's important to see this film as an allegory, not unlike the Medieval play "Everyman," in which every character represents a "type," a "concept," or an "ideal." The acting is so absolutely natural that the viewer completely forgets that this is a scripted film. More than anything, it raises profound questions about the human condition for days after a viewing--always a good sign. I strongly recommend this film to anyone interested in stretching themselves philosophically. Good story, fine editing, terrific acting.

This is an interesting experiment, but just an experiment,and in no way ready for prime time. What bothered me most(and there were a lot of things that bothered me) was the absolute failure of imagination. Here, Calum Grant, the writer of this "the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it" scenario, can't let go of the world that has just ended; the survivors (as he imagines them) carry on as if they are in some self-actualization collective. It is SO "west coast" that it becomes a laughable re-affirmation (and this crowd "re-affirms" every five seconds) of every San Francisco stereotype I've ever seen. They don't have to show the Golden Gate bridge, one knows after the first ten minutes of dialogue where this is set. I give credit, as I always do, to the people who had the determination (if not the talent)to get this project off the ground and finished. However, if these yappy, later-day hippies are all that's left of civilization I'd be tempted to shoot myself...no, wait...I'd shoot them first.

Nothing great, but this interesting faux documentary of a future 12 years after a virus kills offs most of the population does have some intriguing ideas and is done in total sincerity without an ounce of the silliness that usually accompany films of this nature. It all takes place in San Francisco where there are only 186 people left alive and the most interesting parts to me were the careful and civilized planning of procreation for the future and the opinions of the young who never experienced the world that we know and their ideas and interpretations of just what we were, how we behaved and what we did as a society. The acting is realistic by just about everyone and this is obviously cheaply made, but nevertheless, it is a slightly unusual experience that is helped by its short length.

The premise for this film is great: What would it be like to be part of a community of fewer than 200 people inhabiting the deserted remains of San Fransisco some years after a global pandemic? Unfortunately, the film totally fails to deliver on the premise. In such a world, one would expect the commonplace and the catastrophic to coexist, as they do in this film; it's just that the commonplace would almost certainly be nothing like that depicted here. The filmmakers seem to think that 12 years after the loss of 99% of the human population, a major city would somehow be magically preserved intact and undamaged, just as if it really were a quiet Sunday morning, which is presumably when some of the establishing shots were taken. More likely, San Francisco and practically every other city or town would be a burned-out ruin. The survivors' struggles would be quite different and much more in deadly earnest than is shown here. Anyone who is more interested in my extrapolation of what life would be like 12 years "since the world ended" may refer to my post in the message boards, since that would be too long to post here and since most of the other reviewers have contributed their quite legitimate surmises about how this imagined world really should look. If you're a first-year film-school student, this endeavor might be an interesting subject for critique; otherwise, stick with "The Road Warrior."