Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

SincereFinest disgusting, overrated, pointless

ShangLuda Admirable film.

Humbersi The first must-see film of the year.

mfisher452 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."

bluesalt In the 12 years of scrounging since everyone they loved died and society collapsed, nobody really seems to have changed that much. When they aren't having dinner parties, surfing or smoking weed, they look like they have been.The improvised dialogue is more about what the actors think of our present society than a convincing picture of a future one. The woman who wants to have a child and raise it on her own is particularly ridiculous. Who in their right mind would seek to become a single parent in a world with no reliable medical care or food supply? The movie actually improves quite a bit in the last 30 minutes. The cinematography gets better, the acting gets better, and there is finally some tension and plot connected to the setting.Then the movie ends.

Remo Williams Bad. Bad, bad, bad. I actually discovered new levels of bad while watching this movie. Geez... where to begin...Let's begin with what this movie is supposed to be about. Some number of years ago the majority of the population of the world was killed off by a plague. Think The Stand, but duller. Apparently, a couple of dudes from San Fransisco decide to wander around and interview the survivors (186 in San Fran to be exact).Now, I completely understand the low budget thing. But, are we to assume that no news footage of the plague exists to set up the documentary? It would be very easy and inexpensive to stage a fake news report and also, thinking of how an actual documentary would be made it seems like an obvious thing to include. Secondly, the stories being told by the interviewees are so muddled and confusing, that there is really no story to be found. And, I'm being completely serious when I say that I think most of the actors were high as a kite during filming.Another annoying aspect of this movie was the decisions of what still existed and what didn't. I mean, there appears to be some level of society yet no one has a car? There's electricity and people living in nice homes, but the only person who seems to have a "job" is the local scrounger guy who can "get ya anything ya want." Apparently, the survivors of the plague are perfectly content to not let civilization evolve back to normality. I guess they don't want pot to become illegal again and ruin all their hippy fun. Haha.The best part of the movie is the ending which takes place at the premier of the documentary in a local theater. How can the premier of your movie be IN your movie??? Gee whiz.I think my friend put it best... If one of the basic rules of movie-making is "show, don't tell" then this movie showed absolutely nothing, and well... told even less. The only reason to see this movie is to get as high as the filmmakers were during filming with your friends and laugh at how poorly made it is.

benc7ca 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.