Customer Reviews

Ever Since the World Ended

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

This "documentary" has its good and insightful points, but ultimately it grows old halfway through. After the first 20 minutes "Ever Since The World Ended" feels more like a 60's hippie commune than a group of end of the world survivors. I imagine if you live in San Francisco this film will seem very real, but for those of us outside this culture it comes off as a group of 21st century hippies playing pretend.

OK, I'll admit up front that I stopped watching this movie before it concluded. I stopped right about the point where the young woman announced she had decided she wanted to "parent" a child by herself and had publicly approached some male visitor to assist in her impregnation. That happened right after a lovely older woman wearing nail polish and lots of jewelry -- holding court in her perfectly-appointed hilltop home where she hosted communal "book club" type gatherings -- announced sternly that there would be "no guns at the table." (This sent a young woman who sported a sidearm scurrying off apologetically to remove her weapon before taking tea.)

To imagine that any of these scenarios would play out in any form after a plague has reduced the San Francisco area to a population of 186 is frankly absurd. To imagine that only those who are artists and free-thinkers would survive is absurd. Where are the hooligans? Where are the high school dropouts? Where are the minorities? (Was that chic Aleut-looking guy the only non-white who made it?) To imagine that a room-full of 20-somethings would listen raptly, jaws open, as the attire of French courtesans is explained to them by a volunteer teacher -- that, too, is absurd.

What were these people eating? Canned food left over at the Piggly Wiggly after 12 years? Who was cutting their perfect lawns? Where were they getting water? (There was a stab made at explaining that, but not a convincing one.) Where were the dogs and cats? The rotting cars? The rust, the dirt, the blight? We were given to understand that there was only one "not nice" guy alive, and he was basically only made that way by some weird type of PTSD from being a "care-giver" during the plague.

I realize science fiction does have the obvious fictional component. But it really does need to have some semblance of reality to work.

Save your money. This movie is just plain stupid.

WARNING!!! THERE ARE SPOILERS BELOW!!!!

SPOILERS WITHIN

Sorry, but this movie is just not that great. I know it's a low budget film, but that doesn't excuse the poor plot, unbelievable scenarios, and massive plot holes. the basic plot: a plague wipes out the world's population, leaving 186 people left in San Francisco. one issue: we hear so much about this plague, yet learn nothing about it. we aren't told a single bit about it's origin, initial outbreak, symptoms, how it spread across the world, or how it's spread (it's assumed it's not airborne, given the lack of face masks, but that's all we get). we don't know why some people were apparently immune (and why the majority of those people are white, fairly educated people. I counted 2 minorities in this whole film) or whether it affected the environment (there are mentions of wild dogs, and we see birds and fish). overall, we get zero information about this plague, other than the fact that it's deadly. even if this movie was less about a killer plague and more about the people that survive it, this info could have been worked in somehow, espcially since we get several interviews w/ a doctor

also lacking is info about the current situation. we hear over and over how there's only 186 people left in S.F. but get no info about the outside world. we don't learn how the rest of the country and world survive, what sort of political structure is left, or even if the crisis is really over (we're just left to assume the plague magically disappeared from the face of the Earth). also, everything is very, very clean. it's a bit unbelievable to see the streets completely devoid of trash, bodies, burned cars, scavengers, or other signs of an apocalypse. given everyone's nonchalant view on life (a girl just laughs off the fact she came across a dead body, people are holding dinner parties, making art, playing musical instruments, and learning about Da Vinci, as opposed to learning how to survive in this new world) and the fact everyone is so clean and well fed, you wouldn't even know the end of the world had occurred.

plot wise, the movie isn't strong. there is a supposed crazy guy living in the town and the people are trying to decide what to do w/ him (they get the grand idea of banishing him, but seem surprised he came back, as if 186 people could block off the entire city). the film makers trek out to the middle of nowhere for some absurd reason (they set out to talk to people, but go to a desolate area). people in this movie are very quick to kill each other, despite the fact the human race is nearly extinct. and the ending is just pure idiocy.

the concept was marvelous, but the movie just wasn't all that great, even considering this was a low budget film. compare this film to other post-apocalyptic films involving disease and plague (The Stand, 28 Days Later, etc) and you'll see how this film pales in comparison. this is a very amateurish film that should have never seen the light of day outside the film department of a university

It's poorly filmed, poorly acted and full of pseudo-intellectual garbage.

The movie is filmed as a documentary, and as a documentary it's just plain bad. The whole thing is put together haphazardly. There's at least five separate storylines, none of which are very interesting, and are cut together in a weird way. There's no focus to the movie whatsoever. There's no beginning, middle or ending. It looks and feels like something a high school kid would put together for film class. The "post apocalyptic" scenes consist of being either out in the forest, or closeups of people in their nice clean house with the lights off and a candle burning.

The actors are obviously ad-libbing for most of the movie. You can see the internal dialog reflected in their eyes. They're not acting, they're sitting there talking. They're not present in the movie at all. Every character is clean, well groomed and coiffed.

Apparently, the only people to survive in San Francisco are artists, teachers, film makers, sculptors, hippies and one emotionally disturbed ex-fireman. The society they've created for themselves has no purpose and no direction. Everyone seems to be only looking out for themselves, and they don't even do that very well. How they've lived on their own for 12 years after the world ended is mind boggling.

The only redeeming quality in this movie is the engineer played by Adam Savage. His character seems to be the only one taking the end of the world seriously. He talks about what it is like and what is needed to survive in the world they currently live in. His character has plans for the future and realizes that eventually everyone will have to move out of the city and get back to living off the land and making simple tools in order to live. Most of the deleted scenes on the DVD are him talking about life in a post-apocalyptic world, and are just about the only thing worth watching on the entire DVD.

I don't expect too much from low budget films, but some mistakes are just plain dumb to make.

Tiny things like nail polish ruined the feel of it being post-apocalyptic. Long yawn...

I liked this movie. That by itself won't make anybody get the DVD but I did. This is the side that you don't see. Most of the time you see action movies about the climactic ending, or maybe roving bands of marauders attacking villages (there is a very brief bit of that) but this movie focuses more on how the rest of scociety deals with the aftermath. In this cas the culpret wasn't a roving band (I'm not going to say what it was). The rest of the people - not the main charactors in the movies. but the other people, what happens to them? This movie focuses on them, but it does it in a way that it makes it seem like it really happened. This movie is made to be a homemade documentwry filmed by future reporters who want to make a name for themselves by explaining what happened, interviewing people, and saying what life is like now. It's a great thought provoking movie. I say that, but who am I? Check it out and decide for yourself>

I've waited over five years for this film. Soon as I heard the premise and execution, I was good to go. Unfortunately, it stayed years in DVD-limbo for the same reason most good things do: money.

This was a small, independent film - so small, in fact, I was able to get in touch with one of the creators, Joshua Atesh (no, not Calum Grant!) and get myself placed on his "list" of people who'd been chafing for a copy of their very own for an eternity.

All that trouble, and I found out about this film's DVD release as a seeming-afterthought, and through a back channel... very sad!

Great flick. Even after five years of anticipation, I still wasn't let down. Perhaps the best post-apocalyptic flick I've seen on DVD... imagine that! No stars, no special effects to speak of, no on-location segments or mentionable production values, yet it was better than most of the "blockbuster" schlock that comes out around summertime each year.

I mean, the only thing we really got here was talking-face interviews inside nondescript homes, or outside in anonymous woods. Yet somehow, all of it was far more interesting in premise and execution than many of those jillion-dollar Hollywood movies.

Hope these guys get something more than just their money back for all their troubles. I'd like to see more stuff from them along this vein, if such is possible.

Simply put, this movie is simple. It's a faux-documentary of several post-apocalyptic San Franciscans who meander through their attempt to make sense of it all on film.

First and foremost, there is nearly no description of how the world got to its current horrid state. The only thing known is that there was a massive plague of some kind. There's no development, no description, and there is no reasoning why the people still alive weren't affected, which is especially irritating when considering the fact that one of the initial reviews is with someone in the medical field. It's an absolute must to really becoming interested in this sort of movie.

The rest of the movie is somewhat difficult to stomach. The whole environment is pristine, without as much as a pile of flaming trash in site. It's a wonder how all the people in the movie aren't dying of dehydration and starvation considering all the work they must put in to clean up the entire city. I guess it's easy considering all 186 people left in S.F. are all knowledgeable, educated, and actively in search of some sort of Zen-like existence amongst their fellow survivors. Except of course that one arsonist who was added as a weak attempt at interpersonal tension or a decayed sense of a community's attempts of policing their own. And those people in the woods, whatever they're all about other than getting away from everyone else.

I have no problem with the positive outlook on life, the attempted utopia in a dystopian future, but there has to be some believability to be enticing. The social gatherings and educational opportunities are completely unrealistic if amongst the last couple hundred survivors. If you want to watch a post-apocalyptic movie shot with some documentary footage, check out Romero's Diary of the Dead; it's far more interesting, infinitely more well done, and more believable...even with the zombies.

Disclaimer: I viewed this film as a streaming rental, and as such cannot comment on the audio or visual quality of the disc, nor any extras. My review is concerned with the entertainment value of the film only.

'Ever Since the World Ended' seems nearly equally spaced between its high and low points. As a faux-documentary that looks back a decade later on a plague that decimated the world, the film primarily moves through interviews of the remaining 186 people alive in the city of San Francisco. Though not succinctly stated, these people are on the cusp of leaving behind the old world and creating a new one, with the reasonable idea that some still cling to the familiar, and others are facing the difficult realities ahead of them. This is a fascinating, thought-provoking concept, with boundless room for exploration. The problem is that the people who have survived in this area, with few exceptions, all closely resemble the stereotype of San Franciscans as dreamy, elitist artists or liberal unitarians sitting around a campfire singing Kumbayah. Surely people like that exist, but I don't buy that San Franscisco is so completely overwhelmed with this type that if a random sample of 186 people were selected, this demographic would be the only one from which to draw.

But, perhaps I'm wrong. Maybe, for this particular area of the country, the film is more or less accurate in depicting the makeup of the survivors. If so, I wouldn't bet much on them lasting another ten years - not without serious changes to their outlook. One of the films strong points is amply illustrating how, with the exception of one man, none of the people who were accustomed to the old world were able to let it go, preferring to retain as much of the trappings of the society that spawned them as possible. By feeding of the remains of civilization, they are able to continue the illusion of that society, and to avoid looking at what happens when the carcass of San Franscisco is no longer able to support them.

Because the film has such a lop-sided representation of the survivor's cultural outlook, I suspect a large part of whether or not it appeals to someone is how much they identify with the people onscreen. White, upscale, liberally tolerant folks with a relaxed attitude toward the world might really dig it. Few others are represented, so it seems as though there would be less attraction for them. In the end, the faux-documentarians themselves are unable to draw any conclusions from the footage they've taken, and instead leave it to speak for itself. As a projection of what the world might look like given the film's parameters, it does make some interesting observations, and also provokes speculation in the viewer. Yet ultimately what the footage suggested to me was that this particular group were unsuited for long-term survival due to their utter inability to discard the conventions of the past when dealing with the challenges of (their) present. If I thought that was the filmmaker's objective, I would have given it higher marks - but I don't. Rather I think they were enamored with the illusion that something viable could still come out of this society, that it would still be able to remake the world in the manner they would like for it to be. Maybe - but it seems to me that the words and actions of a young teen, too young to remember the way things were, indicate better that their new world would be predicated along more primal lines. That means that 'Ever Since the World Ended' is a bit of a misnomer - twelve years after the plague, the world is still ending, kept alive by the memories of those who won't let it go.

Its funny how people find plot holes and such in this as if major blockbuster End-O-World flicks don't. For heaven's sake, its movie. It is obvious that this was a low-budget shoot and I doubt it could have been done better even with money. I liked the movie because it was off the cliche radar. The part I enjoyed the most were the youth in the film that had little memory of the old world and wanted no part of the apocalyptic nostalgia of their elders. If the world did go down, I would rather see these folks survive than the Road Warriors. I would LOVE to see a sequel of the survivors in, say, Alabama or somewhere else in the redneck south. There would surely be more gunplay :)