Such a frustrating disappointment

Best movie ever!

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

A thought provoking pseudo-documentary about life after a plague has wiped out the majority of San Francisco and the rest of the world.Shot on an obvious shoe-string, it covers common science-fiction territory about life for the survivors in the aftermath of such a calamity.The focus is on the people and the remains of society. Adam Savage as the "engineer" provides the technical aspects of how people are coping, but the movie primarily focuses on how individuals choose to exist and their relations, if they choose to have any, with others. Some choose to work with others in a town-style setting, some like to live on the outskirts but still interact with those in town and a few have gone completely isolationist. It includes one "execution", not seen on- screen, of a person who was deemed dangerous to the other survivors.For avid readers or viewers of apocalyptic movies, they may be a bit bored. For those new to the topic, I think they will find this movie to be very thought-provoking and enjoyable.

a lot of heart, couldn't have asked for more. many faux documentaries have terrible acting (overdramatised), but the actors in this film were so believable sometimes I forgot this was fictional! it was refreshing to see a movie that actually showed positivity in an 'apocalyptic' story, rather than crazy rape scenes or murder (not saying this stuff wouldn't exist, of course). but i have to say i really appreciated the humanity of it all, and it just takes into account that when all is lost, people can still be good, collaborating together to improve their lives, like they have always done historically. 2 scenes really stood out in my mind: the first being that of when the one group found the man murdered in their path. even though most of them feared for their safety around this man when he was alive (and some of them wanted him dead anyway), the emotions expressed in the group was not just of relief, but also deep sadness. the second scene that i found pretty profound was the teenage boy who never experienced the nostalgic past that all the adults seem to long for, and it is presumed that he was the 'executioner' of the dead man. the boy didn't do it out of rage or contempt, but probably more for the reason that none of the adults could or wanted to do it (or maybe to some degree, he understood that it would hurt much less for him to do it). he was symbolic of the new world, coloring the skies with every shade of gray.

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.

So a plague hits San Francisco (and presumably the rest of the USA &/or world??), and 10-12 years later only 186-200 people survive in the Bay area. The punchline: the survivors shown (about 40) in a "documentary" being made by a couple other fellow survivors, all wear polished haircuts; makeup; clean, fashionable clothes; clean-shaved faces, or perfectly groomed goatees and soul patches. Judging by their diction, they almost all sound like they wandered off a college campus or out of a coffee house. The man who is supposed to be menacing to the documentary makers when they enter his property, swings a hammer and grunts, but it just looks like a random clean-cut person pretending to be threatening. The houses shown are freshly painted, the streets have no vegetation popping through cracks, and the only sign of oddity is a shot of the Golden Gate Bridge looking sort of dilapidated. People seem minimally traumatized, there's no explanation of how the plague disappeared or how it was caused or how likely it would be to return. The current generation of kids is happy to live in a quiet peaceful world, there are plenty of supplies left in the huge city so sparsely populated, city water will last at least 20 more years, as will some backup generators and solar panels. Surfer-looking dudes fish and talk about getting back to the land by hunting. Pot is smoked freely. Kids are taught lessons in renaissance art while sitting cross-legged in a circle on a floor in a sparkling clean room. A well-mannered white-haired woman houses a small commune in her large home on a hill, where they eat salad and fresh bread at dinner. Trouble only strikes when a jaded emergency worker who once burned peoples homes, returns to town. He's shot off-camera and people are relieved. Some other anonymous shooter wounds one of the pot-smoking documentary makers when he and others venture out of city limits. He's mercy-killed by one of the friends and no mourning is shown. Um, DUDES? There was a PLAGUE!!!! It killed millions!!!! There's hardly anybody around except corpses!!!! Since when would you have time to teach art? Or keep your house freshly painted? Or put on makeup? Or lounge around smoking weed? Where would you even get fresh makeup? Or such clean, fashionable clothes? Who's doing your hair??? Wouldn't you all be too busy growing the veggies and baking the bread you're eating in your Pier One decorated living room? I'm all for utopia, I'm all for a movie about a utopia, but perhaps this plague wasn't the best premise to use as foundation for how great the world would be with less people. And if the real-life film makers did want to show the flip-side of this utopia, they wouldn't even have needed a bigger budget. Just scout locations for run-down houses, and tell your actors to cut each other's hair for a few months as opposed to getting professional haircuts. Especially the actor who was supposed to be living in the woods, camping in the forest canopy -- unseen by his friends for years. You might want to tell him not to wash his freshly bleached clothing for a few months, and ditch the soul patch.