Avaliações de usuários

As stated in other review this is a reissue / rename of a 2016 movie however I had not seen it before. I quite enjoyed it for what it was, a movie with minimal cast with no expensive backdrops etc. It's almost a snapshot of a part of the whole story and yet it held my interest. If you like end of the world SF then I think you will like this, it's not going to get any awards or make big bucks but kept my interest.

Like a found footage flick, this one benefits from its shortcomings by focusing on what is available without a big budget. Most of the good parts are at the end, but the first half was not utterly devoid of interest. The commentary on social media, tech, and video games was perhaps a bit on the nose, but it created an effective sense of isolation -- of an almost "empty world" -- pretty well.

This is one of those insufferable cases where a great idea was executed clumsily, and it seems to be largely due to the format at hand. Other reviewers point out the obvious that this is a story that ultimately could not fit the scope it is intended to (a feature length film). It would make for a great singular TV episode type thing, or a short novel.

Ultimately as a 90 minute movie, it is too light on content and storytelling to maintain itself. It is quite literally the kind of film where you could fade in and out of and not lose step with it as long as you are paying attention to the first and last 15 minutes or so.

It's all very interesting and neat, but that's it.

I wasn't expecting much from this, but it was a surprisingly good little story despite the small cast and small number of locations; it didn't need more. It's also very relevant for the future with everything that's happened in the last two years and the way things are going.

A bit slow going and could have done with a lot more action, but overall not a bad film.

I felt that there should have been more about the back story and maybe a bit more looking at what had happened to the rest of the world.

Worth a watch if your bored, but don't anticipate to much from this film.

I will just add that the narration is unnecessary and contributes to It's failure. And the voice! I started hitting mute when he came on. --- Just a tiny bit of scriptwork and this would have been a fairly watchable lobudget sci-fi flick. Lastly, no idea what the reviewers references to socialism are about. There's no indication of life before 2149. May have been a war between Amazon and Google for all I know.

So many unrealistic things in this movie, but I think the worst is a kid who 'hasnt walked more than 10 feet in 9 years' walking from Mississauga to Kingston, which is about 165 miles without food or water!!!

There was potential for a decent message, if it had been allowed to grow naturally. Although, there is something ironic about using a movie to remind people to go out and make real connections.

The narration is what really ruined it for me. I was being shown things, then told about the things I had just seen. As if I might have been too dumb to get it.

It's also predictable, slowly paced, with no surprises or real stakes. And so much reality had to be overlooked, like how a podling didn't immediately die of exposure with no food or water.

Not good, but the scenery was pretty.

On IMDb this is called Darwin and also Confinement but on Amazon it's known as 2149:The Aftermath. I've watched a lot of movies but never seen 3 completely separate movie titles before. I haven't even watched it yet but when you can't get past the title without a mess you know it's gonna be trouble.

Why is this movie rated at only 4.9? Great cast ,great story, post-apocalyptic Edward Scissor hands.

I'm sad Molly Parker got caught up in this slop. I'm all about 100% dystopian films, but this is really bad. The script I think was written by a alien child who has never had any human interaction. The lead was better when he didn't speak. So one star is for Molly Parker and the other star is for learning new typing abbreviations. And the last star is for being blissfully short.

I would suppose this has a low rating because it's cerebral fiction and doesn't have enough action/adventure to appease today's adrenaline junkies. Further, zero bad language, no nudity, no violence. Most unusual for a post-apocalyptic sci fi film

This film has a great premise, good writing, good directing, good acting, music, and great use of limited scenery. A slow-burner for sure, but post-apocalyptic doesn't have to be Mad Max. Sometimes it's just people adapting.

I can't get into the strengths and weaknesses without spoilers, so suffice to say that the plot generally makes good, logical sense. Some people complain about 'missing information' but they haven't thought through the concept of a war that destroyed most of humanity, the remaining government trying to retain a viable workforce / civilization (as meager as it is), and survivors just trying to get by day to day (without going on sadistic rampages).

On the downside, the movie would have been better without narration... giving the audience a chance to figure a few things out. One doesn't have to know all the background details to understand the life the characters have been thrown in to. Remove the narration, it would have been a better, more immersive film.

This is a movie about people adapting to the needs of everyday life and discovering more about that life as time passes. Science fiction isn't always about giant robots and planet-conquering aliens. Sometimes great science fiction is just about people.

A good picture of big government out of control. Hiding the truth from people and creating obedience through fear mongering.

Enjoyable if you don't expect too much. Complaints: post-apocalyptic family living way off the grid somehow has clean clothes, a house with glass windows and cool hairstyles. Oh, and recorded music. Narrator's voice sounds nothing like Darwin would as an adult. Unclear what drones actually do. Yet the film gives us decent acting, limited but attractive locations and intriguing tech. And a single clear message: fear can imprison everyone. Not just Darwin but the family in the woods, too. I respect a low-budget production that makes its case succinctly without gore or horror.