Josh Anderson The only thing I enjoyed about this movie was the concept. I was hooked by the cover art and the synopsis on the back of the DVD and so I rented it. I was very disappointed in the low budget quality and poor acting. I could have made a better movie using my old mini-DV camera. If "B" quality doesn't bother, perhaps you could get into this. I can think of hundreds of cool ideas to take this idea - the idea that only 180 something people are left on the planet. Think of the infrastructure - buildings, roads....THINGS, you could pillage from billions of abandoned buildings! The film seemed to barely touch on some of the essentials you'd be forced to deal with right away, like how to sustain your food and shelter. Let's hope maybe a bigger studio or something buys the rights to this story.

Bill Thierfelder (BillThierfelder) 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.

Michael O'Keefe This pseudo documentary is not enlightening, thought provoking let alone entertaining. Dull and lame story about the possible outcome of a deadly virus ravaging the world, killing a majority of the Earth's population. The story takes place in San Francisco where there is only 186 survivors and most living in a commune. It has been over ten years since the virus began dropping the population. One man thinking beyond the present travels Northern California with a video camera to film conversations with any wandering survivors willing to talk about their experiences for prosperity. Director Calum Grant takes a starring role in a cast that includes: Angie Thieriot, Mark Routhier, Stewart Fallon, Brad Olsen and Adam Savage.

jpathomas To my mind the most basic problem with this film is it's failure to envision how such a group of people might chose to govern themselves. In fact there doesn't seem to be any form of group governance at all. It's as if the film makers had no idea that people ever lived in communities before the industrial age. We are presented with a group of characters who are concerned with teaching piano, reviewing art, and building museums. No one is farming, no one is hunting, no one is milking cows, and everyone is well dressed and clean.I came away from this film wondering why everything, and everyone, is so clean. From the group home of women and children who spend their time teaching piano and putting out the good china to the loaner who walked out of the city five years previous to live in the trees, everyone is showered, combed, brushed and shaved. The city, deserted as it is, is clean. Is there a team of rogue street sweepers out there keeping the place up? I have a fascination with TEOTWAWKI films, and I was willing to give this little move a try. But there's nothing convincing about the environment, or the characters. I wish the film makers would have looked at history and how people live before the rise of modern civilization, they would have made a better film if they had.