Solomon Terra This is definitely not one for those to whom production values are a major component of their enjoyment (or lack thereof) of a movie, yet it's not a bad story for those who know how to tolerate such shortcomings in the interest of a not-bad story and a decent effort in spite of the handicaps. Much as I liked it, it was in spite of its shortcomings and not because of any 'charm' such things can sometimes impart. Virtually every component that goes into movie-making is what you might consider "sub-par", so don't go into it expecting anything terrific, but yet I still liked it. I'll be honest in that I probably wouldn't have paid much to rent it - but it might be worth a $1 rental or something similar. It's one of those kinds of stories where while the movie may not be the best depiction of it, the concept itself involves some sufficiently troubling philosophical/ideological questions so that if you're willing to look past the movie's surface "production values" and deeper into the core concept, it might actually be satisfying for you on that level alone. It doesn't get you into that mode automatically - that would be "high production values" for that - but if you're that type of person already and you -want- to peer into the philosophical realm, it shouldn't be too difficult to do.The more crucial elements of the story were depicted "good enough" to let you get into it as deeply as you want to, with the exception of the distractingly cheap CGI. Fortunately, there aren't too many places where you absolutely have to ignore it, just enough of them to be a bit unpleasantly jolting for just a second or two here and there. The nuclear detonations were actually pretty bad - they appear to have forgotten to texturize them, so they were just shiny, "Stargate shimmer effect" textures on mushroom-cloud shaped CGI renderings. The motion & shape weren't too shabby, but the absence of actual texture was rather distracting. Fortunately, there are only two of them and they're relatively far apart. The plumes of smoke and "raging fires" are the only other cheap effects, and they're only mildly overused in a few parts, not so much as to ruin the whole experience if you're not too picky. Shortcomings aside, I -was- somewhat impressed with the complexity of the "carnival"-like scene about 30 minutes or so from the end. That was actually surprisingly complex and well-choreographed as far as the outside scene with dozens of actors. That was probably the most impressive scene of the whole film, production-wise. Also, while not giving a spoiler for the ending, I will say that in spite of the rather cheesy lead-up to the final scene, it -did- end on an interestingly profound note. That, I suspect, was the writing of Mary Shelly -finally- being made obvious (admittedly, it's a bit hard to credit this to Shelly through most of it - some elements are clearly her, but only if you know what you're looking for - the final line, though, is classic her, imho).I don't apologize for movies, but I may sound like I'm doing that here to a degree as I just happened to like this one in spite of the things others justifiably loathed. It's cheaply made and that's obvious, but enough of the actors, script writers and set designers actually seemed to -care- about the job they were doing that some of you will find the cheap overall experience to be worth putting up with by the time all is said and done. The flaws are obvious quickly, the strengths a little less so, but I think you should be able to know within 10-15 minutes whether or not you'll like this particular semi-stinker. A few good clips on YouTube or elsewhere on the 'net should be sufficient. :-)Enjoy - or not! I did in either case. :-)

p-stepien Kudos to the director for this attempt. The movie has many flaws, but I am accustomed to below par production in my line of work.In the end I was very impressed with what the director managed to do with the money he had at his disposal. Yes, the acting was weak at times, but I've seen much worse. Yes, the lighting was sometimes off and there were sound issues. But overall the production quality is good enough to know whats happening and the story is engrossing with a no holds barred approach. The acting may have not been up to par to the script, but still I enjoyed every minute of this movie.This film has many flaws but the 3,3 IMDb rating is ridiculous. At least this movie has a great story. Liked it much more than The Omega Man (with Charlton Heston) or I Am Omega (with Mark Dacascos).People act like acting and top-notch production qualities is all that matters. I would tell these people that they are hooked on eye candy and that sometimes they should really put stuff into perspective.Overall a decent 7 in my book. Two thumbs up.

byxl Considering such a low budget it was an ambitious project. It's an amateur picture and the good effort by that standard. I gave it a 6/10 rating. I had more fun with this one than I did while watching Griff Furst's I Am Omega (starring Mark Dacascos). The escape, realization that he's not human either, Eva story- those were the things that could have been delivered better, regardless of the budget. Acting was horrible, which really doesn't make any difference- it's just that kind of picture. Overall, movie gives you a perfect opportunity to invite your friends (those dedicated freaks- if you've seen this picture or are reading comments like these, you fit the category yourself :D), buy some beer and snacks, and the fun is guaranteed. On the other hand, do not watch this with you significant other!

Steve Nicola I watched the Last Man expecting a present day adaptation on a Mary Shelley novel but on a small budget and thats what i got. I also expected decent independent actors, passable special effects, decent direction and freaks that actually look like freaks.....this however I did not get. The Last Man has its good points, which are that I could get all the way through it without turning off and for the small budget spent you can see the potential that the director has with the right mentor. The problem with the Last Man is that the bad outweighs the good. The camera is shaky in the action scenes, the CGI is appalling (would have been better without it), the echoed overlayed voices are amateur, the action scenes (fights and gun battles) are about as exciting as watching paint dry, and the acting is mediocre at best. I'm not a hater at all, I'm just being brutally honest. No actually I'm being fair giving it a 4 out of 10. It was watchable but never exciting, and that is a shame because a film like this had so much potential. I love apocalyptic films and this one did have good writing (yes a positive comment). The script was interesting, especially the use of Sun Tzu's Art of War, and the message that we are all monsters, especially when we judge those that are different is one of truth that needs to be told. It is this alone that made me keep watching. Another good thing is that watching this has made me want to read the novel so I can picture in my imagination what this film could have been with a bigger budget, better actors, and better editing and camera-work. I would still like it to be independent but a film of this scale needs some cash to work with. Please someone out there give it another shot and this time make it with heart, you know like your Mum does with the cooking. That way I know it will be good.