Ever Since the World Ended (2001) User Reviews (20)

A nice try, but fails to get it right.

[jpathomas · 5/10 · 12 September 2007]

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.

Well done but not realistic

[sandbagr01 · 5/10 · 9 February 2008]

This is a good movie and well made. I appreciate the fact that it is a real sci fi and doesn't rely on high priced effects to get its point across. However... It does bother me that with only 180some people left in a city the size of San Francisco, they have no gasoline to run cars or even motorcycles with. It also bothers me that people protect themselves with an occasional hammer or baseball bat. This seems an affectation of the filmmakers dislike for firearms and unrealistic. Also, the lack of leadership and some sort of coordinated effort to supply the needs of the survivors as well as preserve some of the essentials to prevent the fall back into barbarism is unrealistic. I am a peace-loving old hippie who lives in San Francisco but I am not an idiot, as many of the characters in this film appear to be. I think it says more about San Franciscans from the filmmakers point of view than what would really happen at the end of the world.

Only the Hipsters Survive

[maybemily · 5/10 · 20 February 2008]

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.

A Great Idea, but Bad Planning

[Terry-23 · 5/10 · 13 September 2007]

I really wanted to like this movie, and I think the concept is a great one. I also think a fair amount of the footage is good, but there were just too many things wrong with it to give an above average rating.

The biggest thing I got out of it was, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Society is supposedly gone, yet these people are still trying to fit into old stereotypical groups. You've got your rationalists, scientists, slackers, conspiracy theorists, the feminist coven, crazy people, violent people, my way or the highway people and just about every other group that exists today. And teenagers still thing they know more then the adults.

I just couldn't buy into it 100% for several reasons. I won't go into some of the massive plot holes (the whole "Mad Mark" story) and just stick to some of the small things. First of all, the Golden Gate Bridge falls apart in 12 years (which I can maybe accept) but everyone is very well groomed, and the women still wear makeup? Not only that but everyone's clothes are in perfect condition. And people still dye their hair? This is really glaring with the character who has been living in the tree tops for several years, by himself, yet he has a perfect haircut, sideburns, a soul patch, but otherwise cleanly shaved? If those kind of things don't bother you, you'll probably like this film much more then I did. It does have potential and I like the documentary style, but there were too many things that didn't seem right too me.

Of course, perhaps the virus that killed most of the people had a weird side effect for the living in that it stopped all hair growth. After all, this is sci-fi.

Not a complete waste of time, but it is flawed.

Not convincing

[bluesalt · 4/10 · 3 February 2011]

In the 12 years of scrounging since everyone they loved died and society collapsed, nobody really seems to have changed that much. When they aren't having dinner parties, surfing or smoking weed, they look like they have been.

The improvised dialogue is more about what the actors think of our present society than a convincing picture of a future one. The woman who wants to have a child and raise it on her own is particularly ridiculous. Who in their right mind would seek to become a single parent in a world with no reliable medical care or food supply? The movie actually improves quite a bit in the last 30 minutes. The cinematography gets better, the acting gets better, and there is finally some tension and plot connected to the setting.

Then the movie ends.

Boring, leftist utopia

[Thorgal_Aegirsson · 2/10 · 11 July 2014]

I wasted my time watching this piece and now I'm wasting reviewing. But I feel that people should be warned. If you are ideologically blinded hippie then this movie is for you. Otherwise it is not for you. Simple. It is an incredibly boring ode to hippies' view of the society, their utopian idea how the world would look like if they got rid of the government and the whole mankind. They create a new society filled with "professions" that don't serve any practical purpose, that wouldn't let this society survive for longer than a few weeks. If they're lucky. I don't want to put any spoilers here so I will leave it like that. Be warned though. If you expect some fascinating vision of a post-apocalyptic world - don't get your hopes too high.

Interesting voting. You either get this, or you don't. I did.

[tenten76 · 7/10 · 11 March 2003]

ESTWE is presented as a documentary / video diary, interviewing those few people left on earth who didn't die of a plague-like virus. Rather than going the usual sci-fi route and dwelling on apocalyptic scenes, we get interviews with people who have adapted and who are trying to maintain communities and build a future for their children.

The aspects which I found absolutely fascinating are:

The ways in which a community agonises over a dangerous neighbour; some wanting harsh justice, others demanding more humanitarian means but not sure what to do or who has the right to judge..

The children (becoming adults - now in their mid/late teens) who never knew the 'old' world; believing their parents are wrong to try and live in the past, and that they have a purer understanding of how to live in 'their' new world..

The 'human' need for society; those with a need for community/rules/stability; those who prefer to defy convention and live in moderate isolation (a very poignant moment when the beach pot-heads tell us how they've each been planning what the other one should do if he should die); and the lone individuals who worry everyone else and (in a few cases) become quite dangerous.

Within the communities, the very real sense that procreation is something that suddenly needs to be planned properly, and taken very seriously - from a healthy-genetic-pool point of view, as well as very serious medical considerations (in fact, there is a sad moment when you realise that something as simple as a gum-infection could kill you)..

And the idea that the only transportation is by foot, or by bicycle (further isolating communities) - with travellers under threat from lone 'wierdos' who may take pot-shots at anyone coming into their territory..

It should also be noted that apart from (obviously) wondering how you would cope in that situation, you also begin to imagine how much better your quality of life would be without the 21st Century rat-race, 'conveniences' and other distractions. I certainly did.

It's a well made, extremely thought-provoking film (slow at times, but not in a bad way), and really is pure sci-fi.

I would encourage anyone and everyone to see it, in the hope that it will broaden your horizons and make you look at your entire life, relationships and society in a completely different light. I would also put it on school curriculums.

You may wish the world ended sooner.

[benc7ca · 1/10 · 12 July 2007]

This is an interesting experiment, but just an experiment,and in no way ready for prime time. What bothered me most(and there were a lot of things that bothered me) was the absolute failure of imagination. Here, Calum Grant, the writer of this "the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it" scenario, can't let go of the world that has just ended; the survivors (as he imagines them) carry on as if they are in some self-actualization collective. It is SO "west coast" that it becomes a laughable re-affirmation (and this crowd "re-affirms" every five seconds) of every San Francisco stereotype I've ever seen. They don't have to show the Golden Gate bridge, one knows after the first ten minutes of dialogue where this is set. I give credit, as I always do, to the people who had the determination (if not the talent)to get this project off the ground and finished. However, if these yappy, later-day hippies are all that's left of civilization I'd be tempted to shoot myself...no, wait...I'd shoot them first.

Enjoyable end-game fiction

[guitarslide · 7/10 · 11 September 2007]

"Ever Since the World Ended" doesn't illuminate itself with flashing bulbs and overly artistic camera work, nor does the film degrade itself by venturing into the over-dramatic and quasi-philosophic. Rather, the movie succeeds at what it intends to be: realistic.

The comparison between older characters longing for the pre-plague past and younger characters acknowledging cynicism for the materialistic life we find ourselves in now provides an interesting scenario in itself. Where the film truly shines is during the small and almost subtle moments of humanity: shots of San Francisco completely devoid of activity and life. Simple footage of an area known for its population suddenly vacant make for simple yet profound imagery; to actually imagine such a transformation is, in itself, rather difficult.

Additionally, any viewer with any sort of historic appreciation can participate in the following scenario: Even now, people marvel at the innovations, art, engineering and lifestyles of ancient civilizations. Perhaps inadvertently, "Ever Since the World Ended" sets its future generations up with this scenario. What existed before was a civilization of skyscrapers and vivid imagery; what exists now (in the film) is a world of close-knit personalization and a general worldly-innocence. Although generations immediately following the events in the film would probably not 'appreciate' (for lack of a better term), the past that was, the generations in the future conceivably would (like we do today with the Greeks, Egyptians, and so on).

Although this movie lacks a certain flash that certain film-goers demand, it still provides an interesting view into the hypothetical future of mankind. Post-apocalyptical stories may not be uncommon, but certain stories seem more tangible than others; this is one of them.

There was NO WAY this could have been done well without a BIG budget and a lot of CGI

[mfisher452 · 2/10 · 9 July 2011]

The premise for this film is great: What would it be like to be part of a community of fewer than 200 people inhabiting the deserted remains of San Fransisco some years after a global pandemic? Unfortunately, the film totally fails to deliver on the premise. In such a world, one would expect the commonplace and the catastrophic to coexist, as they do in this film; it's just that the commonplace would almost certainly be nothing like that depicted here. The filmmakers seem to think that 12 years after the loss of 99% of the human population, a major city would somehow be magically preserved intact and undamaged, just as if it really were a quiet Sunday morning, which is presumably when some of the establishing shots were taken. More likely, San Francisco and practically every other city or town would be a burned-out ruin. The survivors' struggles would be quite different and much more in deadly earnest than is shown here. Anyone who is more interested in my extrapolation of what life would be like 12 years "since the world ended" may refer to my post in the message boards, since that would be too long to post here and since most of the other reviewers have contributed their quite legitimate surmises about how this imagined world really should look. If you're a first-year film-school student, this endeavor might be an interesting subject for critique; otherwise, stick with "The Road Warrior."

A Thought-provoking Film

[BillThierfelder · 9/10 · 22 April 2008]

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.

Thought provoking film

[beaglepilot2003 · 7/10 · 22 April 2013]

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.

Hilariously bad

[zack-beseda · 1/10 · 3 March 2008]

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.

Cover is Misleading: This is a B Movie

[holyspiritdriven · 2/10 · 27 May 2014]

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.

A little hit and miss

[greedydrunk · 5/10 · 25 February 2008]

Perhaps having never lived in San Francisco I am missing some cultural revolution in progress there, and perhaps that will be reflected in my following comments:

1. The adults miss the old world so why was there no migration? 2. Why does no central government still exist? 3. Why is there no current fear of the plague 4. Why have they not created their own government? Even if they do not pick a leader some strong charismatic person may pick themselves. 5. We have one African American and one Native American and everyone else they speak to is white, thats not a realistic ratio. 6. Everyone is so clean including that fellow who lives in the wilderness(good thing all the hairdressers survived). 7. You are teaching about art? How about engineering, health care,farming etc.. 8. There is such a lack of worry for day to day life there is a guy who dedicates his time to a conspiracy theory. 9. The city is in pristine condition, I would think that a city in the grips of fear would look more like a disaster zone. 10. No one seems to have suffered any trauma except one guy and he seems to have come to terms with it.

Of course all these things can be debated.

Sometimes it feels like the moral of the story is that people learn nothing. They do so many things that are inconsequential to long term human survival that I do not have any faith in the group as a whole.

Forget fast forward...hit STOP!

[michaelRokeefe · 1/10 · 13 November 2007]

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.

Great idea gets lost once they expand upon it past a certain point

[dbborroughs · 6/10 · 19 April 2009]

Documentary about the last people left in San Francisco after a plague has wiped out almost all of the population of the world. Good but very imperfect little film that works best when it has the people talking about what it was like during the bad old days as well as how they are getting along. In the small human moments the film shines and you feel as though the world has indeed ended. The problem is that the film wobbles outside of that, the city is too clean, it runs counter to what the people are saying. The film also wobbles when the film drifts out of the city. While I like the idea of seeing whats outside the city, there is something about those sections that just doesn't work. If you can get a chance to see the film and are intrigued by the idea about what happens after, I'd give it a shot, though I'd try to pay no more than a rental. (I should mention that Mythbuster Adam Savage plays one of the survivors who is very much like he is on the show.)

77 minutes of boredom.

[glamurnaiakisa · 1/10 · 12 May 2021]

What I expected from the description? Stories of people surviving in a post-apocalyptical world.

What I got was a bunch of hippies doing nothing to survive, just telling hippie stories and living their hippie lives like nothing happened.

Absolutely waste of time.

loved it

[Mkultramindcontrol · 10/10 · 8 October 2011]

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.

A mixed bag

[Wizard-8 · 28 August 2012]

I must confess I have a kind of weakness for end-of-the-world movies, so when I stumbled upon "Ever Since the World Ended" at my local video store, I immediately rented it. Looking at the other comments for this movie, it seems viewers are pretty much split on the movie. I think that both sides have legitimate arguments.

First, the good stuff. The acting by the amateur cast is surprisingly decent for the most part. I don't know if they were improvising or working with a written script, but they speak their lines well. Also, some of the characters are pretty interesting people, having interesting opinions and perspectives.

But there is some stuff that doesn't work. No doubt due to the low budget, we don't really get a good grasp of the world the characters inhabit. There are very few views of abandoned buildings and empty streets. Another problem is that there's no real connecting theme or plot connecting all the interviewed people. (Towards the end, there is a wilderness hike, but eventually it's abandoned and completely forgotten about.) Also, the quality of the photography leaves a lot to be desired.

It's a mixed bag, but I can see it appealing to some viewers. If you like end-of-the-world flicks, as well as independent productions, give this movie a spin in your DVD machine.