Home > Drama >

Ever Since the World Ended

Ever Since the World Ended (2001)

April. 21,2001
|
5
| Drama Science Fiction Mystery

Twelve years ago, a plague swept through, wiping out most of the population; in San Francisco, only 186 people remain. Two of them use jury-rigged batteries to power a camera and make a documentary. We see a variety of approaches to survival, from the artist and engineer who trade for their needs, to the surfers and woodsmen who fish and hunt, to the scavengers, and a communal farm. We also see how the community deals with those who threaten it, and how the youth are growing up with different values from those who knew our world.

...

Watch Trailer

Cast

Similar titles

Reviews

Solidrariol
2001/04/21

Am I Missing Something?

More
Intcatinfo
2001/04/22

A Masterpiece!

More
Hattie
2001/04/23

I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

More
Sarita Rafferty
2001/04/24

There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

More
Wizard-8
2001/04/25

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.

More
mfisher452
2001/04/26

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."

More
bluesalt
2001/04/27

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.

More
maybemily
2001/04/28

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.

More