TenPin1969 Bad acting. Completely unbelievable plot. Imagine a 13 year old who has no idea what a philosophy class is, no idea how people would act in a life threatening situation, a weirdly vindicative and not-at-all realistic teacher character, and the stupidest ending ever and he'd still write a better script than this.

Ricky112101 I don't understand all the negative reviews on this one. The idea behind it is spectacular to be honest. An entire movie based on a thought experiment. The movie centers around a group of students involved in a social thought experiment on surviving an atomic apocalypse. The effects are pretty mediocre, but that is due to a low budget, so that is not too big of a deal to me. Acting is not the best, but Sophie Lowe and James D'Arcy are quite good. In fact, Sophie Lowe carries the film. She is great.Now, this film is probably not philosophically accurate, but frankly, I do not care. I liked it for what it was probably meant to be. A fun and quick sci-fi action movie. And again, Sophie Lowe was great. 7/10

Nicki B I would say that this movie started off great, but in all honesty, I don't think that it did. While the imagery was impressive, the characters were all unlikable. It was nearly impossible to sympathize with a pretentious group of young people and their narcissistic 'holier-than-thou' teacher. We begin with a game about a hypothetical situation that our students refuse to play, because pretending about death offends their delicate sensibilities. With the dramatics that go on, including our leading lady attempting to walk out of the class, you would think they were being asked to actually kill people. Sophie Lowe played our lead, Petra, who's character is apparently the smartest to ever attend the school. Her acting was atrocious. Absolutely awful. Her character was the second worst in the move, following only the teacher himself. The delicate rose petal of a genius is supposedly morally superior to everyone else, because her way of thinking is apparently the best way. This, by the end of the movie, is proved to be untrue. Our professor is played by James D'Arcy. I've seen this actor in other projects and always thought he was decent, but his performance here was awkward and forced. Maybe he found his character as distasteful as I -and the other characters in the movie- did. Normally I love a good movie, but it was hard to watch a teacher bully a group of students under the pretense of "stretching their minds". The logic behind the game Mr. Zimit creates is flimsy at best and is obviously self serving, in fact, he creates for himself a player that wins out no mater the scenario. His obsession with Petra, and hatred for her boyfriend, is obvious from the very beginning. The romance in this story is thrown in for literally no reason. It has nothing to do with the actual theme of the movie. Instead if just makes for poorly filmed make outs between to actors with no chemistry and gives the teacher something to be bitter about. Whoever wrote this movie seems to have learned everything they could about philosophy from Wikipedia.

tbhamfog just watched this film. saw a lot of derision on here for it so had to comment. this film asks some really good questions and doesn't ask a lot of other questions. This film lets the viewer think. A quality that so few films allow these days. Yes, there is a formula to this film but that is not a bad thing. The themes this film allows you to think about need a familiar plot point to ground it so we as an audience can relate. Sure this film is not Oscar worthy if that matters, but that doesn't make it a bad movie. This film reminds me of the 'Lifeboat' exercise I did in drama school. The 3rd solution to the puzzle made so much sense to me. Watch it and make up your own mind.