Ever Since the World Ended

2001
Ever Since the World Ended
5| 1h18m| en| More Info
Released: 21 April 2001 Released
Producted By: Epidemic Films
Country: United States of America
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

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.

... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Director

Producted By

Epidemic Films

Trailers & Images

Reviews

euGenie 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.
Wizard-8 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.
maybemily 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.
benc7ca 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.