grey_dog I must admit, I don't know whether to hate anyone who had something to do with the film more than I hate myself for suffering through to the end when I could have hit fast forward. The movie follows a customary bad, boring move pattern: tidbit to keep you interested, 15 minutes of utter boredom. A couple of brothers (one of whom lost an eye, even though it does not play into the plot) wandering through a Tasmania that is quarantined in a way that does not stop people from entering or leaving, and playing a game of tag. We learn clever "rules" about the electric, infrared, ghosts like "they can't see you if you burn corpses and spread the ashes on your face or clothes," and "since they are electric they cannot be created or destroyed." Then we build up to the climactic finish where everything is explained...what, what? It isn't explained? But I thought it had something to do with child abuse...or viruses...or pathways from another dimension...or...forget it. And the movie.

c_thug_x This is one of those movies where some added bucks would have made a big difference.The concept is sound. A guy goes to Tasmania (of all places!) to find his brother. The only problem being that Tasmania has become overrun with ghosts. Crazy, I know! The problem with How to Save Us is that it needed more. Thanks to the story, we know why nobody else is around, but still, it would have been nice if there were a few more cast members. For an hour and twenty minutes, we watch as this guy searches for his brother. The focus jumps between the two, but that's basically it for characters. Also, although I found the locations and sets functional, they never really stood out as anything special.Despite all this though, How to Save Us breaks out of its limitations and still delivers a creepy, unsettling story.

Seemp deHond This is by no means a bad Bmovie. It's very good for what it is, a low budget mystery.What's with the hating on this film? If you need a reference, it's more Lost than a Walking dead action flick and it relies mostly on little dialogue, scenic shots and suspense which is good because the casts acting talents are a little cringe worthy.I was oddly drawn in by the story line and the original concept. If you are looking for a high paced scream fest, than this is not for you. If a enticing original story is this is absolutely a very original concept and I can see someone picking this up in the future with a blockbuster high budget, Fassbender featured, remake. Mark my words, I could be very right.

lemon_magic Warning: compared to previous survival horror works like "Silent Hill" and the first "Resident Evil", "How To Save Us" doesn't have a whole lot of action; in fact, as detractors here have pointed out, there's mostly of whole lot of walking and sitting and staring into space until the final 20 minutes. It's all about mood and the unsettling spectacle of empty towns and houses everywhere, and the loneliness and vulnerability of the two main characters as one searches for the other through an eerily empty landscape. Once in a while, though, the invisible bogeymen will manifest themselves for a few seconds, and the scenes when they DO stir are pretty creepy and work quite well. However, the visual pleasures of the film are not to be missed if you're into that sort of thing, and the soundtrack/sound design is brilliant. And since the film is really about family and love, the screenplay has some sweetness and a real heart to it.To tell the truth: after the nihilism and hopelessness of the first part of the film, the "happy ending" seemed pasted on, but I decided it was OK to not have the cynical "evil wins after all" stinger for once and just go with the sweetness-and-light ending, even if it wasn't especially convincing.Amazingly good for what looks like an independent production. Not for viewers who want a roller coaster ride.