"...clever... fascinating... thought-provoking..." - The New York TimesWINNER - Best Film Award - London Sci-Fi Film Festival / WINNER - Best Feature Audience Award - San Francisco IndieFest / OFFICIAL SELECTION - Los Ange... more »les Film Festival / OFFICIAL SELECTION - Seattle International Film Festival / OFFICIAL SELECTION - Lake Placid Film Forum / OFFICIAL SELECTION - London Raindance Film Festival"... continually tickles the mind while leaving a heavy lump in the chest..." - VarietyThe only thing to fear is peopleSan Francisco. Population: 186Twelve years after a devastating plague has emptied the world of people, two San Francisco filmmakers traverse the nearly deserted city with a camera and a microphone. In a series of encounters and interviews with a ragtag handful of fellow survivors, they explore the harsh realities, the day-to-day challenges and the tough - sometimes shocking - choices facing everyday people struggling to build a community on a large and lonely planet.Special Features: Extra Footage / Trailerapprox. 78 mins. col. WIDESCREEN« less
San Francisco values in the aftermath -- just plain stupid
P. Caulfield | Conyers, Ga. United States | 04/06/2008
(1 out of 5 stars)
"OK, I'll admit up front that I stopped watching this movie before it concluded. I stopped right about the point where the young woman announced she had decided she wanted to "parent" a child by herself and had publicly approached some male visitor to assist in her impregnation. That happened right after a lovely older woman wearing nail polish and lots of jewelry -- holding court in her perfectly-appointed hilltop home where she hosted communal "book club" type gatherings -- announced sternly that there would be "no guns at the table." (This sent a young woman who sported a sidearm scurrying off apologetically to remove her weapon before taking tea.)
To imagine that any of these scenarios would play out in any form after a plague has reduced the San Francisco area to a population of 186 is frankly absurd. To imagine that only those who are artists and free-thinkers would survive is absurd. Where are the hooligans? Where are the high school dropouts? Where are the minorities? (Was that chic Aleut-looking guy the only non-white who made it?) To imagine that a room-full of 20-somethings would listen raptly, jaws open, as the attire of French courtesans is explained to them by a volunteer teacher -- that, too, is absurd.
What were these people eating? Canned food left over at the Piggly Wiggly after 12 years? Who was cutting their perfect lawns? Where were they getting water? (There was a stab made at explaining that, but not a convincing one.) Where were the dogs and cats? The rotting cars? The rust, the dirt, the blight? We were given to understand that there was only one "not nice" guy alive, and he was basically only made that way by some weird type of PTSD from being a "care-giver" during the plague.
I realize science fiction does have the obvious fictional component. But it really does need to have some semblance of reality to work.
Save your money. This movie is just plain stupid."
Like, Wow Man! Pass a Cigarette
S William Shaw | The Nether | 03/19/2008
(3 out of 5 stars)
"This "documentary" has its good and insightful points, but ultimately it grows old halfway through. After the first 20 minutes "Ever Since The World Ended" feels more like a 60's hippie commune than a group of end of the world survivors. I imagine if you live in San Francisco this film will seem very real, but for those of us outside this culture it comes off as a group of 21st century hippies playing pretend."
Just not a good movie at all
twisted little puppy | Boston, MA | 06/03/2008
(1 out of 5 stars)
"WARNING!!! THERE ARE SPOILERS BELOW!!!!
Sorry, but this movie is just not that great. I know it's a low budget film, but that doesn't excuse the poor plot, unbelievable scenarios, and massive plot holes. the basic plot: a plague wipes out the world's population, leaving 186 people left in San Francisco. one issue: we hear so much about this plague, yet learn nothing about it. we aren't told a single bit about it's origin, initial outbreak, symptoms, how it spread across the world, or how it's spread (it's assumed it's not airborne, given the lack of face masks, but that's all we get). we don't know why some people were apparently immune (and why the majority of those people are white, fairly educated people. I counted 2 minorities in this whole film) or whether it affected the environment (there are mentions of wild dogs, and we see birds and fish). overall, we get zero information about this plague, other than the fact that it's deadly. even if this movie was less about a killer plague and more about the people that survive it, this info could have been worked in somehow, espcially since we get several interviews w/ a doctor
also lacking is info about the current situation. we hear over and over how there's only 186 people left in S.F. but get no info about the outside world. we don't learn how the rest of the country and world survive, what sort of political structure is left, or even if the crisis is really over (we're just left to assume the plague magically disappeared from the face of the Earth). also, everything is very, very clean. it's a bit unbelievable to see the streets completely devoid of trash, bodies, burned cars, scavengers, or other signs of an apocalypse. given everyone's nonchalant view on life (a girl just laughs off the fact she came across a dead body, people are holding dinner parties, making art, playing musical instruments, and learning about Da Vinci, as opposed to learning how to survive in this new world) and the fact everyone is so clean and well fed, you wouldn't even know the end of the world had occurred.
plot wise, the movie isn't strong. there is a supposed crazy guy living in the town and the people are trying to decide what to do w/ him (they get the grand idea of banishing him, but seem surprised he came back, as if 186 people could block off the entire city). the film makers trek out to the middle of nowhere for some absurd reason (they set out to talk to people, but go to a desolate area). people in this movie are very quick to kill each other, despite the fact the human race is nearly extinct. and the ending is just pure idiocy.
the concept was marvelous, but the movie just wasn't all that great, even considering this was a low budget film. compare this film to other post-apocalyptic films involving disease and plague (The Stand, 28 Days Later, etc) and you'll see how this film pales in comparison. this is a very amateurish film that should have never seen the light of day outside the film department of a university"
Did the World Really End?
Martin Asiner | Jersey City, NJ | 06/12/2009
(2 out of 5 stars)
"The premise of EVER SINCE THE WORLD ENDED is one that has been done many times before, but here directors Cal and Josh try something new that works for the first half but quickly bogs down in areas that frankly grate on a viewer's intelligence. A virus of near total lethality has swept the United States, killing hundreds of millions. We see none of this. What we do see are the after effects some twelve years later. Cal and Josh are residents of San Francisco and they travel the city with a makeshift video camera, interviewing as many of the 186 survivors as they can. Their brief interviews form the film proper, which like a Shakesperean play within a play, is always two steps removed from the external world of the viewer. I have no problem with this concept, which in its own way is quite daring. The major issues that do not ring true even in a cinematic sense are the ones that create the false reality of the filmmakers who seem determined to shrink the pre-plague years of a liberal leftist pot smoking San Francisco into a montage of scenes that suggest that the hip, ultra-liberal lifestyle of youngish ex-stock traders is quite sufficient to form the basis of a viable society that is as neatly ordered as if nothing of consequence has happened at all. Except for a few thrown in scenes of some seriously disturbed individuals, everyone concerned is cultured, fit, well nourished and dressed, and possessed of a mental equilibrium that is rock solid. Nowhere does there exist any Mad Max motorcycle thugs wreaking havoc on the few peaceful remnants of society. Nowhere is there even a hint of the ravages of time that a lack of human beings will impact on the environment. The recent hit television cable show LIFE WITHOUT PEOPLE creates a far different world minus people. Within days, the environment would suffer noticeable degradation. Certainly after twelve years, a major city like San Francisco would evidence an explosion of animals roaming the streets, collapsing buildings, and mosses and vines infiltrating ubiquitously. Yet, this San Francisco is as well maintained as if an invisible army of garbage collectors and architects were working discretely overtime to maintain the clean lifetstyle that liberal urbanites insist is the inevitable accompaniment of those who demand latte coffees as they drive to the polls to vote for Barack Obama. There is even an incredulous scene in which an ultra-liberal female is debating the merits of having a child minus the presence of the biological father. In short, EVER SINCE THE WORKD ENDED is a left wing fantasy that defends a lifestyle that even God would find both politically correct and eminently desirable. For viewers who wish a dash of reality in their fantasies, this film is an insult to survivalists everywhere."
Unrealistic and filled with holes
Jason | Backwater, Alabama | 04/06/2009
(1 out of 5 stars)
"Simply put, this movie is simple. It's a faux-documentary of several post-apocalyptic San Franciscans who meander through their attempt to make sense of it all on film.
First and foremost, there is nearly no description of how the world got to its current horrid state. The only thing known is that there was a massive plague of some kind. There's no development, no description, and there is no reasoning why the people still alive weren't affected, which is especially irritating when considering the fact that one of the initial reviews is with someone in the medical field. It's an absolute must to really becoming interested in this sort of movie.
The rest of the movie is somewhat difficult to stomach. The whole environment is pristine, without as much as a pile of flaming trash in site. It's a wonder how all the people in the movie aren't dying of dehydration and starvation considering all the work they must put in to clean up the entire city. I guess it's easy considering all 186 people left in S.F. are all knowledgeable, educated, and actively in search of some sort of Zen-like existence amongst their fellow survivors. Except of course that one arsonist who was added as a weak attempt at interpersonal tension or a decayed sense of a community's attempts of policing their own. And those people in the woods, whatever they're all about other than getting away from everyone else.
I have no problem with the positive outlook on life, the attempted utopia in a dystopian future, but there has to be some believability to be enticing. The social gatherings and educational opportunities are completely unrealistic if amongst the last couple hundred survivors. If you want to watch a post-apocalyptic movie shot with some documentary footage, check out Romero's Diary of the Dead; it's far more interesting, infinitely more well done, and more believable...even with the zombies."