First of all, I don't understand many of these reviewers' complaints. It's not an action movie like "Star Wars" or "The Fast and Furious". So to say its slow and boring --- what did they think they were watching?
Secondly, I know the science doesn't make any sense. It's not a science documentary. It's fictional entertainment. I can separate the science logic (or illogic) from fictional entertainment.
Many of these reviewers didn't even know what was happening. It explains right in the beginning "in text" that humans destroyed the Earth and the rich and well connected left for another planet. Two generations later they are coming back to see if Earth is habitable again. They lost contact with the first mission. And the Nora Arnezeder character (Blake) arrives on the second mission. They eventually find that the first mission survived and split into two opposing factions of save the indigenous. Or use them as sex/reproduction slaves.
I know the science doesn't make sense. Space capsules are designed to float. Not sink. And even if they did, they would not wash up on shore right next to the girl who was swimming.
And it doesn't make sense that all or most of the world would be reduced to mudflats that go underwater at high tide. And re-emerge at low tide. Even in the worst case scenario --- nuclear war combined with global warming apocalypse --- there would still be mountains, hills and above sea level land with trees, birds and land animals. A lot less land if all the polar ice melts. But still plenty.
I too was disappointed that they went the route of good guys fighting the bad guys. Instead of a scientifically logical exploration of the Earth two generations after humans left.
But I thought the acting was good. Nora Arnezeder was terrific. The dialogue was good. And so was the action. (Although it didn't make sense that when Blake tackles the bad guy into the water at the end and chokes him to death, he wouldn't try to shoot her. You can clearly see the gun before, during and after the fatal fight.)
It's not a science documentary. It's fictional entertainment. Movies often over-exaggerate to make a point. And try to provide dramatic entertainment.
7 out if 10 for me.
Secondly, I know the science doesn't make any sense. It's not a science documentary. It's fictional entertainment. I can separate the science logic (or illogic) from fictional entertainment.
Many of these reviewers didn't even know what was happening. It explains right in the beginning "in text" that humans destroyed the Earth and the rich and well connected left for another planet. Two generations later they are coming back to see if Earth is habitable again. They lost contact with the first mission. And the Nora Arnezeder character (Blake) arrives on the second mission. They eventually find that the first mission survived and split into two opposing factions of save the indigenous. Or use them as sex/reproduction slaves.
I know the science doesn't make sense. Space capsules are designed to float. Not sink. And even if they did, they would not wash up on shore right next to the girl who was swimming.
And it doesn't make sense that all or most of the world would be reduced to mudflats that go underwater at high tide. And re-emerge at low tide. Even in the worst case scenario --- nuclear war combined with global warming apocalypse --- there would still be mountains, hills and above sea level land with trees, birds and land animals. A lot less land if all the polar ice melts. But still plenty.
I too was disappointed that they went the route of good guys fighting the bad guys. Instead of a scientifically logical exploration of the Earth two generations after humans left.
But I thought the acting was good. Nora Arnezeder was terrific. The dialogue was good. And so was the action. (Although it didn't make sense that when Blake tackles the bad guy into the water at the end and chokes him to death, he wouldn't try to shoot her. You can clearly see the gun before, during and after the fatal fight.)
It's not a science documentary. It's fictional entertainment. Movies often over-exaggerate to make a point. And try to provide dramatic entertainment.
7 out if 10 for me.