Z for Zachariah (2015) User Reviews

What happened to the Dog?

[limoconsultant · 6/10 · 13 March 2019]

What happened to the Dog?

1/2 way in-the dog who is a prime character - Ann's only support mechanism other than the church

The dog disappears from the plotline and never shows up again - not laying on a rug by the fire strolling down the lane - nuth'n

Caleb appears they take him home and the dog is never shown again

It could be better.

[Vikingbyheart · 6/10 · 12 July 2016]

Science fiction movies have always aroused interest of directors and screenwriters and whetted the imagination of people. Z for Zachariah, based on the homonymous book by Robert C. O'Brien and directed by Craig Zobel, is a typical post-apocalyptic movie (to quote a recent film in that style we have the great The Survivalist - 2015) which focuses on drama and interpersonal relationships. Ann Burden (Margot Robbie, known for The Wolf of Wall Street - 2013) is a young woman who survived a nuclear disaster, which devastated almost the entire planet, in one of the only places not affected by the radiation: her family's farm. She lived alone with her dog Faro until the appearance of the scientist John Loomis (Chiwetel Ejiofor, known for 12 Years a Slave - 2013), which had managed to resist the tragedy thanks to its special costume. An affinity and a bond are established between them, but the arrival of another survivor, the mysterious Caleb (Chris Pine, known for the films Star Trek - 2009 and Star Trek Into Darkness - 2013), threatens the relationship between John and Ann and shatters the harmony of the place.

The pace of the film is slow, focused on drama and the internal conflicts of the three characters. Instead of external threats and great action scenes or destruction, the plot deals with the complexities of the human mind, such as game of interests, distrust, fear of being alone and people's different reactions when subjected to extreme situations. Thus, the success of this type of narrative depends on tension and suspense created by the script coupled to casting and director's skills.

The performances, by the way, left absolutely nothing to be desired. Chiwetel Ejiofor hands on all duality of his character, John, which is intelligent and skeptical, but at the same time, possessive and keeps some secrets. Margot Robbie embodies the role of Ann, a humble girl, religious, sweet and naive, which is vulnerable by the inexperience of life and the fear of loneliness. Chris Pine completes the cast of confused personalities with the mysterious and manipulative Caleb, who brings with him a dark past.

The photograph, taken with long shots to explore the beautiful nature of the region, and the good soundtrack are positive features in the movie. But small failures in script and direction eventually delivered a smaller film than it could be. The dialogues and the atmosphere of tension and conflict between the characters should be better developed, especially in the third act. There is a visible continuity error in the movie: Ann's dog simply vanish after Caleb's arrival, with no explanation at all. The end, built ambitiously to enable viewer's reflection and imagination, leave some loose ends which causes the feeling that a few scenes lacked depth. After all, Z for Zachariah creates tension and drama in some moments, besides having great performances.

Originally posted in: https://vikingbyheart.blogspot.com.br

A fascinating study of humanity in its most basic form

[themadmovieman · 7/10 · 26 September 2015]

This is probably the quietest and most understated post-apocalyptic movies you'll ever see, but deep down, it is truly fascinating. With great performances, impressive directing and an intriguing plot, this film is massively engrossing and surprisingly simple to understand from start to finish.

First things first, however, this isn't a sci-fi in any way. The setting is in the post-apocalypse world, however that bears pretty much no relevance to the development of the plot as a whole, it's just a background to put these three characters together in a more desperate and dramatic situation.

Instead, this is more of an indie romantic drama, so be warned, sci- fi fans, there's nothing here for you if you're just looking for something exciting and action-packed.

What this actually is is a fascinating study of humans in their most basic state: survival and animalistic desires, relating itself almost to Adam and Eve and biblical theory.

Therefore, the most captivating part of this film is the relationships that develop between the three main characters, as each of the men gets closer to Margot Robbie's character, tensions begin to rise and a clash becomes inevitable, however watching these people act in such a basic way, driven by their pure desire for procreation, is hugely fascinating throughout, and at times even thrilling.

What really helps that to be so is the performances. Margot Robbie, in the female lead, is okay. It's not a stunning performance in any way, but her character isn't really the most interesting, as apart from her devout Christianity, she's only really there to set the spark off between the two men.

As a result, it's Chiwetel Ejiofor and Chris Pine that are most impressive. Pine plays a slightly smaller role, but successfully asserts his position within the trio and causes huge complications that turn Chiwetel Ejiofor's character into the most interesting. Ejiofor's performance perfectly conveys his character's natural frustration and desperation in this situation, and that makes him absolutely brilliant to watch.

Finally, something's got to be said about the directing here. Instead of fitting in in a long line of post-apocalyptic movies, this film, thanks to director Craig Zobel, doesn't feel cold and as if there is some intense impending danger, but the lush nature of the landscape that the film is shot against and the clear serenity of the environment makes this a much warmer and calmer film that makes it all the more pleasant and engaging to watch.

Did not think I would be so impressed, but it was very intelligently done

[subxerogravity · 7/10 · 29 August 2015]

New Zealand must be a beautiful country. I've never seen a movie filmed there that was not.

It's a not so ironic setting for a movie about the end of the world, as the film focuses on the emotions of three survivors of the apocalypse instead of the apocalypse itself. A good Christian woman left behind by her family who went to help others. A man of science looking to move forward and rebuilt, and the all-American heart throb who rains on the parade.

Chiwetel Ejiofor gave a compelling performance. it was so real, I think the majority of us would understand what he's going through. I was shocked by how outstanding Chris Pine was in this movie, just perfect. Margot Robbie was amazing as well, just a solid piece of acting by all.

It made for the perfect emotional love triangle. Even though only three people appear in this movie, it said so much about us as a society. I love sci-fi and I want to count this as one of the great Sci-fi stories ever told from beginning to end, and the outcome leads an interesting taste in my mouth.

It was a fantastic 97mins at the movies.

Two guys and a girl... with a sci-fi twist

[paul-allaer · 6/10 · 29 August 2015]

"Z For Zachariah" (2015 release; 95 min.) brings the story of a couple of survivors of an unidentified contamination or radiation. As the movie opens, we see someone with a protective mask going through an empty town to pick up various things, including books from the library. When later the person takes off the mask, we see it is a young woman, named Ann. Ann and her dog live on their own, tending to the land and surviving as best they can. Then Ann runs into another survivor, a man named John. When John inadvertently takes a swim in a contaminated lake, he becomes very ill. Ann takes him home and nurtures him back to health. At this point we are 15 minutes into the movie, but to tell you much more of the plot would spoil your viewing experience, you'll just have to see for yourself how it all plays out.

Couple of comments: first, the movie's end titles say that the is "Based on the book by Robert O'Brien", but it would have been better to have said "very loosely based on/inspired by Robert O'Brian's book", as the plot for this film version differs dramatically and almost unrecognizably from the 1974 book. Since it is featured openly in the movie's trailer, besides Ann and John (the two characters in the book), the movie introduces a third character, Caleb. Second, while the setting of the movie is post-apocalyptic, the movie really doesn't feel all that much sci-fi. It's just three characters playing out their lives in an unspecified location somewhere in the US. In fact, the movie feels just as much being a Nicolas Sparks-like romantic drama than it is a sci-fi movie. Other elements featured in the movie include religion, and race. Third, the acting performances are strong. Up-and-coming Aussie actress Margo Robbie (also in The Wolf of Wall Street) does great work. She is definitely going places, that much is clear. Chiwetel Ejiofor and Chris Pine play John and Caleb, respectively. Fourth, the movie was mostly shot on location in New Zealand, with some additional shooting in West Virginia. Gorgeous sceneries most of the time. Last but certainly not least, there is a very nice orchestral score, composed by Heather "The Instruments" McIntosh.

I had been looking forward to seeing this movie, and it finally opened this weekend at my local art-house theater here in Cincinnati. The matinée screening where I saw this at was attended okay but not great. If you are in the mood for a romantic drama with a slight sci-fi twist, you'll definitely want to check this out. On the other hand, if you read and loved the book, you will absolutely want to avoid this.

Strong, ambitious work

[Red_Identity · 4 January 2016]

I was a big fan of Margot Robbie's work in The Wolf of Wall Street. I thought it was a fun, charismatic, electric turn, but I wasn't necessarily sure if that meant that she was an actual, capable dramatic actress. This really proves that she's one to watch out for. Although all three performers deliver some strong work, it's her moving, resonant performance that really stuck with me. I kept hearing a lot of negativity towards this film's ending and so I was sure it would be something out of left field, some turn or twist or something. It wasn't really any of that, and I actually loved the ending. It was semi-ambiguous, although not really, and the last scene was just pure magic and worked to conclude the film, beautifully. Definitely a very underrated, underseen film that I wish I had heard about before.

Z for Zachariah

[henry8-3 · 6/10 · 12 April 2021]

Margot Robbie lives alone in an isolated safe area following some form of epic destruction killing the population of the planet. She finds she is not alone when she comes across a weak Chiwetel Ejiofor. Using his engineering skills they start to build a life together and affection grows but this is put to the test when a third traveller - Chris Pine arrives.

Very gentle, believable love triangle tale set against a background of rebuilding lives in a post apocalyptic environment. There are no zombies etc, just a quiet interplay between the 3 and an interesting look at the physical and emotional challenges this world would bring. All three give good performances, especially Robbie, although I rather wished Pine had articulated a bit more.

I COULD USE A GLASS OF WATER

[nogodnomasters · 6/10 · 12 November 2018]

Ann Burden (Margot Robbie) and her dog have managed to survive the nuclear holocaust due to the topography of her land and using common sense in dealing with contamination. She meets up with John Loomis (Chiwetel Ejiofor) who has a Geiger counter and a type A protective suit on steroids. He suggests making a generator using hydro-electric power from the water falls. However, in order to do this he would have to take apart the church her father/preacher build. If you happen to look at the DVD cover or movie poster then you know Chris Pine also shows up and the description say "emotionally charged love triangle" which is a not exactly a plot spoiler, but he does come late into the film. If there was some way to watch the film having never seen the poster, or knowing he shows up, that would be the way to do it. As for me, I kept waiting for him to show up which made the film go slow with anticipation. So if you are planning a showing, hide the DVD cover.

The title comes from a kids book Ann has on the Bible. John opens the book and sees "A is for Adam." One would conclude what "Z" would be, as there is a hint and some talk that coating the world with radioactive contamination was part of the plan or at least Ann's survival. The book of Zachariah, talks about the rebuilding of Solomon's Temple as a juxtaposition to the discussing to tearing down the church. The survey of Chris Pine was correctly done as he assumed the industry standard position of Jesus on the cross.

The acting was good and then there was Chris Pine. The film moved slow. For people who want to watch an end of the world film with some minor religious discussion, the notion God will save a few people for his plan, and no zombies then this is it. Please note, there is a latency period of "puking" and general sickness when one is exposed to radioactivity. The latency period depends on the amount of exposure from a week to immediately. If you are "puking" right away after exposure, you will die shorty. No medicine can save you.

Guide: No f-bombs that I recall. No real nudity. Implied sex.

So much potential but a let down

[joannemarkus · 3/10 · 2 September 2015]

I was looking forward to watching this movie because I read some reviews that said it was great. However I was left feeling VERY disappointed. This movie had SO much potential and yet left me at the end asking myself, "why did I just waste my time watching it". It was slow, drawn out and downright boring at times. I wanted to like the characters but I never really felt like I 'knew' them. When the movie ended without any real answers.....ugh! The credits rolled and I couldn't believe that was it! I would not recommend this movie to anyone and I'm upset that I paid $6.99 On-Demand for it based on the other reviews.

"This man could be anything."

[classicsoncall · 7/10 · 3 February 2019]

In that scene when Caleb (Chris Pine) and John Loomis (Chiwetel Ejiofor) look into each other's eyes, with Caleb hanging precariously over the edge of the cliff, I felt pretty certain that Loomis would pull him to safety. In the subsequent scene, when Loomis tells Ann (Margot Robbie) that Caleb departed for Anson, I was convinced that Loomis released his grip and allowed Caleb to fall to his death. The perfectly ambiguous nature of the ending reminded me a lot of the way "Angels With Dirty Faces" ended, in which you had to decide as the viewer whether Cagney's character went out like a yellow rat or at the request of Father Jerry. I imagine most viewers for this film would take the position that Loomis's jealousy over Caleb's appearance caused him to seek the latter outcome I mentioned, but the alternative at least has a degree of credibility if you want to stretch for it. However the shattered, silent gaze between Ann and John to close out the story is probably all you need to know to confirm the more violent outcome.

The mystery the film could have answered more definitively was what the heck the title was supposed to mean. In keeping with a recurring reference to Ann's religious upbringing, a child's Biblical book titled 'A is For Adam' is briefly shown, so one might consider 'Z for Zachariah' to bookend the picture's suggestion of the first and last man on Earth. It probably should have been done in a more coherent manner, as I was more perplexed by the title than what happened to Caleb.

Eden replayed post-apolapse

[maurice_yacowar · 9/10 · 30 August 2015]

Z for Zachariah is a parable of postlapsarian loss. In a verdant valley miraculously saved from a nuclear apocalypse a young woman and her dog are joined first by a black engineer and then by a young white miner. Together they convert the girl's father's church into a water wheel that will use a radioactive waterfall to generate electricity. The wood from the church will help them rebuild human society. But the new world perpetuates the tensions of the old, including romantic emotions and racial tension.

The radioactive water points to mankind's corruption of the source of life, the poisoning of purity. Indeed director Craig Zobel converts a survival novel into a religious drama by adding a character to the original two-person novel and developing the religious imagery.

The title recalls a book that engineer John Loomis takes off a shelf: A is for Adam. The film dramatizes the end of that Biblical story, replaying the myth of Eden after the apocalypse. Zachariah is the prophet murdered between the temple and the altar, the last of the killed prophets, so the name embodies the new narrative as a whole.

The heroine Ann Burden carries the burden of innocence and faith when she struggles alone with her dog to survive. When she finds engineer John bathing in a radioactive pool she nurses him back to life. They develop a relationship of respect and interdependence. Drunk on beer, Loomis briefly confronts Ann with his vulgar carnality from which he retreats apologetic.

Through the sacrament of wine Ann approaches John on her own terms and invites an intimate relationship. But John retreats, desiring her closeness but fearing the change that a sexual relationship would make. He's inhibited by both their age and their colour difference. The scene in which Ann comes to him and he embraces her with a tender self-denial expresses the desire for a deep connection through the body but not carnal.

The serpent in Eden — added to the source novel — is young white Caleb, whose "Mr Loomis" is a condescending formality by which he insinuates himself between his two hosts. The scene in which Ann chooses Caleb over John begins with their excessive use of wine, non-sacramental, and another baptism parody when the three cavort in the water. John is finally moved to confess his love to Ann, but when she comes to him he's drunk and unconscious. She surrenders her purity to Caleb instead, waiting when he comes out of the shower. This scene parallels her finding John under a waterfall and parodies their truer love scene, a literal purification parodying the authentic.

Margot Robbie marvelously suggests her character's transition from Innocence to Experience. After Caleb, her eyes are darker, more knowing, her carriage heavier under the burden of experience, and we know she cannot revert to her earlier self, nor to her earlier relationship. In the last scene she plays a dirge on the church organ while John sits earnestly listening, his hands clasped in prayer as if in futile hope to recover what he had with her pre-Caleb. But you can't recover a lost Eden. After sampling the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil innocence is gone.

One by one the male figures drop out of Ann's life. We see less of her dog after John appears and nothing at all with the arrival of Caleb. Caleb — named after one of Moses's advance spies who encouraged the invasion of Canaan — becomes the animal figure in Ann's life despite his pretence at being her fellow-believer, in contrast to the agnostic John. After losing Ann John arranges for Caleb's disappearance. But he can't erase the change Caleb wrought upon Ann.

Ignore the Reviewers With ADD

[reymunpadilla · 7/10 · 25 December 2023]

Almost every bad review comes from someone expecting another Transformers or superhero fight film instead of actual sci fi.

This is a remake of The World The Flesh and The Devil, a great early sci fi from the 50s. And like the original, it's low budget and more of a character study with disturbing implications about society now, pre apocalypse.

In the original, the white woman simply can't be with a Blackman. Even after the end of the world, it just isn't done, is completely forbidden. In this film, the divide and the taboos are as much based on class, education, and religion as on race.

So don't let bad reviews from those demanding explosions and gore, or better yet exploding gore, or they find it "boring," deter you. If you want good script, dialog, intelligence, and a story heavy on Biblical symbolism, this is it. And I'll bet the whining reviewers were too dense to even catch the heavy Christian symbolism.

A science fiction without much fiction, an erotically charged tale without eroticism and a pseudo-emotional story.

[peterp-450-298716 · 4/10 · 18 September 2015]

"It's about... rebuilding. Maybe God... or your father... put this here for us. So we can... we can start again. Maybe that's why we're here... Just to start again."

The future prospects of our beloved world looks rather bleak, judging by the post-apocalyptic films of recent years. The endless series of disaster scenarios doesn't bode well. "The Maze Runner", "Divergent," "Mad Max," "Oblivion," "The Hunger Games", "Snowpiercer", "Automata", "How I live now", "World War Z", "The Well" ... they all show a society that recovers on the ruins of a previous calamity. Similarly, "Z for Zachariah". You won't get a real explanation about the incident that led to a general extermination of our society. Reference is made to radioactivity and emerging nausea caused by polluted water. From this you can deduce that there might have been a nuclear war or accident in the past. But otherwise it is pure guesswork.

It all started in an interesting way. A sober story with a sole survivor in a fertile valley (a "Garden of Eden" as it were), that was spared from the global holocaust one way or another. But this soberness gradually morphed into dullness. The emphasis gradually shifted from the apocalypse that took place in the world, to the complex, apocalyptic emotional world of a few surviving individuals. A love triangle is formed with reconstruction, religion, racial discrimination and jealousy as central themes. The fact that in all probability the world population was wiped out by a disaster, is relegated to the background and is only mentioned briefly afterwards as if it's irrelevant. What remains is an ordinary but complicated love story.

I came across the following perspicacious summary : "Z for Zachariah is a sex movie with a science-fiction coating and barely any sex.". It can easily be added to the list where films such as "The Boy" and "Manglehorn" appear in. Painfully slow films. What remains are the acting performances. An advantage (and maybe disadvantage at the same time) are the number of main characters. It's limited to three. Margot Robbie as the devout, farmer's daughter Ann Burden, who can drive a tractor to work the land without any problem but on the other hand feels rather inconvenient when it comes to intimate relations with someone of the male gender. Margot Robbie is a ravishing appearance as seen in "Focus", "Suite française", "The Wolf of Wall Street" and "About time". Despite her fairly pathetic and bigoted look in this film, her natural beauty is still striking. She's joined by Chiwetel "12 Years a Slave" Ejiofor as the scientist John Loomis who is being rescued from a certain death by Ann after taking a refreshing bath in a toxic pond. The group is completed with Chris Pine as the not so bad-looking miner Caleb. He thwarts John's plans to re-populate the planet thoroughly.

This film is based on the novella by Robert C. O'Brien from 1974. I myself haven't read it and allegedly the film isn't really consistent with the book. For example, there would be no question of a third person. Knowing this, I think I'll let this book pass me, for even three people can't ensure that there's an intriguing, fascinating story. Let alone two. "Z for Zachariah" is a science fiction without much fiction, an erotically charged tale without eroticism and a pseudo-emotional story. Despite the nuclear disaster, the chemistry between the characters was hard to find.

More reviews here : http://bit.ly/1KIdQMT

A very boring film

[Gordon-11 · 4 September 2015]

This film tells the story of a woman trying to survive in a post apocalyptic world. She meets another survivor and form a strong bond, but this changes when a third survivor arrives onto the scene. Jealousy and rivalry takes over the struggle to stay alive.

"Z for Zachariah" seems like an intense drama on paper, but I found it very boring. There's little dialogue as there are only the characters. As a result, very little events happen, making it dull and non engaging. The behaviour if the characters are subdued and restrained, while events in the film are presented in a matter of fact manner, with no suspense or thrill. There were times when I really struggled to keep my eyes open, and I had urges to take a cup of coffee to stay awake! In the end I did stay awake, and the story didn't get any better. It's been a long time since I watched such a boring film.

I didn't know Robbie...

[Blumanowar · 7/10 · 17 June 2021]

I don't know Robbie was such a great actress, I knew she was very good but to see her play a different type of character I was really impressed! Good flick, kind of a let down on ending...thought it might be more exciting. But a good flick.

Great - Seamless editing

[dalysimon · 7/10 · 1 September 2015]

I'm always a little shocked after watching the movie, reviewing the DVD cover art. I'm reminded of the 'Wild Things' the Pseudo-sexual melodrama type flick.

This is not that. Its a very watchable simple and interesting take on relationships among 3 people after an apocalyptic event.

Margo Robbie is as always stunning, and I don't mean her looks. It's so easy to categorize her as another Hollywood starlet because of her looks. The truth is - took me most of the movie to recognize her. She is a consistent standout performer in what she does. Chiwetel Ejiofor, easy to recognize - because of another flawless performance, he always manages to understate the situation leaving the audience that little bit of self understanding to make up the rest.

The other guy was good too. Chris Pine probably the most bankable asset on the movie, actually stood his ground and was a balanced foil, to manage the drama. Forgive my chagrin, I am still smarting over the Cinderella movie.

Simple script, simple story well told. Thank god it was totally free of the god awful melodrama the artwork suggests. But it drags you in, thanks to excellent character development.

Good work all round, total package nice movie. No worries.

Underrated and thought-provoking

[katibrasti · 7/10 · 10 October 2015]

I think the film hasn't been treated fairly by the reviewers here. I am not saying it's a masterpiece, however it's a decent piece of film-making. The cast has been chosen very carefully and the chemistry between the actors is absolutely stunning. Ejiofor clearly stands out for his portrayal of the troubled scientist who struggles between nobility and vulgarity, but Pine also does a great job as enigmatic and sensual Caleb. In my opinion however, the most complicated character is that of Robbie, her motivations are in my opinion the most obscure and her reactions the most contradictory of all three. The actress's performance is correspondingly nuanced.

The plot is admittedly thin and the pace is at times painfully slow. On the other hand, it explores humanity, desire and survival instinct in its most basic and unadorned form and it does so remarkably. I won't mention the breathtaking landscape and photography, although it clearly adds to the films allure. Don't be put off by the mediocre reviews and give it a try.

Interesting Look at Human Nature

[Cathex · 6/10 · 14 October 2015]

This film was not the best in terms of suspense, thrills or any of the usual excitements audiences have come to expect from films these days. But that being said, it certainly wasn't bad and that's why I like it.

It didn't fit into good guy/bad guy conventions, it didn't give us what we want in terms of a romance and nor did it fulfil our expectations of drama. But it didn't do it out of being inept, it did it on purpose. The film refuses to be conventional and for that purpose it succeeds quite well.

In the end this movie is a bleak but honest look at human nature. No-one is completely innocent, nor completely to blame and that being said you definitely can't call this movie unoriginal. In addition it's very well scripted, well acted and well directed although the direction, like the film itself, is neither here nor there.

However, perhaps precisely because the film is so no-committed in some respects, it doesn't really leave a lasting impression and it certainly wont be rocking any boats. It's kind of like a nice big meal of sweet and sour chicken but without the sweet and sour sauce, if you know what I mean.

Boring and derivative of other post-apocalyptic movies.

[mhorg2018 · 2/10 · 9 September 2015]

Z for Zachariah I first read this book (by the author of Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of N.I.M.H.) in the late 70's. I've always enjoyed post-apocalyptic and dystopian novels. In the book, a young girl (16) Ann, has survived a nuclear and nerve gas holocaust in her little valley. A stranger arrives, clad in an odd suit, which he calls a safe suit. They eventually set up an uneasy co-existence, that turns hostile, until Ann steals the safe suit and heads out of her valley to try and find other survivors. A bit ludicrous of an idea, that a "meteorological uniqueness" could keep one valley free of radiation and nerve gas (the exact cause of the disaster is never revealed, and her entire family has left, to try and find other survivors) is silly, but the writing is good and the tension between the characters is palpable. The story ends open ended, will Ann survive? How long will John survive along in the protected valley and will it stay protected? Then we have the movie adaptation. A critic's darling, I found it quite dull. While the performances by Margot Robbie (Ann), Chiwetel Ejiofor (John) and Chris Pine (Caleb) excellent, there's other than two or three scenes, very little tension, and the story just plods. Like the book, we are given very little information about the disaster, other than it's by product is radiation. The valley has a contaminated stream running into it, which John bathes in, nearly dying. As Ann and John plan for the future, he wants to build a water wheel to get her generator running, but she resists since that would meaning tearing down the church her father built. As they live their existence, John admits his feelings for her, she for him. Then enters the wild card (A part not in the book) Caleb, a survivor from a mine to the north arrives. A bit more tension, but it never feels like anyone is in danger. Caleb has sex with Ann, they tear down the church and build the water wheel, giving them electricity and in a very open ended move, John returns alone, claiming that Caleb who was using the safe suit while they build the water wheel, Ann conveniently off at the house, we never know if John tells the truth that Caleb took the safe suit and went south, to where there are presumably other survivors, or if he was murdered. The end. Yes, I found this boring. I also found it derivative of several other films, one a 1950's film called "The World, The Flesh and the Devil." In that three survivors, one from a mine, all meet in a very undestroyed NYC, after a nuclear war. The "meteorological uniqueness" is similar to Australia's survival for a while from "On the Beach", and the idea of a protected valley comes from Roger Corman's "The Day the World Ended", where the survivors live in a valley loaded with lead deposits in the surrounding hills. So overall, while the performances were quite good, in fact it's hard to believe that Margot Robbie is Australian, she sounds, much like Jodie Foster in Silence of the Lambs, doing the same West Virginia accent, the movie just dragged. I'm glad I watched this on pay per view, rather than going to the movies.

'This man could be anything'

[gradyharp · 6/10 · 23 July 2016]

Nissar Modi wrote the screenplay, altering much of the original novel by Robert C. O'Brien, and gave it to young Craig Zobel to direct his small 3 person cast in Iceland, Switzerland, New Zealand, and the USA. The result is a tiny Indie film that despite a cast of three fine actors the movie never quite gets off the ground.

First the synopsis: 'In the wake of a nuclear war, a young woman Ann Burden (Margot Robbie) survives on her own, fearing she may actually be the proverbial last woman on earth, until she discovers the most astonishing sight of her life: another human being John Loomis (Chiwetel Ejiofor). A distraught scientist, he's nearly been driven mad by radiation exposure and his desperate search for others. A fragile, imperative strand of trust connects them. But when a stranger Caleb (Chris Pine) enters the valley, their precarious bond begins to unravel into an emotionally charged love triangle as the last known survivors.'

We wonder how landscape so beautiful and fertile in the scenes where the trio relates could be so perfect if indeed there has been a nuclear war that destroyed everyone on the planet. But gradually interrelationships occur, a plan is made by Loomis to build a waterwheel to create electricity and Caleb aids his efforts. Loomis remains an enigma throughout, Caleb brings a little sense to the story, and Ann just adjusts day by day. Though we know how the triad likely ends we are not allowed the reasoning. The movie just sort of stops.

One aspect that makes the movie one of note is looking at the very possible concept of the end of the world in a less climactic way than the superheroes would play it. There are some lessons here – some subtle, most not.

There's a solid 30-40 minutes in here and Ejiofor is great, but the rest is an aimless snooze

[luke-a-mcgowan · 5/10 · 4 September 2015]

Z for Zachariah is the least conventional end-of-the-world film I've ever seen, and for the most part, I cannot figure out what to make of it. For the entire first half, it can't really figure out what it wants to do. There's no real story as Anne (Robbie) and John (Ejiofor), two separate survivors of a nuclear holocaust, meet and Anne nurses John back to health. Until Ejiofor is back on his feet, the film is relatively aimless as the director cuts between various shots of the valley and Robbie completing various chores. Even in the wider scheme of things, not much happens here - the film's plot is not much beyond building a water wheel while the characters interact around it.

As they talk, we gather how much they are worlds apart - John is an older, black man of science who relishes in typical vices and Anne is a young, pure, white Christian girl whose never touched drink and likely never looked at a man. John wants Anne, but is conscious of their differences, so when the script sweeps them together, John gently pushes back and says that they can take their time. After all, there's no competition.

But then there is. The mysterious and exceedingly polite Caleb appears in the valley out of nowhere, and he's everything John is not - he's a young white Christian boy who couldn't be more Anne's type if he tried. Here is where the film gets gripping. Director Craig Zerbel builds tension with a beautiful score, but this film is completely about the acting. Robbie dials back her supermodel good looks as best she can to play a plain-spoken country girl whose naivety is central to these two older men. Pine is unreadable and somewhat alluring, and his chemistry with Robbie is so off the charts that in one particular scene, I expected them to just start making out - despite John's presence in their midst.

Ejiofor is the only reason I watched this movie, and he's the best part. This doesn't scratch his performance in 12 Years A Slave, but he had me sold from his first screams of joy. His delirium and drunkeness are incredibly believable. He can convey so much emotion without even trying - jealousy as Anne and Caleb share smouldering glances, embaressment as his jokes of repopulation go over the naive Anne's head, rage and hurt as he gives a half-hearted blessing to what he feels is inevitable, and naked honesty as he speaks about an earth- shattering revelation. Tiny mannerisms in his performance make his third wheel status not only believable but completely uncomfortable, and as a result, makes John the most empathetic character.

The script is nothing special, but there is one reveal from John to Anne that actually made me drop what I was holding. Kudos all around. There's some beautiful mindgames between John and Caleb, with Caleb clearly outpacing John, who is clearly unaware of how to play this game. You just know that Caleb was wooing the local girls at school while John was in the library studying. When Caleb notes that something isn't in John's character, I completely agreed - because the characters created are so deep that I understood them intimately.

However, that goodwill cannot erase the aimlessness that permeates the first half of the film, and what did exist was lost to me when the film ends. The final ten minutes were completely out of context and gave almost no closure on any issue. The rivalry between John and Caleb is left hanging, with one outcome implied but then the opposite suggested as the truth. It felt like the screenwriter was told "pens down" and then hastily crammed together a few words while the teachers were collecting the papers. Considering the direction Z for Zachariah was going, to end so badly was the final blow in a film that had far tested my patience already. 95 minutes? Doesn't feel like it.

Creative Post-Apocalyptic Take

[warevjensen · 8/10 · 31 January 2015]

Just saw this movie at Sundance and thoroughly enjoyed it. While certainly not perfect, the film was beautifully shot, scored, and directed. As a post-apocalyptic film, it took a unique take on what was essentially a small group of survivors after nuclear fallout. However, instead of focusing on the apocalyptic elements themselves, it focused on the human drama that resulted and the emotional responses to this extreme sort of isolation.

I had essentially no expectations coming into the film and found myself completely invested in the storyline, which develops methodically but beautifully. The writing hits all the turning points within each character's development at just the right time, with just enough delicacy. In turn, the actors all delivered superb performances.

I had only seen Margot Robbie in The Wolf of Wall Street previously, and I was highly impressed by her perhaps more subtle turn here. I thought she did a wonderful job of portraying a woman trying to preserve her faith and even innocence in trying circumstances. Likewise, Chiwetel Ejiofor portrayed his character's shortcomings in an extremely relatable, human way.

Chris Pine's introduction into the film basically becomes the linchpin for the majority of the rest of the movie's tension, and Pine's typical suave-ness does not disappoint. Ultimately, a story of jealousy, desire, and necessity emerges, with the sense of isolation and loneliness prevailing, with an ending that leaves you thinking afterwards. 8/10.

A decent plot ending ruined it

[ankitsharma-08371 · 6/10 · 3 September 2021]

I liked the concept and it was good but that unnecessary plot twist at the end just ruined the movie for me.

Complete garbage. The only thing similar between the book and the movie is the title.

[michael-21328 · 1/10 · 26 March 2016]

I love the book. I read it a dozen times a year. It's my favorite. When I heard they were making a movie I was super excited.

Less than 5 minutes in I could tell the movie had departed from the book just like the space shuttle departs earth.

It's almost like they had filmed the hobbit in downtown New York City.

I struggled to keep watching until the third person came in. It was too much to bare.

The disc and the box are now at the bottom of my garbage bin. It's not even worthy of being in the recycle bin.

Don't buy this movie. It's garbage.

Horrible

[mysticnox · 27 October 2015]

OK, best I can say is... huh?

It's like the movie cut out half way through it. It makes no sense. You never find out what happened to Caleb, and there's no exposition on anything. Where are the rest of the humans? Why was the valley spared? Why end it with the girl playing the organ and no explanation of anything? Why end it on a totally hopeless note? They act like they are the only people left on the planet but even in the event of a nuclear war, that's not going to happen in a year. Even the book actually had an ending. This one just cut off half way through the story.

This movie made no sense.

I want the last two hours back.