Z for Zachariah (2015) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
99 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
What happened to the Dog?
limoconsultant13 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
68 out of 74 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Boring
beccabentley3 November 2015
This is the most tedious post apocalyptic film I've ever watched. I wouldn't waste your time on it. The acting was OK but not riveting. I found myself nearly falling asleep wondering when something exciting would happen...it never did. Even the love triangle was obvious and just uncomfortable. Didn't feel any real chemistry between the characters. The whole scenario and setting was not believable. The scenery was gorgeous but nice scenery does not a good film make and certainly does not convince that any kind of catastrophe has happened. I would have watched a documentary if I just wanted nice scenery. Very very unthrilling stuff. My husband and I just looked at each other when it finished and said "Was that it?!!"
32 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Creative Post-Apocalyptic Take
warevjensen31 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.
105 out of 156 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
So much potential but a let down
joannemarkus2 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.
134 out of 203 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
It could be better.
Vikingbyheart12 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
19 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
A science fiction without much fiction, an erotically charged tale without eroticism and a pseudo-emotional story.
peterp-450-29871618 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
99 out of 155 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Two guys and a girl... with a sci-fi twist
paul-allaer29 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.
45 out of 67 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A fascinating study of humanity in its most basic form
themadmovieman26 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.
27 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
"It took you, to make me realize that"
shaunsimdb16 September 2015
It must be stated that this movie's User Rating of 6.1 and Metascore of 68 do not do it any justice. As the rating are usually a pretty fair indicator of a movies quality, I went in expecting a decent movie but perhaps nothing exceptional. Now, after having watched it, I am happy to report that it far surpassed my initial expectations.

First and foremost the acting in this movie is superb. Chiwetel Ejiofor, 12 Years a Slave, gives an absolutely spectacular performance (again). He is rapidly becoming one of my favorite actors to date. He has moments of beautiful reserve but you can always feel the fire brewing down inside. Awesome, just awesome stuff. Margot Robbie, The Wolf of Wallstreet, sheds the Brooklyn accent and personality and absolutely shines as the shy southern beauty in this film. She too is rapidly showing her wonderful acting chops and presenting herself as a force to be reckoned with. She makes a seamless transition from a supporting role in Wolf, to starring opposite Chiwetel here. The icing on the cake in this film is Chris Pine's performance. He shows that he is much more than a dreamy Captain Kirk in the Star Trek reboots. This is by far my favorite performance of his. It just feels human. kudos.

The direction was beautiful. While this movie is technically considered Sci-Fi, Mr. Zobel does an outstanding job making this into a character study. He balances the actors performances beautifully and the film is a perfectly trimmed piece of lean meat. Not once does it drag or feel rushed. The characters and story develop organically and its a mesmerizing thing to follow. The cinematography by Tim Orr also needs mentioning. Orr captures some enchanting nature shots that really play nicely into the story.

Beyond all the obvious technical triumphs of this film, I think that perhaps my favorite part may be the sheer depth of the story. I'll avoid specifics on the plot, as I don't want to risk throwing out any spoilers but its suffice to say that this certainly is not a run of the mill love story. There are a lot of religious elements, a lot of nature and mankind talking points, and philosophical debates that will leave you thinking long after the credits role. Overall, I was more than pleasantly surprised by this wonderful film. I would absolutely recommend it.
56 out of 88 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Complete garbage. The only thing similar between the book and the movie is the title.
michael-2132826 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.
25 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Did not think I would be so impressed, but it was very intelligently done
subxerogravity29 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.
52 out of 83 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A focused, situation movie
JustinBell431 January 2015
A movie about three survivors that avoided radiation from an unknown event that keeps you thinking the whole time.

This movie was really interesting. With only the 3 characters the movie did not struggle to give each character a personality, and not feel out of place.

Craig Zobel seems to know how to make you uneasy. The whole movie I felt uneasy at what was going on and was never really sure what was going to happen. While Compliance was a whole different level of uncomfortable, this movie actually had me cringing in anticipation quite a few times.

Margot Robbie - Nailed her character. I felt like she really pulled it off.

Chris Pine - Also did well, there were a few scenes that I thought he felt out of character but all in all really well done.

Chiwetel Ejiofor - I think he also nailed his character. I could see an argument against him for a lack of emotion in some scenes but I felt like it was intentional and that he pulled it off really well.

All in all I would definitely recommend it.
75 out of 128 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
There's a solid 30-40 minutes in here and Ejiofor is great, but the rest is an aimless snooze
luke-a-mcgowan4 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.
35 out of 56 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Should've been 30 minutes. Not an hour and a half.
sombreropigourhero29 November 2016
If this film has one thing going for it, it's the sheer lack of thought put into it. I will tell you now, I have not read the book, but I know enough to know it does not follow it AT ALL.

Z for Zachariah asks questions, but answers the ones that are not important. The name is also total bullshit, because there isn't a character in Z for Zachariah, named Zachariah.

The characters are dull. The plot is drawn out (There is only so much you can do with three characters) The atmosphere is non- existent, The pacing is so slow, I felt blood pooling in my legs after the 80th minute.

By all means, the story that is being tried to tell, was not the story you wanted. If you find this movie for over a dollar, don't buy it. It's one of the most slow, drawn out movies, with an ending that will leave you unsatisfied. Case closed.
23 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Slow, boring soap girls
baberchik6 September 2015
As a post-apocalypse buff I am always on the lookout for new movies in this genre, and I can barely keep myself from watching the newest ones straight away. I am literally desperately keeping my fingers crossed in a vein hope that there will be new masterpieces ("masterpieces" give or take, or take sometimes with a good big pinch of salt) like The book of Eli, Mad Max (2, 4), Terminator Salvation, A boy and his dog... you get the picture. This is in my opinion the cream, albeit sometimes "sour cream" of this genre, but you get the picture.

So then there's this movie: a soap opera which focused on awkwardness that can arise from a triangle, built on a central character that is confused both sexually and religiously. Wow, really? Then why is the cover so dark and menacing? Moving on. What got me going though was that Lionsgate was behind this awful soap. Anyway, what else is there to say... no classic post-apocalyptic scenery, some dreamy rural white America with hills and valleys, tractors and what not, small cute houses etc. And of course the movie focuses exclusively on the love/human relations part with long, drooling scenes of sexually under-toned conversations that go on and on and on. In fact, if the supposed "post-apocalypse" part, of which there is literally zero - is taken away, and even if more characters would be added to this movie, it would make no difference. It is as if the post-apocalypse is a fourth wheel in this love triangle, you know just standing there being stupid. Like an unseen character, an actor that never gets to play the part, just standing there behind the camera as some perverted way of being punished. Add to it that whatever little there is that relates to the general idea of having to live in a "wasteland", like radiation, technical aspects of survival etc... is just so poorly done, so unscientific and meaningless... that again I come to the same concept - it is a fourth wheel. It's as if during the scenes they had to make involving some survival/danger etc the director was like "so umm... guys just let's have like a river that is like super radioactive, like if you just touch it you die... and like if you're standing just 1 foot away it's like okay... you know like hopscotch when you can't jump outside the squares? Let's just get this over with".

All in all a pathetic movie. If you're one of those "emotional" people and get all excited about love, classic soap like Santa Barbara etc, this one's for you. Post-apocalypse fans - say away. You'll lose braincells watching this, I promise.
30 out of 52 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Interesting but underwhelming overall
HarlekwinBlog30 May 2019
The first half of Z for Zachariah is intriguing and well played. Margot Robbie plays her sole-survivor exceptionally well and indeed keeps this up for the majority of the movie. The setting is tranquil and yet disturbing as you'd expect for the central "vanity" of the piece and there is a grounding in these early scenes that is quite believable. Alas, this is not maintained in the second half. The arrival of another stranger with a weaker backstory leads to a household tension that just doesn't ring true and yet dominates all other aspects of the story. Ending is nearly, oh so nearly, a redemption but just falls short.

So close but also so far.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Strong, ambitious work
Red_Identity4 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.
21 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Snooze
evan-lillis28 August 2015
This is just a terrible, boring, nothing movie. The only thing to take away from this pointless film is that Margot Robbie is pretty and that this small cast is good at making something out of a nothing script. This has got to be the worst writing for such good talent in a while. Dear lord, I'm ready to fall asleep right now giving any more attention to this horrid movie, but I was upset because the critics and user reviews were good for some reason. Maybe they work for the sandman. I don't know. What I do know is avoid this garbage at all costs! I certainly wish I had. I kept thinking the ending might make up for the nothing that happened. But it didn't. Stay away.
76 out of 154 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A very boring film
Gordon-114 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.
23 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Even worse than "The Europa Report"
Eric_Cubed25 October 2015
I really can't understand the strategy and thinking behind these kind of movies. Take an awesome premise: surviving the apocalypse, gifted actors, solid producing and directing and then end up with this "thing," with nothing of any value at all, not even some ironic, methodical twist on something, anything. The only metaphor I can come up with is the beating of a dead horse, or trying to fit square pegs into round holes. There is no character study, no character development, no plot and no point. Perhaps the producers, directors and actors sometimes get together and think to themselves, "well let's just f--k with them, let's see what they do when we put something together proved not to work on any level imaginable. It's kind of like Punk'd, only we the audience are the one's getting punk'd. It makes me mad because for all of us working class folks, time and money are precious. I can imagine with endless money and time it might be fun to mess with the movie going public, but you're still trash for doing so. You could have done anything, anything, to make this watchable: a camp of cannibalistic Nazi's, an adventure for the cure, even my greatest love of enjoying the spoils of the apocalypse. But no, you couldn't even do that, have an interesting plot. I had to drink a full fifth of Johnny Walker Red to get through this, and even then after 5 bong tokes in. I was too inebriated to turn it off, which is why I sat through the whole thing, in a dumbfounded haze of flaccid abandon. Remember Heston's Omega Man, roaming around empty cities looking for someone? That's all you had to do, that's it. Instead what we get is an utter recrudescence in banality, commonplace regression and celluloid sacrilegious infamy.
15 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
What?!
IMDBUser839 October 2016
I want to appreciate the work and effort it took for the cast and crew to complete this film but wow.. sometimes as the creator of a piece of art you have to have the ability to admit when your creation flat out sucks. This movie was painful to watch. The only emotion it evokes is frustration and a sort of self anger for having pushed through to the end. Just a bad. movie. There's really not much else to say about it. If you're lucky enough to have read this review prior to watching this film... you're welcome, I just gave you back precious time. And what's with the minimum length for a review here IMDb? I've said everything I needed to convey about how I felt about this film. I should not be forced to have to write a lengthier review. I hope this goes through this time.

Yours truly, Disappointed.
14 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
The valley at the edge
Prismark108 October 2015
Z for Zachariah is a dark, dystopian book of a young girl in a post apocalyptic valley who finds a man wandering around in a strange protective suit who eventually turns hostile.

The book was turned into a television film in 1984 starring Anthony Andrews and it was a grim, slightly disturbing piece (full frontal nudity from Andrews for a start!)

This movie version has a similar premise but increased the age of girl to a young religious woman. Margot Robbie is Ann, Chiwetel Ejiofor is John the man who arrives in a nuclear suit but introduces a third character with Chris Pine as Caleb who later arrives in the valley and this allows for a love triangle set up.

The edgy, dystopian even disturbing premise of the book and TV movie is lost here. Very little happens, there is almost no sinister subtext apart from jealousy rearing its head when it becomes clear that both men are in love with Ann. Even the conclusion is left open ended.

Itis a shame really as the film wastes its cast and is a shoddy adaptation of a well known book.
10 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
B for Boredom
DBLurker8 October 2016
A post apocalyptic love triangle.. not really. More like post apocalyptic "we need this water wheel working then end the movie".

Seriously, nothing interesting happens. The only interesting bit is at the end, but even that was left unfinished because writers who don't know how to finish their books, come up with a genius half-arsed "un-ending" where you have no idea what happened. So you and others who read the book or saw the movie, spend rest of our miserable lives discussing what the writer "really meant" at the end. We all know what he meant, nothing, he had no ending in mind.

So yeah, terrible love "triangle" taking place at the end of the world, after nuclear war. We are supposed to believe that religious people are kept safe in their valleys from radiation which magically is carried away from that small piece of land, which is occupied by healthy chickens and turkeys for people to eat meat EVERY day while rest of the world has ended.

Or maybe it isn't saying that? All other religious people died too. Makes you wonder what it's really saying.. or it doesn't because the writer never came up with the ending.

Waste of time. I was going to watch Chappie, accidentally sat through this dribble hoping Z for Zombies will show up and eat these boring people in the end. Bleh! 4/10, 4 for the name. I can make fun of it.
11 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
No plot, weak story, awful ending.
k-stein23 November 2015
At some point and time during this 1 and a half hour long snooze fest, it just randomly ends. <--That's it, for real, it just stops, no answers, no nothing. Watch QVC for an hour or so instead of this, at least you'll get some closure when the item changes and you know how many they sold. In fact I made this acct, and my very first review just to let everyone else know how bad this movie is. The character development is open ended, as we never get to know any of them. Without this attachment it's very hard to feel anything or become emotionally involved in the film. The event that led to all of this is also never explained, and not at one point does ever mention exactly, Who in the hell is Zacharia, or why the movie would have a biblical reference for a name, god it's just so damn dumb?
15 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Two Hours of Nothing
jkurtz5518 January 2019
Overlong with an expected ending. Boring and poorly scripted. Din't Expect too much to happen with an ending that had no payoff.
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed