The main thing that struck me about this movie was how terribly empty it was - most things were implied, rather than shown or said. It starts with a scene of nudity, which I think sets the tone of the movie (things are shown in stark, simple terms) and makes the point that the mother was really pregnant and the baby was hers, which makes the movie all the more intimate.
There is a major inconsistency in the plot, which is that there are supposed to be massive problems with food distribution, people are really starving, but at the same time, somehow petrol distribution seems to be fine, people are happily driving around and no mention is made of problems getting petrol. If the cars are supposed to be electric, it's just as bad, because power cuts are shown but no indication that people are worried about charging the cars. Don't even think that in the current situation of world oil production probably having peaked in 2018, petrol is likely to become more expensive anyway in the actual near future. In the same inconsistent vein, food is scarce but somehow cigarrettes seem easy to come by.
The story seems to be more about a lucky woman rather than a rugged survivor. First the mother escapes with the father to be with the parents in law, then when the food runs out she finds a shelter for mothers, then when the shelter is overtaken by what looks like a band of soldiers gone rogue, she escapes in a car with a friend she made in the shelter and ends up in a commune because luckily the friend knows the head of the commune, then returns to London. There is no plan, just running from one place to another.
Another reviewer seems to think that the mother in law got trampled to death in a food riot. I didn't interpret it that way. I don't know what happened, though it certainly looks like she (or someone, in any case) was probably badly hurt. As I said before, a lot is implied, and you can fill the holes in any way you like. The same with the father in law shooting himself. I don't remember seeing any rifle, we hear something that sounds like a shot. But was it a shot? There are a number of things that make noises like a shot.
There are several times when I almost wanted to scream at some poor choices the mother made. How come you didn't put enough food in your backpack, dear? Surely you know how dangerous it is to eat a rabbit that is already dead and who knows for how long and what dangerous bugs may be lurking, even after roasted? Why didn't you secure your home as soon as you came back?
Most of the time, the mother and the people who support her appear rather harmless, pretty good reminders of the usual peaceful hippie type. Then, for a moment when she returns to London she appears rather ruthless and steals a car - but then, it's rather unclear what is happening and anyway, she was planning to get to her destination walking, so how long could be the ride? Five miles? Ten, and that's stretching it quite a bit? And we don't know what she did with the car when she got there. She might have apologised and done her best to get the car returned to the owner, for all we know. Or she might not. As I said, forward-thinking she doesn't seem to be.
After so much was shown indirectly, suddenly we are shown London flooded. It's all the more striking because there was so much before that you had to imagine. It looks very real, also. You can only tell it has to be CGI because you know that London has never been flooded like that, and after seeing a whole bunch of low-budget scenes, for a moment it looks like it's something that must have already happened for real.
Other people seem to have had an issue with the ending being too neat, but I didn't. The parents meet at their own home, apparently around the first time that it's easy to get back to London. What is so unlikely about it? Sure, the mother seems to assume that the father is probably dead, but that could be just pessimism because of some tough experiences she's been through, rather than a realistic assessment of his survival chances.
There are a number of beautifully shot scenes in the movie, which compensate for the glaring holes. But maybe I shouldn't complain about holes when these days, it's hard to say that any movie has a real plot. Maybe I'm just getting old.
There is a major inconsistency in the plot, which is that there are supposed to be massive problems with food distribution, people are really starving, but at the same time, somehow petrol distribution seems to be fine, people are happily driving around and no mention is made of problems getting petrol. If the cars are supposed to be electric, it's just as bad, because power cuts are shown but no indication that people are worried about charging the cars. Don't even think that in the current situation of world oil production probably having peaked in 2018, petrol is likely to become more expensive anyway in the actual near future. In the same inconsistent vein, food is scarce but somehow cigarrettes seem easy to come by.
The story seems to be more about a lucky woman rather than a rugged survivor. First the mother escapes with the father to be with the parents in law, then when the food runs out she finds a shelter for mothers, then when the shelter is overtaken by what looks like a band of soldiers gone rogue, she escapes in a car with a friend she made in the shelter and ends up in a commune because luckily the friend knows the head of the commune, then returns to London. There is no plan, just running from one place to another.
Another reviewer seems to think that the mother in law got trampled to death in a food riot. I didn't interpret it that way. I don't know what happened, though it certainly looks like she (or someone, in any case) was probably badly hurt. As I said before, a lot is implied, and you can fill the holes in any way you like. The same with the father in law shooting himself. I don't remember seeing any rifle, we hear something that sounds like a shot. But was it a shot? There are a number of things that make noises like a shot.
There are several times when I almost wanted to scream at some poor choices the mother made. How come you didn't put enough food in your backpack, dear? Surely you know how dangerous it is to eat a rabbit that is already dead and who knows for how long and what dangerous bugs may be lurking, even after roasted? Why didn't you secure your home as soon as you came back?
Most of the time, the mother and the people who support her appear rather harmless, pretty good reminders of the usual peaceful hippie type. Then, for a moment when she returns to London she appears rather ruthless and steals a car - but then, it's rather unclear what is happening and anyway, she was planning to get to her destination walking, so how long could be the ride? Five miles? Ten, and that's stretching it quite a bit? And we don't know what she did with the car when she got there. She might have apologised and done her best to get the car returned to the owner, for all we know. Or she might not. As I said, forward-thinking she doesn't seem to be.
After so much was shown indirectly, suddenly we are shown London flooded. It's all the more striking because there was so much before that you had to imagine. It looks very real, also. You can only tell it has to be CGI because you know that London has never been flooded like that, and after seeing a whole bunch of low-budget scenes, for a moment it looks like it's something that must have already happened for real.
Other people seem to have had an issue with the ending being too neat, but I didn't. The parents meet at their own home, apparently around the first time that it's easy to get back to London. What is so unlikely about it? Sure, the mother seems to assume that the father is probably dead, but that could be just pessimism because of some tough experiences she's been through, rather than a realistic assessment of his survival chances.
There are a number of beautifully shot scenes in the movie, which compensate for the glaring holes. But maybe I shouldn't complain about holes when these days, it's hard to say that any movie has a real plot. Maybe I'm just getting old.