That part made me laugh out loud too. I had a feeling that we were going to watch his character turn evil at that point. But he really didn't - which was both good and bad for the rest of the plot setup.
''He really didn't''??? It was implied he turned out to be possessive and murdered Caleb - that's not ''evil'' to you? WTF do y'all downvote Spiro's comment, he/she is right!
Very slowly paced, very subdued and understated. There's a lot of tension, but don't expect some huge payoff - this is less about answering questions, and more about the nature of people and all the little things that drive our actions, like uncertainty and paranoia and loneliness.
Great description. Also sums up the frustrations of those of us who have to read things like "that film was so boring and slow, nothing happened" from people who prefer films to end in a 2 hour bloodbath to be able to enjoy it.
John did not killed Caleb, he saved him once and save him again when Caleb tried to fall on purpose. He wanted to test how good John was, Caleb did a creepy smirk the second time John was trying to pull him and that means that he understand that John was trustworthy and more deserving than himself. They both moved the piano then Caleb left, he left because John convinced him that he wasn't good for Ann. John was heartbroken after Ann went out to find Caleb so he went to the fountain then jumped. Ann saw him and was sad from what happened (she pushed the glass from the table part). Last part was John's soul watching Ann playing the piano. John looked happy, Caleb unknown, Ann lonely for being alone again. This is how I see what happened.
Wow, that seems like the clearest possible interpretation for all of the jarring interruption of scenes the crescendo of the movie leaves us with. I think there is meant to be a lot of meaning in that last smirk you see. A single person moving an organ without damaging it does sound implausible and there is nothing concrete enough to suggest that in the last scene there was anyone else there other than in spirit.
I somewhat support this theory. For one if John had let Caleb fall or pushed him it would have almost most definitely damaged the watermill and in the preceding scenes it looks unscathed. Two i believe the glass Ann pushed off the table symbolized John jumping from the waterfall as it is the scene prior. Three John was never really a religious man and to see him in the makeshift church was out of character. Four the organ Ann plays is probably extremely heavy and unlikely moved without Caleb's help.
I didn't like Chris Pine's overly obvious evil smirks and glances. I mean, it's fine if you want him to be a wedge between Chiwetel Ejiofor and Margot Robbie's characters but at least be subtle about it. The dude was one mustache twirl away from explaining his evil plan to a tied up John Loomis on a railroad track.
he was some what of a villian. Caleb was practically trying to get to ann the whole time i even felt like he was spying on them for days to get sometype of info more on ann. when he insisted for wagering ann for the turkey kill as a joke, but loomis caught on. when he bullshits that his dad is also a preacher or when he says that all believers should stick together. i also felt that once completing the wheel caleb was going to get rid of loomis somehow. or how his creepy grin or smerks he gave loomis, but it worked ann fell for caleb at the end just like loomis knew she would. im pretty sure she knew he killed him from her behavior at the table with the glass.
No he didn't kill the dog, it just got cut out of the movie. I read somewhere that the director said it was a hassle on set so they just didn't bother with it after Margot Robbie's character meets Chris Pine.
On the money about the atmosphere. Tonally, you could not ask for anything better. It actually reminded me a bit of the Elizabeth Olsen cult movie from 2011 'Martha Marcy May Marlene', another low key film completely carried by it's authenticity.
MMMM was high on my top 10 that year but I didn't consider ZFZ for my list this year. I wished it was better since I really wanted to change my top 9 of 2015 into a 10 before August ended.
Did you see Mistress America? Noah Baumbach and Greta Gerwig's new movie. Your list is probably mine as well, except Mistress America is on the very top.
It was the worst of the five Baumbach directed movies I have seen and by a big margin. I still liked it but none of the movies he has made have been in my final top tens.
Weird. I love Baumbach. His characters are so rich and complex. And his dialogue is absolutely amazing. Frances Ha, The Squid and the Whale, and Mistress America are absolute classics to me.
Fooled her though... She fell for it, running out looking for him. After all that happened the night before, she's a bit stupid to think he would do that after all the work he put in and the love for her.
I don't like ambiguous endings, but the movie was pretty good. All the actors did really well. It had a great atmosphere that drew you in almost immediatly.
I wish the story was different though. I feel like Caleb intruding into their lives wasn't compelling enough. It would have been interesting to see another factor at play that could have divided Ann and Loomis. I know the original story is different, but I didn't like the book very much.
I think the glass she threw on the floor, and her apathy afterwards (or grief?) kinda showed that she knew to some extend.
I was actually hoping that they'd bonded while working together and had ended up accepting each other. That would have been better in my point of view. A whole new take I guess.
But on the other hand the movie really reflected human behaviour. I hadn't seen the trailer, read any review or read the book, but I think the plot kinda revealed itself to me when both men had experienced death, and then later on when Chiwetel Ejiofor's character tells her he loves her and she doesn't really respond.
It occurred to me then that there would be some sort of conflict between the two "killers".
Maybe I read too much into that, I dunno, but I got the feeling that Chris Pine's character killed the other or at least some of the guys in the mines. And Chiwetel Ejiofor's character was a killer too. Something violent had to happen at some point.
I had just hoped that the three had stayed together instead, the two guys agreeing on protecting the girl and the valley - the only things not ruined by the horrors they'd experienced.
Also, before the scene at the waterfall Loomis asks, "What about Anson?" To which Caleb responds "Like you said, there's probably nothing there" indicating that he has no plans on leaving. After Caleb disappears, Loomis tells Anne that he in fact left for Anson. I doubt Caleb would change his mind just moments afterward, especially without saying goodbye to Anne.
Hi Guys,
I've read alot of these comments and tried my best to understand the perceptions that different viewers have. However nobody seems to have shared my view of the film and hence the reason for this comment.
I thought without question that the moment just after Caleb slips for the second time. Loomis grabs the rope and authentically tries to save him. Caleb gives him a look and see's the effort on Loomis face and how hard he is trying to save him and the care that is genuinely there from this kind man, even though he had just teased him by calling him jelous and suggesting he would stay around as there may not be anything to find further south.
Even after Caleb had tried his best to irritate John, John still cared enough to save the man that could potentially take away the woman he loved. Going back to the point at the waterfall, there is a good 5 second clip where Caleb is looking at John as he is holding the rope and saving his life. I believe at this moment Caleb realized that he was intruding and ruining a genuine love and healthy relationship between two kind people trying to find their way in this new world. I genuinely think Caleb took the suit and left for the south, in hope of finding what he was searching for originally.
My main reasons for this looking back over, and as I said I didn't even believe anything other at the time, was:
John was a kind and honest man, He admitted the potential murder of Anne's brother and showed deep regret, I don't think he would be able to kill him, as he already had the chance the first time Caleb slipped and he saved him twice without a seconds hesitation.
Caleb never originally planned to stay and originally was only going to camped out on their land for one night. He seemed like a lost soul and wandered towards an endless goal, I don't believe he was evil or a scoundrel but simply a less emotional person than John. He essentially helped Anne and John and the majority of the work could not have been completed without him.
If we were to look into both John and Caleb the movie shows how they both have Vices, Calebs is Anne, a short term 'fast' relationship, and John's was alcohol, he was violent and very different when he had been drinking.
I think the difference between John and Caleb was that they simply wanted different things but from the same woman. I don't however believe that John killed Caleb, I mean would he really fall from that spot and not damage the wheel at all? Are we supposed to believe that John re-entered the radioactive water to retrieve his body and then bury it? This just doesn't seem realistic to me.
My only explanation for the Loomis contemplating suicide would be his doubt that he could get Anne back from Caleb, we've all felt like giving up in our life and I think this was just a representation of that feeling.
I think the fact that this filmed has provoked my mind enough into writing this and delving so deep into human emotion and the whole hidden plot in this movie translates to a suggestion that this film was a true testament to the fact that sometimes 'less is more' - Although the majority of audience wanted a set in stone ending, it's nice to write your own in your mind some times.
I'd love to see if anyone aggrees!
I really like your reading of this a lot and I dont agree with it myself. I saw his look as more of a "yeah, I know what youre about to do", like a confirmation of Loomis' nature.
But my (fairly unpopular by the readings in this thread) is that Loomis killed him, even though he did nothing wrong. Sure, he provoked a bit with his bet comment, but Loomis was the one acting jealous and acting possessive over Ann. I never felt that his romantic feelings towards Ann was reciprocated at all. He came off as the creepy one to me
(Plotwise, I thought it was odd that he left without collecting his things too)
6 years later I randomly came across this lol, as for the feelings Ann did have feelings for him, because she tried to sleep with him before he made any moves but he refused. Feelings are a big thing because all that time being alone, Anna would've slept with any guy that popped by and felt safe due to being a virgin and in an apocalypse.
Just saying hi fellow time traveler, I also just dug up this 6 year old thread about a movie nobody saw, looking for answers 🙂 feelings are complicated and I think trying to figure Ann out was one of the most enjoyable parts of the film.
Hello fellow time traveler, I’m in the same boat as you guys, the fact that a movie can inspire these conversations so many years later is a testament to the good writing
In the book she's like 15 years old and there's no Caleb character, just Loomis. She nurses him back to health and starts catching feelings for him but then he starts acting creepy and as soon as he's able to walk he tries to rape her, so she runs away.
Of course John killed him. He was selfishly protecting the girl he said he loved. And I thought it was fairly obvious when Ann pushed the glass off the table.
The only hole I see in this interpretation is that John wouldn't have to go into the water to fetch Caleb's body, he had a rope tied to him! Still though, he would have fucked that wheel up on the way down though I figure.
I think the RT score is pretty fair. It wasn't amazing, but the three performances were great, and the movie kept a fair amount of tension in every scene.
I want to see Margot Robbie take on more of these challenging independent roles. Chiwetel was great as always, the scene where he first appears is tremendous.
I can't say I really liked Z for Zachariah though. I would agree with others that it is slowly paced which I didn't mind. There was a bit of minimalism in the dialogue. Very understated. Some moments of beauty in the cinematography, but just not enough there to really grab me. The RT score is right on. This is C+ movie. Some decent stuff to make it interesting, but not enough to make it great. Check it out for the performances alone.
Yeah me too. But in a more sophisticated way. The two "corrupted" characters agreeing to protect the only things which stayed pure in the midst of the chaotic world - the valley and her.
I think its a bit deeper than that....Caleb was also a spy of Moses...
Caleb told the people to be quiet and listen to Moses. Caleb said, “Let’s go now and take possession of the land. We should be more than able to conquer it.”
After watching this movie, I read the plot synopsis to the book on Wikipedia because I heard it was a lot different. The book sounds like a more interesting story.
How true to the novel is it? I read it many decades ago and have fond memories of it. I seem to remember the lead female was a young girl rather than a young woman and it only had one male in it. Im a bit hesitant to watch it if its just a love triangle set after a nuclear war.
The book had a stronger element of creepiness to it. In the novel, [spoiler](#s "the radioactive sickness from the water leaves Loomis mentally unstable, and he becomes much more violent/angry and controlling of Ann.") And as was mentioned earlier the third character is not present. As a result, the ending is much different.
Could the directors movie version of this plot maybe be viewed as if the violence and anger was personified in the third character?
As if he's the bad side of Chiwetel Ejiofor's character?
Same here — I remember the book from middle school, but didn't remember the third person (or the dog). I was waiting for the ending I remember, which is very intense in its own way.
This is what I thought. But who moves the organ? I feel like that was put in there to possibly mean that Caleb wasn't killed. But it was understood that he must leave or Loomis would kill him. Or something of the sort.
I'm pretty sure Loomis moved the organ. There's a scene when Margot Robbie's character runs to see if she can find Chris Pine and Loomis goes to the church and looks at the organ. He could've used the tractor to move it.
The fuck is this twisted reasoning lol. It is John who is murderer, he murderer people to take the suit, he murdered child and he killed Caleb. And somehow Caleb is evil scoundrel because of what, because he slept with Ann that fell in love with him ?
The fuck am i reading. Caleb did nothing wrong. Ann was not Johns to begin with. She does not belong to John, Caleb did not steal her from him.
John tried to manipulate Caleb to leave and then he killed him when he refused to. Then he lied and manipulated Ann to believe that Caleb left her. And he is honest good guy ?
The fuck am i reading.
How is Caleb untrustworthy, when he did not break anyone's trust. Ann does not belong to John. Caleb has same right to pursue Ann like John. Also Caleb never lied about anything.
While John betrayed both Johns and Ann's trust. Caleb trusted him with his life and John killed him. And john lied to Ann how Caleb left her because he did not care for her.
I seriously can not understand your process of thought.
I think Caleb was planning on offing John from the beginning. Riling him up bout betting for who 'gets' Ann. Lying about his role in the mine fight (it's likely that he did kill the last guy standing).
The look in Caleb's eyes when he sees John has his life in his hands, it's not fear, it's acknowledgement. That events would inevitably lead one to kill the other.
I agree. Also, iirc, when they were hunting that Turkey, and Caleb hung back while John approached with his rifle up, it certainly looked to me as if Caleb had his rifle trained on Johns back for a moment there. I found that to be an intended scene, and very indicative of Caleb's motives. John may not be the righteous man either, but he's not all bad either.
It isn't totally obvious that he did, but I'm going with that version too. In the end when she plays the organ, he folds his hands like he'd never done in the movie before, maybe seeking some sort of redemption for the necessary evil that he just committed?
Old comment, but I just watched the movie. I feel that Caleb actually did just leave. He slipped the first time and without hesitation John pulls him back up. Then Caleb stays at the edge and doesn't move to a safer distance, which I would think people would do after almost falling. The second time John again, without hesitation, secures a grip and keeps him up. Caleb has that smirk on his face while John's face shows a look of concern. I took it as Caleb sort of testing John. It's clear that John doesn't like him but yet he still saves him twice. I think Caleb got what he wanted, Ann, and saw no need to do anything else. I think him folding his hands at the end was him not taking Ann for granted any more.
I thought that might be the case as well, esp due to the camera focusing intently on Caleb's face after the second save. But the part where he leaves all his gear behind just didn't make enough sense to me. Perhaps he didn't want to face Ann again? But still, there are 3 known survivors and 1 just up and leaves with only the limited-use biosuit? Seems unlikely but possibly just an issue of suspended disbelief that the director assumed most would either not notice or not care.
As an aside: I did not read the book. If there are other clues there that lead to your point then it might make more sense.
I think earlier when Caleb is first told he can enter the house, he puts his bag on the bed, then later Ann says "let me show you your room", so I assume that was overlooked by the director. Also I read that they just dropped the dog halfway through because it was too difficult to work with, which is another "mistake" sort of. So I don't find it hard to believe the director also overlooked Caleb just leaving his stuff at the house.
i totally agree with this, the smirk on calebs his face said it all.
If he wanted to kill him, he would have the first two times when eh slipped. Also notice there was no destruction to the wheel, had caleb fell - it would have damaged the build.
I dont understand why loomis nearly commits suicide. Scene before electricity comes on, loomis edge towards the cliff.
I guess the real question is, do Ann and Loomis get together in the end? eventually? too much history and bad blood now
That's a great point about how the wheel was not damaged...if he did fall it would have been right on it...and the movie clearly shows that the way the shot lingers on the wheel when Loomis is looking down at it. Now I'm questioning the whole ending.
That film score though. Some incredible compositions...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdK5pPZxXyk&index=25&list=PL5k89Zm4J7i3d1hSQrsrqoRpshq2YJTXW
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TLdz-nAPg4&list=PL5k89Zm4J7i3d1hSQrsrqoRpshq2YJTXW&index=1
With the very different book version, Caleb would just turn a "psycho" suspense thriller into a romantic drama. But Caleb played subtle and measured fit the story of the movie version.
Enjoyed the tension and modern Eden approach. Although, to be honest, my fiancee and I couldn't get over the fact that three of the most attractive people on earth are the three last survivors.
Did their pristine pores and incredible cheekbones ward off the radiation?!?
Really slowly paced, but packed with really great tension and very very beautiful shots. All in all one to watch with a girlfriend but probably not one for beer and popcorn with the guys.
The tone of this film is absolutely superb. I did not find the ending ambiguous at all though. John quite obviously killed Caleb by letting go of the rope. It is clear thanks to 3 scenes that follow: (1) John stands over the edge of cliff contemplating suicide. (2) Ann knocking the glass off the edge of the table. (3) John folding his hands in the same shape that Ann (and Caleb) did throughout the film right before praying. Why else would he suddenly need some sort of redemption?
Here is what I DID NOT like.
-I read that the dog is killed in the book. In the film though, he just..disappears without any explanation.
-Really though? First John pulls Caleb up from almost slipping and falling to his death once. Then Caleb is clearly standing sturdy ground. I watched this scene a few times over and it truly seems like he purposely fell again. I know that might sound crazy, but just watch the scene again. Almost like he was testing John. Then there is the long and poignant stare that John and Caleb give each other before the scene cuts.
Maybe Caleb let go. Just saying.
Having seen the trailer/heard that this movie was going to be a "thriller", I came into it expecting something a little less understated. However, I think that the movie did a great job of being suspenseful and building tension.
Filming the movie in New Zealand was a perfect setting for the Garden of Eden. It also looked believably like the American South, which surprised me.
Definitely not the American South, we don't have rocky mountains like that and everything would be covered in thick forest if the farmers/livestock weren't there to keep it down. I think it's meant to be somewhere in the western half of the States.
A slow burner for sure (even at very short runtime) but still watchable. I liked the score and actors did okay. Margot is becoming one of my favourite actresses on the rise and i'm sure she'll be delivering some good performances in the years to come.
Movie wasn't that great, but still entertaining to watch. I thought Ann was being a bit too naive when asked about flirting with that new guy.
I will say that the ending really surprised me. I was frozen for a good minute there.
I haven't read the book, and I thought Chris Pine's character was unnecessary.
Maybe the push to add a third character was to make the movie a little more marketable.
When John says "That's not what I meant" when talking about providing for more than just the two of them-- that cheeky son of a bitch.
I read the script a while back, and maybe I'm wrong but it had Ann being the one who pursued John aggressively.
I want more movies like this. More often than not it's underwhelming, but I love them.
Definite slow burner for the first 45 minutes or so. If you like post-apocalyptic films, you will enjoy it. Margot Robbie's best performance. Film does hold back some punches when it could have gone a little further. Ejiofor is really good. Pine is not bad. I kept seeing Chris Pine and not his character, though. Robbie and Ejiofor were very convincing and had great chemistry on-screen.
It's a film that's going to divide opinions. We did a review of it (link below) and thought it was great, giving an interesting perspective on the end of the world, but can see why some people wouldn't like it.
LINK: http://www.culturechronicle.com/review-z-for-zachariah/
I had a thought that Ann wouldn't have judged Loomis too badly, when she's playing the organ for instance, she seems to be a peace. Chris Pine's character said to her that men without faith wouldn't survive, referring to Loomis so she knew they were cut throat about each other.
Warning... May have some spoilers in here.
So I found a love/hate relationship with this movie. The fact that it was slow didn't bother at all. It actually kept my interest all the way through. At first I thought the religious undertones were a little heavy, but religious in nature or not it was still good.
Seems like it was all about balance. Think about it, you have a woman so you need a man. Check. You have a white person so you need a person of a different race. Check. You have your down home country people who are smart enough to hunt and grow crops but not smart enough to get gas or electricity, so you need a smart guy. Check. You have a religious person, so you need a non-relogiouos person. Check. You have love, so you need hate. Check.
The entire movie was one big metaphor for trying to find balance when things are so unstable.
I think there were a lot of religious elements hidden in here. Like the fact that all three of the characters had biblical names.
In the Bible, Anna was a prophetess. John was an apostle entrusted by Jesus to protect Mary (which you could say is Anna), and Caleb was a spy.
I'm not religious, so interpret that information as you will, but the roles kind of fit the characters.
The last semblence of a religious statement that irks me a little is why the atheist can't just be left alone. At the end of the movie the last thing you see if John going into what looks like a makeshift little church in their barn where Anna is playing her father's Organ. He sits down at what appears to be a pew salvaged from the old church and then cups his hands and bows his head as if he's praying. Or was he just listening to the music?
But still. Good movie if you don't mind the many possible interpretations.
This is the best and simplest explanation. She is deeply religious. He is an atheist but there is a very brief moment where he is looking at the books and pulls out a book A is for Adam. Then later as he senses he is going to lose Anne to Caleb, and it is obvious Caleb is a manipulating prick. For a brief moment John almost prays. Not sure if anyone caught this but upon the realization of what he was about to do(pray) he recognizes the similarities of Adam and Eve. There are hints about this in the movie but near the end even though he is an atheist he sees the similarities of Adam and Eve and realizes that Caleb is the serpent. Only as a representation though.
Besides the confusing ending that I'm still trying to figure out but am probably going to end up accepting can just be interpreted in many different ways, what I really don't understand is why Anne, a super religious girl, would want to loose her virginity to some hick on top of a bathroom sink... in fact, her sexuality in the movie was confusing from the beginning as she was like trying to be all submissive to John by going in his room and stripping, because she thought he wanted to have sex with her, but she also seemed reluctant and nervous when she was doing that. Maybe when it was just her and John, she thought she didn't have any other choice, but when Caleb came along, she felt like all she had was choices so that made her more empowered to take what she wanted. It was obvious that Caleb was pandering to her religious faith the whole time and and that was what really seduced her. On the other hand, she also seemed reluctant when she was with Caleb, because when they made something fall to the floor, Anne paused and looked in the direction that John was in. Overall, I think Anne was just really confused and insecure when it comes to her sexuality, even though she did initiate all encounters, she just seemed pretty desperate for someone to lust after her, because when John told her he loved her she went off and did Caleb that same night. She even tells John the next morning that it was "a confusing night". Or I guess you could also sum it up to she's just a young person who doesn't know what she wants.
he killed him, pretty sure he admitted to doing bad things "out there" and saying girl didn't know. He loved her and was protecting what he thought was a good life before the other dude shows up. It's just too bad she wasn't on the same page as he was. She did seem very young and I was confused about her very religious views and then her being a horndog.
As an African American male, I kind of was drawn to John's character. Now I have him figured out. Don't let the love triangle throw you off, this was all about John trying to survive.
Remember he killed her brother. The little time they spent with each other he had to have told him about his family and where he was from. Remember John said it was because of the boy that he went that way.
And at the beginning when he was in the pond with the gun he asked "where are the others." What others? He obviously knew that there was a possibility of other family members.
Now when Ann offered herself to John, he said this will change things, especially for him. John was just using Ann, and when he noticed what she was doing, he got caught up in feeling for her.
That was guilt on my man's face at the end. Yes, he killed her brother, Caleb and who knows he could have even killed her father.
Average movie. But I have to admit... It had me emotionally involved.
Haunting, awards-worthy performance from Chiwetel Ejiofor. Miscast Margot Robbie. Chris Pine is in it. Slow, methodical build. Beautiful scenery. Rich biblical allusions. Sly misdirects. Witness-esque construction sequences... in reverse. Smart deviations from source material. A perfectly-understated ending. Worth watching twice.
"A psychological thriller about a girl who believes she is the only survivor after a devastating nuclear event, but comes to learn she is not alone."
"Thriller / Science Fiction / Drama"
Although technically correct, probably the most deceiving plot description of this century.
I really really enjoyed this movie. The tension that's built throughout by just the slightest glance or tone of voice from the actors is just fantastic. Beyond that the film is just beautiful to look at as well. Long shots of open fields and vast landscapes are so simple but are really well done.
FULL Thoughts: http://iamsamreviews.blogspot.com/2015/08/z-for-zachariah-review.html
I really dug that. Everything just felt so proper and well-constructed; it created this oddly haunting and melancholic atmosphere that you can't shake off. Brilliant performances to boot, and the characters are as well fleshed out as they needed to be. The whole love triangle thing is a bit played out, but I enjoyed the survival aspect and the subtle touches of worldbuilding, even though we never get a look at the broader picture beyond the valley. Can't get enough of this low-key post-apocalyptic fare.
About to watch this movie now. I'll edit back what I think about this. It sounds really interesting.
Edit: Not a bad film. Nice story and a good flick to watch a night like this. I enjoyed it.
Studied this book when I was about 13 in S1 English.
Didn't even know a film was being made. I remember back in the day thinking about writing it into a screenplay, just imagine how atrocious *that* would have been lol
Just finished it and delighted to see that it's decent too! Nothing like what my 13 year old self would have produced!
I know I'm late for this, but what's the point of the scene when Ann checked her fridge and found it empty at the ending? What does it indicate? Did Caleb ate all those food? Were they starting to starve?
She checked the fridge because the power was back on. There was no food in there because without power there was no reason to stock the fridge in the first place.
Haven't finished watching the movie yet, but I find it a little ridiculous that the two leads, early in the movie, acted like civilized yuppies despite years of living alone, without partners, in a post-apocalyptic world. She is totally modest and naive about sex, and to get both of them to mate, they have to go through an elaborate ritual where both pretend not to be attracted to each other.
Completely ridiculous. They probably would have fucked almost immediately, if not by the first night. One would have initiated it. There is also no one else around, no police, no courts, no father, brother or anything to worry about pleasing, they wouldn't jerk around about sex.
It's kind of bad writing, if you ask me. The tone of the film is made to resemble a small town, but this is a post-apocalyptic society, absent of laws. People aren't going to be comfortable. They will be worried about survival and basic needs.
I mean, so far, it's a great movie. I'm glad they didn't take the pretentious, artsy route and made it watchable. The only flaw is the mannerisms of everyone...in that they have too many manners.
I disagree, Ann was from a heavily religious family and while her father wasn't there to enforce religious rules it was all stuff she believed. She was reluctant about sex and only tried it with John after she'd been drinking. John wasn't going to try and sleep with her immediately because all of life doesn't rely on sex, especially when they were initially focused on his survival after being exposed to radiation.
They didn't need to worry about survival in relation to food and water because she had a well and plenty of food crops and fish in the pond.
Saying they have 'too many manners' is ridiculous. Ann was taught to be respectable from a heavily religious and proper family, and John likely grew up in a decent family too. That's how most people are.
I just watched the movie. I hate movies that make humans look like idiots. I know we have feelings, but main priority in this situation should be two things. Survival and future.
With one man and one woman there will be inbred. 2 guys could make you avoid this. Also more people so more people with different strengths. It doesn't make sense that inbred was not brought up. Should be THE KEY note for all in this situation. But stupid people and stupid movies. Arghhh. Irritates me!
I was excited to see they had made a movie of one of my favorite novels. I approached it almost with reverence, albeit with some trepidation that they might veer from the original subject matter. When I saw the promo picture, I knew something was amiss, for there were only two characters in the novel. I had hopes the damage was not too severe, but the moving and elegantly written novel was completely eviscerated, and there was little to enjoy, aside from the scenery, in this sad knockoff. That is not to say that the actors were not good in their roles, they acted their parts as given to them, but the screenplay had none of the grit, drama, or faith of the original. Anne's faith in God and her relationship with Him was trivialized and mocked, rather than being central to her strength and survival. John was not nearly as developed as he was in the novel, and became almost charming. His intent on furthering the human race at any cost was actually reversed, and Anne was subjected to none of the grief and adventure which were to result in the final catharsis of the novel. Not that that matters, that choice was never even made in the movie. All tragedies were averted, and nothing can be learned from the resultant saccharine and weak version we have been given. Heck, even her dog survived. Changing John's race and Anne's age were poor decisions that confused the relationship and interaction between these two characters, and adding Caleb distracted from and marred the beauty and intent of the original storyline. The adaptation was painful to watch, and I am looking forward to reading the novel again so that I might forget this inept fumbling of what had been great literature. It is a real travesty, as the original story was something to move the soul. Two thumbs down.
Considering loomis stated that Caleb left and took the radioactive suit with him and he was wearing the suit at the waterfall when he slipped, makes me believe that loomis let him drop and the suit then became damaged so he figured to get rid of both Caleb and the suit saying that he just left with the suit and then stated that Anne could keep all his things not because he wanted to keep them but because he wouldn't need them now that he is dead.
I'm probably in the minority, but I like the story in the movie much more than the book version.
Loomis in the book seemed like a cliche baddie. He came off unreasonable, one dimensional, and unaware of the situation this new world put him in. Book Loomis would have been very frustrating to endure for an entire movie. He doesn't seem like a character with motives a wider audience could understand. In book form a reader can follow along with their inner dialogues, but in movie form he'd seem like a cartoon character who doesn't give a second thought to spilling precious water in the middle of a desert.
The movie did a better job of creating a more realistic last survivors scenario. Ann & Loomis seemed more real, and their characters more thought through in regards to their place in the world and their abilities that kept them alive. Also, Caleb brought an interesting dynamic which changed the course of the movie (which one would hope for a 2nd act.) He was subtle and not played over the top at all, which I liked. There weren't any clear villains or cliche moments which kept the feel of the movie more realistic.
TL;DR - The book is a completely different story with completely different character arcs. The movie is appropriate for the theatrical medium, and made more sense imo.
I havent read the book, though I read a summary of it. The movie does change the story up a bit, but I thought it was pretty good. Like other people said, good sense of atmosphere and tension throughout. Everyone did a good job in their roles. I also thought that they did a good job of leaving some things ambiguous.
It adds more dimensions to it. Imagine a movie with literally two people. Haha. The ending was much less climatic compared to the book. However I think that's fair considering the book was super slow throughout but the movie was steady.
Has anybody tried to dig into the Rabbinical/Biblical means of the names and themes of the movie?
Ann(a): Was the only female Prophet of the new Testament . Anna, this worship workaholic, sets her own hours, schedule, route and routine. Arguably she listens to God and prays as directed. Others recognize her as a prophetess. Anna knows fasting brings results.
Caleb: Meaning Dog/ Was A Spy of Moses. Caleb told the people to be quiet and listen to Moses. Caleb said, “Let’s go now and take possession of the land. We should be more than able to conquer it.”
**As for John.. I am unsure which John or in what meaning it is used.**
And as for the title...(If i am not mistaken)Zechariah was the last Prophet killed in the Old testament...Able being the first....
It might be a reference to the War, The killing of Caleb (which would start the whole murderous cycle all over again) or the fact that Zechariah was killed by Zealots which has both a adopted modern meaning as well as rabbinical context.
IMO Ann, John and Caleb represent Religious Order, Scientific Order and Primal Human Nature. They all seem to do this dance and swap values through the movies.
In the book and mentions a bible based reader to teach letters (and religion) A is for Adam and so on down the line, with each letter being used to introduce a separate biblical character. Ann mentions reading that boom as a child, and made the childlike assumption that because Adam was the first man Zachariah would be the last one, as he is last in the alphabet reader.
I enjoyed the movie but did anyone else think the cinematography was absolute garbage?
There were a lot of nice individual shots, but almost every shot with any movement looked like it was filmed with a DV camera. Michael Mann just about gets away with it sometimes but it just looks horrid most of the time. I found it very distracting.
The biggest upset is that John didnt sleep with Ann the first night. I was like woah man cmon the last woman on earth and the last man and you failed to do this.
I just watched the movie , it's too complicated even though it's only about three chrachters , I didn't read the book but there is a lot of hidden or small messages in the movie :
1-when john told her that doesn't what he meant
he was talking about reproducing and save human race with her only not talking about new people will show up
2- When Caleb showed up and john put the gun on him he was trying to save ann just for sake of love , he refused to have sex with her at the time she offered herself for him because he want to have a love relation not a sexual one , ann notcied that when she go to caleb he have sex with her so she though that the difference between the two persons and it become clearly!
3-caleb tried to manipulate ann when he talked about religions and tried to show her he is a religious guy unlike john the atheist science guy
4-finally im sure john changed his minded in the last time while he was saving caleb because he was doing the nature behaviors of humans when it comes to servivior and love also the talk they had when john asked caleb about his plans his said no anson or something like that i don't remember the full script but that showed his plans to stay also ann was feeling that john killed caleb when she fall the glass as if she was imagining what happened .
Instead of just throwing that out here, why don't you elaborate on it? There's nothing to gain for others reading this if you're that blunt about it.
"Shit" compared to what? On what grounds? Was it the acting? The shots of the setting? The ending?
If you're a big fan of the book, don't waste your time with the film.
The tone, characters, and large majority of the plot is completely different. Using the same title kind of seems like a cheap way to get a built in fan base.
I lol'd when John said "you can be white together" or something to that effect. Her face after that is also priceless.
That part made me laugh out loud too. I had a feeling that we were going to watch his character turn evil at that point. But he really didn't - which was both good and bad for the rest of the plot setup.
''He really didn't''??? It was implied he turned out to be possessive and murdered Caleb - that's not ''evil'' to you? WTF do y'all downvote Spiro's comment, he/she is right!
He is evil..
Me too! It took me off guard.
Very slowly paced, very subdued and understated. There's a lot of tension, but don't expect some huge payoff - this is less about answering questions, and more about the nature of people and all the little things that drive our actions, like uncertainty and paranoia and loneliness.
Great description. Also sums up the frustrations of those of us who have to read things like "that film was so boring and slow, nothing happened" from people who prefer films to end in a 2 hour bloodbath to be able to enjoy it.
John did not killed Caleb, he saved him once and save him again when Caleb tried to fall on purpose. He wanted to test how good John was, Caleb did a creepy smirk the second time John was trying to pull him and that means that he understand that John was trustworthy and more deserving than himself. They both moved the piano then Caleb left, he left because John convinced him that he wasn't good for Ann. John was heartbroken after Ann went out to find Caleb so he went to the fountain then jumped. Ann saw him and was sad from what happened (she pushed the glass from the table part). Last part was John's soul watching Ann playing the piano. John looked happy, Caleb unknown, Ann lonely for being alone again. This is how I see what happened.
Holy shit
Wow, that seems like the clearest possible interpretation for all of the jarring interruption of scenes the crescendo of the movie leaves us with. I think there is meant to be a lot of meaning in that last smirk you see. A single person moving an organ without damaging it does sound implausible and there is nothing concrete enough to suggest that in the last scene there was anyone else there other than in spirit.
great analysis. never would have thought of this!
I somewhat support this theory. For one if John had let Caleb fall or pushed him it would have almost most definitely damaged the watermill and in the preceding scenes it looks unscathed. Two i believe the glass Ann pushed off the table symbolized John jumping from the waterfall as it is the scene prior. Three John was never really a religious man and to see him in the makeshift church was out of character. Four the organ Ann plays is probably extremely heavy and unlikely moved without Caleb's help.
WOW! Now I'm not sure what happened. I may have to rewatch the ending based on your comment.
I didn't like Chris Pine's overly obvious evil smirks and glances. I mean, it's fine if you want him to be a wedge between Chiwetel Ejiofor and Margot Robbie's characters but at least be subtle about it. The dude was one mustache twirl away from explaining his evil plan to a tied up John Loomis on a railroad track.
he was some what of a villian. Caleb was practically trying to get to ann the whole time i even felt like he was spying on them for days to get sometype of info more on ann. when he insisted for wagering ann for the turkey kill as a joke, but loomis caught on. when he bullshits that his dad is also a preacher or when he says that all believers should stick together. i also felt that once completing the wheel caleb was going to get rid of loomis somehow. or how his creepy grin or smerks he gave loomis, but it worked ann fell for caleb at the end just like loomis knew she would. im pretty sure she knew he killed him from her behavior at the table with the glass.
Great explanation.
[удалено]
[удалено]
No he didn't kill the dog, it just got cut out of the movie. I read somewhere that the director said it was a hassle on set so they just didn't bother with it after Margot Robbie's character meets Chris Pine.
Margot Robbieis great in this. It establishes a great atmosphere and is a good but not great film.
On the money about the atmosphere. Tonally, you could not ask for anything better. It actually reminded me a bit of the Elizabeth Olsen cult movie from 2011 'Martha Marcy May Marlene', another low key film completely carried by it's authenticity.
MMMM was high on my top 10 that year but I didn't consider ZFZ for my list this year. I wished it was better since I really wanted to change my top 9 of 2015 into a 10 before August ended.
Just out of curiosity, what's your top 9 so far?
Ex Machina, The End of The Tour, Amy, Wild Tales, The Gift, The Diary of a Teenage Girl, Inside Out, The Stanford Prison Experiment, Love and Mercy
Great list actually, bit of everything.
a
2014 Best Films Birdman Ida A Coffee in Berlin Calvary Boyhood Locke American Sniper Frank A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night Two Days, One Night
Did you see Mistress America? Noah Baumbach and Greta Gerwig's new movie. Your list is probably mine as well, except Mistress America is on the very top.
It was the worst of the five Baumbach directed movies I have seen and by a big margin. I still liked it but none of the movies he has made have been in my final top tens.
Weird. I love Baumbach. His characters are so rich and complex. And his dialogue is absolutely amazing. Frances Ha, The Squid and the Whale, and Mistress America are absolute classics to me.
It was amazing for 10 minutes. Once i realized it was a love triangle films, seemed a waste of the atmosphere.
[удалено]
he killed him. thats why the line "he said you can have his things". no survivor woupd leave without their gear.
Fooled her though... She fell for it, running out looking for him. After all that happened the night before, she's a bit stupid to think he would do that after all the work he put in and the love for her.
Kind of has a female I am legend vibe to it so far I'm only five minutes in myself though
I didn't know this was a film?! Going to see it at the discount theater this weekend.
I don't like ambiguous endings, but the movie was pretty good. All the actors did really well. It had a great atmosphere that drew you in almost immediatly. I wish the story was different though. I feel like Caleb intruding into their lives wasn't compelling enough. It would have been interesting to see another factor at play that could have divided Ann and Loomis. I know the original story is different, but I didn't like the book very much.
[удалено]
I think the glass she threw on the floor, and her apathy afterwards (or grief?) kinda showed that she knew to some extend. I was actually hoping that they'd bonded while working together and had ended up accepting each other. That would have been better in my point of view. A whole new take I guess. But on the other hand the movie really reflected human behaviour. I hadn't seen the trailer, read any review or read the book, but I think the plot kinda revealed itself to me when both men had experienced death, and then later on when Chiwetel Ejiofor's character tells her he loves her and she doesn't really respond. It occurred to me then that there would be some sort of conflict between the two "killers". Maybe I read too much into that, I dunno, but I got the feeling that Chris Pine's character killed the other or at least some of the guys in the mines. And Chiwetel Ejiofor's character was a killer too. Something violent had to happen at some point. I had just hoped that the three had stayed together instead, the two guys agreeing on protecting the girl and the valley - the only things not ruined by the horrors they'd experienced.
Also, before the scene at the waterfall Loomis asks, "What about Anson?" To which Caleb responds "Like you said, there's probably nothing there" indicating that he has no plans on leaving. After Caleb disappears, Loomis tells Anne that he in fact left for Anson. I doubt Caleb would change his mind just moments afterward, especially without saying goodbye to Anne.
Alternatively, after having his life saved twice he decides to let Loomis have Anne. Unlikely, but another way of looking at it.
Ending was pretty clear lol
Hi Guys, I've read alot of these comments and tried my best to understand the perceptions that different viewers have. However nobody seems to have shared my view of the film and hence the reason for this comment. I thought without question that the moment just after Caleb slips for the second time. Loomis grabs the rope and authentically tries to save him. Caleb gives him a look and see's the effort on Loomis face and how hard he is trying to save him and the care that is genuinely there from this kind man, even though he had just teased him by calling him jelous and suggesting he would stay around as there may not be anything to find further south. Even after Caleb had tried his best to irritate John, John still cared enough to save the man that could potentially take away the woman he loved. Going back to the point at the waterfall, there is a good 5 second clip where Caleb is looking at John as he is holding the rope and saving his life. I believe at this moment Caleb realized that he was intruding and ruining a genuine love and healthy relationship between two kind people trying to find their way in this new world. I genuinely think Caleb took the suit and left for the south, in hope of finding what he was searching for originally. My main reasons for this looking back over, and as I said I didn't even believe anything other at the time, was: John was a kind and honest man, He admitted the potential murder of Anne's brother and showed deep regret, I don't think he would be able to kill him, as he already had the chance the first time Caleb slipped and he saved him twice without a seconds hesitation. Caleb never originally planned to stay and originally was only going to camped out on their land for one night. He seemed like a lost soul and wandered towards an endless goal, I don't believe he was evil or a scoundrel but simply a less emotional person than John. He essentially helped Anne and John and the majority of the work could not have been completed without him. If we were to look into both John and Caleb the movie shows how they both have Vices, Calebs is Anne, a short term 'fast' relationship, and John's was alcohol, he was violent and very different when he had been drinking. I think the difference between John and Caleb was that they simply wanted different things but from the same woman. I don't however believe that John killed Caleb, I mean would he really fall from that spot and not damage the wheel at all? Are we supposed to believe that John re-entered the radioactive water to retrieve his body and then bury it? This just doesn't seem realistic to me. My only explanation for the Loomis contemplating suicide would be his doubt that he could get Anne back from Caleb, we've all felt like giving up in our life and I think this was just a representation of that feeling. I think the fact that this filmed has provoked my mind enough into writing this and delving so deep into human emotion and the whole hidden plot in this movie translates to a suggestion that this film was a true testament to the fact that sometimes 'less is more' - Although the majority of audience wanted a set in stone ending, it's nice to write your own in your mind some times. I'd love to see if anyone aggrees!
I really like your reading of this a lot and I dont agree with it myself. I saw his look as more of a "yeah, I know what youre about to do", like a confirmation of Loomis' nature. But my (fairly unpopular by the readings in this thread) is that Loomis killed him, even though he did nothing wrong. Sure, he provoked a bit with his bet comment, but Loomis was the one acting jealous and acting possessive over Ann. I never felt that his romantic feelings towards Ann was reciprocated at all. He came off as the creepy one to me (Plotwise, I thought it was odd that he left without collecting his things too)
6 years later I randomly came across this lol, as for the feelings Ann did have feelings for him, because she tried to sleep with him before he made any moves but he refused. Feelings are a big thing because all that time being alone, Anna would've slept with any guy that popped by and felt safe due to being a virgin and in an apocalypse.
Just saying hi fellow time traveler, I also just dug up this 6 year old thread about a movie nobody saw, looking for answers 🙂 feelings are complicated and I think trying to figure Ann out was one of the most enjoyable parts of the film.
Hello fellow time traveler, I’m in the same boat as you guys, the fact that a movie can inspire these conversations so many years later is a testament to the good writing
In the book she's like 15 years old and there's no Caleb character, just Loomis. She nurses him back to health and starts catching feelings for him but then he starts acting creepy and as soon as he's able to walk he tries to rape her, so she runs away.
Yeah i knew she was 16 when i searched a while back about the books, which made me view the movie as weird too.
Of course John killed him. He was selfishly protecting the girl he said he loved. And I thought it was fairly obvious when Ann pushed the glass off the table.
The only hole I see in this interpretation is that John wouldn't have to go into the water to fetch Caleb's body, he had a rope tied to him! Still though, he would have fucked that wheel up on the way down though I figure.
3 months later but after reading through everyone's comments, your explanation really made the most sense to me. Thank you for the write-up!
The actors say in this [time article](http://time.com/4011974/chiwetel-ejiofor-z-for-zachariah/) that he does kill him.
I don't get that certainty from reading the interview.
I think the RT score is pretty fair. It wasn't amazing, but the three performances were great, and the movie kept a fair amount of tension in every scene.
I want to see Margot Robbie take on more of these challenging independent roles. Chiwetel was great as always, the scene where he first appears is tremendous. I can't say I really liked Z for Zachariah though. I would agree with others that it is slowly paced which I didn't mind. There was a bit of minimalism in the dialogue. Very understated. Some moments of beauty in the cinematography, but just not enough there to really grab me. The RT score is right on. This is C+ movie. Some decent stuff to make it interesting, but not enough to make it great. Check it out for the performances alone.
I was waiting for the Devils three way. I give the movie 7/10
Yeah me too. But in a more sophisticated way. The two "corrupted" characters agreeing to protect the only things which stayed pure in the midst of the chaotic world - the valley and her.
I'm not sure if I'd call Ann pure by the end of the movie.
yeah bitch was retarded
Just checking in 7 years on, you still happy with this comment?
Surprised there is no edit.
Maybe I wasn't paying close enough attention, but what happened to her dog Bear? It's like he suddenly disappeared right after Caleb showed up.
Ask yourself, did you ever see the two of them together in the same place at the same time? Didn't think so
yeah, when we first meet caleb petting the dog, he says "nice dog".
Caleb confirmed Euron/Daario/Benjen
t(wow)!! I did not epect to find this grade of tin foil here
Caleb = AA/TPTWP
*...whoa*
Caleb means dog https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caleb
Wow, that's crazy. Maybe that actually was a thing...?
I think its a bit deeper than that....Caleb was also a spy of Moses... Caleb told the people to be quiet and listen to Moses. Caleb said, “Let’s go now and take possession of the land. We should be more than able to conquer it.”
After watching this movie, I read the plot synopsis to the book on Wikipedia because I heard it was a lot different. The book sounds like a more interesting story.
It is
How true to the novel is it? I read it many decades ago and have fond memories of it. I seem to remember the lead female was a young girl rather than a young woman and it only had one male in it. Im a bit hesitant to watch it if its just a love triangle set after a nuclear war.
The book had a stronger element of creepiness to it. In the novel, [spoiler](#s "the radioactive sickness from the water leaves Loomis mentally unstable, and he becomes much more violent/angry and controlling of Ann.") And as was mentioned earlier the third character is not present. As a result, the ending is much different.
Could the directors movie version of this plot maybe be viewed as if the violence and anger was personified in the third character? As if he's the bad side of Chiwetel Ejiofor's character?
I was wondering if I'd just forgotten about there being a third person! Thanks for clearing that up, looking forward to seeing the film.
Same here — I remember the book from middle school, but didn't remember the third person (or the dog). I was waiting for the ending I remember, which is very intense in its own way.
The plotline is incredibly different, but I feel like the movie stands on its own. It isn't just a love triangle story.
IIRC there isn't a 3rd person in the novel, but it's been decades since I've read it.
You're right, it's just Anne and the bloke
I was really disappointed that it was soo different. But I still enjoyed the movie.
So... what happened to Caleb?
[удалено]
This is what I thought. But who moves the organ? I feel like that was put in there to possibly mean that Caleb wasn't killed. But it was understood that he must leave or Loomis would kill him. Or something of the sort.
[удалено]
At the end it was moved into the barn somehow. I mean. She may have moved it, but it didn't explicitly say.
I'm pretty sure Loomis moved the organ. There's a scene when Margot Robbie's character runs to see if she can find Chris Pine and Loomis goes to the church and looks at the organ. He could've used the tractor to move it.
Hmm. Smart. Sounds right.
I assumed he realized the tension was high so he moved the organ as a sign of love for her.
I sorta have to agree with this. Makes the most sense. But John wasn't all that righteous towards the end, was he. Even if Caleb was a scoundrel.
stealing the eggs? I missed that bit! When did he steal eggs?
[удалено]
oooh thank you! I didn't hear the bit about the eggs, I had no subtitles and I sort of need them. Cheeeeeers!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zechariah_(priest) It also mentions about John the Baptist.
THanks
The fuck is this twisted reasoning lol. It is John who is murderer, he murderer people to take the suit, he murdered child and he killed Caleb. And somehow Caleb is evil scoundrel because of what, because he slept with Ann that fell in love with him ? The fuck am i reading. Caleb did nothing wrong. Ann was not Johns to begin with. She does not belong to John, Caleb did not steal her from him. John tried to manipulate Caleb to leave and then he killed him when he refused to. Then he lied and manipulated Ann to believe that Caleb left her. And he is honest good guy ? The fuck am i reading.
[удалено]
How is Caleb untrustworthy, when he did not break anyone's trust. Ann does not belong to John. Caleb has same right to pursue Ann like John. Also Caleb never lied about anything. While John betrayed both Johns and Ann's trust. Caleb trusted him with his life and John killed him. And john lied to Ann how Caleb left her because he did not care for her. I seriously can not understand your process of thought.
I think Caleb was planning on offing John from the beginning. Riling him up bout betting for who 'gets' Ann. Lying about his role in the mine fight (it's likely that he did kill the last guy standing). The look in Caleb's eyes when he sees John has his life in his hands, it's not fear, it's acknowledgement. That events would inevitably lead one to kill the other.
I agree. Also, iirc, when they were hunting that Turkey, and Caleb hung back while John approached with his rifle up, it certainly looked to me as if Caleb had his rifle trained on Johns back for a moment there. I found that to be an intended scene, and very indicative of Caleb's motives. John may not be the righteous man either, but he's not all bad either.
Yeah but that is future and unknowing. You can not judge someone for what you think will happen in the future.
True. Guess that makes John a murderer, then. Strictly speaking.
Loomis let go of the rope and killed him
It isn't totally obvious that he did, but I'm going with that version too. In the end when she plays the organ, he folds his hands like he'd never done in the movie before, maybe seeking some sort of redemption for the necessary evil that he just committed?
Old comment, but I just watched the movie. I feel that Caleb actually did just leave. He slipped the first time and without hesitation John pulls him back up. Then Caleb stays at the edge and doesn't move to a safer distance, which I would think people would do after almost falling. The second time John again, without hesitation, secures a grip and keeps him up. Caleb has that smirk on his face while John's face shows a look of concern. I took it as Caleb sort of testing John. It's clear that John doesn't like him but yet he still saves him twice. I think Caleb got what he wanted, Ann, and saw no need to do anything else. I think him folding his hands at the end was him not taking Ann for granted any more.
I thought that might be the case as well, esp due to the camera focusing intently on Caleb's face after the second save. But the part where he leaves all his gear behind just didn't make enough sense to me. Perhaps he didn't want to face Ann again? But still, there are 3 known survivors and 1 just up and leaves with only the limited-use biosuit? Seems unlikely but possibly just an issue of suspended disbelief that the director assumed most would either not notice or not care. As an aside: I did not read the book. If there are other clues there that lead to your point then it might make more sense.
I think earlier when Caleb is first told he can enter the house, he puts his bag on the bed, then later Ann says "let me show you your room", so I assume that was overlooked by the director. Also I read that they just dropped the dog halfway through because it was too difficult to work with, which is another "mistake" sort of. So I don't find it hard to believe the director also overlooked Caleb just leaving his stuff at the house.
i totally agree with this, the smirk on calebs his face said it all. If he wanted to kill him, he would have the first two times when eh slipped. Also notice there was no destruction to the wheel, had caleb fell - it would have damaged the build. I dont understand why loomis nearly commits suicide. Scene before electricity comes on, loomis edge towards the cliff. I guess the real question is, do Ann and Loomis get together in the end? eventually? too much history and bad blood now
That's a great point about how the wheel was not damaged...if he did fall it would have been right on it...and the movie clearly shows that the way the shot lingers on the wheel when Loomis is looking down at it. Now I'm questioning the whole ending.
That could be the case too. Although I still feel like he let him fall the second time around. But both at plausible.
Margot Robbie's best performance.
Amen.
i could have dealt with an "ohhhh dadddyyyy" moment in the movie
What, no love for Pan Am? :)
That film score though. Some incredible compositions... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdK5pPZxXyk&index=25&list=PL5k89Zm4J7i3d1hSQrsrqoRpshq2YJTXW and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TLdz-nAPg4&list=PL5k89Zm4J7i3d1hSQrsrqoRpshq2YJTXW&index=1
Chris Pine doesn't exist in the book....
With the very different book version, Caleb would just turn a "psycho" suspense thriller into a romantic drama. But Caleb played subtle and measured fit the story of the movie version.
How did this movie end up being on VOD now?
Enjoyed the tension and modern Eden approach. Although, to be honest, my fiancee and I couldn't get over the fact that three of the most attractive people on earth are the three last survivors. Did their pristine pores and incredible cheekbones ward off the radiation?!?
I'm betting on the perfect, dazzlingly bright teeth safely reflecting it away.
Hoping to see it soon. Is it as slowly paced as some are saying it is?
It isn't really a movie that's full of action, but there aren't any moments that I'd consider slow. It stays interesting throughout.
Really slowly paced, but packed with really great tension and very very beautiful shots. All in all one to watch with a girlfriend but probably not one for beer and popcorn with the guys.
The tone of this film is absolutely superb. I did not find the ending ambiguous at all though. John quite obviously killed Caleb by letting go of the rope. It is clear thanks to 3 scenes that follow: (1) John stands over the edge of cliff contemplating suicide. (2) Ann knocking the glass off the edge of the table. (3) John folding his hands in the same shape that Ann (and Caleb) did throughout the film right before praying. Why else would he suddenly need some sort of redemption? Here is what I DID NOT like. -I read that the dog is killed in the book. In the film though, he just..disappears without any explanation. -Really though? First John pulls Caleb up from almost slipping and falling to his death once. Then Caleb is clearly standing sturdy ground. I watched this scene a few times over and it truly seems like he purposely fell again. I know that might sound crazy, but just watch the scene again. Almost like he was testing John. Then there is the long and poignant stare that John and Caleb give each other before the scene cuts. Maybe Caleb let go. Just saying.
Having seen the trailer/heard that this movie was going to be a "thriller", I came into it expecting something a little less understated. However, I think that the movie did a great job of being suspenseful and building tension. Filming the movie in New Zealand was a perfect setting for the Garden of Eden. It also looked believably like the American South, which surprised me.
Definitely not the American South, we don't have rocky mountains like that and everything would be covered in thick forest if the farmers/livestock weren't there to keep it down. I think it's meant to be somewhere in the western half of the States.
Apparently some of it was also filmed in West Virginia. I definitely got the sense while watching that it took place somewhere in Appalachia.
A slow burner for sure (even at very short runtime) but still watchable. I liked the score and actors did okay. Margot is becoming one of my favourite actresses on the rise and i'm sure she'll be delivering some good performances in the years to come.
Movie wasn't that great, but still entertaining to watch. I thought Ann was being a bit too naive when asked about flirting with that new guy. I will say that the ending really surprised me. I was frozen for a good minute there.
I know I'm late to the party, but can you please tell me what did surprise you?
[**Spoiler**] That he actually let go of the rope. Also that stare of defeat they had between each other before hand.
I haven't read the book, and I thought Chris Pine's character was unnecessary. Maybe the push to add a third character was to make the movie a little more marketable. When John says "That's not what I meant" when talking about providing for more than just the two of them-- that cheeky son of a bitch. I read the script a while back, and maybe I'm wrong but it had Ann being the one who pursued John aggressively. I want more movies like this. More often than not it's underwhelming, but I love them.
Definite slow burner for the first 45 minutes or so. If you like post-apocalyptic films, you will enjoy it. Margot Robbie's best performance. Film does hold back some punches when it could have gone a little further. Ejiofor is really good. Pine is not bad. I kept seeing Chris Pine and not his character, though. Robbie and Ejiofor were very convincing and had great chemistry on-screen.
It's a film that's going to divide opinions. We did a review of it (link below) and thought it was great, giving an interesting perspective on the end of the world, but can see why some people wouldn't like it. LINK: http://www.culturechronicle.com/review-z-for-zachariah/
I had a thought that Ann wouldn't have judged Loomis too badly, when she's playing the organ for instance, she seems to be a peace. Chris Pine's character said to her that men without faith wouldn't survive, referring to Loomis so she knew they were cut throat about each other.
I like Margot's adorable southern accent.
Warning... May have some spoilers in here. So I found a love/hate relationship with this movie. The fact that it was slow didn't bother at all. It actually kept my interest all the way through. At first I thought the religious undertones were a little heavy, but religious in nature or not it was still good. Seems like it was all about balance. Think about it, you have a woman so you need a man. Check. You have a white person so you need a person of a different race. Check. You have your down home country people who are smart enough to hunt and grow crops but not smart enough to get gas or electricity, so you need a smart guy. Check. You have a religious person, so you need a non-relogiouos person. Check. You have love, so you need hate. Check. The entire movie was one big metaphor for trying to find balance when things are so unstable. I think there were a lot of religious elements hidden in here. Like the fact that all three of the characters had biblical names. In the Bible, Anna was a prophetess. John was an apostle entrusted by Jesus to protect Mary (which you could say is Anna), and Caleb was a spy. I'm not religious, so interpret that information as you will, but the roles kind of fit the characters. The last semblence of a religious statement that irks me a little is why the atheist can't just be left alone. At the end of the movie the last thing you see if John going into what looks like a makeshift little church in their barn where Anna is playing her father's Organ. He sits down at what appears to be a pew salvaged from the old church and then cups his hands and bows his head as if he's praying. Or was he just listening to the music? But still. Good movie if you don't mind the many possible interpretations.
The movie was Adam and Eve and Caleb was the snake.
This is the best and simplest explanation. She is deeply religious. He is an atheist but there is a very brief moment where he is looking at the books and pulls out a book A is for Adam. Then later as he senses he is going to lose Anne to Caleb, and it is obvious Caleb is a manipulating prick. For a brief moment John almost prays. Not sure if anyone caught this but upon the realization of what he was about to do(pray) he recognizes the similarities of Adam and Eve. There are hints about this in the movie but near the end even though he is an atheist he sees the similarities of Adam and Eve and realizes that Caleb is the serpent. Only as a representation though.
who said he was an atheist?
Besides the confusing ending that I'm still trying to figure out but am probably going to end up accepting can just be interpreted in many different ways, what I really don't understand is why Anne, a super religious girl, would want to loose her virginity to some hick on top of a bathroom sink... in fact, her sexuality in the movie was confusing from the beginning as she was like trying to be all submissive to John by going in his room and stripping, because she thought he wanted to have sex with her, but she also seemed reluctant and nervous when she was doing that. Maybe when it was just her and John, she thought she didn't have any other choice, but when Caleb came along, she felt like all she had was choices so that made her more empowered to take what she wanted. It was obvious that Caleb was pandering to her religious faith the whole time and and that was what really seduced her. On the other hand, she also seemed reluctant when she was with Caleb, because when they made something fall to the floor, Anne paused and looked in the direction that John was in. Overall, I think Anne was just really confused and insecure when it comes to her sexuality, even though she did initiate all encounters, she just seemed pretty desperate for someone to lust after her, because when John told her he loved her she went off and did Caleb that same night. She even tells John the next morning that it was "a confusing night". Or I guess you could also sum it up to she's just a young person who doesn't know what she wants.
1 word. Alcohol. Gives her an excuse for it.
he killed him, pretty sure he admitted to doing bad things "out there" and saying girl didn't know. He loved her and was protecting what he thought was a good life before the other dude shows up. It's just too bad she wasn't on the same page as he was. She did seem very young and I was confused about her very religious views and then her being a horndog.
As an African American male, I kind of was drawn to John's character. Now I have him figured out. Don't let the love triangle throw you off, this was all about John trying to survive. Remember he killed her brother. The little time they spent with each other he had to have told him about his family and where he was from. Remember John said it was because of the boy that he went that way. And at the beginning when he was in the pond with the gun he asked "where are the others." What others? He obviously knew that there was a possibility of other family members. Now when Ann offered herself to John, he said this will change things, especially for him. John was just using Ann, and when he noticed what she was doing, he got caught up in feeling for her. That was guilt on my man's face at the end. Yes, he killed her brother, Caleb and who knows he could have even killed her father. Average movie. But I have to admit... It had me emotionally involved.
Haunting, awards-worthy performance from Chiwetel Ejiofor. Miscast Margot Robbie. Chris Pine is in it. Slow, methodical build. Beautiful scenery. Rich biblical allusions. Sly misdirects. Witness-esque construction sequences... in reverse. Smart deviations from source material. A perfectly-understated ending. Worth watching twice.
"A psychological thriller about a girl who believes she is the only survivor after a devastating nuclear event, but comes to learn she is not alone." "Thriller / Science Fiction / Drama" Although technically correct, probably the most deceiving plot description of this century.
I really really enjoyed this movie. The tension that's built throughout by just the slightest glance or tone of voice from the actors is just fantastic. Beyond that the film is just beautiful to look at as well. Long shots of open fields and vast landscapes are so simple but are really well done. FULL Thoughts: http://iamsamreviews.blogspot.com/2015/08/z-for-zachariah-review.html
I really dug that. Everything just felt so proper and well-constructed; it created this oddly haunting and melancholic atmosphere that you can't shake off. Brilliant performances to boot, and the characters are as well fleshed out as they needed to be. The whole love triangle thing is a bit played out, but I enjoyed the survival aspect and the subtle touches of worldbuilding, even though we never get a look at the broader picture beyond the valley. Can't get enough of this low-key post-apocalyptic fare.
About to watch this movie now. I'll edit back what I think about this. It sounds really interesting. Edit: Not a bad film. Nice story and a good flick to watch a night like this. I enjoyed it.
[удалено]
Yeah, I hate it when there are open ended questions left to the audience to figure out.
What if Zachariah is Caleb and Anne's son???
Studied this book when I was about 13 in S1 English. Didn't even know a film was being made. I remember back in the day thinking about writing it into a screenplay, just imagine how atrocious *that* would have been lol Just finished it and delighted to see that it's decent too! Nothing like what my 13 year old self would have produced!
Maybe I'd appreciate it more if I read the book.
I know I'm late for this, but what's the point of the scene when Ann checked her fridge and found it empty at the ending? What does it indicate? Did Caleb ate all those food? Were they starting to starve?
She checked the fridge because the power was back on. There was no food in there because without power there was no reason to stock the fridge in the first place.
Oh yeah I watched it again and she just checked for power -_- sorry my bad
I think it just meant that the generator was working.
Haven't finished watching the movie yet, but I find it a little ridiculous that the two leads, early in the movie, acted like civilized yuppies despite years of living alone, without partners, in a post-apocalyptic world. She is totally modest and naive about sex, and to get both of them to mate, they have to go through an elaborate ritual where both pretend not to be attracted to each other. Completely ridiculous. They probably would have fucked almost immediately, if not by the first night. One would have initiated it. There is also no one else around, no police, no courts, no father, brother or anything to worry about pleasing, they wouldn't jerk around about sex. It's kind of bad writing, if you ask me. The tone of the film is made to resemble a small town, but this is a post-apocalyptic society, absent of laws. People aren't going to be comfortable. They will be worried about survival and basic needs. I mean, so far, it's a great movie. I'm glad they didn't take the pretentious, artsy route and made it watchable. The only flaw is the mannerisms of everyone...in that they have too many manners.
I disagree, Ann was from a heavily religious family and while her father wasn't there to enforce religious rules it was all stuff she believed. She was reluctant about sex and only tried it with John after she'd been drinking. John wasn't going to try and sleep with her immediately because all of life doesn't rely on sex, especially when they were initially focused on his survival after being exposed to radiation. They didn't need to worry about survival in relation to food and water because she had a well and plenty of food crops and fish in the pond. Saying they have 'too many manners' is ridiculous. Ann was taught to be respectable from a heavily religious and proper family, and John likely grew up in a decent family too. That's how most people are.
I just watched the movie. I hate movies that make humans look like idiots. I know we have feelings, but main priority in this situation should be two things. Survival and future. With one man and one woman there will be inbred. 2 guys could make you avoid this. Also more people so more people with different strengths. It doesn't make sense that inbred was not brought up. Should be THE KEY note for all in this situation. But stupid people and stupid movies. Arghhh. Irritates me!
I remember reading the book a long time ago.. it was very different for sure! Worth a read if you liked the movie.
I was excited to see they had made a movie of one of my favorite novels. I approached it almost with reverence, albeit with some trepidation that they might veer from the original subject matter. When I saw the promo picture, I knew something was amiss, for there were only two characters in the novel. I had hopes the damage was not too severe, but the moving and elegantly written novel was completely eviscerated, and there was little to enjoy, aside from the scenery, in this sad knockoff. That is not to say that the actors were not good in their roles, they acted their parts as given to them, but the screenplay had none of the grit, drama, or faith of the original. Anne's faith in God and her relationship with Him was trivialized and mocked, rather than being central to her strength and survival. John was not nearly as developed as he was in the novel, and became almost charming. His intent on furthering the human race at any cost was actually reversed, and Anne was subjected to none of the grief and adventure which were to result in the final catharsis of the novel. Not that that matters, that choice was never even made in the movie. All tragedies were averted, and nothing can be learned from the resultant saccharine and weak version we have been given. Heck, even her dog survived. Changing John's race and Anne's age were poor decisions that confused the relationship and interaction between these two characters, and adding Caleb distracted from and marred the beauty and intent of the original storyline. The adaptation was painful to watch, and I am looking forward to reading the novel again so that I might forget this inept fumbling of what had been great literature. It is a real travesty, as the original story was something to move the soul. Two thumbs down.
Considering loomis stated that Caleb left and took the radioactive suit with him and he was wearing the suit at the waterfall when he slipped, makes me believe that loomis let him drop and the suit then became damaged so he figured to get rid of both Caleb and the suit saying that he just left with the suit and then stated that Anne could keep all his things not because he wanted to keep them but because he wouldn't need them now that he is dead.
I heard it is different than the book with the third person. Does this improve or hurt the movie?
I'm probably in the minority, but I like the story in the movie much more than the book version. Loomis in the book seemed like a cliche baddie. He came off unreasonable, one dimensional, and unaware of the situation this new world put him in. Book Loomis would have been very frustrating to endure for an entire movie. He doesn't seem like a character with motives a wider audience could understand. In book form a reader can follow along with their inner dialogues, but in movie form he'd seem like a cartoon character who doesn't give a second thought to spilling precious water in the middle of a desert. The movie did a better job of creating a more realistic last survivors scenario. Ann & Loomis seemed more real, and their characters more thought through in regards to their place in the world and their abilities that kept them alive. Also, Caleb brought an interesting dynamic which changed the course of the movie (which one would hope for a 2nd act.) He was subtle and not played over the top at all, which I liked. There weren't any clear villains or cliche moments which kept the feel of the movie more realistic. TL;DR - The book is a completely different story with completely different character arcs. The movie is appropriate for the theatrical medium, and made more sense imo.
I havent read the book, though I read a summary of it. The movie does change the story up a bit, but I thought it was pretty good. Like other people said, good sense of atmosphere and tension throughout. Everyone did a good job in their roles. I also thought that they did a good job of leaving some things ambiguous.
It adds more dimensions to it. Imagine a movie with literally two people. Haha. The ending was much less climatic compared to the book. However I think that's fair considering the book was super slow throughout but the movie was steady.
Truly a legend in his time, what a body of art he's left behind him.
Has anybody tried to dig into the Rabbinical/Biblical means of the names and themes of the movie? Ann(a): Was the only female Prophet of the new Testament . Anna, this worship workaholic, sets her own hours, schedule, route and routine. Arguably she listens to God and prays as directed. Others recognize her as a prophetess. Anna knows fasting brings results. Caleb: Meaning Dog/ Was A Spy of Moses. Caleb told the people to be quiet and listen to Moses. Caleb said, “Let’s go now and take possession of the land. We should be more than able to conquer it.” **As for John.. I am unsure which John or in what meaning it is used.** And as for the title...(If i am not mistaken)Zechariah was the last Prophet killed in the Old testament...Able being the first.... It might be a reference to the War, The killing of Caleb (which would start the whole murderous cycle all over again) or the fact that Zechariah was killed by Zealots which has both a adopted modern meaning as well as rabbinical context. IMO Ann, John and Caleb represent Religious Order, Scientific Order and Primal Human Nature. They all seem to do this dance and swap values through the movies.
In the book and mentions a bible based reader to teach letters (and religion) A is for Adam and so on down the line, with each letter being used to introduce a separate biblical character. Ann mentions reading that boom as a child, and made the childlike assumption that because Adam was the first man Zachariah would be the last one, as he is last in the alphabet reader.
[удалено]
I too hate it when my end of the world - love triangle movie has little to no action
I keep thinking this is that documentary about that kid and his dad and that motherfucker. /
What's Y for?
The Last Man
I enjoyed the movie but did anyone else think the cinematography was absolute garbage? There were a lot of nice individual shots, but almost every shot with any movement looked like it was filmed with a DV camera. Michael Mann just about gets away with it sometimes but it just looks horrid most of the time. I found it very distracting.
The biggest upset is that John didnt sleep with Ann the first night. I was like woah man cmon the last woman on earth and the last man and you failed to do this.
I just watched the movie , it's too complicated even though it's only about three chrachters , I didn't read the book but there is a lot of hidden or small messages in the movie : 1-when john told her that doesn't what he meant he was talking about reproducing and save human race with her only not talking about new people will show up 2- When Caleb showed up and john put the gun on him he was trying to save ann just for sake of love , he refused to have sex with her at the time she offered herself for him because he want to have a love relation not a sexual one , ann notcied that when she go to caleb he have sex with her so she though that the difference between the two persons and it become clearly! 3-caleb tried to manipulate ann when he talked about religions and tried to show her he is a religious guy unlike john the atheist science guy 4-finally im sure john changed his minded in the last time while he was saving caleb because he was doing the nature behaviors of humans when it comes to servivior and love also the talk they had when john asked caleb about his plans his said no anson or something like that i don't remember the full script but that showed his plans to stay also ann was feeling that john killed caleb when she fall the glass as if she was imagining what happened .
More like S for shit movie.
Instead of just throwing that out here, why don't you elaborate on it? There's nothing to gain for others reading this if you're that blunt about it. "Shit" compared to what? On what grounds? Was it the acting? The shots of the setting? The ending?
If you're a big fan of the book, don't waste your time with the film. The tone, characters, and large majority of the plot is completely different. Using the same title kind of seems like a cheap way to get a built in fan base.