Nonureva Really Surprised!

Phonearl Good start, but then it gets ruined

mraculeated The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

ericrnolan "Goodbye World" (2013) is technically a post-apocalyptic drama. I say "technically" because this sometimes misguided movie contains little tension associated with its apocalyptic event. (A cyber- attack destroys the technological infrastructure of America and possibly the world.) Indeed, this catastrophe doesn't even truly drive the plot — it's more of a background subplot that fails to even affect the tone of the film. (The poster you see above is misleading.)Instead, the film scrutinizes the personal lives of a group of thirtyish college alumnae who have an informal reunion at a mountain cabin — one of their number is a plot-convenient intellectual- turned-survivalist. They're portrayed by an (admittedly quite good) ensemble cast. I think a lot of my friends would smile at "Gotham's" Jim Gordon (Ben Mckenzie) being a rather meek, feckless husband. And Caroline Dhavernas here is no longer the alpha female we saw in NBC's "Hannibal," but is rather an insecure, overly sensitive young wife who immaturely pines that she was the student "everyone hated."And there lies a problem that the movie has … few of these characters are terribly likable. Only Gaby Hoffmann's surprisingly tough civil servant made me root for her. And Kerry Bishe's perfectly performed, chatty neo-hippy eccentric was also pretty cool … Bishe might have given the best performance in the film. Finally, Linc Hand is a surprise standout, arriving halfway through in a menacing supporting role. It's a far smaller role, but damn if he doesn't nail it. (Please, Netflix, cast this guy as Bullseye in Season 3 of "Daredevil.")The others all seem either self-absorbed, self-righteous and preachy, or inscrutable and vaguely dumb. Dhavernas' character actually steals a child's teddy bear (which she herself had brought as a gift) and … sets it free in the forest. It was a belabored character metaphor when written. Worse, it just seems jarringly weird when it plays out on the screen.All the characters seem strangely detached about the watershed national or global crisis. Some cursory dialogue is devoted to the imagined welfare of their family, colleagues or other friends; the character interaction is devoted mostly to marriage issues and personal emotional crises that I have mostly forgotten as of this writing. And those seem maudlin and slightly selfish compared to the Fall of the United States. The characters mostly failed at engendering viewer sympathy in me.The screenwriters' juxtaposition of personal matters and the end of the world also seemed tone deaf. We follow what the writers hope are educated, successful and endearingly quirky fun people, and we're asked to worry about their love triangles and spousal communication issues. But … we're then asked to view this in the context of a pretty frightening collapse of society, complete with plot elements that are interchangeable with those of AMC's "The Walking Dead." (One secondary character turns violent over the issue of resources, then charismatically justifies his violence to a crowd using a half-baked ideology that seems to channel "The Governor.")I felt like I was watching two movies at once, and not in a good way. The opening motif is brilliantly creepy — the virus causes cell phones everywhere to receive a text reading the titular "Goodbye World." Our laconic, uniformly telegenic protagonists kinda just shrug at it. And even when suspicions arise in the group about whether one character is connected to the cyber-attack, there is dry, dialogue-driven humor instead of any real consequent tension. It was like John Hughes wrote a thirtysomething dramedy, but then tried unsuccessfully to sprinkle in the human pathos of one of George A. Romero's more pessimistic zombie films.But don't get me wrong. This wasn't even really a bad movie. I didn't hate it. It held my interest, its actors gave good performances, and I am a shameless fan of Dhavernas in particular. The cinematography was very good too, and the story's tonal differences were occasionally interesting. (This is definitely a unique end-of-the-world tale, if nothing else.)I'd honestly give "Goodbye World" a 7 out of 10. I think my expectations sitting down with it were just unusually high, seeing Dhavernas attached to what looked like an independent, cerebral, apocalyptic science fiction thriller. I might even recommend it if you're in the mood for a really unusual doomsday movie. Just don't expect "28 Days Later" (2002) or "The Divide" (2012), and you might like this.

ayersbjerg I want to warn you guys- I was very sad to be the one who decided to watch this movie with some friends. One of this century's most shitty movies. Do not waste 1:40 Hour of your precious time. I write this because I have a general care for all people out there. If anyone is reading this I urge you to seize your desire to watch this and to help spread the word of this disastrous video recording.... - Have you made the mistake of not shielding your eyes against this video, please do your fellow people the humane favor and add a review here as a warning to future victims..I am quite serious, I don't know what more to tell you guys..

targa9 I watched this movie all the way through, only because the dialog was intelligent enough to keep me interested. It seems the writers were smart enough to include a lot of topical, class-conscious "Big Chill" type conversation between college-educated friends, and much of it was at least a little thought-provoking. And because this was mostly a drama, dialog ran throughout, and therefore, the movie seemed intelligent.But a good movie needs more than this. It needs credibility and likable characters. This movie lacked these.First of all, if it was indeed the "apocalypse" (the term most in the group admitted to), then why on earth are they acting as if nothing is happening, but a college reunion? Instead of panicking or at least stockpiling weapons and food and worrying about their neighbors, they just lock the cattle gate, then proceed to smoke pot, drink wine and whiskey, get nude in the hot tub, tell jokes and have a mini-talent show, and spend LOTS of one-on-one time talking about relationships and past issues. That's not credible during a national emergency. Worse, it is later discovered that 2 of the members in the group (including a young mother who is apparently a math genius) are entirely responsible for the national crisis! What do they do? Light up another fatty, and go hot-tubbing! We don't even get to know how the hosts are able to live and make their money, supporting a child. And what good is being a math genius in a country that is being overthrown? After two of the characters go into town for "supplies", they enter a heavily-armed shop where tomatoes are $40 each, and tampon boxes are $100 each. Never mind; they just throw everything in the bag, and narrowly escape with their lives, but neglect to mention the disturbing event to their peers when they get back. There's hardly anything credible happening in this movie.Secondly, none of the characters are heroic or likable in the least! They are all way too clever, witty, and ready to sleep with anyone who gets them alone. They trade insults and barbs, and really just reveal how selfish they are. They act oblivious to the fact that society is crumbling around them, which 2 of the group are responsible for, and love and friendship are interchangeable with at least 4 members of the group, bespeaking of the low moral character of the writers, who assume we should care for such irresponsible and selfish people, just because they are wealthy, white and educated. There is one character, a woman played by Gaby Hoffman, who does something heroic in the end, but it's too late. Her conformity to the party-atmosphere of the group, pot-smoking and general lack of responsible behavior, combined with the fact that 2 of the members of her group have thrown the entire country into chaos, completely contradict her patriotic pride, and straight-arrow claims. This impossible character is at least interesting to look at, due to Hoffman's striking face, but that's all. If the movie made the characters more likable, and there was a lot less partying and more stocking up on supplies and weapons, then it would be much better. 5 stars.

jhk655 Contains minor spoilers/allusions to events in the movie that might give some parts away.First the bad: I'd like to start off by saying I really had higher hopes for this movie and the story it was trying to explore. There are tons of post-apocalyptic movies, but usually they are about people in dire straights, doing whatever it takes to survive in a world with dwindling resources. The promise of this story, at least the promise I gleaned from the description on Netflix, is that it would explore how people with a "sustainable agriculture" type of lifestyle weather the Apocalypse. What I found was a story that is tainted with unrealistically optimistic expectations of a post rule-of-law world.The writers' idea of what would happen in this scenario is incredibly naïve and foolishly optimistic. In times of desperation, civil discourse goes out the window, and the worst of humanity is revealed. People are not willing to share or compromise in these situations. Even if cooperation has the promise of greater reward, in times of panic people will almost always choose the "Right here, Right now" option. Clearly the writers either do not understand this or they must not be paying attention to what's happening in less fortunate areas of the world. The most unrealistic thing about this movie is its character's expectation of security/safety. One of the first things most people would do in the event of the breakdown of society would be to locate and secure at least one weapon (preferably firearms). The more the better. After all, sooner or later supplies are going to run out and the neighbors are going to start strongly insisting on the concept of sharing. Unfortunately for the main characters, the general consensus seems to be that guns are "scary" and they prefer not to have them around at all. In fact The only gun they have is a revolver brought by one of the group members against the others' wishes, and is therefore kept unloaded. While in some circles this may be a noble attitude of anti-violence, it has no place in a post rule-of-law world. Their moral high horse is quickly knocked out from under them when armed thugs raid their stockpile at gunpoint, and molest one of the group members. While I applaud them for at least getting the fact that they got robbed right, I have to say that it happens much too late in the story to be believable. In reality, they would not have simply been robbed and groped, and after being asked nicely to boot. The locals would have been there much sooner, with guns, and without asking. Being robbed and groped would be extremely preferable to what would really happen. Their aversion to weapons seems like wishful thinking and not representative of most of America. Let's just say if that scene had taken place in my neck of the woods, those two thugs wouldn't have simply walked away after the trespass they had just made, apocalypse or not.With the whole defense issue being ignored on moral grounds, you would think they would have plenty of other survival based issues to dwell upon. Such as, What do we do when we run out of food? What happens when are solar power/water pump system breaks down? Since we have decided to forego weapons how are we going to keep peaceful relations with our armed and dangerous neighbors? Instead, the problems and arguments the group choose to dwell upon are for some reason, still those of a developed first world nation. They worry far too much about how happy they are in their relationships and how much they hate each other for shallow insignificant character flaws. they do this even after they are robbed of their resources at gunpoint. In what world is the most salient problem how happy you are with your partner when you have no real sustainable source of food? Oh yeah I forgot about their garden, which looked capable of feeding one person out of ten for a few days. This again just shows how ungrounded and shallow the writers are. I guess they have never heard of Maslow's hierarchy of human needs. How can one worry about existential fulfillment when they don't have food/water/shelter/security? They can't, and it makes much of the dialogue in this movie absurd.Because of these points, I felt the dialogue and events of the movie were just flat out unbelievable. Without a believable infrastructure it comes off as an idealistic college kid's expectation of the consequences of the collapse of society. The good:In spite of the fact that the dialogue wasn't believable for the setting, it remained intelligent and informed. They talked about the kinds of things you would expect to hear from your pseudo-intellectual friends at a party. Imagine the "politically aware drunk college guy/girl" at a party, age them 10 years, then imagine they've mostly got their life together, this person is ever main character in the movie.Conclusion: While the events of the movie itself are absurdly unbelievable, if you suspend disbelief, the movie has just enough suspense and character development to keep you entertained. Just don't expect a realistic portrayal of the break-down of society. the events are more in line with what would happen in a town that lost power for 2 weeks.