I would have liked this had it had a happy ending.

I won't say,"the book is better than the movie," because I read the book only after watching this movie. I will say that the movie tells a completely different story than the book, borrowing Robert C. O'Brien's characters and setting.The ending as given in the movie suggests that John Loomis killed Caleb, by pushing him down into the radioactive water and sacrificing the safe suit. Otherwise, why would Caleb leave without saying goodbye to Ann and without taking his things and supplies? I like the suggestion from a fellow reviewer that the scene at 1:26 showing Ann rolling a glass off the table and leaning on a book suggests that she imagined the whole thing because she's bored. Lack of dialogue in the final scenes supports this suggestion.The John Loomis character in the book is a control freak and a killer who tries to rape Ann and Ann hates him. At the end, she outsmarts him and steals his safe suit to leave the valley. This is the act of a smart and strong girl who decides to explore the unknown, leaving behind her possibly the only other human living on earth. But just because he's the only other man around doesn't mean that she has to live with him or mate with him. This is the diametric opposite of the Ann character shown in the movie, who is a wishy-washy girl caught between two men. Please. The men who made this movie should remember that the Ann character was created by a male writer, Robert C. O'Brien. They should also consider what kind of message they're sending to women by distorting her character in this way.Good things about this movie: the beauty of New Zealand and Chris Pine's eyes. But I can watch the beauty of New Zealand in "The Lord of the Rings" and Chris Pine in other films.The movie also serves as PR for Robert C. O'Brien's book, which is a good thing. I also read his "Mrs Frisby and the Rats of NIMH" as a child after watching the animated film version and picked it up again after reading this one. Reading it as an adult, I wonder where O'Brien's preoccupation with disaster came from.

A post apocalyptic love triangle.. not really. More like post apocalyptic "we need this water wheel working then end the movie".Seriously, nothing interesting happens. The only interesting bit is at the end, but even that was left unfinished because writers who don't know how to finish their books, come up with a genius half-arsed "un-ending" where you have no idea what happened. So you and others who read the book or saw the movie, spend rest of our miserable lives discussing what the writer "really meant" at the end. We all know what he meant, nothing, he had no ending in mind.So yeah, terrible love "triangle" taking place at the end of the world, after nuclear war. We are supposed to believe that religious people are kept safe in their valleys from radiation which magically is carried away from that small piece of land, which is occupied by healthy chickens and turkeys for people to eat meat EVERY day while rest of the world has ended.Or maybe it isn't saying that? All other religious people died too. Makes you wonder what it's really saying.. or it doesn't because the writer never came up with the ending.Waste of time. I was going to watch Chappie, accidentally sat through this dribble hoping Z for Zombies will show up and eat these boring people in the end. Bleh! 4/10, 4 for the name. I can make fun of it.

The world is covered in radioactive ash and the dregs of humanity fight cockroaches over the last tins of spam. But that is happening beyond the isolated, wooded valley we find ourselves. Ann is living here well, but quite miserably until one day a guy in a radioactive suit appears to cheer her up.What follows is the story of them rebuilding their lives and their relationship blossoms. As PA films go these guys have it very easy - do not expect giant scorpions or raiders with necklaces of human ears.One day another guy does turn up. Everyone goes out their way to be amicable - but three is a crowd.I enjoyed this movie, it is slow with very little action and the Post Apocalyptic theme is pushed way into the background.All the characters are essentially good people and try their best. This was very refreshing.What give the film plausibility and appeal is Margot Robbie. She is absolutely gorgeous! She squeezes every ounce out of her performance as naive Southern Belle. To the point that part of me did think the world ending wouldn't be so bad if I was stuck on Walton's mountain with her.Good acting and characters all around, good production. The only snag is the ending - a little abrupt and unfulfilling.