Pointless much?


Just watched it and... wow, what a waste of decent production value.

This film adds NOTHING to the genre and is actually somewhat of a disgrace looking at the story. So the world went down due to a supervirus that seems to have killed 90% of the population in like... no time. And yet almost everything seems scarce for some weird reason.

I can see food being a problem, with much of it spoiling quickly (but even then you have supermarkets with literally TONS of canned food). But GAS? Gas wouldn't be scarce at all in a situation like this.

The story is an ugly patchwork of every post-apocalyptic movie we've ever seen, put together with no mind and soul.

To whoever wrote the screenplay: Get a new job, ASAP!
To everyone else: You need a new agent, ASAP! You did decent work on this movie and don't deserve to waste your time on stinkers like this.

- Anwar

---
One man's sockpuppet is another man's freedom fighter.

reply

Yo Smart Guy,

Gas is dependent on transportation. Transportation is dependent on open roads, which would be closed in an epidemic. Your local gas station has a tank(s) below it that are filled either daily (high use) or every three days (low use) so gas would rapidly become scarce once people did not want to be in close contact with people. Try talking your non combat troops into going into an area of infection. Good luck Mac Arthur. So to you I say GET A REAL PROSPECTIVE ON YOUR ACTUAL LIFE, and what it takes to support it. Your small view of supply is why armies have failed in the past. Go in piece and please educate yourself before attacking, please do not group these actors into your localized aspect of usefulness. If you do not understand my response so be it. Humanity will rise again after your kind has left a small stain.

reply

****
Yo Smart Guy,

Gas is dependent on transportation. Transportation is dependent on open roads, which would be closed in an epidemic. Your local gas station has a tank(s) below it that are filled either daily (high use) or every three days (low use) so gas would rapidly become scarce once people did not want to be in close contact with people. Try talking your non combat troops into going into an area of infection. Good luck Mac Arthur. So to you I say GET A REAL PROSPECTIVE ON YOUR ACTUAL LIFE, and what it takes to support it. Your small view of supply is why armies have failed in the past. Go in piece and please educate yourself before attacking, please do not group these actors into your localized aspect of usefulness. If you do not understand my response so be it. Humanity will rise again after your kind has left a small stain.
****


^^This guy nailed it on the head

In the short time people had before succumbing to the disease, they would easily use up most of the resources around them.

reply

tru dat, people dont realise how close to the edge we live and how quickly you'd run out of shit.

reply

I'm with Dalati. What a load of rubbish. And petrol??? With most of the population dead where are the 200 million cars full of petrol that would have been left behind.
More to the point though, where the hell was the rest of the film??? Just watched the 'extended' cut and at 1 hour 18 mins it is still the shortest movie by far that I have seen in many years. Watch Zombieland instead, I say. Better film by far....and at least it has zombies.

reply

Nope.

It just means you didn't get it, obviously.

As for nitpicking the plausibility of the situation, again you're missing the point. There are so many movies that do a horrible job of this ("Prometheus" anyone?), but this isn't one of them.

(@Fad64 - "Zombieland" is great. It is also an entirely different movie. It is a comedy. 'Columbus' never had to force 'Witchita' out of the car because she was infected!)

"Carriers" is about sometimes having to make horrible decisions in life. We are presented a world in which these characters must make these choices in order to survive, but they can easily be equated to the more morally ambiguous issues of today. In the film, the two brothers have up until now taken opposite approaches to dealing with these issues but the circumstances that occur during the movie force them to reevaluate their stances and question their humanity. As the audience, if we've paid attention, we begin to question ourselves wondering what we'd do in similar situations and hopefully what we will do as regarding the tough issues facing our world today. Who do we love? What do we value? Who do we protect? Who can we save? What is it worth? Who is right? Who is wrong? And ultimately, in the end, who do we want to be?


I would hardly call that pointless.

reply

Agree with OP, pointless film, absoloutely no direction to it, poor character build up, and boring as hell. No tempo whatsoever.

reply

It just means you didn't get it, obviously.

Ah the good old fashioned you didn't get it card.

reply

Yeah the old you didn't get it card, and it's just as applicable now as it usually is.

YOU DIDN'T GET IT.

Even after some folk here were good enough to explain it to you.

reply

Thank you!

reply

Agreed. Utterly pointless. The decisions they had to make would have been nerve wracking/thought provoking if the main characters were likeable. But, they weren't. NONE of them were. So kill him, don't kill him. Leave her behind. Don't leave her behind. Who cares? Blah

reply

I guess the main problem is the character build-up, especially compared to other movies (like "Zombieland", which was already mentioned).

The character I liked the most where Frank and his daughter, I cared more for them then for the lead characters of the movie. Like Kate, who most of the time seems to be just there for no particular reason at all.
Then again, this may be because Chris Meloni is just a great actor imo.

reply