2015 has had it's share of masterpieces, Justin Kurzel's MacBeth, Cory Fukunaga's Beasts of No Nation, Innuritu's The Revenant, and now The Survivalist joins the ranks of films as good as these. Do not miss.
shareThat is really laughable hyperbole. Survivalist is not in the same league as any of those.
Yes, it is a decent rehash of a well tread genre, but comparing it to MacBeth or Revenant is absurd.
Only my opinion but I'd rather watch this than the Revenant any day. However I'm not a fan of mainstream movies, I always feel spoonfed watching those kind of films.
I thought The Survivalist was incredible. A well told story, stark, honest and drect.
SPOILER ALERT
I was disappointed by the ending, but that's only because really felt for the male character and I felt I'd been on his journey with him, but on reflection, I'm glad I wasn't offered a Disney ending to this story. It made it more painful and real.
"Only my opinion but I'd rather watch this than the Revenant any day. However I'm not a fan of mainstream movies, I always feel spoonfed watching those kind of films. "
in contrast to the survivalist, the revenant was based on a book, which is based on a dude's life. it is all about his struggle to survive, it did not try to be anything more than it was.
the survivalist aimed to high and failed to deliver. it worked until the bad guys arrive for the first tim and then it starts to fall apart. i don't need a disney ending, but the one we got was lazy, stupid and absurd.
SPOILERS!
there were animals, why go cannibalism? the crops and the shed were of good use. why destroy them? they are in the forest, trying not to attract enemies, so why the hell would they make a huge fire to begin with? they could just as well shoot off flare guns to show where they are. also, they are in the forest ... an environment that easily could keep them alive. why risk an enormous forest fire, that might even burn them alive?
and finally, when the fortress people discussed about letting the chick in. what's there to discuss? she's not a thread, because she supposedly is pregnant? yeah, because no pregnant women ever did something malicious.
Hi therefdotcom
I do agree with you about the trashing of the crops when food was so important. I didn't understand that.
I also didn't understand why, if he wanted to remain undiscovered, did he not attempt to camouflage his hut, and the real give away, a perfectly tended crop garden!
Darrensworld - I think the gang stole all the vegetables, they didn't just trash the garden for the sake of it. If they had just trashed it, there would have been a lot more plants lying around. But yes, the first thing I would have done is camouflage my hut, and I wouldn't have a neat garden right in front, I would distribute the planting in different areas to make it less obvious. I would also set up a back-up hideaway somewhere with a small stock of food, tools etc for emergencies in case the main shed was raided.
shareHughwm, you are the one to be with in a crisis!
shareHaha thanks! If I've learnt one thing from post-apoc literature, it's that you don't keep all your supplies in one place. You keep a decoy stock, with another stock hidden somewhere else, so that when the marauding gangs come knocking, you don't lose all your stuff. The survivalist lived in that camp for seven years - in that time he could have totally camouflaged his hut and even built an escape tunnel!
shareHughwm. Yes! Totally agree! I would've made as many boobie traps as possible too! You try and steal my food your a dead man!
RIP David Bowie 💕
"I also didn't understand why, if he wanted to remain undiscovered, did he not attempt to camouflage his hut, and the real give away, a perfectly tended crop garden!"
good point. i would even go as far as saying that if he had 7 years time, why not even built an underground bunker from scratch?
Indeed. And he could have caulked the boards in his cabin with moss - the draughts coming through must have been terrible!
shareHad Di Caprio been The Survivalist you would all be singing a different tune right now. As for me I find them both very good films with the survivalist having the most unexpected plot of the two! I mean let's face it people, we all know the Hollywood or anything released by Hollywood formula!
sharei love those "oooh, if this was directed by ......" and "ooooh, if this had ..... in it" threads.
let's say with the same script it was played by pacino and directed by gilliam, it would still fall apart in the third act.
[deleted]
you take yourself pretty seriously, don't you? ^^
love the capitals, nice touch.
Actually only others do! And it is something I am not too happy about! I want them to see my funny side, mostly. But really I would like to say I am sorry I may have been too serious and sarcastic in replying to you but I also think you should admit, you started watching this movie, expecting something else in mind and it was not what you thought it would be. It happened to me too but I happened to like it because I find it very realistic...
So forget my questions and I will go back to deleting my previous sarcastic answer+question to you after you read this reply
no problem at all.
i gotta disagree though. i rarely watch films with any expectations in mind. i have to watch a lot anyways, because of my job, and it is expected of me to be a neutral as possible. i don't watch trailers, i don't do background checks, i just throw in the film and take it from there.
my problem with many films is this: i try my best to keep up suspence of disbelief, but once they take a route that is too illogical, i start to question things that i would ignore if the rest would work.
with this one, it worked for me for most of the runtime. to be exact it worked for me until the point where the intruders appeared for the first time. it went fast downhill from there. sure, the behavior of the characters until that point wasn't neccessarily logical, but it was at least believable. everything after the first encounter with the savages was absolute and utter nonsense. they did not raid the house, the protagonists did not flee, the intruders came back, the protagonists STILL did not flee, then the burning of the house, the destroying of the plants, that silly final scene ... etc. which makes things worse, it's that this fallout in the 3rd fourth made me question the previous events, which at a closer look also don't really add up.
I see your point with the complains but the way i understand is that the savages have to worry about weapons their victims might have, damages he might inflict on them which means that if they push their luck the first time to try and take all, things cold go wrong quickly!
So they first take what they can get which is the garden vegetables and then when they are hungry again they return for what is left which is the flesh. Had they pushed further the first time, one of them could end up dead which means that his gang members would be feeding off him rather than the victim, something I am sure they had all seen in the past.
They were ruled by hunger so if there was food present they were wired to take what they could get with minimum effort and minimum losses on their ranks.
Also keep in mind the time of day and night which they arrived the first and second time.
Was it probably not a good time for attack, were they unprepared. Or had they stalked them and seen him bury one which means this is a better chance for their attack to succeed? I can't say
As for the guy not running away the second time I took into account the lethargy of survivalism which boils down to if you are running from something where are you running to? He was tired I am sure and had no resources or desire to continue further.
I also very much believe the guy knew the campsite the girl would end up in but knew he would never be admitted in it as he had most likely victimized those same people with his brother in the past, to put it plainly he had burned those bridges a long time ago. He explained to the girl about his earlier raids before he had settled in his flimsy current lifestyle.
Nevertheless what I am saying is conjecture and it could all be a let down of the script as you say. Truth is we will never know until the day we are put on the same test which is not far off unfortunately...
"I see your point with the complains but the way i understand is that the savages have to worry about weapons their victims might have, damages he might inflict on them which means that if they push their luck the first time to try and take all, things cold go wrong quickly!
So they first take what they can get which is the garden vegetables and then when they are hungry again they return for what is left which is the flesh. Had they pushed further the first time, one of them could end up dead which means that his gang members would be feeding off him rather than the victim, something I am sure they had all seen in the past. "
but on the other hand, they did not care much about on their second attack.
"They were ruled by hunger so if there was food present they were wired to take what they could get with minimum effort and minimum losses on their ranks. "
yes, but with the hope for flesh that seems unlogical. not to speak of the fact that the house would give them a tactical advantage against future enemies.
"Also keep in mind the time of day and night which they arrived the first and second time. "
that's an excellent point though.
"Was it probably not a good time for attack, were they unprepared. Or had they stalked them and seen him bury one which means this is a better chance for their attack to succeed? I can't say "
yeah, i guess i would have been wisest to watch the house from a far, to find out how many people are in it and if they have weaponry.
"As for the guy not running away the second time I took into account the lethargy of survivalism which boils down to if you are running from something where are you running to? He was tired I am sure and had no resources or desire to continue further. "
i have to disagree there. he was so paranoid and so eager to stay alive, it does not make sense to me, that he took that risk after being to focussed at avoiding risk.
"I also very much believe the guy knew the campsite the girl would end up in but knew he would never be admitted in it as he had most likely victimized those same people with his brother in the past, to put it plainly he had burned those bridges a long time ago. He explained to the girl about his earlier raids before he had settled in his flimsy current lifestyle. "
sorry, but that's a but far fetched for me, considering the informations we are given in the film.
"Nevertheless what I am saying is conjecture and it could all be a let down of the script as you say. "
in my eyes it could have been handled better for sure. for me it worked as long as it was a drama between three people. for my personal taste even too much information was given. the explanation for their basic situation in retrospect seems weak and wasn't needed if they had kept it between the three main characters. the last part took it from being about human behavior in such a situation, suddenly to a more story oriented, face value level and in that regards there just wasn't enough meat to the story and also in that regard, the story and internal logic just wasn't tight enough for me.
"Truth is we will never know until the day we are put on the same test which is not far off unfortunately..."
sadly yes. if we be alive in 40 years from now, we might even be worse off.
'but on the other hand, they did not care much about on their second attack'
This could be because they were getting hungrier...
'yes, but with the hope for flesh that seems illogical. not to speak of the fact that the house would give them a tactical advantage against future enemies.
The hope for flesh is countered by the hope to stay alive. All of them hope to eat the flesh but none of them want to be the one to be sacrificed for it. Therefore they have to be careful and use minimal effort to get what they want.
But the hungrier they get though, everything changes!
As for them using the house as a tactical location, the fact is that they are nomads and the search for flesh takes them where flesh is. They can't stay in a territorial circle for long without finishing off the resources quickly
'i have to disagree there. he was so paranoid and so eager to stay alive, it does not make sense to me, that he took that risk after being to focused at avoiding risk.
This may have been due the closure of a woman! It allows him to rekindle his humanity and therefore giving him a greater chance of wishing to die.
Remember we are mammals and mammals are known to want to die when life becomes miserable enough. If you know about infant death syndrome for example an infant will choose to stop breathing when an adult that has been drinking and smoking gets very close to him or her!
The infant has a window of opportunity of 2 months at most from birth to do this. Afterwards the child starts to cling to life because his spindle cells are developing ad his breathing muscles will no longer obey the child should he choose to stop breathing. So deciding to die becomes so much more difficult and usually requires an apocalypse to resurface as a wish to be fulfilled during adulthood usually.
As for animals is different. A baby cat that has been abused will refuse to eat and sleep until it dies. I know cause I have tried to save so many to no avail!
I personally know a woman's touch is very dangerous therefore I have been celibate for the last five years. A woman makes you soft inside and she can reintroduce a man to fear or to sentimentalism...
'sorry, but that's a but far fetched for me, considering the information we are given in the film.
As I said this is conjecture and I could be wrong
'in my eyes it could have been handled better for sure. for me it worked as long as it was a drama between three people. for my personal taste even too much information was given. the explanation for their basic situation in retrospect seems weak and wasn't needed if they had kept it between the three main characters. the last part took it from being about human behavior in such a situation, suddenly to a more story oriented, face value level and in that regards there just wasn't enough meat to the story and also in that regard, the story and internal logic just wasn't tight enough for me.
I know what you mean. For me the story went wrong as soon as the guy started looking at a woman's photo and touching himself. I would never do it but of course if this had not happened I would not have a movie to watch ))) I understand your point of the internal logic not being tight enough and we all have to fill in the gaps which were very large! Which means everyone's filling will be very different.
We can, however, be thankful of giving us a chance to discuss this smartly as opposed to many of the posts or people around here that leave so much to desire...
It has been a pleasure discussing this with you. I am off to another country in two hours. So if you reply I will need time to get back at you.
Good luck
Pity the director had to stoop so low as to show a man masturbating on film. I thought we put those days behind us in the 1980's. I was wrong. You know its going to be a bad film when the director resorts to sex.
I do not believe the sexual content was meant to titillate. It was in context for the lonely and fearful people featured in the story.
shareMasturbating isnt sex, and chill out it was a few seconds of it. No need to go around to multiple threads and vent over something so mild. Its part of reality whether you like it or not. the way you go on you would think there was a guy furiously whacking it for at least 30 seconds, if that were the case then i might agree with you. Are you saying there cant be a sex scene in a movie without it being distasteful?
shareTotally agree. Simon is a huge prude or a very odd man who's never masturbated out of pure boredom and loneliness.
shareCompletely agree with the others.
Obviously not a film to watch with your mother but the scenes were over quite quickly and painted a very clear picture of no matter how bleak the situation human beings will always try and find some brief escape from reality
The masturbation scene was to show just how lonely and desperate he was. He was forced to recycle everything including his own body fluids,by wanking into a flower pot. Even Matt Damon in 'The Martian' didn't have to do that.
shareI agree WV, this movie really is an unexpected command performance!
shareWell, this seems to divide people into two camps - those who are pissed off that it's not some sort of "Mad Max" style extravaganza and those who think it's some sort of beautiful masterpiece... I seem to fall somewhere in the middle... I thought it was interesting and probably a reasonably accurate portrayal of what life might be like for the survivors after the collapse of civilisation... It's a good length - didn't outstay it's welcome - and I thought the little farm in the forest was very believable... My one problem with it is probably due to it being a little too realistic... In those circumstances, people probably would become rather inward-looking - concerned only with themselves and seeing others as a threat. But, it doesn't make for likeable characters and - call me old-fashioned - I do like to like someone in a film... However, on the whole, this is certainly worth watching.
shareI liked it. It was very realistic, and "ugly".
shareAll the criticisms on this board are nit-picky nonsense. It's a great movie, and absolutely beautiful. Most post-apocalypse have some element of fantasy in them, but this one is too smart for that.
share