CheerupSilver Very Cool!!!

Steineded How sad is this?

Dorathen Better Late Then Never

Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

fee-graham I remember choosing the book when I was at school for O'level exams 47 years ago and it was obviously written to be suitable for young teenagers. The story in the film didn't relate to the book. I wanted to relive my enjoyment of it but was disappointed. Having said that, I did enjoy the film,the acting and story, but it wasn't Z for Zachariah.

Irie212 Even if this movie is seen as an allegory, or a modern Bible story, it is hard to accept a post-apocalyptic landscape in which no horror or tragedy is ever shown. Instead, nuclear apocalypse is a plot device used to isolate three characters in a love triangle-- a rather extreme device.A young woman (Margot Robbie in a fine performance) lives on a farm in a secluded valley that somehow escaped the nuclear holocaust. She is joined by two men who managed to survive because they were both underground when it happened. The first to arrive is John (Chiwetel Ejiofor), an engineer wearing complex hazmat gear. Later on, Caleb (Chris Pine) arrives, though he skulks around stealing eggs before he's discovered. For all they know, they are the last three people on Earth, people whose survival is very much in question. Their secluded farm, like the Garden of Eden, is an illogical phenomenon that only makes sense as fiction. That's fine, as long as there's a reason to dispense with rationality in the interests of a message, or at least entertainment. I'm not sure that "Z for Zachariah" manages that, because it is diverting but enigmatic, and ultimately unsatisfying. Themes of religion and rebuilding are introduced, but not explored. Alcohol is introduced a few times, only to confuse motivations of characters we barely understand in the first place. The movie is careless about all the characters, in fact-- especially the fourth one, a dog named Faro. He is the girl's constant companion on the farm at first. Then the men arrive, the plot begins, and the movie drops the dog without a word of explanation. (Perhaps Caleb ate him? Hot dog and eggs?)It is classified as sci-fi on IMDb and other places, but use of the word "radioactive" doesn't qualify a movie as science fiction, and I saw nothing else that looked like science, unless you count an engineer building a water-wheel. Really, it's a chick flick that's set in a minimally-realized future. It's not an ordinary chick flick, in that there is no girl talk, but the movie's subject is not survival or the future, it's human emotions under stress-- love, loneliness, jealousy.If you agree that emotions are what will matter most to the last three people on earth after a nuclear holocaust, then this movie may be for you.NB: I haven't read the book, which I gather is superior to the film. But a movie has to stand on its own merits, so the original source material is ultimately irrelevant. As Tom Wolfe said when asked about the film version of Bonfire of the Vanities, "I retained the right to cash the check."

Sandy0095 In short, Z for Zachariah is about a young girl (Margot Robbie) who finds herself completely secluded after an unknown disaster wipes out her village. She comes across a very sick man named John Loomis (Chiwetel Ejiofor) and debates bringing him into her safe haven. She does so and unforeseen complications arise.I can't pretend this movie is anything like the book. Multiple changes have been made, including the characterization of Loomis. In the book, Loomis is a mystery to Ann. She questions her decision to save him and ultimately pays for it. Loomis loses his mind, which is never brought to fruition here. A large part of that might be due to the lovable Chiwetel Ejiofor, who plays Loomis as a very sympathetic man. In this version, Loomis is portrayed as a wanderer who innocently stumbles upon Ann's sanctuary. They bond and even make plans for the future, until a third wanderer arrives.Caleb (Chris Pine) is a completely new addition. Don't go looking for him in the book, you won't find him. He's brought on as an additional catalyst to cause friction amongst the group. Caleb is portrayed as a friendly, Southern miner who was briefly stuck underground. He immediately bonds with Ann, which causes issues. Loomis starts to belittle Ann for her friendship with Caleb, and grows increasingly resentful of their attraction for one another. This is the only time in the movie where Loomis' true characterization is realized. Culminating with an ending that leaves the audience questioning his morality.In all honesty, I enjoyed the film. Despite numerous changes, the movie is beautifully filmed, well acted and an interesting twist on the source material. It leaves the audience guessing everyone's motives and true intentions. If I had to loosely sum up the ending, I would say it felt like an origin story. With Loomis not quite becoming the villain we see in the book, but perhaps on the road to tyranny. With the farm now restored and Loomis in control of it's operation, we see Ann at a serious crossroads. In many ways, she's left in the same predicament as the novel.

quark18 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.