Good , But It Is Overrated By Some

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

The idea sounded good and interesting but the execution and the plot are just plain terrible - intelligence isn't all that matters. That's more or less the outcome of this movie about "philosophy". Terrible nonsense and Kitsch, very slow paced and we watch some pretty Hollywood kids talking and talking - and yes, on top we get more talking. In the end, we know that the teacher had an affair with his A+ student. Sigh. But I got lucky, I didn't watch the movie in the cinema so I could use the fast forward button and saved some of my life time, that's what I call smart ;) If you wanna watch nice and clean looking people talking this is the movie for you. Last note: I would prefer mankind cease to exist if the only alternative would be that the kind of ppl portrayed in the movie or the writers of this piece of "art" would carry on the flame of mankind - the IQ in the universe would get an immense boost. Attending this class I would also prefer a) getting the bunker all alone for me with a few good books and some good records or b) the merciful death by nuclear fire instead of being imprisoned ONE+ year with that kind of people, nuclear fire would be a fast and clean death, to kill my mind and soul being in a cage with those kinds of ppl would be too much of a torture (just imagine all that BLABLA 24/7!!!), well, in the end, I am just another mortal being.

Well, this was a *really* interesting movie in the sense of *WHOM* would you "invite" to your nuclear-proof bunker for two weeks or even a year? Would your bunker "survive" more people than it could provide for (food, water, air, entertainment, etc.)?? Our teacher speaks of "theoretical scenarios" - i.e., what would you do in this situation? And yes, the "trolly scenario" is demonstrated - Trolly Problem scenario is here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem). How would students resolve this issue? So we move on to a global problem - "nuclear war". So, who gets to stay and who gets to stay outside? The bunker can only hold 10 people and there are 21. Of the ten, would you include a teacher? A Real Estate agent? A musician? A biologist? A Doctor? Also, you need to consider re-population, so you'll need to include a balance of men and women.So you *don't* include the Real Estate agent - what could they *possibly* contribute to life after nuclear war? Nothing? Think again. Perhaps their outside work hobby is survivalism? What about the teacher? Yes, you'd include them, for obvious reasons. But what if the teacher was not capable of reproduction? Has their value to the bunker dropped? Possibly.Let's throw in a variable - someone who doesn't identify their job, their background, their hobbies, their usefulness ... would you include them in the bunker? Most likely not.So, this movie is NOT really about nuclear war, CGI nuclear bomb scenes, "Terminator"-like graphics, action, "life-after-war" or even "The Road" (a movie).This is a thinking movie about preparation for disaster and thinking about whom would be most useful for, in this case, post-nuclear life - or really, about post-disaster/pandemic/zombie apocalypse/etc. scenarios.So, who gets to stay and who gets to die - *thats* what this movie is about.It is a talkie film, but you get to think about the usefulness of the kind of person that you would include in a bunker following a world-wide disaster. It is most definitely worth a viewing, at least once. I watched it once after reading all the reviews and thought, "Um ... yea ... " but the darned thing is that the movie's concepts played in my head for the next month. Thus why I am writing my review here.Go watch. Enjoy the irony, the decisions made, the scenarios. It's all good fun.

I would say that this movie started off great, but in all honesty, I don't think that it did. While the imagery was impressive, the characters were all unlikable. It was nearly impossible to sympathize with a pretentious group of young people and their narcissistic 'holier-than-thou' teacher. We begin with a game about a hypothetical situation that our students refuse to play, because pretending about death offends their delicate sensibilities. With the dramatics that go on, including our leading lady attempting to walk out of the class, you would think they were being asked to actually kill people. Sophie Lowe played our lead, Petra, who's character is apparently the smartest to ever attend the school. Her acting was atrocious. Absolutely awful. Her character was the second worst in the move, following only the teacher himself. The delicate rose petal of a genius is supposedly morally superior to everyone else, because her way of thinking is apparently the best way. This, by the end of the movie, is proved to be untrue. Our professor is played by James D'Arcy. I've seen this actor in other projects and always thought he was decent, but his performance here was awkward and forced. Maybe he found his character as distasteful as I -and the other characters in the movie- did. Normally I love a good movie, but it was hard to watch a teacher bully a group of students under the pretense of "stretching their minds". The logic behind the game Mr. Zimit creates is flimsy at best and is obviously self serving, in fact, he creates for himself a player that wins out no mater the scenario. His obsession with Petra, and hatred for her boyfriend, is obvious from the very beginning. The romance in this story is thrown in for literally no reason. It has nothing to do with the actual theme of the movie. Instead if just makes for poorly filmed make outs between to actors with no chemistry and gives the teacher something to be bitter about. Whoever wrote this movie seems to have learned everything they could about philosophy from Wikipedia.

Ten people do not have enough genetic diversity to save the human race, that sum has been estimated in 20k precisely selected individual or 100k random selected ones. They'd soon have a second or third generation dying of horrible genetic diseases and malformations. All that pompous logic gave birth to a crappy movie, just after the middle someone points out that there could be other survivors elsewhere, but that's not the initial condition, so even as an exercise it fails miserly. That said, it has even minor ridiculous fails in logic like every minute, that's a teenage movie made to impress an ignorant fast food society.