The Survivalist

Impressively lean and rigidly controlled, “The Survivalist” achieves, at times, the primitive allure of a silent movie.

Directed with a muted tone but a scenic eye by Brit first-timer Stephen Fingleton, The Survivalist, like most postapocalyptic movies, is both dire and oddly poetic.

The camera work is meticulous and exquisite in its expression, creating a sense of tense foreboding throughout, linking characters and images with a creepy omniscience.

The cautious chemistry between the three characters means the atmosphere is never less than taut, and it provides the perfect launchpad for a tense, poignant finale that marks Fingleton out as a name to watch.

The physical suspense is all but unbearable: a sexualised hunger, fear and need. Fingleton writes and directs with gusto and flair.

The Survivalist rewards with thoughtful cinematography — one fluid shot that effectively shifts the balance of power in a scene is especially noteworthy — and character development. But viewers looking for zombie attacks or thrilling chase scenes should go elsewhere.

Lean and mean, The Survivalist a realistically miserable apocalypse - and all the more terrifying for it.

The Survivalist shows self-preservation from a very psychological perspective. There is planting and hunting for instance but the crux of the movie is whom to trust and when. A quiet film with intense, expressive faces, and sporadic heart-pounding moments. Incredibly engaging with absolutely zero humor.

I'm not sure who would really be into this film in a serious way except possibly right-wing neoCons who fantasize about the day when nothing matters except the power of guns and the ruthless determination to take whatever one needs to survive, without regard to any inconveniences such as ethics or morals or laws. The film runs for just over 100 minutes. It's relentlessly grim and so narrowly focused that the viewer gets no clue as to what has happened to the world or where civilization has gone, if indeed it has gone anywhere. Our main characters say so little that we learn virtually nothing about any of them, except that it's made clear that none of them are bothered much by the aforementioned lack of ethics, morals, or laws. As post-apocalyptic films go, this isn't the worst I've seen, but there's nothing in any way supernatural to add spice to the brew. In fact my main complaint is that I spent most of the film waiting for something to happen. The plot is threadbare. The dialog would pose no disturbance inside a public library. There is an attempt to make the "Survivalist's" efforts to survive appear credible, but the efforts come up short. (For one thing, plan on planting a minimum of half an acre per person per year if you want to subsist by farming. The film shows us about 20 square feet or so hidden away in the middle of the woods and laughably describes this as "enough for one".) If the title strikes you as interesting, then give the film a try. But don't expect it to be a happy event.

This film is well made, with great cinematography, direction, acting... all the stuff. My major issues with the movie is that, firstly, THERE ARE NO SCI-FI ELEMENTS WHATSOEVER. I have no idea why it is listed as a scifi/drama. There is nothing scifi about it. My second isssue is that i can not recommend anyone watch this movie. there isnt enough of an emotional core for me to care about any of the characters or the grim, brutal situations they are placed in. If you wanna watch a grim, brutal movie where you cannot help but become invested in the characters, I highly recommend The Nightingale.

A generous 2 considering you could write the script on the back of a condom wrapper. With so many good critic reviews I painfully sat until the end but reader please don’t be fooled. ‘Mad Max in the countyside’. The film was more like Mad Max in his uncles Shed with an overused 1970’s Playboy magazine.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]