I love post-apocalyptic movies, so half of Carriers' work was done before I even popped it into my DVD player. I was predisposed to like it. Fortunately, it happens to also be a pretty decent movie. Nothing really new or mind-blowing, but it works.
There's always the question of what brought about the end of the world in these kinds of flicks. Carriers goes with a deadly virus, instead of the always popular zombies, natural disasters, and nuclear wars. The virus is still very much active and the infected have nothing to look forward to other than a painful, lingering death, so our survivors primarily concern themselves with avoiding any of the few still living who may be carrying the infection.
Carriers is a relatively small movie with a small cast. The main characters are two brothers and the two young women who accompany them. It's a tight group, basically a family, and most of the drama comes from the hard decisions that have to be made when the group encounters a chain of events started by finding an infected young girl and her father.
There are other dangers, too. Specifically the groups of desperate, dangerous survivors that always pop up in this genre. As I said before, Carriers isn't exactly innovative. It doesn't feel stale, though.
I recommend it. The filmmakers made the wise decision to keep the length of the movie pretty reasonable, but it's just long enough so that you get to know the characters well enough to invest in them. The cast is pretty decent, too. Check it out, if you're interested.
And the story (while not ground breaking) WAS interesting and disturbing.
The character development fell short and probably left a lot of people feeling far less moved by how the story unfolds and ends.
But for those who are able to step back and think about the story as a whole, it is actually quite bleak and psychologically brutal.
Most of you might find this boring. Skip it or see it is your choice.
My favorite scene would have to be the one in the makeshift hospital. To say any more would be criminal. This film is great not just as a horror flick, but as a character-driven thriller. If it languishes unseen on DVD, it will make me very sad.
Too bad this movie is not profound and none of its characters are worth caring about for. The only exception to this terribly slow and uneventful movie is one standout scene where the older brother finally lays out how much shit he has done to spare the younger brother the torment of morally ambiguous actions. It's a clear message about moral relativism and how a post-apocalyptic climate reveals the selfish survivalist instinct that dominates human actions. Too bad this has been done better hundreds of times before and will continue to be done better with far smaller budgets and even less talented actors (and that says a lot when you judge the poor caliber of the acting here).
If you MUST see every apocalypse film made, then I suppose you are obligated to watch this, but that is the only condition under which anyone should be forced to sit through this uneventful disaster.
'What would I do and how far would I go just to survive,would I do ANYTHING?'
The questions will be difficult to be answered...
Four friends fleeing a viral pandemic soon learn they are more dangerous than any virus.
Two brothers and two girls are traveling across country trying to avoid those who are infected with a horrible disease. The disease has killed most of the population. They are doing okay until they run across a father and his infected daughter, who are looking to get to a government clinic with a serum that promises a cure. The two groups are forced through circumstances to hook up and the journey changes their outlooks on the situation. It also marks the beginning of events moving out of everyone's control (or at least the realization that things are not in their control).
Small scale film is a nice compliment to films like 28 Days Later or even the recent zombie cycle, though there are no walking dead or crazed cannibals here. It's a dark horror tale more about the horrors of life then of monsters and madmen. How would we react to a situation like this? This might be an indication of what we might do. I like that the film doesn't full tell us everything that happened before. Things are not overly explained. We're given enough to work things out for ourselves and its more frightening that way. Its not a perfect film, but it is compelling and tense. It's a good enough film to make me wonder why this film hasn't gotten a big release. Perhaps the lack of monsters and its reasonably realistic (and bleak) nature have made it a film the studio doesn't know how to market. I really like this film, it's a nice find. Recommended.
Over all a great horror/drama movie and worth people viewing.
People need to stop making so many apocalyptic films. They're seldom exciting; few of them are actually good. They all feel like the same bleak, slow-moving ride. Of course, there are some good films in this new wave of excessively hopeless films, and "Carriers", the film I am reviewing, is not one of them.
I can't say I'm surprised. What exactly did I expect from a film about an apocalyptic epidemic, which never sounded like it was going to deliver anything relatively new? Did I expect anything more than mildly entertaining? Perhaps I did. But I didn't have high expectations for this movie, regardless. It's a typical fight-for-survival film; no twists, no surprises, no reason to see it.
I am, in no way, saying that this is a bad movie. Plenty of effort went into it, and I admit that it is well-made on a technical level. But it lacks the ability to create true suspense, it's never really scary, and when it wants to be dramatic, it lacks an emotional edge. It fails at many things and succeeds at others. This very reality makes it feel a tad uneven, and thus, I felt myself drifting away, possibly to a better movie; and even with these derivative apocalypse films, there are ones that are "better".
A virus, with a source unknown, has spread across the world, killing everyone. The remaining survivors will kill to stay alive, and they will also steal, lie, and deceive. The film begins with four survivors, one of them which is played by Chris Pine (I only say this because you might actually know one of the actors, for a change). His character has a brother; and they both want to get to a "special place" from childhood, in the form of a beach, where they and their love interests can hide out for some time. Maybe the infection will die out.
Shortly after we get thrown into the middle of their grand adventure, the four pretty much take hostage a man and his daughter. The daughter is infected. The man is determined to keep her alive as long as he possibly can. On the journey, which takes up the entire film's story, the lot runs into many things; more infected, empty homes, and even crazed survivalists.
Yeah, it's not that exciting. It's sometimes intriguing, and comes pretty darn close to being mildly fascinating, but you give the audience some; and in return, you must also take some (from your movie). The film feels either unfinished or just told with extreme mediocrity. I felt bored for, perhaps, more than half of the movie. The other half was indeed sort of engaging, but there were too many faults that were attached to this movie.
I wouldn't tell you not to see the movie. It's not bad; but it's not good either. A decent movie, no doubt, but none-the-less one that failed as both a drama and a horror film. It's not "bad drama" or "bad horror" that gives "Carriers" the edge of mediocrity that it dons; it's the director...and the screen-writer. It is a beautifully shot, decently acted (aside from Pine, who is obnoxious and unlikeable) movie that didn't inspire much sympathy from me. There was little to like just as there was little to detest, and in determining whether you should watch it, the choice is up to you. You are either drawn into its story of an emotionally charged road-trip, or you are not; and I was not.