User Reviews

The opening scene resembling a flood in the bathtub was nice. There were several scenes that made me nod my head and think to myself "mmh nice touch." There isn't a lot of it, but I thought the nudity was unnecessary at the start, like in the bathtub, but it kept showing up throughout the movie until I became indifferent to it. Just felt like a movie that could have maintained a PG-13 rating were it not for sporadic instances of nudity.

I didn't know anything about the movie, but the poster, inadvertently reveals the impending childbirth so it was a huge spoiler. I also just assumed at some point, she was gonna be stuck alone with the baby to survive because of the poster too. Despite these revelations, the film manages to convey urgency and tension, creating a slow-paced yet suspenseful atmosphere. And the mother's fear and frustration are translated well, I was scared for her when there was a knock on the door for instance. However, the narrative loses some of its imaginative momentum, transitioning into a more predictable phase after an impactful beginning. At some point, it's more just winding down the runtime.

For the most part, the films gloomy, like I couldn't escape the thought of British weather watching this. It reminded me a lot of certain aspects of the series "Station Eleven" as well. Katherine Waterston gives the film a little life once introduced and the dynamic between her and Comer becomes instrumental in sustaining the film.

Nothing crazy happens, I mean stuff happens but it feels uneventful. While the film effectively builds tension, gets you invested in the character, and outlines stakes; the second half fails to maintain that momentum. The second half of the movie is uneventful, and I was no longer scared for her or the child, you just have a feeling they're gonna make it, even when she runs into devious looking characters or dodgy situations and conflicts.

However the film making was great, it feels like it was shot by someone who knew what they were doing and that's evident in the first half of the film especially. The second half could've been more imaginative or impactful. I also loved the name of the movie, a little on the nose but I liked it.

Spoilers after first two paragraphs:

Filled with bunch of really nice scenes, including one of the best opening scenes, great use of sound and overall imagery, and Jodie Comer! Some scenes are shot so well, you can almost feel the dampness in the air.

Despite all this, the movie never quite picks up! It's a slow burning movie, which keeps promising but doesn't really deliver. It was great to see the post-apocalyptic world from the perspective of a new mother. There are some brilliant and even heart-wrenching scenes scattered around. However, the movie doesn't quite seem to tie together these bits and pieces.

Spoilers ahead.

Overall the narrative would appear to be leading somewhere, but before it reaches its peak, it peters out or is cut-short.

For example: the shelter section, things start building towards something, you see the progression, and then it is cut-short. Same pattern for the commune section, narrative is just starting to dip into what it is like to be there, but it cuts short again! Then a relatively quick and easy return to the main city (easier than one would think it'd be).

*Somethings which personally irked me*

(1) This is a post-apocalyptic world. People are practically killing each other for food. But there seems to be no issues for cigarette supply whatsoever! I'd think cigarettes would be treated like a currency in this damp, flooded, post-apocalyptic world.

(2) In all these absolute chaos, apparently the woman is carrying a lot of different onesies for the baby! Again, I'd assume that it is difficult to carry weight while they are walking/running for miles and they'd rather carry food/water than a lot of clothes. And we are also talking fresh, new and super clean onesies, different patterns each time! :p It somehow just takes the viewer out of the scene because it juts out so much!

*Climax*

This was the final nail for me! The husband magically appears in the end, perfectly healthy, and everything is well! ... ok! :p.

Ultimately, this film is centred around widespread flooding which results in a food crisis. This is made worse by the story following a new Mother (Jodie Comer) as she tries to support he child in the new world with the help of the Father, known as "R" (Joel Fry).

Firstly, Mother and R escape the city and enter the countryside, where we meet the Mother in law (Nina Sosanya) and Father in law (Mark Strong) of Mother. Living on a somewhat large forest based homestead, the family stay here until they run out of food. Venturing back into, presumably the city without Mother in search of food, two things happen. First, a Father and Son are let into the home by Mother, eat some food, then leave. No dialogue, no explanation and aren't seen again. Then, R and the Father in Law return without the Mother in Law. We later find out she's been trampled to death when sourcing food. Why you'd encourage an elderly lady to fight a mob to get food rations rather than leaving her in the car and sending the two men is a question unanswered.

Now, I must stress that this film was set in the United Kingdom. A relatively small country with a heavy population density. In addition, it has very strict gun laws with access to anything other than an air rifle being extremely difficult, and hunting rifles/assault rifles virtually impossible.

With that in mind, a fast follow to the return of the failed food run sees the Father in law shoot himself with a rifle, leaving his son, daughter in law and newly born grandson alone. Top marks to him.

Upon this happening, rather than staying in the isolated and safe homestead with the rifle, the family choose to leave and go to a shelter. They then find out the shelter will only take children and ONE parent. So that sees R disappear, not to be seen again for the majority of the narrative.

The shelter goes fine for Mother. She's fed, makes a friend (also with small child), all is well. Until a group of militia turn up with the impossible to obtain, military grade assault rifles mentioned above, break into the shelter and take the supplies. Everyone bolts and in the confusion Mother + new friend hop into a car with two random men, instructing them to drive!

And that they do. We don't know who they are, where they're going or how long they've been driving but after a time lapse and precisely zero dialogue, Mother and Friend get grumpy about their fast driving and tell the men to bail them out.

They now wander the wilderness for a while, have a houseparty in a derelic home with Benedict Cumberbatch who's passing in the opposite direction, and make their way to "one of many islands" where new communities are starting up. It just so happens, that Mother's friend knows the head of one of these communities, what luck!

Now with a couple of notable exceptions, Britain's coastal "islands" are tiny. Glorified rocks in most cases. And the one Mother and friend arrive on is no exception. Run by a slightly odd retiree who seems to be trying to make a cult, they both go to the island, before Mother has a change of heart and wants to return home. She had this epiphany after swimming naked in the sea, where we see Comer's nude breasts (despite not seeing this at all in a multitude of breast feeding scenes, which would have been more logical/appropriate).

She then gets back on the mainland and treks for what seems to be months through endless forest back to London. For context, you could walk from London to the border of Scotland is under two weeks, so I'm not sure where she's gone.

Finally, she returns to London. Judging by the growth of her child, it's been about 2 years-ish. The flood is still there - somehow. It's dropped enough however to enable her to return home to their flood damaged house. Perfect timing because R walks back in. He's not dead after all and they can begin again.

I saw this film last night, and it is time I shall never get back, unfortunately. It is slow, plodding, depressing, and unutterably boring. The only likeable character was the other mother Jodie Comer met at the refuge shelter. She was upbeat and cheerful. The others were dull, dreary and forgettable, especially Comers partner, who was wimpish, weak, insipid and irritating. There were no explanations to certain aspects, for example, how come the babies were always in different outfits, where did Comer get all the stuff that she backpacked with after leaving the commune? How come her partner happened to arrive back at their old home on exactly the same day as she did after all that time apart?...even Benedict Cumberbatch and Mark Strong couldn't save this snorefest! Avoid at all costs cinema lovers!

The main thing that struck me about this movie was how terribly empty it was - most things were implied, rather than shown or said. It starts with a scene of nudity, which I think sets the tone of the movie (things are shown in stark, simple terms) and makes the point that the mother was really pregnant and the baby was hers, which makes the movie all the more intimate.

There is a major inconsistency in the plot, which is that there are supposed to be massive problems with food distribution, people are really starving, but at the same time, somehow petrol distribution seems to be fine, people are happily driving around and no mention is made of problems getting petrol. If the cars are supposed to be electric, it's just as bad, because power cuts are shown but no indication that people are worried about charging the cars. Don't even think that in the current situation of world oil production probably having peaked in 2018, petrol is likely to become more expensive anyway in the actual near future. In the same inconsistent vein, food is scarce but somehow cigarrettes seem easy to come by.

The story seems to be more about a lucky woman rather than a rugged survivor. First the mother escapes with the father to be with the parents in law, then when the food runs out she finds a shelter for mothers, then when the shelter is overtaken by what looks like a band of soldiers gone rogue, she escapes in a car with a friend she made in the shelter and ends up in a commune because luckily the friend knows the head of the commune, then returns to London. There is no plan, just running from one place to another.

Another reviewer seems to think that the mother in law got trampled to death in a food riot. I didn't interpret it that way. I don't know what happened, though it certainly looks like she (or someone, in any case) was probably badly hurt. As I said before, a lot is implied, and you can fill the holes in any way you like. The same with the father in law shooting himself. I don't remember seeing any rifle, we hear something that sounds like a shot. But was it a shot? There are a number of things that make noises like a shot.

There are several times when I almost wanted to scream at some poor choices the mother made. How come you didn't put enough food in your backpack, dear? Surely you know how dangerous it is to eat a rabbit that is already dead and who knows for how long and what dangerous bugs may be lurking, even after roasted? Why didn't you secure your home as soon as you came back?

Most of the time, the mother and the people who support her appear rather harmless, pretty good reminders of the usual peaceful hippie type. Then, for a moment when she returns to London she appears rather ruthless and steals a car - but then, it's rather unclear what is happening and anyway, she was planning to get to her destination walking, so how long could be the ride? Five miles? Ten, and that's stretching it quite a bit? And we don't know what she did with the car when she got there. She might have apologised and done her best to get the car returned to the owner, for all we know. Or she might not. As I said, forward-thinking she doesn't seem to be.

After so much was shown indirectly, suddenly we are shown London flooded. It's all the more striking because there was so much before that you had to imagine. It looks very real, also. You can only tell it has to be CGI because you know that London has never been flooded like that, and after seeing a whole bunch of low-budget scenes, for a moment it looks like it's something that must have already happened for real.

Other people seem to have had an issue with the ending being too neat, but I didn't. The parents meet at their own home, apparently around the first time that it's easy to get back to London. What is so unlikely about it? Sure, the mother seems to assume that the father is probably dead, but that could be just pessimism because of some tough experiences she's been through, rather than a realistic assessment of his survival chances.

There are a number of beautifully shot scenes in the movie, which compensate for the glaring holes. But maybe I shouldn't complain about holes when these days, it's hard to say that any movie has a real plot. Maybe I'm just getting old.

The Climate Crisis paid a fictional visit to London, and "The End We Start From" was the result. Adapted from the novel by Megan Hunter, the movie captured a realistic slice of the chaos and confusion that might follow in the event of extreme climactic events in Britain's capital city.

A woman (whose name is never quite revealed throughout the movie) and her hubby struggle to survive a Climate-Emergency event - a flood, to be precise - with their newborn son Zeb.

Jodie Comer did notable work as this woman. Her uncertainty and anxiety complemented the portions where she had to be strong for the sake of her baby. Her survivor's guilt added to a captivating performance.

Her husband and new-father Joel Fry had an empathic and engaging screen presence. It was amazing to see him act out a father's fears; he was so raw and candid.

Every other character, just as nameless as them, contributed something of value to the plot in "The End We Start From". Some of the most memorable names I observed in the movie included Benedict Cumberbatch (as a survivor), Mark Strong (as Zeb's grandpa), Gina McKee (as a commune member), and Katherine Waterston (as a shelter-mom).

The idea that large cities don't necessarily suffer the worst of the Climate Crisis has been a long-dead myth. Real-life events and reliable news outlets have covered the ravages of our changing climate on not just outlying or rural areas but also metropolitan hubs like London; among others.

Floods have affected so many major cities - Indian ones like Chennai, Mumbai, and Calcutta, as well as numerous other global locations - that to remain in denial is to accept defeat.

"The End We Start From" was smart enough not to take the easy route or offer convenient movie-style solutions. This is, after all, a complex global issue that needs a united and urgent effort to see positive change.

In this plot, the lack of such effort - or worse, indifference toward it - led to a flood in London. Not that it was a far-fetched idea, either. Flooding in London has been ongoing in the real world for some time now.

This movie brought it all back full circle, further emphasizing the message conveyed by Climate Action protestors about lazy politicians who don't seem interested to risk their oil-and-gas investments so they can, well, save lives that are being directly affected by their fossil-fuel induced greed.

I liked how they didn't shy from showing some of the more challenging sides of being pregnant, that too during a flood situation.

It was equally admirable to watch how they didn't sugarcoat the extent of the damage and danger that unmitigated Climate Change can wreak in the lives of everyday people, especially how disaster-driven starvation and fear can make people uncertain and doubly dangerous.

From unmitigated pollution, which is still changing various warming and cooling conditions on Earth, to how little is being done to stop or stave off some of the serious negative impacts of Climate Change, "The End We Start From" presented a tiny peek into a future that is already upon us.

In real life and in this movie, the Climate Crisis has proven that it has the power to make people refugees in their own land. They are left facing uncertainty and peril, particularly from their own people.

This, in itself, should be a wakeup call to us all, that if those in power don't do something and fast, we are one step away from becoming beasts and barbarians.