As in... (spoilers!) WHY would Briggs, Colony-7's best shot at maintaining strong-but-humane leadership, go all dead man's switch with the dynamite instead of setting it down and running? WHY would the roving cannibals choose to live such a stupid existence? Because if you're on the ragged edge of survival and you come across a safe, warm place where 50-some people are renewably cultivating food and long-term survival is a viable option-- yeah, slaughtering those people for meat and wrecking up the place is a *stupid* choice.
WHY did the cannibals apparently forget how to speak when it would have helped them coordinate their senseless violence? Why just ineffective howling and grunting? WHY would Mason try to force people who wanted to leave to stay, under conditions he'd resolved to make miserable (virtually guaranteeing an erosion in his leadership capital), if he didn't believe that danger really was coming? Why not let them leave with what little they can carry (up to what you can afford to part with) and then you aren't responsible for taking care of them anymore? But making them stay-- and what, work?-- at gunpoint is a recipe for bad work and inevitable mutiny.
And finally, WHY the transparent, hackneyed attempt at the end to draw some kind of equivalence between the cannibals-- who kill people wantonly-- and Sam beating the 'feral leader' to death in justifiable defense of himself and his people? Because the long, "look at his savagery" shot of Sam was clearly intended to depict him as not much better when his reason for violence was completely different. Hell, he *wanted* to run, not fight, and he only flipped out because he was cornered by a relentless aggressor.
I gave it three stars for the design/use of sets and for the visual effects, and Fishburne's competent acting of his character despite writing that didn't stand out at all. That said, I really can't recommend this. It's too formulaic, too superficial, and the motivations of the antagonists are absent-- they're just stereotypically 'bad' for no good reason.
WHY did the cannibals apparently forget how to speak when it would have helped them coordinate their senseless violence? Why just ineffective howling and grunting? WHY would Mason try to force people who wanted to leave to stay, under conditions he'd resolved to make miserable (virtually guaranteeing an erosion in his leadership capital), if he didn't believe that danger really was coming? Why not let them leave with what little they can carry (up to what you can afford to part with) and then you aren't responsible for taking care of them anymore? But making them stay-- and what, work?-- at gunpoint is a recipe for bad work and inevitable mutiny.
And finally, WHY the transparent, hackneyed attempt at the end to draw some kind of equivalence between the cannibals-- who kill people wantonly-- and Sam beating the 'feral leader' to death in justifiable defense of himself and his people? Because the long, "look at his savagery" shot of Sam was clearly intended to depict him as not much better when his reason for violence was completely different. Hell, he *wanted* to run, not fight, and he only flipped out because he was cornered by a relentless aggressor.
I gave it three stars for the design/use of sets and for the visual effects, and Fishburne's competent acting of his character despite writing that didn't stand out at all. That said, I really can't recommend this. It's too formulaic, too superficial, and the motivations of the antagonists are absent-- they're just stereotypically 'bad' for no good reason.