The Netflix Original disaster movie How it Ends follows two men across the country as the world slowly crumbles round them.Tom Sutherland (Forest Whitaker), an ex-marine, is a devoted father to his daughter Sam (Kat Graham), and does not particularly like her boyfriend Will (Theo James), who he believes took his daughter away from him when the couple moved to Seattle. Will is in Chicago for work and to ask for Tom’s blessing to marry Sam, but when he gets cut off from Sam in a seemingly country wide power outage from an unknown source, Will and Tom must trek cross country to get back to Sam.
For all intents and purposes, there is not much that separates this story from other apocalyptic films. If you remember our list of 5 Best Environmental Disaster Films, there are clearly some trends that disaster movies follow, and this one is no different.
Fathers travelling across the country to get to their children is a trope we have seen time and time again in disaster films. Why? I’m not sure I could give a satisfactory answer, especially from this film, aside from “how else are you supposed to get two people who don’t like each other on the road together?”
The girlfriend’s father and boyfriend relationship context seems to be the only source for some emotional connection between the two men in the movie, as there is very little else they talk about all movie long.
The movie does seem to suggest that the worst comes out in people when the world is collapsing. Including the protagonists. How It Ends showed how people will do anything to survive, things that would have been inconceivable in any other situation. Again, not a new theme for a movie but it does not inspire hope in humanity.
However, it was this element of realism that I enjoyed the most from the movie. Aside from the exaggerated action, there was no attempt to make the character seem extraordinarily heroic, or righteous.
The array of characters we meet along the way, whether for 10 seconds, or 20 minutes are all testaments to the different ways people react when put in extreme situations. And each and every one of them was plausible. In a way that deeply reminded me of Cormac McCarthy’s The Road, you could develop an emotional connection to a character but by the next scene they would no longer be relevant to the storyline. Very much like the real world. There was no attempt to keep on a character any longer than necessary.
With that being said, there is very little the characters. The connections and interactions often seem bland, while the progression seems to lack any cohesion aside from moving further along the country, and the new situations they encounter.
What is most interesting in the development of the movie is that it is made up of snippets of every kind of disaster film: Militarised areas, neighbours in chaos, cities abandoned and on fire, wildlife in disarray. It makes for some incredibly beautiful shots and camera work.
The first half of the movie shows the onset of disaster from a distance, but as Tom and Will get closer to Seattle, the more intense things become and the extent of the damage is realised. However, the cause of the initial disaster is never explained. However, in my opinion it only added to the realism. Knowing what is happening is a luxury that would be difficult to attain in an apocalyptic setting, and the film ensures that it is a one that the viewers are not afforded, just as the characters are not.
Therefore, the film presents no real resolution, nor understanding of the situation that caused the devastation in the first place. While that is immensely frustrating, it does add to the style of the film all around. If you are very curious, like me, there are quite a few theories on youtube (this one sounds quite convincing to me: https://youtu.be/Zj6_BTbAiZw?t=14m43s)
So all in all, beautifully shot, rather boring characters, but interesting premise.
Leave a comment and tell me what you thought of the movie, and what you think the reason for the apocalypse was!
~S~
