Must the premise be scientifically credible to make a good film? No
Do the ideas in the story have to be consistent across the series? Yes
Should the scriptwriters do a basic google search before they write a ridiculous line into the dialogue? Yes
So here's some things for the scriptwriters to think about:
*Why does the educated guy tell the pilots that the sun is affecting the DNA of the food? DNA damage implies mutation, something that affects LIVING plants and animals. Is this guy trying to confuse the pilots? What the heck.
*Similarly it doesn't follow at all that (alleged) gamma rays which kill living creatures would somehow destroy the non-living petrol. If the jet petrol has been so degraded that it will no longer combust, then you would expect all kinds of stuff to be disintegrating - ie plastics, etc. And why would the truck petrol be ok?
* Why does Slyvie speak in French about throwing the soldiers off the flight when she doesn't know how much French the soldier speaks? She also uses easy words like Afghanistan, and criminelle. What the hell?
* We know the story is taking place between September and March because they tell us that there will be more daylight in Hawaii. So it's in the colder months. Are they really walking around in Canada in the night without noticing the cold?
* Why would this educated guy be completely unconcerned about a report that an animal (a ferret?) has survived the death rays? It appears that all life, plant, animal, food and even petrol is dead or dying. Surely anything stil alive is a vital clue?
* If the passengers have internet connections, why aren't they using their spare time to research their situation? Surely there's someone alive somewhere to post on the internet (Arctic bases where it's continually dark in winter?). Even if there's no-one whatsoever alive, why aren't the passengers desperately looking into gamma rays, trying to find any information that might help them live? Instead they sit around fighting with each other.
However the really bad news is that there's nowhere near enough time to fly around the world at the lattitude of Brussels, have many adventures and yet stay in the dark the entire time. I added up all the passenger flight times and it came to 41 hours of flying time. For perspective the longest night of the year is 16hours in Brussels, so once around the world plus one night would be 24hours + 16 = 40hours. They then fly east to Bulgaria and when they get there the NATO guy says they have been flying for a week? What the heck.
Despite the above points, I still found this really enjoyable. I think if they had spent a little time finessing the script then it could have been really great.
29 out of 37 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink