Glucedee It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

Teddie Blake The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Brennan Camacho Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

Catherina If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

Devo X I'm struggling to understand why the reviews aren't better. It's a magnificent film, from a long and difficult source, turned into a fine screenplay. One of the best gangster movies in many years. Sprawling, epic, lovingly photographed and well acted, the film shows that Hollywood can still make good genre films if the script is right. You have to like Afflect to go along with this project, but his character and his performance have depth and the support cast are uniformly believable, the prohibition/gangster era is well-wrought and the story maintains its tempo all the way. It avoids clichés as much as possible , given the genre, and remains plausible throughout.It's well worth your time.

bbielski-58412 How I Live Now portrays what life would be like in Britain if World War III were to happen. I think that how they portrayed the story of how these kids learn to adapt quickly to the changes and awful experiences really opened my eyes to see war, love, and loss differently. But what I don't understand is that Daisy, the American that comes to live with her British cousins, falls in love with the oldest one, Eddie. Now, are actually related or just family friends that are referred to as cousin? That part really threw me off. Overall, I thought that it was pretty good. I'm still in shock that the middle child of the three cousins, was killed. See, when the military came, they separated the boy and the girls, so really, the whole movie is from Daisy's perspective, so we never really see what happened to the boys because when Daisy goes back to her house, she finds Eddie, the older cousin, but he doesn't speak about what happens. And that's how they end it, just that the kids are now on their own and nobody knows what happened to Eddie. It's really kind of confusing. All in all, I liked it. I liked that it left me wondering but it's frustrating not knowing what happened. The parents never do return in the movie so I'm assuming they are dead or at some military camp. But I guess that's just how they live now....

Ian Atkin Once again, I'm blown away by the comments and reviews, not to mention the criminally low rating of this movie. I appreciate that not everyone has the ability to understand the subtleties of a movie with minimal dialogue, little exposition, or anything where every detail isn't explained. I realize that this movie had way too little gun-play, no car chases, and even the nuclear event was way too artful and didn't rely on enough CGI for many movie-goer's tastes. But that's okay, because not every movie is intended to appeal to that 8-year old in some of us.I'm also perturbed that anyone can take events in a movie in isolation, such as the way that the lead falls head-over-heels, apparently, after "one roll in the hay." Or maybe I'm mildly disturbed that the take-away from a movie about nuclear destruction and war and the aftermath of such is... "Ewww, she had sex with her cousin."I watched the events of the Bosnian Conflict on television back in the early 90s. What struck me, and disturbed me greatly, were the images of refugees who had been displaced by the war. They looked to me just like any typical citizen of a western country. They looked just like people I know.And that's what I took away from this movie. It was the story of how everything goes to sh*t when bad things happen. It's an exposition of how a teenager with certain issues in her life can be transformed very quickly, and cling to the people she barely knows, simply because they represent "normal" to her. That various reviewers don't get this completely baffles me.But no, carry on debating the perceived plot holes, even if they do come about through your lack of knowledge or understanding. That's okay. I know that not everyone has that kind of mental capacity. I understand that some people would react similarly to Citizen Kane, or other classic movies, if only because they weren't filmed in color, or because "they look old and boring" or there isn't any CGI or "the effects are rubbish".I'll take away a beautiful and disturbing tale of young people having their lives utterly torn apart by meaningless conflict. And that's what the point of this movie was to me.

Theo Robertson Teenage American Daisy visits relatives in rural England while international tensions rise . Before long a nuclear device destroys London and the country is put under martial law and Daisy finds herself in a fight for survival !!!!! SPOILERS !!!!!! Yet another film featuring a teenager fighting to survive similar to THE HUNGER GAMES and THE MAZE RUNNER and like these films has a novel as a source . HOW I LIVE NOW does hint that it's going to be darker and bleaker than similar movies but then decides to blow everything with a scenario that is just too difficult to buy in to . It's trying to be more realistic than its peers but if you're going to be realistic then realism should be a prime concern and this is where everything falls downAs someone who grew up in the cold war era nuclear holocaust scared the heck out of me . Here it's used as a vague plot device . Nuclear bombs weren't a fun topic to research in the 1980s but watching stuff like THREADS did give a layman a rough idea of what happens when they explode . A nuclear device destroys London and yet TV cameras still work ? Wouldn't electro magnetic pulse ( EMP ) fry all the electronics in the surrounding area ? Ditto it would also destroy all the power supplies and yet the electricity stays on long enough to inform the characters and therefore the audience as to what's happening . Plot convenience while being contrived at the same time but many films use this so it's not unique to this one . However the story constantly keeps tripping itself up such as having a character state they're a long way from London and yet nuclear fall out instantly lands on them as they hear a nuclear explosion . In reality it would several hours and if fall out can reach them why didn't they experience the shockwave of a nuclear explosion ?It's rather clear the nuclear device spoken about wasn't sent to its target via a delivery system such as a missile but left hidden similar to a terrorist bombing . Again there's a myth that you explode via conventional means it'll go up in the infamous mushroom cloud way . It won't . In order for the warhead to work it has to be delivered via the way it's designed otherwise all you've got is a "dirty bomb" unable to yield kilotons or megatons of explosive energy This falls apart when it ties in with the rest of the scenario . Britain is being attacked by a "rebel / terrorist force" rather than a nation state but how likely is this ? A terrorist or rebel power doesn't have a nuclear delivery system and yet has the manpower and logistical support in order to invade an Island nation ? The last invaders to conquer the British Isles were the Normans and would be invaders like Napoleon and Hitler later found this impossible due to an accident of geography . A Island has borders that can be easily defended and difficult to breach and Britain also has a nuclear deterrent . If London had been nuked then surely that means the gloves have come off and any would be invader is going to get nuked in advance as they gather on the British shoreline ? I looked up Meg Rosoff's novel on Amazon and apparently it is similarly vague . THE ROAD by Cormac McCarthy is vague as to its scenario but that film gripped me like a vice . With HOW I LIVE NOW everything falls apart when given the slightest bit of thought and is painfully contrived all the way up to its implausible happy ending This is all a great shame because there's almost a great film trying to escape from its screenplay . Saoirse Ronan as the mentally ill teenager Daisy gives a great performance as she starts off as selfish to the point of narcissistic troubled teen and turns in to a mature woman by the end . I can see the storyline is concentrating on character development and here it does succeed . Director Kevin Macdonald does show a lot of talent but like BLACK SEA he seems to be a victim that he has been hired to direct an underdeveloped screenplay full of plot holes and contrivance . Both its star and its director deserved more as did the audience