Surprised at how well done a movie could be

Rating: 10/10 (12 March 2016)

How could post apocalypse film be flipped over again after it's been cooked to shoe leather on the grill of repetitiveness? Through the acting of its three main characters, a decent story but more directly the ability to build all the characters back stories (except the female protagonist, all we know is she dated Bradley Cooper), hint at the devastation outside enough to explain the story but not reveal it, add psychopathy and sweetness into one character and minimal use of special effects, turns this dried out and over done steak into some juicy filet. Few movies since Hitchcock can sustain a level of tension through out 2 hours and keep it constant. Few movies can re invent a usual apocalypse in a new way., few actors could play sweet and sour as good as Goodman can as his performance is a tied that rises all ships. The bunker itself is a character that has a story to tell. The story leaves us asking if it's right to do the wrong thing if eventually you turned out to be right even though you were doing dastardly things to compensate for a dastardly thing done to you. Whoa. Do we have sympathy for that character or do we applaud when it goes downhill for him. I still don't know if we should have sympathy or gratitude for someone who we want to believe is a misunderstood good guy when the facts and some evidence point out he is really a sociopath responsible for a hideous crime but can understand why he is the way he is. It's like finding out Santa was Jeffery dahmer. Lastly I have never seen a movie that made a previous okay movie seem much better. It seems to explain its predecessor and gives it a few more movie points even though it is explained 10 years later. Well done and entertaining. Also great job keeping the violence slightly off screen we didn't need to see it and it had a greater effect.