The science of the film.

If there is something that annoys me almost more than anything about people criticising a film and that's appointing themselves sceince experts and telling us all what is and isn't possible within the context of the movie.

Most go into great detail and exhibit massive strain in dissmissing the film for not being "correct" in their own "qualified" perspective.

I can't tell you how far from the point people like this are, a work of fiction only needs to justify logic of which exists in it's own enviroment and universe. No that does not mean anything goes but it does mean if the writer and or director wants to destroy mankind in an apocolyptic event, they may.

They are not contrained to the lattest issue of Focus magazine, the opinion of the view or if anyone thinks the movie has a political sway of any sort.

Art has a license and a lot of the elements of free expression are lost on you if you want to watch film via a mcroscope.

Along with "but peoples would rebuild the planet and cuddle each other" these type of critique of The Road has struck me as most invalid.

If you want to argue that "life would still be present on the ocean bed or people could bugs and fungus" as to why humans wouldn't go extinct not only are you guessing at the science and doing something you claim the film is doing but you don't have any idea the function fiction.