Home (2009)

Really Surprised!

best movie i've ever seen.

Absolutely Brilliant!

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

There is no doubt that population is the root cause of our problems. There are no workable solutions here. We are at or near the end of one of five major ice ages. The melting of ice is going to happen with or without us. Water vapor (clouds) hold heat 1000 times more than carbon dioxide. Change in the weather occurs over and over thousands of times in the past. At times when population could not impact the climate. We are making decisions based on knowledge in weather from only the last 150 years or so. So little is known. Climate change occurs constantly and the greatest changes occur take more than a life time to monitor. Changing anything now cannot make any difference. Reducing population somehow would be the best for all the people of the world. There is more in this story than what is being told. The photography is top shelf here though.

The "4" rating is solely for the stunning cinematography (meaning, the points added). The points taken off are for the deceptive nature of its presentation on the disc.Sure, I'm all for saving the planet and absolutely support the need to handle global climate change. But this "message" movie is not the way to present it. Combining beautiful footage of spectacular, mundane, and even unpleasant scenes with a wave of statistics in the narration makes for a disjointed experience at best.If it had been presented as what it was (or even described as such on the cover) I would not have had as much of a problem with it.My recommendation: turn the sound off and put on some relaxing music for the first 90 minutes or so. All the info is presented as text in the last several minutes anyway, so save that for another time.

First of all I am relieved that a movie on this subject has been produced with such a high budget. It's about time someone really tried to sum up what the human condition is, and the relationship between our condition and the condition of our planet.The visuals for 'Home' are for the most part near perfect- pinpointing the beauties and miracles of this world, whilst also the disgraces and disasters with a total sensitivity and respect for all sides of the issue. The subjects covered are well chosen and diverse, and you really get perspective on how widespread and potentially devastating our manipulation of the natural world has become. Unfortunately though, what slightly let this movie down for me was its 'matter of fact' approach, and a lack of attention to some important details. In some ways this film avoids a one-sided approach, with interesting stats showing how our attempts at alternative fuels have their own negative effects, but for the first section particularly it felt like some very dated notes on the history of the earth. We know some amazing things about the history of our planet but it's important to recognise that there is far more that we don't. I for one stand firmly on the side of science that can admit to not knowing. The most blatant error, as picked up by IMDb in the 'goofs' section, is the narration that the first towns appeared 600 years ago- how could you get that wrong!!? Apparently they meant to say 6000 years ago, but even this isn't fact as there is evidence of towns up to over 8000 years ago. On top of this it is continually stated that human beings have been around for 200'000 years, a theory that has been far from proved and therefore should be treated as such. I think that in a film that is trying to be scientifically credible, in this case vague/speculative language would possibly be more accurate. At least they managed to avoid a '2001: A Space Odyssey' style chimpanzee scene! Scientific stuff aside though, the most inexcusable error is that in the fairly small amount of on screen text there are numerous spelling mistakes. In most cases that doesn't bother me, but in a high budget film production it does, and it certainly doesn't help the reputation of the Eco-warriors (hippies come to mind!)After watching this movie though, I'll admit that I had mostly forgotten the flaws because it really forces you to think about the issues. This is a good thing, and for the most part it is done with beauty, sensitivity and grace, which is why I've given it such a high rating. Watch this movie- the cinematography and well crafted narrative will open your eyes to the fragile state of our planet and cause you to appreciate your place in it more. Just don't be a sucker for the slightly anti-human philosophy.

Visually stunning aerial photography of the Earth in a two-hour film with an ecological education agenda. Visually, this film is on a par with Baraka, Blue Planet, and Planet Earth, and seems to have been filmed largely with the same type of aerial video apparatus (Cineflex V14 HD Gyro-stabilized Aerial Camera System). Interestingly (and sadly), the film appears to have been adulterated by increasing the color saturation in many scenes.Watch out for factual errors in the narration ("600 years of human habitation in cities and towns" should be "6000" years) and mispronunciations in the narration ("climactic" vs. the correct "climatic," occurs TWICE!) Also, the Grand Canyon is in Arizona -- NOT in Colorado, as stated, 'tho it is the Colorado River that created and flows thru it.The narration seems to have been done over-hastily. Glenn Close obviously was not well-coached nor was her narration work reviewed or edited properly. Perhaps - like March of the Penguins - this film would be better viewed and appreciated sans sound.