The film opens with a sequence on the history of life on earth, based on science. But it's somewhat important to understand this history, for points made later in the film.
The film shows ways in which our current activities are not sustainable, such as over-use of water, reliance on non-renewable oil and sources of fresh water, the use of agriculture primarily to feed animals to become meat, overpopulation, monoculture, shipping, etc.
It spotlights one case in history (Easter Island) to show what happens when a society doesn't react to the damage it is doing to its own environment.
I thank the filmmakers for drawing attention to my own country's (Canada's) dangerously wasteful use of land, water, and energy in the tar sands of Alberta and Saskatchewan, in the junkie's quest for harder-to-get oil.
Near the end, the film puts some facts on the screen (a few were unfortunately too small to be read). Some struck me as not particularly relevant to the film, such as how many people may be going hungry or thirsty. On the face of it, given the facts in the film, that's a good thing. To clarify, they needed to tie that to the fact that we could fix this problem if the rich used less, and if there were fewer rich.
It does end on a hopeful note, spotlighting some cases where people have taken small steps toward stopping our bad behaviours and living sustainably. It is hopeful, but I wish they had dwelled more on that, because we need concrete solutions that we can go to our mayors and councils with right now. Many of them have their head in the sand with petty politics, social issues, labour issues, the recession, and aren't thinking about when it really hits the fan a decade or two from now.
The images were mostly wide shots or aerial shots of landscapes, herds, cities, factory farms, etc. and were mostly quite beautiful. I also liked the music. Narration was a bit sparse, and in the English version I watched on Youtube (no subtitles), I think the narrator said "climactic" several times when she meant "climatic". But given the scale of what we're facing, maybe either word is OK.
The film was not shown in theatres in my area, nor was it shown on TV, except on the French channel (of course ... all the best stuff is on the French channels in my area) so I did appreciate the simultaneous Youtube release of this film. Given the free home viewing, a torrent would have been even more preferred, for portability and quality. My poor PC had trouble keeping up with the video AND the downloading at the same time.
In comparison with Earth (2007), I found this film to be more relevant to today. It isn't about the beauty of individual animals, but rather our entire home, and it clearly lays out that it's changing and that at a minimum we need to be preparing to handle that, and ideally trying to slow the change down. It's more honest.
In comparison with An Inconvenient Truth, I think it trades some of the information and style for a richer visual that lets the pictures do the talking. It's been a while since I've seen An Inconvenient Truth, but I think it covers much the same territory. I think Al's lecture approach was effective at drawing some people in and presenting the message clearly. But being a political figure maybe Home will attract some different viewers that may have been driven away by the earlier film just by his presence in it.
The film shows ways in which our current activities are not sustainable, such as over-use of water, reliance on non-renewable oil and sources of fresh water, the use of agriculture primarily to feed animals to become meat, overpopulation, monoculture, shipping, etc.
It spotlights one case in history (Easter Island) to show what happens when a society doesn't react to the damage it is doing to its own environment.
I thank the filmmakers for drawing attention to my own country's (Canada's) dangerously wasteful use of land, water, and energy in the tar sands of Alberta and Saskatchewan, in the junkie's quest for harder-to-get oil.
Near the end, the film puts some facts on the screen (a few were unfortunately too small to be read). Some struck me as not particularly relevant to the film, such as how many people may be going hungry or thirsty. On the face of it, given the facts in the film, that's a good thing. To clarify, they needed to tie that to the fact that we could fix this problem if the rich used less, and if there were fewer rich.
It does end on a hopeful note, spotlighting some cases where people have taken small steps toward stopping our bad behaviours and living sustainably. It is hopeful, but I wish they had dwelled more on that, because we need concrete solutions that we can go to our mayors and councils with right now. Many of them have their head in the sand with petty politics, social issues, labour issues, the recession, and aren't thinking about when it really hits the fan a decade or two from now.
The images were mostly wide shots or aerial shots of landscapes, herds, cities, factory farms, etc. and were mostly quite beautiful. I also liked the music. Narration was a bit sparse, and in the English version I watched on Youtube (no subtitles), I think the narrator said "climactic" several times when she meant "climatic". But given the scale of what we're facing, maybe either word is OK.
The film was not shown in theatres in my area, nor was it shown on TV, except on the French channel (of course ... all the best stuff is on the French channels in my area) so I did appreciate the simultaneous Youtube release of this film. Given the free home viewing, a torrent would have been even more preferred, for portability and quality. My poor PC had trouble keeping up with the video AND the downloading at the same time.
In comparison with Earth (2007), I found this film to be more relevant to today. It isn't about the beauty of individual animals, but rather our entire home, and it clearly lays out that it's changing and that at a minimum we need to be preparing to handle that, and ideally trying to slow the change down. It's more honest.
In comparison with An Inconvenient Truth, I think it trades some of the information and style for a richer visual that lets the pictures do the talking. It's been a while since I've seen An Inconvenient Truth, but I think it covers much the same territory. I think Al's lecture approach was effective at drawing some people in and presenting the message clearly. But being a political figure maybe Home will attract some different viewers that may have been driven away by the earlier film just by his presence in it.