IMDb > Earth 2100 (2009) (TV) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb

Reviews & Ratings for
Earth 2100 (TV) More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]
Index 18 reviews in total 

28 out of 42 people found the following review useful:

Don't bother watching this film.

Author: jhuni_x from United States
24 January 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Global warming, flooding, droughts, natural disasters, diseases, over-population, refugees, peak oil, resource wars, why not throw all of these things together centered around a single character and then conclude the movie by saying that we need to create a green and environmental future?

This film does not establish a clear relation between each of these problems, it just jumps from one from issue to another, and it can be quite confusing along the way. Besides that, things are centered far too much on America and the life of this fictional character: Lucy. I don't think they mention Africa, South America, The Middle East, or Australia, much or at all. They talk about China and India a little: apparently they declared a resource war against one another, however, they don't go into it that much after that.

In addition to this, there have been oil shortages in the world before. See {The Power of Community: How Cuba Survived Peak Oil (2006)}. People would import lots of bicycles as the price of gasoline for cars goes up, they would start growing their own food as the price of food goes up, and so on. People wouldn't be senselessly driving in their cars to get super-expensive gas as is implied here. They over-dramatize every issue to a 'worst case scenario', especially the issue of peak oil.

How exactly did the population go to 9 billion and then down to 2.7 billion and where exactly were these population changes distributed? In order to support a larger population, such as one that has 9 billion people, you would undoubtedly need advances in agriculture and architecture, so that bigger buildings can be created and so that more food can be produced. Besides that there are things which are limiting factors to the expanse of the population, such as the birth control programs in China and AIDS in Africa.

Moving on, was there any good reason that those sea-barriers had to fail? I think they would have made all sorts of precautions to assure that they would work correctly, and they would predict the event before hand so that they could drop the sea-barriers without resistance. Furthermore, if they wanted to construct a modern green city, they most certainly wouldn't do it around New York, when New York is immediately threatened by the floods and diseases. Instead, they would most certainly create the city around Siberia or Canada, because in this future those areas would become warmer and more habitable, so they would make for an ideal place to create a "beacon of hope" for this post-apocalyptic society.

One thing that was really disturbing is the communications breakdown, and the idea that the scientific breakthroughs could be lost. One of the people interviewed for this show said "if it is some electronic based thing it could all be lost" considering modern storage capacities, you can store so much data that there is little threat to the ability to successfully store it. Sure a nuclear apocalypse, or a massive raise in the Earth's sea-levels could seriously threaten life and civilization as we know it, however, I do not think it poses much of any threat to digital data or our communications systems.

We could easily store all of our scientific breakthroughs/literature/videos/software on a couple of hard-drives and put them in spacecrafts/satellites that would be completely impervious to all Earthly matters, in addition to this these spacecrafts could send radio waves down to Earth. This could form the basis of a communication system used to reconstruct human society after such an apocalyptic event as the one this film depicts.

In conclusion, this movie recommends that people change their habits immediately in order to go green, to get solar panels, and wind power. These are things we have probably already heard many times before so this ending segment probably won't be interesting to most people. They actually pose no real solutions to most of the issues presented in this film: natural disasters, over-population, peak oil etc.

Was the above review useful to you?

19 out of 32 people found the following review useful:

Uncomfortable subject matter, sensationalist presentation, sobering reality

Author: maxgates from Norway
19 November 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

At this risk starting some kind of flame war as a film Earth 2100 is flawed, the excessive use of graphics and visual treatment tries to add dynamism to essentially a factual and interview based documentary. I must to agree with the comments about low scores for these reasons though personally I give this an eight. In relation to the debate about global warming however, for a US market its very hard to get the message across: its not just going to happen out there beyond your borders, you are definitely going to feel the effects at home and even if you manage to insulate yourselves from the worst and are lucky with the changes of climate where you live, a good 60% of the worlds population will not be. Resource wars, highly erratic weather patterns, natural disasters, famine and massive migration like the world has never seen before, will happen. Everyone shares the responsibility.

Was the above review useful to you?

20 out of 34 people found the following review useful:

Poignant Prescience

Author: meisen geige from United States
23 May 2010

When viewing this film, I was not aware of the impressive group of scientists behind the theories proscribed, or the fact that it was based on a computerized worst case scenario. The animation at first did not appeal to me, but after awhile the heart warming story did grab my attention. I have been living in the same geographic area my entire life, so that has helped me to see many of these changes already occurring. This movie should appeal to your heart with the family story. The science behind it should appeal to those with an open and scientific mind. If you're close-minded and just want to rant and rate negatively, people will see through your motivations.

Was the above review useful to you?

14 out of 26 people found the following review useful:

But we HAVE to think about it!

Author: Tom-464 ( from Austin, Texas
22 February 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

One previous comment on this movie said "... can't bare (sic) to think about it." We HAVE to bear to think about it. Especially with the failure of the Copenhagen talks, we ARE going to be living in a world with a significantly changed climate. A person's only choice at this point is between sticking his head into the sand (and you know what that leaves sticking up and exposed) and facing the future so we can DO something about it.

This movie has the guts to paint an honest picture of the likely results of that head-in-the-sand approach, and it ain't pretty. I'm sure most people who watched it (or who saw a summary and chose not to watch it) also thought, "I can't bear to think about it." Those who did see it through, though, got a clear idea of why we have to do something now, and also some ideas of things we can do now to prevent, or at least mitigate, the things the movie shows. (That's at the very end - hence the "spoiler" note - but it IS there: stick it through and watch the hopeful part!)

There are movements out there working to mitigate the effects of the coming crisis. The Transition Movement is a major one; your favorite search engine can tell you where to find it. As the "can't bare" writer pointed out, seeing this movie is hard - honesty to that depth IS hard to watch - but the movie is a massively well depicted and presented view of our future if we choose to do nothing.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

americo-centric and naif

Author: vernetto from Italy
7 November 2014

most of the speakers are highly qualified and very scholar, but the narrative around Lucy is very naif: they describe life in 2080 as technologically very similar to the present (gas-powered cars, internet, power grid...)... also, the director seems to believe that USA is sort of a "leading nation" with a duty to guide the rest of humanity out of this ecological predicament, while in reality USA is the nation who does the most to CREATE this predicament in the first place, with their absurd lifestyle and the aggressiveness of its corporation.... don't forget that the largest polluting entity on the planet is the USA army - but this is not even mentioned in the movie. The narrator also mentions people coming from "failed countries" as a big security threat (to Americans... the rest of the world doesn't really matter...), while forgetting to mention that USA itself is mostly responsible -with direct or indirect military, political or economical attacks - for the "failure" of these states. So on the whole this movie told me little I didn't already know (I have read all Jared Diamond books, they are excellent) and only annoyed me for its faith in Governments and americocentricity.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

interesting -lovely anime

Author: sljmyers
11 October 2013

I happened upon this show on H2 and thought it was well done and thought provoking - very Japanese anime. I have actually watched it more than once for the unique way this movie was filmed and presented. I did not gain any knowledge that I didn't already know as any human being would - if we do not take care of our planet and people, our planet will not take care of us. Simple truth that anyone would know. The way that you follow the family through the years and how NYC changes is actually sad and lovely at the same time. The soundtrack and animation is very interesting. I am planning on purchasing this movie and watching it with my family. I will watch it again and again.

Was the above review useful to you?

deniers where are you now??

Author: suec
16 September 2015

... since it's only 6 years since this movie was made, and already Lake Mead is falling toward 1/2 its normal capacity, and Hurricane Sandy flooded lower Manhattan, not to mention the Western wildfires... are you keeping score dudes?

You can see climate change coming soon in technicolor, to a denier's neighborhood whether he likes it or not.

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." -- Neil DeGrasse Tyson

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." -- Aldous Huxley

Was the above review useful to you?

64 out of 128 people found the following review useful:

A unique piece of both striking and picturesque science - the shock and awe type.

Author: David Wieczorek ( from Poland
16 November 2009

When I first came across this title the rating was still well above 7. The more people votes, the lower it gets. Now, why is that, I wonder. But really, I think I already know the reason. And not to offend anyone, but respectfully, do you all actually must be so predictable. I mean, I'm sitting here and now, writing this comment, and I KNOW the reaction of most of you - 'Oh, yet another far-fetched, apocalyptic, designed to scare us (the question rises here - scare into what? going green?) production. One of the oh-so-many that have been made in the recent years. But I still live the way I used to, nothing changes, I'm good.'Good for you, then... for now at least. I believe there is a reason for such productions to proliferate like that - this problem IS real. And it IS, not MIGHT BE some day.

I shouldn't really get so criticizing and I apologize for that. But I believe it might add to the point I'm trying to make. Because after watching this documentary I can't say that there is a single flaw in its technical, cinematographic design that could explain this plummeting ranking. The film has everything a documentary needs: the issue, the vast background, the science, the prognoses, the hypotheses and conclusions that follow. It EVEN has a well-written narrative, thus a plot. It finally has the message and what a message it is. But how is met with? Well you all see the ranking. If it isn't the form that fails it has to be the content. So prejudice drives most of the people who watch it, prejudice towards this seemingly hackneyed topic.

I cannot expect everybody to be as moved as I was after watching Earth 2100. However I beg of you, when you visit here to vote, please consider this one thing - sure you can vote 3 for redundancy or triteness (which aren't even the case in this production, since it's quite a unique attempt at a documentary) or you can actually help the cause by encouraging others to watch this film with your positive, or at least adequate vote. After all, and let us be frank here, all of us 'imdbcomers' know that hardly anything below 7 is worth investing our time in. And it's definitely not the case with Earth 2100.

The bottom line here being - don't dismiss a good piece of movie- making just because the subject annoys you personally. Because there might others who would actually need or could use an inspiration (and motivation), which this documentary may well provide.

8 out of 10, but it's me being objective. Personally, it's a 'tenner' for me - the actual gem among the rock.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

A vision of ecocalypse and ecotopia, new age is a sad one

Author: tain-5 from United States
15 December 2012

Nothing but pandering to the eco fanatics. Soon all kinds of catastrophes will descend upon us, from the moderately reasonable (change in animal migration patterns) to the wholly absurd apocalyptic images, and claims of all sorts of resources running out simultaneously. The police shooting protesters made me laugh, I admit, but they left out cannibalism. Fresh meat is the best source of protein after all. Ah, but then we are saved by creating an ecotopia where we put whole gardens and windmills on top of our skyscrapers and ride bicycles while wearing those stupid looking racer helmets, you know, for speed. Its nice to see that even in the future people remain hopelessly delusional when it comes to their newborns. And the part about their friends moving out of the city to start, what I can only presume by then will be a hyper-organic farm, had me rolling on the floor. How "conscious" of them, they're the new age saints.

This watches like one of those asinine rapture fantasies, and is not even liberal in the classical sense. Being a Marxist of the Trotskyist persuasion, who conserves electricity, but doesn't recycle (due to it being little more than a waste of time), I can't say that I found it the least bit appealing. Right-wingers can't pin this cinematic abortion on liberal politics.

These newly risen hordes of eco- and health- fanatics are similar to the religious ones in more ways than one, the most annoying being the claim to speak for a higher authority (be it god, earth or nature). Why don't we get rid of all of them once an for all. We can only hope that all those prophesied catastrophes will help.

Was the above review useful to you?

15 out of 32 people found the following review useful:

Grossly inaccurate

Author: Mister E from United States
30 March 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Apparently someone wrote this to capitalize on the ever present environmentalism groups both nationally and internationally, in the hopes they would buy the DVD's show them at conventions, people's houses and try to force their friends to watch (actually pretty good plan).

However, 2100 makes us think that technology won't even progress beyond gasoline, which is a great fuel at 44,000 KJ/gallon but expensive rather than it's alternatives, coal and electricity. Most likely Li-ion batteries combined with either carbon nanotubes or silicon nanowires will be it's successor within the next decade (not kidding, google them please), Nuclear plants produce no Co2, but the film never mentions them, instead solar panels and wind for all, which i must mention are horribly inefficient at $.15/kwh vs coal's $.04 or nuclear's $.05.

The film takes us on an "emotional" story of how the earth got ruined by man apparently, and can be solved by signing a treaty which fixes everything. Rather than prove any point or focusing on a single issue as noted before, watchers are thrust into heartbroken character after heartbreaking character and forced to watch as poor framework and lackluster performances crawl agonizingly by. Again, a lot of the circumstances just won't happen with overpopulation in the countries noted due to drought, Aids etc. As you can see you get caught between the film's gross inaccuracy and the constant barrage of garbage that is the sidestories.

Additionally, the film never explores any other explanation of why some of the events happen, it simply claims "humans did it", there are very good reasons why quite a few people disagree with some of the proposals, see the topics "turbulent flow" "salt fingering" "shockwaves in a flow" "cloud formation" as all these are necessary to compute a successful climate model. No, I won't explain any of these.

Anyway as a film it's lackluster propaganda, I give it an E for effort.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Ratings Official site Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history