I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Fantastic!

How wonderful it is to see this fine actress carry a film and carry it so beautifully.

It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

I rented this movie without seeing or reading any previews. This is my first review on IMDb and I only registered to tell you not to watch it, it's just a waste of time.Why? 1. Terrible filming, editing, animation and graphics. 2 Much of the movie is just filming of some animals running around and it looks like an amateur have filmed/edited it. 3. Why do they show the same uninteresting pictures/movie clips again and again? 4. Almost everything is about North America and some Europe and is not representing the whole world. 5. A lot of arguable "facts", sounds more like fiction than actual facts.The idea of the movies is great and it could be a really great movie. But someone else, with bigger budgets and more pro people should be the producers.Sorry for my poor English, I wrote this in a hurry and my grammar is not great either.

There is no doubt, from the beginning of this "documentary" that there is a definite bias here. The film claims to be about man's impact on the world but it is really just a film about how man has damaged it, and despite our constant chaos, the Earth will thrive if it weren't for us. This was obviously written by a Green Freak and me, being a man who refuses to buy into the corporate and political lie that is the Green Movement, finds this film condescending, ugly, and unremarkable. It has hard to show an impact when the film continues to show recycled stock footage of the same forests and fields over and over. They overgrown landmarks of man look like late 90s video game graphics and the overall look of the film is just ugly. It tries to persuade its viewers into thinking it's a smart hypothetical by showing the chaos that will ensue immediately after man disappears. However, this is quickly drowned out by the narrator's condescending tone and downbeat morality. I hated this doc. It is certainly no Planet Earth.

The movie itself was well done as far as graphics, effects, and realism. The thing that was disappointing was how far fledged and inaccurate the predictions were when compared to solid science. It always bothers me when I watch a documentary that portrays fiction as fact.It would be nice to see a scientific documentary where science and fact is used to educate without being riddled with politics and opinion that stretch the facts or even outright lie to support an agenda. Science is interesting and beautiful in itself. Don't take my word for it though.If you do watch the movie, do some research to decipher fact from fiction:) I did some quick searches online and found a lot of solid information that offered scientific basis contrary to those portrayed in the movie.

It was interesting.. however the documentary had a lot of flaws. The narration was very repetitive and was not constructed well at all.The worst thing about it was they only showed the effects in Northern America and parts of Europe. Absolutely no mention of the rest of the world whatsoever. Effects would be different in other parts of the world... It was just ignorant.Rather than repeating some of the same effects in the US they could have focused on effects in densely populated parts of the world like Mexico, China and India.... They talked so much about monuments like the Statue of Liberty... yet no mention of the Great Wall of China that has stood for thousands of years.... or the great Taj Mahal.As interesting as some parts were... there was just too many flaws for me to recommend this documentary to anyone else.I am sure most people who have seen this will agree with me.