Good , But It Is Overrated By Some

Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

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.

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.

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.

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.