SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

Rijndri Load of rubbish!!

Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

Darin One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

lad-685-397209 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.

jmdist Being aired on NATGEO, "Aftermath Population Zero" it must be factual, right???. Wrong!!! I first noticed that there was no mention of water expanding when frozen, causing concrete cracks to expand. Then they said that the cracks exposed the re-bar in the concrete to carbon dioxide, causing the re-bar to rust. ??? Excuse me, but air consists of only 0.038% carbon dioxide, but oxygen is about 20.95%. Rust is ferrous oxide. The oxygen in the air is going to contribute 500 times more to the rusting process than carbon dioxide. Then I remembered having heard "carbon dioxide" several times before the concrete part, and noticed "carbon dioxide" continuing to be mentioned again and again. It was then that I suspected that this was more an example of poor science and propaganda than factual. I lost interest, but do not recall any mention of plant-life absorbing carbon dioxide and giving off oxygen.

IKillOmega 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.

tim-2436 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.