Home might be one of few movies you can watch on YouTube without the risk of landing yourself a fine/jail term. It’s a non-profit movie released worldwide on the UN-appointed World Environment Day (5 June every year) so audiences can soak in its urgent environmental message free-of-charge. It is also perhaps due to its non-profit nature that Home lacks severely in effort and expertise, documentary-wise. As interesting as a screen saver with an uninspired script and preachy, emotionless narration (by Glenn Close, who voices Mona Simpson, no less!), Home comes across self-righteous, chastising the human race for being a thorn in Mother Nature’s side. The latter may be the case, but let’s just say no one really responds well to a talking-down – a lecture that could so easily be turned into something informative and interesting in the hands of someone like David Attenborough.
Where appropriate, the movie also slides by on vague details, bordering on being incomplete, or just outright inaccurate. It paints carbon dioxide like a villain, and global warming like a crisis, when really, global warming is a natural occurrence that humans are speeding up due to their excessive usage of Earth’s depleting resources.
Consider the following sentences, “The system that controls our climate has been severely disrupted. The elements on which it relies have been disrupted.” That’s two ‘disrupted’s used consecutively! That’s not the only flaw with the horridly uninspired script – figures and theories fly off the voiceover so often, it’s completely fine to listen to the commentary without watching the film (which did I mention, was very screen saver-like). The video doesn’t tell the story – the voiceover does. I guess this is no surprise coming from a writer and a director who have no other writing and directing experience respectively – it simply isn’t sincere for something we’re supposed to take seriously. Sure, the visuals are good even when majority of them have been filmed from helicopters (Home has one of the most bird-eye-view shots in any movie), but the way it’s been put together feels like someone just stuck a pin in a balloon.
Despite its good intentions, Home also has a tendency to point fingers. Yes, we humans have contributed to global warming with our careless attitude and intensive industrialisation/deforestation. Yes, we’ve wiped out hundreds of plant species in exchange for single-species plantations. WE GET IT, NOW MOVE ON. And for God’s sake don’t start every sentence with “We humans have…” WE KNOW we’re the problem, and that’s why you’re making this film to slap at our ignorance, okay?
Another major gripe I had with the “documentary” were the unrelatable figures used to quantify some point or another. Thirteen hundred acres of land means nothing to an average person; why not put it across visually, say, “equivalent to six football fields”, etc? Why not turn an impersonal digit, another meaningless number, to something visually relatable?
All of the movie’s flaws may fly over the heads of an average moviegoer, but it’s entirely unconvincing and uninvolving to those who’re frequent viewers of nature/wildlife documentaries (me). Environmental propaganda may be well-meaning, but Home makes it a priority to be ineffective in provoking a reaction.
(First published at InCinemas)
