bradfregger
Joined Feb 2008
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews3
bradfregger's rating
The best part about this documentary is that it is extremely non-political, it just shares scientific fact and allows the reader to draw, or not to draw, and political conclusions. However, the truth of climate change and its impact on human societies is made very clear, as is the approaches the different societies took and the results of those approaches. He seems to be saying that modern society is extremely vulnerable to climate change, although he doesn't make any suggestions to what we might do to change that.
For me, as an AGW denier, one of his most interesting comments was that the both the Roman and Mayan empires began at a time when the world's climate was warmer than it is now. Although he didn't say so, my conclusion is that warmer climates are good for civilizations.
For me, as an AGW denier, one of his most interesting comments was that the both the Roman and Mayan empires began at a time when the world's climate was warmer than it is now. Although he didn't say so, my conclusion is that warmer climates are good for civilizations.
Right up front, I'm a political/social conservative who is okay with marijuana and gay marriage. This may have prejudiced this review a bit.
First, this is a beautiful movie of self-discovery. And, I do mean self- discovery. There really wasn't a single concept discussed that hasn't been discussed since I was in high school and I'm 70 years old. Actually, these concepts have probably been discussed for the past 5,000 years or more.
However, if you want to experience a man living through his moment of "enlightenment," this movie will give you that. Essentially, he discovers that happiness doesn't come from material things, but from being involved in something bigger than himself, something that makes a difference.
He's very careful to state that you don't need to make a big difference to gain a sense of worth and happiness, even the small, little things make a difference. He supports these concepts with some relatively recent scientific research, that points to the power of matters of the heart and the impact our negative and positive thoughts can have on ourselves as well as others; in fact, the environment around us. As I said earlier, toss out the research and you're left with what philosophers and mystics have been telling us for ages.
One of the major themes sounded very socialistic (this was the political part) , pretty much: From those who have too much, to those who have too little. This is, of course, a common theme amongst progressives (redistribution of wealth). However, something he hinted at was a bit different. He seemed to say that this had to come from the heart, from a personal commitment to help others, to help the community. I would agree and add, that this means that it can't be instigated by any government, you can't order people to love their neighbor. Nothing good comes from trying to do that.
The big disappointment for me, was the lack of any discussion concerning what I consider to be the two most important questions that this line of thought must deal with.
1) What do you do about those who decide to take full advantage of the situation and choose only to take and not to give? In other words, live off of the efforts of others.
2) What do you do about those who decide to manipulate the system to their own personal advantage, both from the financial and the position of power perspectives?
This type of society leaves itself wide open to that, without a very strong central government that makes sure that things stay fair. However, usually those in the government are the ones to take advantage, and no real gains are achieved by the vast majority of the population.
I really wish, someday, someone with these Utopian thoughts would honestly approach the tough questions. ... and yes, this is a movie about Utopia ... but, alas, I'm afraid the tough questions will remain unanswered, utopias will continue to fail and humanity will still be having this dream 5,000 years from now.
First, this is a beautiful movie of self-discovery. And, I do mean self- discovery. There really wasn't a single concept discussed that hasn't been discussed since I was in high school and I'm 70 years old. Actually, these concepts have probably been discussed for the past 5,000 years or more.
However, if you want to experience a man living through his moment of "enlightenment," this movie will give you that. Essentially, he discovers that happiness doesn't come from material things, but from being involved in something bigger than himself, something that makes a difference.
He's very careful to state that you don't need to make a big difference to gain a sense of worth and happiness, even the small, little things make a difference. He supports these concepts with some relatively recent scientific research, that points to the power of matters of the heart and the impact our negative and positive thoughts can have on ourselves as well as others; in fact, the environment around us. As I said earlier, toss out the research and you're left with what philosophers and mystics have been telling us for ages.
One of the major themes sounded very socialistic (this was the political part) , pretty much: From those who have too much, to those who have too little. This is, of course, a common theme amongst progressives (redistribution of wealth). However, something he hinted at was a bit different. He seemed to say that this had to come from the heart, from a personal commitment to help others, to help the community. I would agree and add, that this means that it can't be instigated by any government, you can't order people to love their neighbor. Nothing good comes from trying to do that.
The big disappointment for me, was the lack of any discussion concerning what I consider to be the two most important questions that this line of thought must deal with.
1) What do you do about those who decide to take full advantage of the situation and choose only to take and not to give? In other words, live off of the efforts of others.
2) What do you do about those who decide to manipulate the system to their own personal advantage, both from the financial and the position of power perspectives?
This type of society leaves itself wide open to that, without a very strong central government that makes sure that things stay fair. However, usually those in the government are the ones to take advantage, and no real gains are achieved by the vast majority of the population.
I really wish, someday, someone with these Utopian thoughts would honestly approach the tough questions. ... and yes, this is a movie about Utopia ... but, alas, I'm afraid the tough questions will remain unanswered, utopias will continue to fail and humanity will still be having this dream 5,000 years from now.
This show has the possibility of being a 10, but this year (2008) the judges are getting in the way of that happening. This is supposed to be a talent show (we have a singing competition already, it's called American Idol). This year they tossed out some of the most original and outstanding talents in favor of singers.
It isn't only that they ended up with a plethora of singers, it's also that the singers they had left in the top 10 were, in at least three of the cases, not as talented as some of the performers who were tossed out.
While I agree that some of the best lost to the public vote, that problem exists because of the judges; they are the ones who set the standard for the audience to follow. If they focus on talent, especially different talents, like Terry Fator, the home audience will follow. And, of course, there were some outstanding talents that the home audience didn't even get a chance to vote for.
Finally, the focus on finding an act that can headline in Vegas is not helping the show. This focus happened because of the outstanding talent of Terry Fator, to believe that they can find an equal talent every year is naive. They should go back to their original goal, finding outstanding talents, different from those found on other shows, e.g. American Idol. If they find another Terry Fator, well ... that would be a blessing for all of us.
It isn't only that they ended up with a plethora of singers, it's also that the singers they had left in the top 10 were, in at least three of the cases, not as talented as some of the performers who were tossed out.
While I agree that some of the best lost to the public vote, that problem exists because of the judges; they are the ones who set the standard for the audience to follow. If they focus on talent, especially different talents, like Terry Fator, the home audience will follow. And, of course, there were some outstanding talents that the home audience didn't even get a chance to vote for.
Finally, the focus on finding an act that can headline in Vegas is not helping the show. This focus happened because of the outstanding talent of Terry Fator, to believe that they can find an equal talent every year is naive. They should go back to their original goal, finding outstanding talents, different from those found on other shows, e.g. American Idol. If they find another Terry Fator, well ... that would be a blessing for all of us.