First of all the review that was posted on December 8th, 2010 titled "Pseudo-Lifestyles of the Rich and Pretentious" needs to be deleted. The person critiquing the film begins by stating he/she watched maybe 5-10 minutes of the film. That alone causes the review to be negated. Second, the reviewer would have gained invaluable tips, which is what he/she was wanting, if the documentary was given a chance.Something I admire and value greatly in this film is the mindful epiphanies that crop up (that sometimes had nothing to do with what the project was about--unexpected revelations). You'll have to see for yourself, although I will share one ;-). Many complain of not having enough time in the day for anything, or that time moves too fast. This documentary has answers…a big eye-opener.This is by far the most selfless documentary I have seen. It awakens many priceless life lessons that so many miss. I am truly grateful that despise the criticism given (which was actually taken back later in the film by the very people who gave it upon getting to know the family), that the project was seen from start to finish and gone back to be interpreted on many levels (so much self-actualizing going on in this film). This should be watched in as big of a group as you can get together, and it should be exposed to the corporate world. Many people don't quite know the impacts eating meat does to the very animals that are killed for food and on a much larger scale, to the earth. Education and understanding is key.I LOVE and am so inspired by the call to local and global action and community. This documentary offers the best advice anyone can give to promote action and understanding. Of course it helps to practice good choices yourself but to get involved, involve others, and continue education and understanding, a difference will result and on a much larger scale.A big thanks to everyone who made this film possible.

honestly, i mostly enjoyed this movie. but i really did not appreciate the way that Michelle was villainized throughout. HORROR OF HORRORS, she works for a financial magazine and wants a second child???? listen - the woman happily discarded most of her worldly possessions & comforts (including cosmetics and TOILET PAPER, COME ON) to help her husband on this (arguably ridiculous) quest and some fat hippie (who, i'm sorry, did not get to look like that by eating organic vegetables all day long) has the audacity to suggest that everything she is doing is negated by her day job. WOW. wow. OK. cool.also - my boyfriend and i wanted to know how exactly they cleaned their diapers and toilet... cloths. because that was not addressed and i'm pretty sure that they didn't stomp on them in the bath tub.eta: i am curious as to why they did not address menstruation at all (maybe they did and i missed it?). traditional solutions (pads, tampons) generate a LOT of waste and the packaging is terrible. i know that there are other options, but the average viewer may not have. wonder why it was left out?

It was nice seeing how a family could completely change their lifestyle for a year and watching the progress of their journey seemed heartfelt and honest. The whole process was not just a straight up breeze in the park. It took effort and lots of adaptation. Colin and Michelle seemed real and maybe even relatable. I loved Colin's determination and will-power to do as much as he could to leave no impact. Michelle seemed to try so hard to support Colin and follow along with his intense eco-friendly ways. Some of the eco-friendly mechanisms that they used seemed crazy for any normal consumer, but it was interesting to see their quest and attempt at conquering their goal to not leave an impact. I felt that throughout the movie, there were some really insightful perspectives regarding the experiment and techniques. After watching the movie, I was about to eat dinner and started feeling really bad about cooking the noodles wrapped in plastic and using that paper napkin that I would soon throw in the trash can without a second thought. The movie definitely had an impact on me and left me thinking about my actions way after I finished watching the documentary.

What is environmental good? I would start out the movie with talking about this question. The Earth and the environment do not have interests and they do not care, as such we should define some sort of criteria so that we are not going at these things arbitrarily.The movie itself focuses on the life of Colin Beavan - the "no impact man" and to a lesser extent his wife Michelle Conlin. They embark on a year-long adventure to try and adopt a lifestyle that has no "negative impact" on the environment which brings me back to the question - how do you determine if your environmental impact is good/bad?One of the first things they do in their adventure is they change their eating habits and they become lacto-ovo vegetarians (they keep eggs & diary). Environmentally speaking, if the cows/chickens are going to be there anyways to produce eggs/diary how does not eating their meat produce some sort of "environmental good"? The animals are going to be there, burning 90% of their energy as body heat, producing large amounts of excrement that ultimately gets into our rivers, and consuming huge amounts of water. In addition, raw milk has been deemed unsafe so they were probably consuming diary in this movie that was cooked which wastes electricity. I think by merely being vegan without cutting out many of your other habits, it wouldn't be too hard to have a negative impact that matches that of this family.Eventually they spend energy to transport themselves to a distant diary farm. It is funny though because the diary farmer seems to imply that he cares about his cows and he "doesn't want them to die" yet he keeps them in tiny stalls, he undoubtedly drugs them to make them think they are pregnant, and he steals their milk which naturally is meant to go to baby cows. The natural way to go is if the mother, Michelle Conlin, produced her own breast milk and fed that to her children.Moving on, at around six months they start cutting out electricity except for perhaps the cameras that were filming this movie. They end up using lots and lots of candles for light - producing that many candles most certainly takes a toll on the environment anyways, so I don't see what exactly they were trying to get at here. Besides this, there are solar-powered flashlights available for as cheap as 50$ that can last up to 20 years, such a flashlight would be a superior option for the environment.I wouldn't tell anyone to give up electricity and to entirely give up using a computer and other modern technological luxuries, and they don't even give it up in this movie they just employ a "bourgeoisie solution." I call it a bourgeoisie solution because alternative energy like solar panels are only financially available to governments, corporations, and rich people. They end off the movie in a potentially insulting manner, implying that people are too shallow and self-interested to change their consumption patterns. If people could afford to purchase solar panels and other luxuries I am sure they would and I honestly think most people care about the environment they are just left powerless by the system.