Alicia I love this movie so much

BoardChiri Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

JonathanWalford This is not a well-rounded doc about human scale in the urban landscape. Most of the film was about pedestrian only plazas and bicycle path access in large cities. Broad statements were made like if you build large plazas people will come - wrong. I know many large plazas in different cities that sit unused - there has to be a reason for people to come to those plazas - shopping, eating, access... The doc also ignores the practical problem of how to deal with vehicle access into inner cities. Its all well and good to say everyone should ride a bike or walk, but that is not reasonable or even legal statement (because it is not inclusive of older people or people with disabilities, which is required by law where I live.) On top of that, this doc looks like a promotion for Gehl architects with half the people interviewed work for Gehl and promote the ideas of Gehl to create human scale and pedestrian/bike access in large cities. Nobody from another firm is interviewed. On the good side, there is some interesting approaches and stats - Melbourne and New York were the most interesting case studies. However, at the end of the doc you are left wondering what the overall point of the film was other than cars=bad, bikes=good, big cities=inevitable...

Paul Allaer I was recently browsing the documentary DVD section at my local library in search of something interesting to watch, and fell upon this. Certainly the sleeve jacket picture of a city upside down caught my attention, but then when I read what this was about, I thought that this could be really interesting, and I decided to pick it up. So glad I did."The Human Scale" (2012 release from Denmark; 77 min.) provides a renewed look at how to plan and build our cities, as seen through the eyes and the vision of Danish urban architect Jan Gelh and his colleagues at Gehl Architects. The opening images, combined with the stirring soundtrack, made me think of the movie "Koyaanisqatsi" from the early 80s. Soon thereafter, we dive into Chapter 1 (of 5), where the movie makers look at how cities in China have changed (don't call it progressed) in a compressed time period of just 30 years. Chapter 2 looks at Copenhagen and New York, and it quickly becomes clear what the movie makers' perspective is, assuming you agree that the way we build cities influences our daily life and our quality of life (which I agree with). The before and after pictures of the changes in Manhattan are fascinating. Chapter 3 looks at Chongoing (China), Siena (Italy) and Melbourne. Chapter 4 brings us the challenges facing Dhaka (Bangladesh). But the best is saved for last: a fascinating look at what is going on in Christchurch, New Zealand. I'm not going to tell you what, you'll just have to see for yourself how it all plays out.In all, at just 77 min., this documentary flew by in no time and I enjoyed it for the most part. Yet I also was bothered by two particular things: (1) the documentary is in essence one long commercial for the services of the Gehl Architects firm. Couldn't the movie makers really not find anyone else to provide other perspectives (even if they are similar to Gehl's)? (2) In the documentary, the point is made several times that the "gold standard' of urban planning is of course Copenhagen ("can X be the next Copenhagen?"). Really? I find it incredibly self-serving, when you realize that this movie is made/produced by Danes and that Gehl is also Danish. Plus it's presented like a matter of fact, when in reality this is a very subjective conclusion and I'd venture to say that there are quite a few cities in Europe that are not all that different from Copenhagen in its urban lay-out. All that aside, if you have any interest in urban planning, I'd strongly suggest that you check out this documentary, and draw your own conclusion on all this.

Horst in Translation ([email protected]) but... Yes there is a "but". I don't really think this film is equally interesting for everybody else, who's not particularly interested in the topic and it doesn't make you particularly interested in it if you weren't before already. The film basically summarizes the impact of the structural change on the demographic change in big cities and the conflicts and improvements that can arise from said interplay. I may very well be one of the last people to see this film on the big screen as it took almost a year since its world premiere till it got a wide release in Germany. One reason may be that Germany is not among the locations analyzed in the film. These include China, New Zealand, USA, Italy, Australia, Denmark and probably some more I can't remember right now.I personally thought China, right at the start, and, to a lesser extent, New Zealand were the most interesting parts as these are the places where it happens right now and the other areas are basically parts where the development has essentially finished into a certain direction and China and NZL is where this direction can still be influenced. What I liked so much about the China segment was that it also examined how people can basically be sucked in by the city they live in and end up in isolation. This part was really well done when one person tells how she has no idea who her neighbors are and who lives next to her. I think anonymity and loneliness in big cities is one of the biggest problems of society right now and, as it's analyzed so little, there's also not really many solutions to offer so far. So well done to the filmmakers to emphasize this focus. What I didn't really like was the Italy segment. It felt really out of place and I have no idea why it was included. It was very short and basically added nothing to the movie. Also some of the interviewees seemed pretty random and had nothing interesting or informative to say, especially the lady from the Philippines if I remember correctly. Maybe they should have limited the film to 3 (4 max) areas and actually made an in-depth examination there to fill the slightly under 90 minutes.All in all, it's an okay documentary, not even close to the best I've seen this year, but not really bad either. I'd certainly recommend it to people who live in the areas depicted in the film.

Mozjoukine Architect Jan Gehl observes the twentieth century city, where real estate and cars were considered wealth. This has brought millions out of agrarian poverty at the cost of increased pollution and alienation. "Where is the scale for measuring happiness in the city" Rather than traffic flow, his followers monitor the movement of people - including whether they stand in the sun or shadow! This works out appealingly in Copenhagen and applying his ideas to New York's Times Square and its surroundings dropped injuries. 65%. They show Los Angeles, Melbourne, Sienna, Christchurch, where the earthquake meant they could start from scratch, China's Chong Ging, where their reforms ran foul of the traffic police and, dramatically, in over-populated Dhaka, where World Bank funding is claimed to increase the problems.Handsome camera-work. The interview subjects, first montaged looking at camera mute, register as having the right idea. Le Corbusier's notion of master planner cops a serve. Lewis Mumford doesn't get a mention and neither does public transport. The we only hear about bicycles or cars.