Review: All.i.Can

[brutah]

got a chance to see all.i.can this weekend. all.i.can is sweet! I'm going to go out on a limb and just claim it as the best ski movie of the year! (and i haven't seen too many new ski movies this season). here's the pros and cons as i saw them:


CONS:what's up with the salomon freeski episodes intermixed into the movie??? and i noticed some jordan manley footage that was released last fall and i'm pretty sure there was MSP footage mised in there too............ This movie might have been all time if it wasn't for using stock footage that I had already seen. I don't want to see a highlight/remixed stock footage ski movie, i want that fresh ski porn!

another thing that erked me was the complete hypocritical climate change bullshit intermixed with dan treadway snowmobiling (more stocked footage???) while talking about how he knows the damage he's doing, he just doesn't give a shit... the movie has quotes from people saying they just want to earn their turns because of the impacts of using helicopters, chairlifts, snowmobiles, and then cuts to a helicopter-aerial shot of them touring and skiing. sweet you hiked up to reduce you're footprint, too bad a helicopter was still used. that being said the movie still kicks ass

PROS:
this movie has the strongest, most high quality skiing i have seen in recent years. just look at the list of skier's featured in the movie: abma, kye, hoji, sean petit, calluim petit, jp auclair, chris rubens, ian mac, dana flair, chad sayers, ingram backstrom, lyndsey dyer. (again a bunch of these appearances are stocked footage, but its still sweet!)

the new footage is high quality and focuses a lot of attention on a few skiers, all of them working towards a goal of a real big line. these skiers are kye, hoji/rubens, and callum petit. the accumulation of these big lines come at the end of the movie after teasing it in the individual's segments. some complained about the cliffhanger approach but i thought it made for a nice climatic finish as opposed to the usual anti-climatic finish to most ski movies. kind of reminds me of how tgr would end their films with doug coombs footage, that was always the part i looked forward to the most, and in the case of all.i.can, it kept me intrigued throughout. plus the finish just absolutely kills it.

kye peterson crushes it so much so that he should win the powder mag skier of the year award. he rides huge lines while throwing in big tricks off spines and cliffs.
And if he doesn't his co-star, eric hjorleifson should. hoji does what you've come to expect him to do and that's flash lines at high speeds with big airs intermixed.
callum petit makes a real strong showing skiing big lines fast n smooth. in fact he's so smooth that some of the lines look way easy when in fact everything he skis in this movie is pretty burly.
JP auclair has the best urban segment of the year. shits complete bananas and super fun to watch!
those were my highlights and thoughts on the movie.

[grskier]

I'll need to check this one out.

[luffski]

Thanks Brutah, now I'm gonna go see it.

Kye is getting crazy awesome and stomping the shit out of everything lately. He's throwing some of the biggest spin tricks, etc. of stuff that most guys in the film industry would be happy to just stomp without the 720.

[#######]

...the complete hypocritical climate change bullshit...

You said it.

[brutah]

its funny all the praise this movie is getting for the 'message' portrayed, yet I haven't read one review that points to how hypocritical it is for skiers and filmers who are using sleds, airplanes, helicopters and automobiles to say we need to do something about the climate change. the skiing in the movie is unreal but the carbon footprint of this film is just as big as any other ski film maker out there..........

[roadgap]

its funny all the praise this movie is getting for the 'message' portrayed, yet I haven't read one review that points to how hypocritical it is for skiers and filmers who are using sleds, airplanes, helicopters and automobiles to say we need to do something about the climate change. the skiing in the movie is unreal but the carbon footprint of this film is just as big as any other ski film maker out there..........

In a way it actually hurts their stated cause, but in a way it doesn't matter. I mean at this point, does anyone really need to make a movie talking about how climate change is bad and how we need to reduce emissions?

Maybe if they put the movie out 10 years ago. But this is 2011. The horse left the barn a long time ago. If you don't already know what they're preaching at this point, you're either totally out of touch or a denialist kook (or both). And I don't think those types are their target audience.

Not really a fan of being super preachy when the only audience is the choir.

[3pac6pac]

the movie was 100% carbon neutral. they used carbon offsets for everything from heli to commercial plane rides. at the whistler conference centre they had it all laid out for everyone to see and many of the athletes were there to talk about what they do to help offset their dirty day jobs (ex. abma's bio-diesel garage setup). pretty decent of them imo...

[truth]

http://www.outsideonline.com/blog/th...evolution.html

[brutah]

the movie was 100% carbon neutral. they used carbon offsets for everything from heli to commercial plane rides. at the whistler conference centre they had it all laid out for everyone to see and many of the athletes were there to talk about what they do to help offset their dirty day jobs (ex. abma's bio-diesel garage setup). pretty decent of them imo...

buying carbon offsets is beneficial and overall is a good thing, but mostly they serve as an excuse to not make lifestyle changes and to continue to use the old technologies that continue to damage the earth/atmosphere. basically, it is a way for the rich to feel good about themselves while they continue to do harm to the planet. see al gore and his private jet, huge mansion, and the millions he spends buying carbon offsets to counteract his lifestyle/carbon consumption. Moreover, that money would be better spent changing corporate practices and investing in alternative(green) energy technologies imo. I think people/corporations should continue to buy carbon offsets because they do far more good than harm, BUT without drastic lifestyle changes from all of us, the problems will only continue to increase.

dan treadway is the perfect example of what is wrong with carbon offsets and this movies claim that it is "carbon neutral"

I'm not saying that I'm perfect. I'm far from it and have to make lifestyle changes myself. I'm just pointing out the hypocritical message of this movie and how it is misconstrued.

[FireballHeadwall]

stoked about the trailer. hopefully the rest will live up to the hype

[Trackhead]

the movie was 100% carbon neutral. they used carbon offsets for everything from heli to commercial plane rides. at the whistler conference centre they had it all laid out for everyone to see and many of the athletes were there to talk about what they do to help offset their dirty day jobs (ex. abma's bio-diesel garage setup). pretty decent of them imo...

Carbon neutral my ass. Let me go shit in your back yard, I'll clean it up later. Carbon offsets are just another dumb invention by "environmentalists" to justify them not "living simply".

[brutah]

Carbon neutral my ass. Let me go shit in your back yard, I'll clean it up later. Carbon offsets are just another dumb invention by "environmentalists" to justify them not "living simply".

whoa whoa whoa, while i whole heartedly agree that carbon offsets do more harm than good, I don't agree that it is overall a bad thing.

Carbon offsets give countries financial incentives to protect their forests from logging and development. In poor countries, this is the only way to keep governments from cutting down their forests. The benefits of carbon sequestration that forests provide for free and have been doing so for millions of years is one of the most powerful and cost-effective tools we have to combat climate change.

Let's look at some numbers:

-Tropical forests alone absorb nearly 1/5 of the annual emissions of CO2 from burning fossil fuels, according to the journal Nature

-logging and forest loss account for 17% of the emissions responsible for climate change, according to the Nature Conservancy

does this mean that selling carbon offsets are the answer? hell no! but they do help by giving governments incentives to protect their forests instead of selling the rights to logging firms that do much more harm than just cut down the trees.

Is it an excuse that delays advances in new, greener technologies? you bet your ass.

Are buying carbon offsets a better solution than lifestyle changes that reduce your carbon footprint? hell no! and that's my beef with this movie, they seem to say, "we can keep snowmobiling and flying in our chartered planes/helicopters because we got all these company sponsors to buy carbon offsets to counteract the damage we did." this is FALSE LOGIC!

like trackhead said, carbon offsets are just another excuse not to make meaningful changes in how we live.

carbon neutrality is a load of crap, go carbon negative or bust!

[grskier]

whoa whoa whoa, while i whole heartedly agree that carbon offsets do more harm than good, I don't agree that it is overall a bad thing.

You lost me here ^^^

[Franz]

FRANGERS-only two weeks (more or less) until the Denver Premiere at Wildy X
Tix available here http://www.wildernessexchangeunlimit...s-pid-5582.cfm
and if yah miss that one, here's the link to the Oriental Show
http://www.theorientaltheater.com/show/detail/50276

[marshalolson]

the movie is at wildernes sex change unlimited? yikes!

[brutah]

You lost me here ^^^

right now a company can purchase a carbon offset credit for a metric ton (2200 pounds) of CO2 on the chicage climate exchange for about 25 cents (2009 numbers). compare that to the cost of burning a gallon of gasoline in a car, which releases about 19 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere. couple that with the fact that there aren't mandated emissions caps in this country and that the US carbon market is currently voluntary. meaning that there is little financial incentive for a company to change its energy use practices, ie, stop using coal, gas, etc. if there were strict emission caps, that would drive up the price of carbon offsets and consequently force companies to consider alternative forms of energy (wind, solar, geo-thermal), which right now are more expensive than burning coal/oil for energy. as it is, those incentives don't exist and so investments in alternative forms of energy don't happen.

Hence, carbon offsets do more harm than good by delaying advancements/investments in alternative energies.

yes, carbon offsets need to be bought, but that is only a small step in the right direction. lifestyle changes is a bigger step in my opinion.

[AlexC]

Bump because this movie is awesome. Amazing cinematography, great editing and awesome skiing. It also features the only worthwhile urban segment ever.

[schuss]

I always love the preachy movies about "living in the mountains brings you closer to nature" despite living in the mountains generally means a way bigger carbon/enviro footprint vs. cities (excluding the hardcore off-the-grid types). Also, it's not like there's space for everyone...

That said, movie looks sweet.

[Trackhead]

w
carbon neutrality is a load of crap, go carbon negative or bust!

Man induced global warming is akin to the old thought that cholesterol causes heart attacks. Questionable science by humans who think they have all the answers, but fail to see the big picture, or even consider it, for fear of retaliation by peers.

[brutah]

Man induced global warming is akin to the old thought that cholesterol causes heart attacks. Questionable science by humans who think they have all the answers, but fail to see the big picture, or even consider it, for fear of retaliation by peers.

not sure i'm following you on this one. care to elaborate?

[roadgap]

Man induced global warming is akin to the old thought that cholesterol causes heart attacks. Questionable science by humans who think they have all the answers, but fail to see the big picture, or even consider it, for fear of retaliation by peers.

This statement shows a pretty serious lack of awareness of the science involved.

If you're really interested in expanding your knowledge on the subject, I suggest starting here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change

[Trackhead]

This statement shows a pretty serious lack of awareness of the science involved.

If you're really interested in expanding your knowledge on the subject, I suggest starting here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change

Science is theory, and isn't always accurate. While "climate change" may very well be man induced, I think considering other reasons is worth while.

For the past thirty years, we've been told that cholesterol is causing heart disease. That's what "science" told us, that's what drug companies told us, that's what your brain washed doctor told you. Ooops, maybe it's not. Thanks to some retards who flubbed a study 30 years ago, we have the theory that cholesterol is cause of heart disease. Bad science, thanks to Ancel Keys distorting a 22 country study, lead us down a path of retarded science. Same could be the case for climate change, an arguably far more complex subject that I don't claim to be an expert on, but I question the ability of scientists to nail down the exact reason for it's occurrence.

If humans can't figure out the science of their own bodies, how the hell can we expect them to understand the massively complex issue of climate change? I'm a doubter, not of climate change specifically, but of scientists who claim their theories as fact.

[BrianH]

It's good to be skeptical of scientific claims, but there is a pretty overwhelming amount of scientific evidence to support the theory that human carbon emissions contribute to global warming. I mean check out what's going on with the two polar ozone holes, for example.

But is is extremely difficult to link individual behavior to dramatic changes in climate. It also true that everyone has an impact, everyone contributes to carbon emissions. That said, the question seems to be what are we doing about it? I try to reduce by doing what I can and being conscious of it, and not being wasteful.

While I believe climate change is real and becoming increasingly measurable, the real reason I try to reduce is because my momma was right. She taught me to clean up after myself and to try and leave the world slightly better and that just seems like a good idea.

[roadgap]

Science is theory, and isn't always accurate. While "climate change" may very well be man induced, I think considering other reasons is worth while.

For the past thirty years, we've been told that cholesterol is causing heart disease. That's what "science" told us, that's what drug companies told us, that's what your brain washed doctor told you. Ooops, maybe it's not. Thanks to some retards who flubbed a study 30 years ago, we have the theory that cholesterol is cause of heart disease. Bad science, thanks to Ancel Keys distorting a 22 country study, lead us down a path of retarded science. Same could be the case for climate change, an arguably far more complex subject that I don't claim to be an expert on, but I question the ability of scientists to nail down the exact reason for it's occurrence.

If humans can't figure out the science of their own bodies, how the hell can we expect them to understand the massively complex issue of climate change? I'm a doubter, not of climate change specifically, but of scientists who claim their theories as fact.

You didn't read the link, did you.

[Trackhead]

You didn't read the link, did you.

What are your credentials in science?

I briefly read your link.