<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Earth</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.badmouth.net/earth-2007/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.badmouth.net/earth-2007/</link>
	<description>Look, Ma! No pants!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 16:18:02 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: John Marcotte</title>
		<link>http://www.badmouth.net/earth-2007/comment-page-1/#comment-150447</link>
		<dc:creator>John Marcotte</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2009 23:07:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badmouth.net/?p=1151#comment-150447</guid>
		<description>I already have Planet Earth in HD at home. Doesn&#039;t sound like they added anything to this to make it better except a Disney logo.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I already have Planet Earth in HD at home. Doesn&#8217;t sound like they added anything to this to make it better except a Disney logo.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian McDonough</title>
		<link>http://www.badmouth.net/earth-2007/comment-page-1/#comment-150430</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian McDonough</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2009 01:25:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badmouth.net/?p=1151#comment-150430</guid>
		<description>Hey Jon -- thanks for asking.  I try to get to that point in the last paragraph, but I&#039;m a bit oblique about it.  I think that the big-screen experience of some of this amazing photography added a star, or half a star, to a production that&#039;s two, at best 2.5 stars for storytelling.  I think if you&#039;re seeing it on anything less than a kick-ass big-screen TV, that small and occasional &quot;wow&quot; factor will be lost.  

It&#039;s kinda hard to do the this-many-stars thing when the film has aspects that truly suck as well as aspects that are pretty good.  Hope this makes it a little clearer ...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Jon &#8212; thanks for asking.  I try to get to that point in the last paragraph, but I&#8217;m a bit oblique about it.  I think that the big-screen experience of some of this amazing photography added a star, or half a star, to a production that&#8217;s two, at best 2.5 stars for storytelling.  I think if you&#8217;re seeing it on anything less than a kick-ass big-screen TV, that small and occasional &#8220;wow&#8221; factor will be lost.  </p>
<p>It&#8217;s kinda hard to do the this-many-stars thing when the film has aspects that truly suck as well as aspects that are pretty good.  Hope this makes it a little clearer &#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jon</title>
		<link>http://www.badmouth.net/earth-2007/comment-page-1/#comment-150420</link>
		<dc:creator>Jon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Apr 2009 04:03:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badmouth.net/?p=1151#comment-150420</guid>
		<description>From what I&#039;ve read of your review it sounds like this film deserves less than a 3 stars. Was there anything worthwhile about this film that would prompt you to give it a 3 rather than a 2?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From what I&#8217;ve read of your review it sounds like this film deserves less than a 3 stars. Was there anything worthwhile about this film that would prompt you to give it a 3 rather than a 2?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
