DVD's to put under the Treehugger Tree

road warrior.jpg
Many years ago we went to the University Theatre (now a Williams Sonoma and Pottery Barn) to see the ultimate environmental double bill- Road Warrior and Blade Runner, both demonstrating the dire consequences of environmental depredation. Movies (and theatres) have not been the same since, and we still cross the street for Australians (and replicants). Here is our shot at list of the best um,, most interesting movies to put under the treehugger tree:

The Grapes of Wrath watch Tom Joad deal with the depression and the dust bowl and move his family to California.
San Francisco We just finished Simon Winchester's wonderful new book about the San Francisco earthquake so it is a timely choice. While this movie is not Gone with the Wind, the special effects are pretty amazing, given its age.

medicine man.jpg

Medicine Man- Sean Connery in a pony tail is a troubling image, but this movie is under-rated. Great jungle shots.
Mr. Blandings Builds his Dream House- You think monster homes are a new phenomenon? Watch Cary Grant see his house in the suburbs get out of control.


The Man in the White Suit- New technology scares people, it always has. Alec Guinness develops a new fabric that never needs cleaning or replacement and the entire English textile industry goes nuts.


The Birds- Hitchcock's classic about nature coming back to bite us remains one of the scariest movies ever;
The Perfect Storm- man against weather and cod


Any movie with Dennis Hopper is worth watching, and Kevin's heart certainly is in the right place. Evidently the Postman carries on with his apocalyptic theme but we did not see it-did anyone?
Star Trek IV: the Voyage Home-the ultimate save the whales movie: still extremely funny. And finally,
The Day after Tomorrow- We love Dennis Quaid in every role ever (watch him in The Right Stuff or the now tragic Big Easy and you will agree) There are a lot of things that one can complain about in this movie but it moves quickly, has humour and probably is more prescient than we give it credit for.

What did we miss? Any suggestions?