|Page 1 of 5:||    |
|Index||50 reviews in total|
As of this writing, more than 40% of the ratings are one-star. I do not
know what the explanation is (although we could easily have some
guesses) but I do not believe this is fair. This is why I'm writing my
first IMDb review ever.
I do believe it is important for people to see this movie, and some of the scenes and the information had me gaping. It is definitely not boring. Maybe the only problem is that it is a bit too Gore-centric. From my point of view this was fine, as he is a compelling and moving speaker. However, I know that there are people who would not take a single word from him as truth, and so the message will never get through... But then again nobody knows how to get the message through with those people.
2006 brought Al Gore's brilliant and scary documentary, An Inconvenient
Truth blasting into cinemas and soon after, classrooms. With its raw
exposure to a dangerous and (until then) quiet killer, Gore's position
in the world went from being the biggest contested loser in American
politics (until Hillary Clinton in 2016) to being a warrior for the
earth. It was an amazing documentary and ranks in my top ten of all
time. However, when I saw this sequel...things changed. My thoughts on
climate change are cemented, it is real and anyone who argues that it's
not is ill informed or just can't face facts. But one thing that is as
much of a fact as climate change is how terrible a documentary and
sequel this film is.
Rehashing points made in 2006 and coupling it with some pretty far fetched predictions for the future make this film more frustrating than informative. What Gore did in 2006 was he made an accessible documentary about a crisis and used it to try to create a better and more informed world. Here, Gore seems infatuated with himself and some of the film ends up feeling more about him than climate change. Ten years since his first attempt, one could feel that he could have come to the table with something more substantial than the same graphs spun differently and the same dialog written with a bit more finesse.
Overall, I feel the message is still here. Climate change is a big problem that the world faces every day and it is up to us to stop it. But it is up to Al Gore to make sure that when he wants to do a documentary, that his info can sustain a feature length film. Instead of a little bit of new information and showing how much damage we've done in 10 years, the documentary should have been much better. I wanted more interviews with people affected by the changes, I wanted more interviews with politicians on both sides. To be honest, there's more I wanted out of this film than was delivered. That, to me, represents a disappointing film. Which is so hard for me to take considering An Inconvenient Truth is one of the best documentaries I've ever seen. It is up there with Super Size Me, The Thin Blue Line, and My Brother's Keeper for me. To see this and feel as cheated as I do, it is any wonder why I don't give this a 1 on my sheer disappointment alone. But, I have to give the film credit for at least being entertaining and informative, even if much of the information is already 10 years old.
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning
** Sunday Night * Monday Morning
A decade on from his award winning, socially impacting environmental documentary An Inconvenient Truth was released, former presidential candidate Al Gore has chosen to make a follow up film, further highlighting the plight of worldwide climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. He shows how the irresponsibility of certain, advanced nations is having a detrimental impact on the lives of those in smaller, more disadvantaged nations, and even closer to home, and re-ignites his worldwide call for change and accountability, as President Donald Trump removes America from the Paris Climate Agreement.
Ten years is a perfect time for evaluation, if you are trying to achieve something. When a period of time has advanced to double digits, it's time to look back and observe what progress has been made, and what significant changes for the better have occurred that something you were so passionate about and devoted yourself to promoting have resulted in. It would seem, from Truth to Power's existence, that Al Gore was not sufficiently impressed with what had changed in the ten years since the predecessor to this film was released, and so he has once again made a documentary about his worldwide efforts for change.
This time around, it's a far less personal account, with Gore having already divulged his family background and motivations for being so powered up about the environment in the last film, and so we delve headfirst in with him this time around, as he travels to Paris to show support from the USA for the climate cause, and gets caught up in the tragic terror attacks toward the end of the year, as well as to one of the one of the world's biggest polluters, India, to try and get them to find alternatives to coal burning. His sincerity towards the cause is never in doubt, obviously not something he just does to grab votes by exploiting a popular cause, and at times the passion cracks through his voice, as he propels his crusade.
In a time when international terror (not unwisely) seems to be at the top of everyone's concerns, the dour voiced Gore has powered up that slovenly drawl of his once again to make sure we don't forget about a crisis that has every bit as much catastrophic potential. ****
Would have been better if it was more like the first one - like a straight up lecture full of evidence. The subject matter is very important, of course; however the editing of the film is sloppy and all over the place up until the final 20 minutes or so when then start showing how India more or less held the world hostage and got advanced solar technology patent rights out of it. In a funny twist of fate, after this movie was released India went back to going full Industrial and has beaten China when it comes to smog. Lol, this world is doomed.
28th STOCKHOLM INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL. DAY 2, NOV 9th 2017.
The message is as important as ever, some of the video clips featured are truly harrowing, but the film itself is much less engaging.
Eleven years after Davis Guggenheim's (director) and Al Gore's (writer) groundbreaking and very important documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" (2006), Al Gore now returns in the sequel, again written by Gore but directed by Bonni Cohen and Jon Shenk. It's not as impressive.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Like many other reviews, I also felt compelled to write a review
because of all the one-star flooding of reviews that make no sense -
this one was not better than The Inconvenient Truth, thus 1-star; this
one was about Gore, thus 1-star; etc.
Topic-wise, the climate crisis is real, and it's the worst crisis humanity has to deal with in modern times. The math is simple: there is no winning side in this crisis. Despite this, narrow-minded money-driven individuals and groups of individuals around the world are pushing for propaganda about how this is not real, or if it's real then it's not man-made, or if it's real and man-made then it's too big of a phenomena to stop, and even if we could stop it or slow it down the developing world needs couldn't care because they need 150y to catch up to where US is today (zero logic).
Filming-wise, this documentary keeps you connected through out. There's no repetition, there's no reiteration from The Inconvenient Truth, there's no "listen to me or we will all die", there's no "we will all die" as there are lots of hopeful interventions, having similarities with Hans Rosling's talks.
For Canadians, there's even a top-notch reply from their Justin Trudeau. I'm not talking about him as the Canadian prime-minister in Canada, but as the Canadian prime-minister in the world's eyes --- you can count on one hand the number of state politicians that will reply in a split second to "thank you for the change you're bringing about" with "it's the Canadians, not me, but thank you".
I love Mr. Gore, but this documentary suffers from an anemic pace and its message gets stunted by how fast the news are moving in these days of Trump. Most of the film shows how Mr. Gore gathers data and debates people while preparing for the Paris accord of 2015-which at this point -after Trump signed off from it - seems like a distant memory, even if it is still law and the US remains part of it for a few years. Focusing on the politics of the message over the message itself-with so many natural disasters and footage from them in 2017 available- made the movie felt repetitive when it could have been more emotional and connect with the viewer better.
'AN INCONVENIENT SEQUEL: TRUTH TO POWER': Four and a Half Stars (Out of
A sequel to the critically acclaimed 2006 environmental doc. 'AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH'. This follow-up covers the progress made to fight climate change (since the original film), including former U.S. Vice President Al Gore's (the star of the first movie) efforts to convince government leaders to invest in renewable energy. It was directed (this time around) by Bonni Cohen and Jon Shenk (who also codirected the 2006 internet bullying documentary 'AUDRIE & DAISY'). The reviews for the film have been mostly positive, although not as good as the acclaim for the original movie; including some somewhat harshly negative criticism of Gore's exaggerated self-importance, and impact on the cause (some believe). I found the film to be ultimately inspiring, and often moving, although not as educational as other recent environmental documentaries.
The film (of course) picks up about ten years after the original movie, which I can't remember if I actually ever saw. Going into this film, I wasn't aware of just how much it would follow Gore's every move (throughout it's entire running length). The film follows his very passionate fight to inspire government leaders, from around the world, to commit to renewable energy (and sign the 2016 Paris Agreement). Only to have all of his hard work, and determined efforts, undone by our new President, Donald Trump (who is very effectively portrayed as the main antagonist of this film).
When the original movie came out, in 2006, I wasn't very interested in climate change, or much informed about it at all. So I don't think I ever saw it. Perhaps I should have watched it before seeing this sequel though, but I've seen several other (much more recent) movies about climate change, that have been quite educational. So I didn't think it was necessary to go back and watch the first film. I found Gore, in this sequel, to be surprisingly charismatic, and a very likable protagonist for the movie. I don't know how much his self-importance is exaggerated, towards the movement, but he's a very effective leading man for this film. With that said, the movie is not nearly as informative as other, more recent, climate change documentaries. It is very moving and inspiring though, in my opinion. So I'd say it's definitely still worth seeing.
Watch an episode of our movie review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: https://youtu.be/j_XDrmlMJNY
While the scientific consensus is in favor of mankind's role in causing
or at least strongly contributing to global warming, some scientists
point to increased solar activity or the natural cyclic effect of
climate change as the cause. Others claim that computer models have
left out "the complex interaction between warm southerly winds,
variations in cloud cover, and sunlight reflection from open water."
According to 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all
over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, however, there
is a more than ninety-five percent probability that human activities
over the past fifty years have warmed our planet to the point that we
must take steps to curtail the emission of greenhouse gases before we
reach a point of no return.
In An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power, Al Gore returns to center stage updating and expanding on Davis Guggenheim's ("He Named me Malala") award winning Oscar-winning 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth, a film in which Gore raised public awareness about climate change. The sequel, directed by Bonni Cohen and Jon Shenk ("Audrie and Daisy"), replaces the multi-media presentation and lecture-hall atmosphere of the earlier film with a broader, more cinematic effort. Focusing more on the personality and accomplishments of Al Gore, a former Vice-President and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, the camera follows Gore around the world where he confronts rapidly melting glaciers in Greenland, wades into flooded streets in Miami, Florida, and visits areas of recent climate disasters such as Hurricane Sandy, the Fort McMurray Canada, and Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines.
We learn that the predictions that Gore made eleven years ago have happened at a faster rate than thought possible at the time - bigger and more destructive storms, the drying of once fertile lands, and the flooding of the 9/11 memorial in Manhattan. Gore is shown training supporters to take up the cause and act as his surrogates in climate change and advocacy. Although the film is more disjointed than the 2006 film, one of its cohesive points takes place in December, 2015 when world leaders meet in Paris to hammer out an agreement aimed at restricting the rise of global temperatures to less than two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Here Gore spreads the message among world leaders and attempts to broker an agreement with India by persuading the CEO of the American company SolarCity to grant India the right to patent a type of solar technology.
Although an agreement was eventually reached, the accord failed to mandate the rapid severe cuts to global emissions that were needed and fell short in many eyes. The agreement, however, did create a feeling of hope but that has taken a hit with the election of Donald Trump who announced in March that the United States will withdraw from the Paris agreement, saying the deal is bad for America. While there is little in the sequel that is new, Gore speaks with passion and increasing anger as he talks about how the environmental choices we have made have contributed to the current climate crisis.
While the film hopefully will inspire a new generation to understand and act on the climate crisis, what it does not say is that to reduce carbon pollution, we may also need to curtail consumption, reduce air and auto travel, and limit the production and consumption of meat. Even beyond that, however, the film does not discuss that the problem may not only be one of technology but a crisis of the human spirit, one that requires a transformation in lifestyles and values, perhaps a reorganization of society. As author Richard Heinberg ("Peak Everything") notes, "In order to save ourselves, we do not need to evolve new organs; we just need to change our culture. And language-based culture can change very swiftly, as the industrial revolution has shown," Although it stops short of proclaiming those goals, the film is a timely reminder of the life and death choices we face. In his book, "How Soon is Now," author Daniel Pinchbeck attempts to wake us from our stupor.
"We have," he says, "unleashed planetary catastrophe though our actions as a species. We have induced an initiatory crisis for humanity as a whole. I think that on a subconscious level we have willed this into being. We are forcing ourselves to evolve to change or die by creating this universal threat to our existence. We will either squander our chance and fail as a species, or we will seize it, making a voluntary, self-willed mutation in how we think and act. This is the choice that faces us now." An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power may help us make the right choice.
Greetings again from the darkness. Eleven years ago, former Vice
President Al Gore teamed up with filmmaker Davis Guggenheim to deliver
a significant and startling wake-up call in the form of the documentary
AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH. Not only was this the first introduction to the
science of "global warming" for many, it also won an Oscar for Mr.
Guggenheim and contributed to Mr. Gore winning the Nobel Peace Prize.
Co-directors Bonni Cohen (THE RAPE OF EUROPA) and Jon Shenk (LOST BOYS OF SUDAN) seem conflicted on the purpose of this sequel. Is this a frightening eye-opener on the climate-related changes over this past decade, or is it an attempt to return the spotlight to a faded rock star? The film provides evidence of both.
The film kicks off with a reminder of how powerful the original documentary was and how it started an avalanche of deniers even re-playing Glenn Beck's comparison of Al Gore to Joseph Goebbels as being weak sources of truth. Mr. Gore is on screen almost the entire run time. He is a self-described "recovering politician", yet we see him acting very much like an esteemed politician: presenting on stage, shaking hands with the adoring crowds, posing for selfies, giving speeches, appearing on talk shows, and coming across as a highly-polished public figure reciting well-rehearsed lines.
As we would expect, the film is at its best when it focuses not on the celebrity and commitment of Mr. Gore, but rather on the statistics and documentation of these earth-changing developments. Some of the featured videos are surreal: the 2016 Greenland glaciers "exploding" due to warm temperatures, the flooded streets of Miami Beach from rising tides, and the aftermath of the Philippines typhoon are particularly impactful. There is even a connection made between the severe drought and the Syrian Civil War in creating an especially inhumane living environment. A Gore trip to Georgetown, Texas and his visit with its Republican mayor is effective in making the point that political platforms should have no bearing on our doing the right things for our planet. There simply aren't enough of these moments.
A central focal point is the 2015 UN Climate Conference in Paris, and cameras are rolling when terrorism causes fear for the safety of 150 heads of state, and necessitates a delay in the proceedings. We are privy to some of the behind-the-scenes negotiations that include Solar City agreeing to "gift" technology to India in an attempt to have that country join the accord and reduce from 400 the number of planned new coal plants. Of course as we now know, the historic Paris Climate Accord has since been compromised with the pull out of the United States after the recent election.
Is the purpose of the film to keep climate change believers motivated, or are the filmmakers (and Gore) attempting to educate those who might still be won over? With so much attention to Mr. Gore's ongoing efforts (and an attempt to solidify his legacy), it often plays like a pep talk rather than a fact-based documentary.
There is no questioning the man's passion, though his screen presence over two hours is hampered by his reserved manner. He states clearly that he is "not confused about what the right thing to do is", and even compares his mission to the Civil Rights movement. Gore labels the lack of global process as a "personal failure on my part", while simultaneously claiming the Democracy crisis has affected the attention given to the climate crisis. His frequent proclamations that "we are close" seem to be in conflict with the many setbacks. Are we close? The film seems to offer little proof.
|Page 1 of 5:||    |
|External reviews||Official site||Plot keywords|
|Main details||Your user reviews||Your vote history|