Una verdad incómoda

Let me get this straight. The environment is changing rapidly, very rapidly. We have to get the message out to as many people as we can as fast as we can.

So, you don't put it on PBS or a basic cable channel. First you made everyone get in their car and DRIVE to a theater and PAY to see this crucial information. Then, if they missed it at the theater, now then can buy this crucial information (but not until Nov. 21st).

This is nothing more than a fancy documentary. But you gave it a premier like a movie, ran it in movie theaters (with movie prices), held it for DVD release like a movie. What gives Al Gore? If it can be held for months for DVD release or not shown for free, than I guess it can't be too damned important.

I thought that this was on the whole a good film - I can imagine it being an EXCELLENT film for teachers to show to a class to explain global warming, actually. It explains the facts very well, explains away the objections that people have been hearing about from the media, and is also pretty funny at times. The film basically consists of a tour of Al Gore's climate change speeches around the world. It is, in essence, one long speech in various cities around the world (Al Gore says that he's given this presentation thousands of times), inter-cut with some various other footage. The film starts off with a few diagrams that many of you will probably have seen already, as well as a rather famous Futurama clip. In fact, if you're well-versed in your science, you'll probably already know much of what Al Gore talks about (though probably not quite all) - this film is really for the general public who doesn't quite know all of this, and also for those who might have heard something about global warming here and there but want to see exactly how all of the facts fit together.

As I said, a very good educational film. The problems come in the short but noticeable periods when the film tries to be a biography of Al Gore at the same time. Now, I don't know about you, but I was watching this to find out about global warming, not to find out what Al Gore thought about losing the 2000 election. I imagine that these are the bits that teachers will fast-forward over when they show this to their classes, since they don't really add anything to the film. I would have respected Al Gore a bit more if he hadn't tried to make this a film also (in a way) about himself. I guess it's to be expected, since he's a politician, but it's disappointing.

In closing, although it's not a perfect film, it's a pretty good one. It is THE film to watch if you want to find out about global warming (at least, I haven't heard of any better films out there). I don't really understand all of the "10" or "1" ratings on IMDb. It's not a "10" or "1" film. Even its biggest fans will have to admit that as a movie it could be a little tighter sometimes. I think it's good enough, but it's not perfect.

When this movie came out I purposely avoided it. The trailers for it seemed over the top with a doomsday sort of approach. It became a political football immediately and the extreme views of both supporters and detractors turned me off from seeing it as well. After 13 years I finally watched it out of idle curiosity rather than any strong interest in the pros or cons of any climate change debate. And maybe that's what it takes to view certain documentaries with any sort of objectivity. I always thought Gore was a bit of an alarmist on the topic when seeing him interviewed after the movie came out. However the ultimate irony is that the movie (and Gore) probably understated the peril of climate change at the time. After 13 years the predictions now seem a bit tame, if anything, especially when compared to the actually tally of extreme weather events that have affected just the US. And the actual rate of glacial melting, polar ice retreat and permafrost degradation is actually a bit faster than predicted even at the time the movie was made. I notice many negative reviews concentrate on the possible misinterpretation of certain data or the omission of conflicting sources and possible counter narratives using the same data. All well and good. The only problem with those criticisms now is that they have been overtaken by events in the space of just 13 years. Both Gore and his critics got it wrong. Climate change is worse than Gore or the even more extreme partisans predicted. Not a pleasant realization to come to.

Plain and simple - all the negative comments here are from people that simply haven't seen it. See the movie before you try to disprove points that it's not trying to make. See the movie even if you think the globe is in a cooling pattern for some reason (then you can debate the evidence it lays out before you.) I for one have seen it, and it serves not as a political soapbox, but simply a filmed version of a presentation which Gore has been giving since for over 20 years - only to pick up where he left off after conceding the last election.

The film is a call to arms for us to fix a fixable problem, explaining the few things each individual can do to bring CO2 levels back down to where they were pre-1970's - On a whole - the film views a little like a college lecture, because it essentially is one. But the topic discussed is imperative.

Don't get bogged down by anyone trying to turn the film into a political issue. It's a right or wrong issue, plain and simple.

Just the facts ma'am.

I agree with several posters: This movie would have been much more effective if it would have focused more upon the issue of global warming and less upon Al Gore continuing to cry about how Presidents are not elected via popular vote. While I only watched the movie once, I found it to be littered with self-serving political jabs that overshadowed the purported intentions of the film.

For example, Gore makes a major point regarding a Bush aide who edited an environmental report. However, early in the movie we hear a recording of New Orleans' mayor begging for help during the first days of the Katrina disaster, followed by Al Gore's voice mysteriously entering the conversation with "Please tell me what I can do to help." I suppose creating a fictitious Katrina-friendly discussion is OK as long as it continues to paint Gore as some sort of saint.

I was also unaware that the fall of Communism was a "truly bi-partisan" effort, as Mr. Gore vehemently opposed every move by the Reagan administration with regards to military escalation up to and including the Star Wars program. As we all know, these were major contributors to the Soviet Union raising the white flag that ended the Cold War.

I suppose the biggest question does not involve Mr. Gore's tireless efforts in the 70's, 80's, and over the last ten years. Instead, I wonder exactly what he did to solve this issue when he was the second most powerful man in the world. Apparently Mr. Gore had more important things to do during those eight years.

Saint Al could have done so much good with this film, but instead used it to bitch and moan about how he lost an election he should have won in a landslide. By doing this, he lost a golden opportunity to gain bipartisan support. At least it is comforting to know he used a massive motorcade to travel the eight blocks to the movie's premiere instead of following his own advice and WALKING.

Do as I say, not as I do.