An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power

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.

I thought "The Inconvenient Truth" was well done and stuck to the point. It came at the problem of Global Warming ... or Planetary Hotboxing, like I call it from a logical and scientific direction.

This movie ... I don't know what is was, but it put my girlfriend to sleep in less than 5 minutes. I had trouble staying awake and even making it through this long monotonous, aimless and pointless reminder of the first movie.

What I will remember from this movie is not any facts, or images, or important strategies ... but so many, many scenes of Al Gore's bloated body in all kinds of places. Gore waddling through airports, his whiny, dronying, irritating voice, but mostly all of these shots where Gore is getting make up for the camera.

What kind of an idiot thought this was an important image to include ... ugly old Al Gore sitting there saying nothing while some person applies makeup to his face? The whole movie was putatively about Global Warming, but mostly it seems to be about subliminally showing ugly negative and pointless scenes in the middle of a very tame, bland and old discussion of climate change.

This movie doesn't deserve a 1 ... but it also doesn't deserve much higher. I give it a 2/10 because it is serious and should be about something important.

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.

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.