Une suite qui dérange: le temps de l'action
Titre original : An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power
- 2017
- Tous publics
- 1h 38min
NOTE IMDb
6,6/10
8,5 k
MA NOTE
Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueA decade after Une vérité qui dérange (2006) brought climate change to the heart of popular culture, the follow-up shows just how close we are to a real energy revolution.A decade after Une vérité qui dérange (2006) brought climate change to the heart of popular culture, the follow-up shows just how close we are to a real energy revolution.A decade after Une vérité qui dérange (2006) brought climate change to the heart of popular culture, the follow-up shows just how close we are to a real energy revolution.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Nomination aux 1 BAFTA Award
- 6 victoires et 16 nominations au total
Avis à la une
2/25/18. Not as ground-breaking as its predecessor but necessary. That's because one would think that since 2006 we would have seen some progress towards a more global addressing of what is basically a fact of life. Yes, there is the 2015 Paris Agreement in which only ONE country has not joined the rest of the world's countries to address this issue. That's good progress. This sequel just adds more statistical evidence that climate change will have serious effects on the environment that will affect mankind as well. See 2006's "An Inconvenient Truth."
7AJ4F
I'm in full agreement with Gore about the gravity of global warming, but I'm not sure if a film like this will sway those already entrenched in denial. He, as messenger, is terminally mistrusted by the simpletons who really need to be swayed. I also don't like him preaching the virtues of the Environmental Industrial Complex, which has abandoned pretenses of protecting nature from human impact and shifted toward grabbing electricity at the expense of natural landscapes.
There's too much talk of how we can save the planet by industrializing Earth's dwindling open spaces, as if everyone agrees it's a necessary sacrifice. There's no proof that wind power, a very diffuse source of electricity, will make much difference. Germany's experience with Energiewende is a good example. Actual CO2 reductions have been scant and the countryside has lost its character via machines dominating scenery that used to host churches as the tallest structures.
Every time I see cameos of giant wind turbines looming over fields and mountains, I think people are making a huge blunder called business-as- usual. Man has a history of trying to solve one problem by creating another; in this case the aesthetic destruction of nature. Wind power also presents growing threats to bird & bat populations and human health via infrasound and other irritating noise. The industry denies that those are significant problems and its devotees claim nothing can be truly ugly except coal mines. Who are they kidding?
It would be much better to see Gore and others focus entirely on smaller footprint technologies like solar, and new prospects like Deep Geothermal which combines the best of oil drilling technology with greener thinking. Instead of desecrating the Earth's surface, we should aim for energy sources that don't occupy more land or ocean space.
I'd have more hope if the average person didn't waste so much energy with things like unnecessary engine idling, and using more lights than needed. They still consume energy based on pricing and don't care how it's being depleted.
P.S. I see several grossly unscientific reviews on this site, like the straw man claim that Gore previously said Florida would be underwater by now, and a major misunderstanding about infrared absorption and CO2 saturation. Those comments show the level of intellect a film like this is up against, including in the nation's highest office.
There's too much talk of how we can save the planet by industrializing Earth's dwindling open spaces, as if everyone agrees it's a necessary sacrifice. There's no proof that wind power, a very diffuse source of electricity, will make much difference. Germany's experience with Energiewende is a good example. Actual CO2 reductions have been scant and the countryside has lost its character via machines dominating scenery that used to host churches as the tallest structures.
Every time I see cameos of giant wind turbines looming over fields and mountains, I think people are making a huge blunder called business-as- usual. Man has a history of trying to solve one problem by creating another; in this case the aesthetic destruction of nature. Wind power also presents growing threats to bird & bat populations and human health via infrasound and other irritating noise. The industry denies that those are significant problems and its devotees claim nothing can be truly ugly except coal mines. Who are they kidding?
It would be much better to see Gore and others focus entirely on smaller footprint technologies like solar, and new prospects like Deep Geothermal which combines the best of oil drilling technology with greener thinking. Instead of desecrating the Earth's surface, we should aim for energy sources that don't occupy more land or ocean space.
I'd have more hope if the average person didn't waste so much energy with things like unnecessary engine idling, and using more lights than needed. They still consume energy based on pricing and don't care how it's being depleted.
P.S. I see several grossly unscientific reviews on this site, like the straw man claim that Gore previously said Florida would be underwater by now, and a major misunderstanding about infrared absorption and CO2 saturation. Those comments show the level of intellect a film like this is up against, including in the nation's highest office.
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.
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.
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.
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.
this guy is just using this subject and topic to make himself richer and more famous. After his first film won him an Oscar, his bank account has increased beyond any average American could fathom. I think using this trendy topic to enrich himself and afford him and his wife, a two-member family, live in an over 10,000 sq.ft mansion, is just one of the evidences to expose him as a typical shameless opportunist among other similar smart entrepreneurs who could foresee and predict what's the next business opportunity to make more dineros for years to come.
I didn't see any new input in this so-called sequel, only found this guy appeared in a lot of paying shows to repeat, to reiterate what he had already talked, discussed and written, a more simple-minded bore-you-to-death well-known dried up crap, merely with more crafty film editing and subtle soundtrack. There's nothing new in this film, only showed us an older, fatter, more puffy and bloated white guy who obviously has been affected by the unhealthy global warming and climate change. The only way to avoid his further deterioration is to better stay indoor of his 10,000 plus sq.ft. mansion with 24/7 climate controls.
I've forced myself to sit through watching this deadbeat documentary and have found out nothing new at all. What a phony and a totally unnecessary pointless sequel only with his repetitive complaints of his unfair presidential election loss to that idiotic clown (by the way, similar presidential election outcome repeated in our latest president election; Democratic Party and most of the American voters never learned). If you are smart enough and not certified stupid like me, forget about this pointless film. Don't even bother to rent it in order not to add more dollars to this guy's bank account.
I didn't see any new input in this so-called sequel, only found this guy appeared in a lot of paying shows to repeat, to reiterate what he had already talked, discussed and written, a more simple-minded bore-you-to-death well-known dried up crap, merely with more crafty film editing and subtle soundtrack. There's nothing new in this film, only showed us an older, fatter, more puffy and bloated white guy who obviously has been affected by the unhealthy global warming and climate change. The only way to avoid his further deterioration is to better stay indoor of his 10,000 plus sq.ft. mansion with 24/7 climate controls.
I've forced myself to sit through watching this deadbeat documentary and have found out nothing new at all. What a phony and a totally unnecessary pointless sequel only with his repetitive complaints of his unfair presidential election loss to that idiotic clown (by the way, similar presidential election outcome repeated in our latest president election; Democratic Party and most of the American voters never learned). If you are smart enough and not certified stupid like me, forget about this pointless film. Don't even bother to rent it in order not to add more dollars to this guy's bank account.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesReceived two standing ovations at the 2017 Sundance Film Festival.
- GaffesAl Gore claims that he predicted in Une vérité qui dérange (2006) that sea level rise combined with storm surge would flood the 9/11 memorial construction. He didn't. What he did say was that if all the ice melted off of Greenland, it would flood areas with high population, as well as the 9/11 memorial, making no mention of storm surges. As it was Hurricane Sandy that caused the memorial to flood, Gore now rewrites his original claim so that it matches up with the fact. (The exact wording is available in the 'memorable quotes' sections.)
- ConnexionsFeatured in The Michael Knowles Show: Al Gore Saves the World... Again! (2017)
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Site officiel
- Langues
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power
- Lieux de tournage
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 1 000 000 $US (estimé)
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 3 496 795 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 124 823 $US
- 30 juil. 2017
- Montant brut mondial
- 5 433 926 $US
- Durée1 heure 38 minutes
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant
Lacune principale
What is the French language plot outline for Une suite qui dérange: le temps de l'action (2017)?
Répondre