User reviews

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.

From strictly a movie appreciation perspective the only thing I didn't like about this was it seemed to focused on Al-Gore, which is fine but if you compare it to Leanardo's D's Before the Flood I found the pacing and information better presented in that one then Truth to Power. I think this would have been way better with less focus on Gore. But having said that it was a compelling documentary.

From a climate change perspective/new information it wasn't too bad but I have been absorbing information about this for that last few years so there wasn't a lot of new information for me here so nothing was too shocking.

Interesting to see some of the other reviews, and how hard some people are denying it all, I understand where the denial is coming from it is a scary topic with massive unpredictable outcomes for all of us, it is much more "convenient" to deny than to accept. I for one am glad this movie was made and will continue to support activism when it comes to climate change.

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.

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.

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.

The Oscar winning An Inconvenient Truth created a huge stir around the world upon its release in 2006.

Unleashed upon the movie going public at a time where Climate Change/Global Warming was just starting to gain everyday notice, should've been president and one time vice-president Al Gore's film was an insightful and debate raising documentary that appeared at the right place and the right time.

Fast-forward to 2017 and this sequel, that perhaps wasn't exactly being cried out for or demanded hit our screens and now home viewing arenas to mixed results, both financially and critically but despite not carrying the same power or drive as Gore's first call to arms, An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power is still a thought provoking experience even if it lacks a real central driver.

At times feeling a bit aimless in its nature, its key that Gore is still such a captivating and inspiring figure, as whenever he is on screen this documentary rides off the back of the great public speaker whose passion and commitment to making a difference is to be commended and a cause you can easily respect no matter your views on the topic he is preaching around the world.

No matter where Gore is on stage or where he is intervening, the one-time big-wig of American politics is a captivating figure.

If there was a real true driver to this film that is more a fly on the wall experience as we journey with Gore and his team from various locations, delivering the climate change message, it's the key part Gore played in the 2016 climate change summit in Paris and how the well-respected figure used his clout and contacts to help make things happen at the summit that may never have come to fruition without his help and guidance.

Final Say -

While unquestionably lacking the power of the original, An Inconvenient Sequel is still a stark reminder of how our planet is heading towards some hugely important moments in existence and a further reminder to the United States on what they missed out on when George W. Bush was first elected in 2000.

3 ½ wading boots out of 5

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.

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.

Whether you're a fan of Al Gore or not, he isn't really the issue here. He does a great job presenting the various forms of overwhelming evidence for global warming and mankind's link to it, but he doesn't do it in a political or spiteful way. He shows global temperature and atmospheric carbon patterns, and he shows that our last 20 years have been the highest by a longshot over the previous 600,000 years. Frankly, before seeing the film, I'd heard a lot of information about global warming being a myth, but this film dispels that notion with many independent pieces of evidence.

28th STOCKHOLM INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL. DAY 2, NOV 9th 2017. Swedish premiere.

‪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.‬

The subject of this documentary has been proven to be propaganda. The glaciers in Greenland are melting due to volcanoes under them. We as a species have very little to do with climate change. In fact it is our arrogance that makes us believe we bacteria on the planet can only change our local environment to have poison water or poison land. It is the consensus of paleontologists that we are currently in the warmest period of the current ice age.

Then we also must recognize that high carbon dioxide is very good for plant growth, as seen during the previous epochs. We are actually at the lowest period in all history for CO2. Which is not good for our environment. All these facts can be yours too if you look at the science.

Climate change propaganda is to shift money from our tax dollars to the elite that are part of the Council on Foreign Relations, World Economic Commission, and move us to The Great Reset where you will be a peasant that elites think you are too stupid to be free.

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."

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. ****

Al Gore, Nobel Laureate, Grammy Winner and Oscar Winner. Well, kind of. The man who served as Vice President of the United States for two terms under Bill Clinton, and who narrowly (and controversially) lost his bid to succeed Clinton as President in 2000, helped win an Oscar for his one major post-politics endeavor. Environmentalism in general and climate change specifically had been important causes to Gore, as a member of the House of Representatives, Senator, Vice President, Democrat nominee for President and then after leaving politics. During what would have been his second term as President (had he beaten George W. Bush and then gotten re-elected), Gore's environmental activism was the focus of the film "An Inconvenient Truth" which won the Best Documentary Feature Oscar for filmmaker David Guggenheim (and for Melissa Etheridge, whose "I Need to Wake Up" won for Best Original Song).

The film wasn't much more than a glorified PowerPoint presentation, about which Gore lectured on stage. Yet, it made quite an impact on public opinion around the world. (According to Wikipedia, "In a July 2007 47-country Internet survey conducted by The Nielsen Company and Oxford University, 66% of those respondents who said they had seen An Inconvenient Truth stated that it had 'changed their mind' about global warming and 89% said it had made them more aware of the problem. Three out of four (74%) said they had changed some of their habits because of seeing the film.") Gore's efforts also led to him winning the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize (along with the International Panel on Climate Change) and his audio rendition of his follow-up book earned him a 2009 Grammy for Best Spoken Word Album. And Gore let none of the publicity or momentum generated by these accomplishments go to waste as we see in the follow-up documentary feature film "An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power" (PG, 1:38).

Gore's slide show (which he constantly updates) plays a prominent role in this sequel, but we see him journey much further than simply stage left and stage right. Interspersed with explanations of climate change data and videos from the decade between the original film to the sequel (often presented to trainees who have signed up to join him in the cause), Gore travels to places where the results of global warming are evident (even going to central Greenland) and he goes to talk to the powers-that-be in other countries (including India) to get a better understanding of the issues they face in "going green".

All this talk and travel is heading somewhere specific – to the landmark 2015 Climate Conference in Paris. We see Gore politicking and trying to get some major world powers on board. His efforts are temporarily thrown off track by the more immediate concern of a large-scale terrorist attack in the city. That tragedy not only affects preparations for the conference, but it also plays into Gore's goals in an indirect way. And the hope that Gore exhibits going into the conference isn't the only positivity in this film. Instead of simply raising the alarm about the rapidly advancing problem of climate change, he has good news to share regarding the progress that's been made since 2006 and real hope for the future.

"An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power" is an important and well- made documentary, but occasionally strays off its chosen path. It's important in the sense that it presents compelling evidence in support of man-made climate change and offers workable solutions – all of which should at least be discussed by the leaders of every industrialized nation and their citizens. Regardless of where you stand on the issue, there's no denying Al Gore's devotion to the cause or his passion in spreading the word. Directors Bonni Cohen and Jon Shenk effectively make their film's case by following Gore around the world and mixing in short, significant moments from his lectures in such a way that they allow Gore's rhetoric and intensity to build to a crescendo by film's end. Additionally, by building towards the Paris conference, they establish something of a narrative thread and give clear focus to everything that comes before.

Unfortunately, the filmmakers also include elements that are irrelevant or unexplained and, therefore, unnecessarily distracting. For example, in almost every scene, Gore is wearing a small, light green metallic disc on his lapel or his collar, the significance of which is never explained or even referenced. More egregiously, at several points, the film references Gore's ill-fated presidential campaign and the controversy that surrounded the final vote count – without even attempting to establish a relationship between those events and the film's message. Maybe these references had a place in Gore's previous documentary (just six years after the election), but in 2017? Not so much. What's more, the filmmakers and Gore himself go out of their way to take none-too-subtle jabs at the Republican Party in general and President Trump in particular. The inclusion of personal political criticism is ill-advised and counterproductive to the film's goals. Still, in spite of the distractions, this doc deserves credit for furthering a very important conversation. "B"

'AN INCONVENIENT SEQUEL: TRUTH TO POWER': Four and a Half Stars (Out of Five)

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

In An Inconvenient Sequel, Al Gore is still at it in what Al Gore does, speaking to leaders, going to climate change conferences (including the major one of the past couple of decades, the Paris climate accords), and going seminars that act as training for other (potential) climate leaders, as he has to be, since America still has work to do - that's a polite way of phrasing it - in being an energy innovator. Actually, that's also putting it in a milder way than should be; America has a sketchy, at best mixed, at worst horrible, series of moments in showing how to lead in fixing the climate crisis, and while this movie doesn't go into enough depth to show those reasons (perhaps you would need a Ken Burns length documentary as to the reasons why the Right think as they do about climate change and global warming), it does do a good portrait of Al Gore.

The key is in what seems to almost br a throwaway line: "In order to solve the environmental crisis we need to solve the democracy crisis... Our democracy has been hacked." A much tougher, shameful boil to pop to let the pus fester, but for now this documentary does some good to remind us how hard its been to make even incremental progress. It may also be ultimately the "Al Gore Heroics" trip, but what can I say except I like Al Gore and his dedication and that earth-shattering trait called leadership and dedication to a cause, no matter how difficult the leaderless make things for the country and the world. Its also presented with a narrative arc (even including some other external drama with the Paris attacks coinciding with the Paris accords in 2015), so its not all a slide show or PowerPoint presentation.

I might even say this could hold up more over time than the first one simply by way of not just the content of everything, from the stats in his presentation and his visits to other countries to negotiate and so far as the most republican town in Texas to find they're greener than most of the party, but from himself as a force as a public speaker. However I'll remember the quieter, more measured speaking when he's talking about his past disappointments, which are many. For all of the pieces of hope here, there is this constant sense that the wrongness of the human spirit is stopping progress from moving forward (or at least putting the brakes on what could be, or already is, going past the tipping point). It's message makes up for a lot of just-okay filmmaking.

Martin Luther King's famous quote is seriously challenged by this second iteration of the climate change documentary, and it both questions whether or not the statement is true when it comes to the safety and health of our planet, and also motivates us to keep working for the future.

Directors Jon Shenk and Bonni Cohen weave a complex narrative that both terrifies and enlightens. They focus on the extraordinary character: Al Gore, and by looking at his past as well as his present, bring the work of climate change into a historic perspective that can truly be compared to the civil rights movement.

Growing up as he did in the segregated South, Gore was born into a world in which the equality of the races seemed impossible, and yet, change has come. This may be the very reason, the film argues, that in the face of profound setbacks and the evidence of climate change all around - from the melting ice in the North Pole to the flooding in the streets of Miami - Gore can keep going. Even with the disaster at the Paris climate conference - overshadowed by terrorist attacks - and the shocking election of climate change-denier, Trump at the end of the film, we have to keep going.

See this film to have your desire-to-keep-fighting-batteries re-charged.

What this sequel should have focused on more than anything is the fact that so much of what Al Gore the politician said was going to happen, never came to light. By 2013, we were not seeing sea levels rise, in fact, NASA proved that the ice caps that Gore predicted and said were melting, actually grew larger. The "facts" in these documentaries are made to scare the masses that follow Gore without a thought of their own.

Gore in-turn, does exactly what he tells everyone else not to do, wasting fossil fuels by flying his private jet all around the world to tell everyone without a private jet just how they're killing the world by using so much fossil fuel!! He's such a hypocrite and so far from being a scientist, he makes Bill Nye look like Albert Einstein! Lets not forget the number of countries backing out of the 2016 Paris Climate Agreement that was made such a big deal by Gore. The number one country for pollution is not the United States, but in reality is China. That's a fact!