Une suite qui dérange: le temps de l'action

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.

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. ****

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.

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.

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."