An Inconvenient Truth: Review By moviegeek

Aug 16th, 2010 by moviegeek
A Sobering Look at Global Warming.
  • OVERALL
    4.0
    GREAT
  • Story
  • Acting
  • Directing
  • Visuals
Al Gore, who 'used to be the next President of the United States' (as he introduces himself as jokingly), has been a full-fledged advocate of environmentalist concern over the past decades. His work came to a high when he released a doc*mentary (of sorts) to reach a more mainstream audience.

Gore is hosting a seminar addressing his concerns about the current (2005) state of our planet. In this he goes over the basic points of global warming--what it is, where it's most harmful, how it's affecting us--before plunging into the realism of how imminent the danger is. He tries to get us to realize how personal it can become with some personal stories of his own as well.

The movie, against popular belief, is not just a campaign for environmentalists. In fact, the movie also attempts to clear up controversy involving Gore himself. In so, the movie switches from the seminar to get personal messages from Gore about who he is an what he believes.

There is some heart-stopping images here. There is real evidence that is undeniably truth. There are charts and diagrams with real statistics presented. As much as many wouldn't like to admit it, there is a part we can play to help change. I suppose that's why it's called an 'inconvenient' truth...

I find imbecility amongst viewers who demean for one of two reasons: (1) "It's just propaganda and environmentalists shoving information down our throats." Okay, and that's a concern why...? What purpose do doc*mentaries serve if they don't make a direct point or address a certain concern? Fact is fact. If you don't accept it, that's your choice. And (2) "It's just Al Gore secretly promoting himself amidst a tough subject." Um, it's no secret. This is meant to help Al Gore, hence why he directed, wrote, edited, produced, spoke, and created it.

Now those mainstream criticisms aside, I have two of my own. Firstly, Gore presents many speculations as to the future of the planet. The charts increase exponentially in the 'future' to make a shocking point, but none of it seemed scientifically sound. It seemed like Al Gore's speculation.

Secondly, I find it odd that Gore rants and raves about how scientifically inaccurate it is to believe that global warming doesn't exist when there is evidence everywhere! But, meanwhile, he supports evolution, which, for the most part, is scientifically balderdash, but that's another topic for another time.

An Inconvenient Truth has an underlying problem that doesn't upstage the movie, but, to a degree, lessens its effect. The whole movie is basically a presentation at a city for a group of people. None of it, aside from clips and photos in his slideshow, is firsthand, on-location footage, though he does speak of it. For example, there is a computer generated image of a polar bear swimming in a vast ocean. The fake-looking polar bear tries to climb onto a floating piece of ice, but it breaks beneath him, making him keep swimming. Footage, or lack thereof, lessen the effect this movie ought to have. I wanted more hard-hitting footage of real happenings, rather than lots of charts and diagrams.

But the movie accomplishes what it sets out to do. The last 10 minutes are powerful beyond many degrees. This is sound, sturdy movie that people need to see. It has it's problems and it feels like a classroom movie, but there is undeniable truth to what is presented, and that, fellow humans, is the point.

Do you like this review?

Comments (20)

  1. Worth5Bucks

    Al Gore is indeed full of it.

    2 years agoby @mattbierwagenFlag

  2. Diaigma

    You're welcome.
    You see, kids. People can have disagreements on MW and still talk about them in a civil manner. Let this be a lesson to you :P

    2 years agoby @diaigmaFlag

  3. moviegeek

    Of course :P Well thank you for the discussion!

    2 years agoby @moviegeekFlag

  4. Diaigma

    Close enough. Not giving specifics, though :P

    2 years agoby @diaigmaFlag

  5. moviegeek

    I heard about the solar flares, though I figured it was just another speculation. You live in a desert? lol.

    2 years agoby @moviegeekFlag

  6. Diaigma

    Solar flares, man. A real contributor to (sudden) climate change. Just wondering if you noticed anything different about your weather. Your heatwave sounds accurate. We had one too, and crazy humidity for a desert. Fun stuff.

    2 years agoby @diaigmaFlag

  7. moviegeek

    Interesting how? It's been super hot recently (making up for a paltry and overcast summer)

    2 years agoby @moviegeekFlag

  8. Diaigma

    Wait - I had a parade? Ugh. I'm not exactly a fan of parades . . . :P
    Astrology isn't a science. Astronomy is, but I get you. Math is my enemy, English/literature is a good friend. As a Sci Fi and Fantasy writer, I took those courses so I could world-build realistic settings and characters, not to be a scientist. Yick! Plus it helps to look into all the sciences if you want your Sci Fi work to be taken seriously, right? Sorry you don't like natural sciences, but if you had the few courses I've taken, you would find this doc*mentary to be uninformative and grossly inaccurate, which is what I think of it.

    Question (and yes, it's serious) - did you experience interesting weather earlier this month?

    2 years agoby @diaigmaFlag

  9. moviegeek

    Well, not to rain on your parade, but I don't really enjoy the sciences that much. I love astrology, psychology sounds fascinating (though I know nothing about it lol), and the list stops there. I don't like natural sciences at all. I am a mathematics and English/literature person hehe. The definitive and definite studies lol.

    2 years agoby @moviegeekFlag

  10. Diaigma

    Yes. Just curious if you've done more than remedial HS stuff. And if so, what? I've dabbled in Geology, Botany, Astronomy, and Psychology. Mostly so I can write convincing stories. Do your best to protect the environment. Good man :)

    2 years agoby @diaigmaFlag

  11. moviegeek

    Obviously science played a part in Katrina, but to say global warming made Katrina more ferocious is a tad silly. Katrina was a massive hurricane. He says that because the Gulf water was so warm that it became larger than it should have ever been. Do I buy that, no. Could it make sense? Possibly. But it's pointless to point fingers now.

    I don't like politicians for the most part, mainly because of their rederict and propganda. That might seem contradictory to why I liked this film, but I got it for free at the library, I found it informative. I didn't do any critical investigative research into his information because it simply isn't as huge of a deal as it was then. I have, and still will, do my best to protect the environment. I believe that Gore presents all of his material in a sturdy way. There is some debatable information, but that goes with every doc*mentary. I think it's fine that he has a passion for something like this. Yes, it could be an attempt at more tax dollars. Yes, it should just be a financial scare tactic. It isn't today though. This 'scare' has died down to become something quite mild. Am I going to tie myself to a tree? No. Unlike @Bowels1234, I don't believe that trees and humans are the same...

    "Taken much science?" Was that a question at me if I've taken much science?

    2 years agoby @moviegeekFlag

  12. Dan

    It's all politics. The levees in New Orleans needed repair or flat out replacing as well, and that obviously didn't happen soon enough (see: Katrina).

    Gore is a politician, whether he tries to reinvent himself as some noble crusader for environmentalism or not. I haven't forgotten that part, nor should others.

    2 years agoby @dan1Flag

  13. Diaigma

    I figured, but some people take being called "ignorant" as a negative thing. I don't, but some have been all flamed up because I said that. It does rely on who you want to trust. I don't trust those who want to take my money :P Global warming was not the cause of Katrina, or so I hope you get that. It was just a really bad storm and New Orleans is under sea level. Not a very good place to build a large city where hurricanes happen annually, if you ask me. I wish all who live there the best, though. Taken much science?

    2 years agoby @diaigmaFlag

  14. moviegeek

    I know what ignorance means lol. But science and statistics can always be swayed to get them to mean what you want. There is no definite 'truth' to it all. Granted, Gore presents his information as being ALL truth. But if he didn't, and his whole presentation was just speculation, then he really isn't standing for anything. Obviously the big Global Warming scare has died down. Gore's predictions were off. Science predictions are almost always off. Goodness the weather forecast for two days ahead is always off. We are never going to be able to predict the future well enough to be certain of any real danger, which is why all of the speculation is aroused after a disaster as to the cause. (i.e. Katrina due to Global Warming). This research you say many should do is a good thing of course, but there is no right answer. It all relies on who you want to trust.

    2 years agoby @moviegeekFlag

  15. Diaigma

    Seconded, @TheREALavatah :P
    Carbon footprint. Love it!

    2 years agoby @diaigmaFlag

  16. Dan

    I'm of the belief that our planet goes in hot and cold cycles. Were simply in a hot cycle. Eventually it will get cold again. That's my 5th grader explanation, and I like it.

    Oh, and Al Gore is a moron hypocrite. When he starts living in houses that don't run up record electricity bills and reduces his own carbon footprint, maybe then he can talk.

    2 years agoby @dan1Flag

  17. Diaigma

    Awesome to hear that, good sir. Thanks for hearing me out. Now, whether you believe or not, some things can be measured. I wasn't talking millions of years ago. I agree, carbon-dating is fickle. I was referring to information that's only a few centuries old. Geological research/evidence and written doc*ments on weather patterns throughout history have shown that there is indeed a cyclical pattern to the earth. It's logical, doc*mented science. Now, this film dreaded a change in the climate, but the truth is the climate changes all the time, and without our help! If the climate DOESN'T change occasionally, we should be VERY worried. I just hope that your disbelief on the matter isn't stemmed by ignorance (not knowing). One-sided doc*mentaries are biased, and therefore, intellectually dishonest. Professor Stephen Schneider, back in the 70's, claimed that "an ice age caused by humans" was coming. Didn't happen. That same man later became a top leader in the IPCC and an adviser to Gore when the earth started to "heat up." Extreme cold to extreme heat within a quarter of a century? I think not. He's no scientist to me, sorry. There's a lot of information out there. One thing that politicians understand best is that if you skip a generation or two, you can apply the same scare tactics to a fresh/gullible audience, and most won't think to research on their own and find their own answers. Laziness, much like that discussion we were having in that Waiting for Superman post, eh? :P

    2 years agoby @diaigmaFlag

  18. moviegeek

    Oh I didn't mean to say he directed it :p I knew it was the guy who's doing Waiting for Superman. And yes, the movie was aggressive in trying to get support for it's cause (which isn't neccessarily a bad thing). Today, global warming isn't the crisis mr gore made it out to be. In fact, most of his extraordinary predictions turned out more mild than he ever would have thought. As far as the science of the matter, you or Gore won't convince me of the cyclical nature of our planet, simply because I don't believe we can date things back millions of years ago, nor do I even think we existed that long ago. But that's just personal belief. Does Global Warming benefit in any way? Yes, of course. The term has been modified to mean something bad just like the word 'drugs' refers to the illegal addicive kind instead of medical beneficiaries. This is a very onesided movie, and I think it should be. I think there is a sort of scare tactic being used here, but there is some scary stuff.

    No, I don't think you are imbecilic :P. I appreciate a thought out comment. Discussion about film is healthy.

    2 years agoby @moviegeekFlag

  19. Diaigma

    Oh, and Gore didn't direct this "convenient lie." It was Davis Guggenheim. As a matter of fact, feel free to watch the counter-argument doc*mentary, "A Convenient Lie," to at least see the opposite end of the spectrum. Good luck finding it, though. It's strangely hard to find now :P

    2 years agoby @diaigmaFlag

  20. Diaigma

    Truth? I say no sir. Nothing against you, but I have to say something about this film. I hope you don't find me imbecilic. I've studied this stuff quite extensively. Doc*mentaries do serve to make a point or address a certain concern, but also to move and motivate people. In this case, bottom line, it's to address (or create) a problem to which government officials can say, "we have a problem. Let's do something about it. But we need money to do it. Let's set up a tax!" There you go. Creating a reason to instill another tax. Look. I could go on and on about this, but you said it yourself in your second to last paragraph. The whole movie is a presentation at a city. It was a controlled presentation. In grade school, back in the 80's, I was taught by my extreme liberal sided school district that by the year 2000, the northern ice gaps would be thawed and New York would be a foot under water. Has this happened? Nope. But I believed in it at the time. Youth are very impressionable that way. Furthermore, we really need to stop talking about global warming as if it's a bad thing. Life would not exist on this world without it. Without global warming, the biochemical reactions needed to produce the first bacteria (life) would never happen. Exhaust/gas, in one form or another, must always be given to the atmosphere in order to maintain it. Over time, as our earth's core cools, there will be less volcanic activity. Then we're in trouble if that stops altogether. The truth is, the earth goes through cycles. So does the sun. "Evidence" has shown that the overall temperatures of the earth were hotter during the medieval ages than they are today. We will have another ice age - and the cycle continues, until the sun expands into a red giant in 600 million years, where life will not longer be sustainable on earth anyway. Now, should we purposefully pump deadly toxins into the air and water? No. Take care of the planet, yes, but there's no need to produce a doc*mentary that's a scare tactic to swindle people of their money or make it appear acceptable to do so. Now, about your statement "There are charts and diagrams with real statistics presented." I've done stats, charts, and diagrams. Studies can always be measured to produce the results you want. I hope you'll look into other research and not rely on this doc as a summation of the issue. It's much bigger than that, and you'd be surprised how much of the other side have been silenced, mudslinged, or coerced into resigning their studies and professions. It's scary crap. Don't be conned so easily.

    2 years agoby @diaigmaFlag