An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power (2017) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
65 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
Gore speaks with passion and increasing anger
howard.schumann13 August 2017
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.
42 out of 74 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Needs less Gore, more facts
ferguson-629 July 2017
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.
40 out of 75 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Well done documentary and an interesting follow up to the first movie
Mcduff36019 March 2018
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.
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Horrible, boring, and no new information or real point.
bruce-12912 August 2017
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.
38 out of 92 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Could have been better but still an important watch
TheOneThatYouWanted17 November 2017
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.
8 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Gore keeps fighting the fight
Horst_In_Translation3 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
"An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power" is an American 95-minute film from this year (2017) by Cohen and Shenk who have collaborated in the past too. The title here gives already away of course that this is the sequel (not really long-awaited I guess) to the Oscar-winning "An Inconvenient Truth" from about a decade earlier. The director of that one is also a producer here. The entire film basically focuses on for American Vice President Al Gore's fight against climate change. But his fighting in here is mostly about people convincing because even after so many years the biggest obstacle is that many people still deny the existence. I personally am not (really) one of the non-believers, but sadly I am at a point where I doubt that people still care about not destroying the planet for further generations. The Trump election says a lot to that regard and so does the US getting out of the Paris treaty. That should not say something negative about Gore's efforts though, it is very impressive what he does and how he sacrifices his time for the cause.

The speeches by Gore feel a bit as if we are in the audience watching him live and this is definitely not a coincidence. So what can be done if Gore's words cannot change people's minds as honestly it is highly unlikely things will look any different with another decade passing? Maybe one reason is that climate change is never cited as a direct cause. For example you hear 100 people got killed by a flood, a hurricane or a tornado, but you don't read that 100 people died from global warming. There is no real connection to tragedy because it is such a creeping process and it is true that you mostly need time lapse photography to really get a visual impact of what is happening. But now I am talking about the problem per se and not really about the film anymore. All in all, it will probably not have the same awards success like the first film, but this by no means means it is a weak film. Quite the opposite actually as it deals with one of the most crucial issues of our times and this alone makes it a really important work. The fact that this documentary is contents-wise really 100% what I expected (and what you expect too if you have seen the first and at least vaguely know about the subject) is not a problem at all because it is still high quality. I definitely give it a thumbs-up and no doubt it is among the better, if not best, documentaries of the year. I hope it gets the Oscar nomination.
10 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Honestly more of an 8/10, but there's a one-star attack on this movie
momchilmm13 August 2017
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.
136 out of 183 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not as powerful as the original but still conveys an important message
eddie_baggins12 April 2018
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
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
We saw the movie after Al Gore gave an interview
rjagosz7 May 2017
Warning: Spoilers
My wife and I attended an event last night at the Greek Theater in Los Angeles, featuring a screening of the new film and an appearance by Al Gore, who gave in an interview and update of what's been happening since the release of An Inconvenient Truth in 2006. What I describe below are features and conclusions expressed in the film and by Al Gore during his interview.

The essential truth is that climate change and the warming of the Planet Earth is not a political issue. It is not hypothetical. It is not a projection for the future. It is here. It is reality. It has been made a political issue in America by the fossil fuel industry and well-healed and powerful people who are being made richer by denying that reality. It's that simple.

The political ploys that they have used are nearly identical to those that were employed by the tobacco industry in the suppression and obfuscation of smoking related health data in the 1980's. The results have also been similar. They have spent over two billion dollars on their campaign to sway public opinion on the issue. Their efforts have have been somewhat successful. A significant segment of the population has been successfully misled, which has produced a widespread apathy to to the urgency of the situation and to the issue itself.

Science is a major proponent of truth in our civilization. It is not inherently wise, but it can tell us when something is broken, and often, how to fix it. Climate science has already shown us how to fix the climate problem physically. It has fallen short of helping enough people in power to develop the will to do something about it.

In order to fix that, it has taken a serious advocate, in the person of Al Gore, to champion the endeavor to educate and otherwise shift the awareness of people toward the truth.

The most prominent example of this is Gore's negotiations with the Indian Prime Minister Narenda Modi during around the time of the global climate conference in 2015. Modi was reluctant to lend his support for a climate accord because he felt that the Indian economy was not strong enough to shift resources toward the development of new alternative energy technologies and industries. The need for the developing nation's increase in energy production was immediate, with no room for mistakes. Modi and Parliament were on the verge of authorizing the building of 400 new coal based generation plants. Gore realized that that would be a climate catastrophe. He also realized that it was not their fault for their thinking that way. India was in a really tough spot.

So, Gore contacted Solar City's CEO Lyndon Rive about negotiating an agreement with India for the transfer of solar photo-voltaic technology to India that would benefit both India and Solar City. After intense negotiations, the deal was done, and Modi agreed to join the Paris climate accord. Now that's deal making.

Gore admitted, both to the audience and in the film, that he was often on the verge of despair regarding the trend of American politics on the matter. Still, he persevered. The history of setbacks is long.

One of the first was the cancellation of the NASA DSCOVR project. It was one of the first casualties of George W Bush's new administration. The project was intended to launch a satellite into a solar orbit that is synchronized with the orbit with the earth in order to observe the earth from a constant "full earth" perspective. It could make make measurements of the earth 24/7 which could then be analyzed to yield useful climate data. For example, it would be a constant monitor over time of the ratio of incident and reflected energy on the earth. That would yield an accurate measurement of how much energy is being absorbed by greenhouse gasses and the rise of global temperatures.

Many setbacks have occurred in America with the election of climate denying politicians to government office, and most recently, the appointment of many of them to federal executive cabinet and other high ranking positions.

On the other hand, there seems to be a global trend for the adoption of renewable energy sources. Even in the US, in Texas, no less, one town proudly touts its 100% reliance on these resources. Some states have nearly reached 100% fossil fuel independence. Across the world, the adoption and use of renewable energy is accelerating dramatically. In Chile, in the last year or so, the production of renewable energy has grown by several thousand percent. China has committed to the movement.

When asked whether a tipping point has been reached in the industrial and political adoption of renewable energy, Gore did not state unequivocally that it has, but he indicated that he thinks it's inevitable. He remains hopeful.

There were many examples shown in the movie of devastating events that have occurred worldwide since the last movie that are directly and unequivocally attributable to temperature and climate. Amid all the massive devastation, one event really stood out as a surprising and disturbing data point.

In 2015 a massive deluge was recorded in Tucson. It seemed to be an aerial view of clouds dumping water (billions of gallons?) on Tucson as if a giant barrel in the sky tipped over. You could actually make out the splash of the water on the ground. Not drops. Barrels.

I don't recall any mention of tipping points with regard to climate change itself. That is, the point at which the planet will not recover sufficiently to stop the warming progression. This was a prominent topic earlier on in the discussion.
118 out of 220 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Industrial wind turbines are as grim as climate change
AJ4F1 August 2017
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.
19 out of 52 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Is Climate Change is real? Yes. Is this a good documentary? Hell no.
trublu21529 July 2017
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.
89 out of 183 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Great sequel with scientific backings - flat earthers and trumpsters will dislike.
mullie-3759123 June 2017
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.
129 out of 248 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Very important, but not as good as "An Inconvenient Truth"
Morten_515 November 2017
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.‬
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Less entertaining and less educational than scratching my bum
anymouse223 August 2017
Warning: Spoilers
#1 OK, its not really Gore's fault he's not a very exciting lecturer. And documentaries tend to be boring by nature anyway. But there was almost NO new data in this schlock. Over a decade of research, and he comes on with almost the exact same old junk from 11 years ago? If I wanted to watch "inconvenient truth" again, I would have; slapping a #2 at the end to re-release it in theaters is why Hollywood is in decline. Even as a conservative Republican, I expected more from gore.

#2 Everything is carefully misedited to lead to wrong conclusions without actually telling lies; he talks about global warming leaving Manhattan under water and provides a picture. Except that the pic was from Super storm Sandy, a once-a-century cyclic natural event. He shows pics of Antarctic ice shelves collapsing, but fails to mention that the shot he showed is actually smaller than average for that time of year and that area. He shows Miami Beach flooding, but fails to mention its an annual event that's been occurring since the city was built.

#3 Short on science; while Gore makes some wild claims and impossible predictions, he offers very little science to back him up. Then again, that might only make this more dull and dry.

#4 Gore continues to hype "green" tech that he owns significant stock in, that other nations have tried and failed (no matter how heavily the govt subsidized)but still cant understand why people distrust him.

TL;DR over exaggerated scaremongering that offers nothing we didn't get from the first film.
42 out of 128 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Not as ground-breaking as its predecessor, but necessary
bettycjung26 February 2018
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."
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
More focused and entertaining than The Inconvenient Truth, still disturbing, but
manders_steve11 August 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Al Gore is an impressive, engaging and entertaining presenter. It's just as well, because in this film he doesn't seem to mind the sound of his own voice nor the look of his face, judging by the frequency we see and hear them. He is a bit aware his face is older and his hair greyer, but glosses over these facts to prioritise his decade long environmental crusade.

I found this film better structured than his prequel to the Sequel. A great outcome at the Paris climate change conference of late 2016 is the goal, and events leading to and from COP 2016, up to June 2017 (only two months before this viewing) focus the attention and mind. Events in the intervening decade, particularly Al Gore's training seminars, give a human scale and reinforce Al Gore's stickability to the cause.

Most 'devoted to a cause' films appear a bit one sided, and this is no exception. But the use of numerous climate event video images, including some up to the week filming wrapped, glues the film to reality, despite its proselytising. The scenes in Miami and with Indian prime minister Modi are memorable.

If you aren't up to date with climate science (particularly from the most concerned ones) this is an easy, entertaining way to brush up. Whether you choose to take the next steps advocated for you personally is up to you.
9 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Let me tell you how this movie is.
benjaminjyoungblood6 August 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Al Gores film is a refreshing wake up call to so many people. The reflection within the film takes on the points that were made in the previous film. This is a great reminder on how the facts of today change the outcome of tomorrow. The only frustration with the film was the conversations that occurred afterward with others in the theatre. The reason for the celebration in Paris during the Paris accord was for the commitment to increase renewable energy resources, but also the worlds ability to work together. The environmental crisis is not one to be solved by a person, a city, a state, a country, but by humanity as a whole.
11 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
An illuminating, impassioned follow up from Gore
wellthatswhatithinkanyway12 September 2017
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. ****
34 out of 58 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Informative and important, but inconsistent.
dave-mcclain11 August 2017
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"
6 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Very moving and inspiring.
Hellmant30 August 2017
'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
37 out of 69 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
decent as a documentary, important and actually not as straightforward as you'd expect as a message film
Quinoa198417 August 2017
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.
6 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Should Have Discussed The 1st Films Mistakes
Hollywood_Yoda26 October 2019
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!
10 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice...
joannefilm20144 September 2017
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.
26 out of 50 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
I enjoyed, ENJOYED this film
saccitygrl7 January 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Disclaimer: Al Gore holds a special place in my heart--I was in N. Carolina during his first bid for president when he championed climate change as an issue in 1988. Also, he's also the only politician I can say I have shaken hands with, back in 1996. He's the only politician I would and will have ever gone out of my way to see in person and it was a thrill. So if you are a Gore basher, move along.

I enjoyed this movie. I mean I ENJOYED this movie. It made me smile, many times. You may say thats an odd reaction to the destruction but I am one of the few who is long past bemoaning the course we have set for ourselves as a species. It is what it is.

I admire Al Gore's tenacity. I envy his hope. I envy his faith in the system and in people. And I enjoyed his angry rants. Wish there was more of this in the first film--it may have helped fuel the flame when it was needed most, and cowed the trolls and predators in the only language they understand.

I am not angry he continues to carry these things forward into the twilight of our collective path. He knows what he wants to save (do you?) and he will continue to fight for it. Good on him.

However, to be honest the film adds nothing to the discussion. Every scientific fact stated in this film was WIDELY known and accepted in 2006 when the first AIT film came out. But, given more than a decade has passed, things have shifted by an order of magnitude or so, so now we get to see it from the perspective of a rearview mirror.

I am glad there was a lot of focus on the ocean in this iteration. Climate change activists are so doggedly focused on humans and fossil fuels, they have been completely oblivious to the slow death of the one thing that maintained this biosphere and the climate in which the biosphere we know and love has evolved. Twenty years ago I would regularly argue this point with greenie granola activist types, until I realized we had reach a point in time where this issue was yet another moot point. That aside, its nice to see this truth in full living color on the screen.

We also get something else in full living color--the complete and utter commitment of our "leaders" and more importantly the elite, to this collective trajectory. When the bible says greed is the root of evil, it clearly wasn't a metaphorical statement. We will now all pay for that collective "sin".

If you are clueless, you won't see this film. You are the type to deny what has been knocking you repeatedly between the eyes for years because it would mean you would have to relinquish some dogma planted in your head as a child. As Rhett Butler once said, "Well, far be it from me to question the teachings of childhood." I leave you to the inevitable crash and burn.

If you are in the know, this film will not do much in terms of enlightening you, or motivating you, unless you fantasize about cornering the market on renewables or some such thing.

All in all, this film is beautiful. You will see things you have only read about up until now. You can relish the carnage and anticipate the further unfolding that we face. Upon leaving the film, you can take with you the feeling that you have borne witness to the great unraveling. Its a spectacle that doesn't get much airtime and for that alone it makes this film worth seeing.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Propaganda
silversurfer-985609 March 2022
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.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed