IMDb > An Inconvenient Truth (2006) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
An Inconvenient Truth
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
An Inconvenient Truth More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 5 of 51: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [Next]
Index 508 reviews in total 

66 out of 123 people found the following review useful:

Useless

1/10
Author: perfectionisticish from United States
9 July 2006

Everyone has been informed of the dangers of global warming although in reality, global warming is only a theory, it is not a proved problem. For all we know it is like an ice age only backwards, or for that matter, it may stop heating up after a while. In fact, when the world was created it was much hotter than it was today.

Al Gore's attempt of informing America of Global Warming is merely him trying to gain people's votes.

Besides that, its not like anyone besides a few over dramatic people who always get so emotionally attached to movies will even listen to it. This isn't in anyway a good movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

15 out of 22 people found the following review useful:

"Triumph of the Will" for a Postmodern World

1/10
Author: Dave from Ohio
17 March 2007

It didn't really deserve a 1, but that's what I gave it. After all, "Triumph of the Will" has a 7.9, and why should this have more? In many ways, they are the same. They are propaganda films, not documentaries. They are meant to convince people that a certain truth is the only truth, that a certain solution is the only solution, that all evidence supports one view, and only those leaders who accept these views are the ones worthy of following by implication.

"Inconvenient Truth" wasn't horrendous, but it represents a new fusion of art and politics that we haven't seen since WWII (with the fusion between science/academia/art not seen since Victorian England). And then, the Arts world was quick to abandon its blind following of 'the cause' as soon as the war was over. But now, despite thousands of scientists questioning and cautioning the film's claims, "Inconvenient Truth" and co. is the hot item for many in certain ideological and political circles. And just like "Triumph of the Will" 60 plus years ago, it whips folks up into such a frenzy that no other idea, no other evidence, and no other solution will be listened to, or tolerated.

I have a feeling that in years to come, folks who have survived the cataclysm-yet-to-come because of global warming will look back and put this movie, and the millions who made it what it is, through the same prism of realism that is so lacking today.

Was the above review useful to you?

24 out of 40 people found the following review useful:

Why the wait? After all the world ends tomorrow.

Author: superbeefinder from United States
30 October 2006

Let me get this straight. The environment is changing rapidly, very rapidly. We have to get the message out to as many people as we can as fast as we can.

So, you don't put it on PBS or a basic cable channel. First you made everyone get in their car and DRIVE to a theater and PAY to see this crucial information. Then, if they missed it at the theater, now then can buy this crucial information (but not until Nov. 21st).

This is nothing more than a fancy documentary. But you gave it a premier like a movie, ran it in movie theaters (with movie prices), held it for DVD release like a movie. What gives Al Gore? If it can be held for months for DVD release or not shown for free, than I guess it can't be too damned important.

Was the above review useful to you?

10 out of 13 people found the following review useful:

Far to political

7/10
Author: dentron63 from United States
13 January 2007

I fully agree with what Al Gore has to say.

I think that he made a BIG mistake regarding his message. He entered the entire discussion from a political stand point. This is wrong and tells me that he is in it for the money.

I am a republican and although I agree with what he has to say (Scientifically), he has to play into the hands of most Americans and quit bashing who is in office. His bashing does nothing more than diminish his status in the minds of many people.

If Al wants this to be a pure statement regarding the environment, he needs to quit making it a political statement.

It is an excellent documentary, if you can see past the biasing.

Was the above review useful to you?

12 out of 17 people found the following review useful:

A Strong Argument Undermined By Al Gore

6/10
Author: joe67saint from United States
10 October 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Coming into this movie, I was a skeptic. However, I have to say that a fairly strong case was laid out in favor of significantly greater action in combating global warming. That was the good half of this movie. The part of this movie, was the half that was just propaganda for Al Gore. There are countless scenes of the solitary Al Gore, trying to spread the word for global action all by himself. We constantly see Al Gore sitting at his computer recognizing the environmental issues by scrolling through some pictures of glaciers. Throughout the movie we see the highlights of Al Gore's political career. Al Gore came into Congress and introduced environmental concerns, and held hearing by himself. Not much is said about his Vice Presidency, save that he was Vice President. However, in one scene, Gore does use this film as an opportunity to compare himself to Winston Churchill. There are several scenes of him back at the "family farm", and we are told his father (the Senator) won "Best Breeder." Al tells the story of his son almost dying. The movie is also peppered with some jokes written for Al Gore, some of which are kinda funny. I'm glad that Al Gore brings his charisma to this film, but wouldn't it be better if it showed some actual "experts"? Gore constantly says "scientists say" or "experts say" I'd rather hear some other people with more credibility say.

Was the above review useful to you?

15 out of 23 people found the following review useful:

Global Warming is a Scam!

1/10
Author: relativitytheory from United States
14 June 2007

This so-called categorized documentary, is based on junk-science! It has surely fooled a great many in this country, who without question accept it's hypothesis (out of pure desire).

Don't get me wrong, I believe the earth is getting warmer. I believe the climate is changing. I don't believe this is caused by man. I (along with many other qualified non-former politicians and non-celebrities) am not sure why the hype is so strong lately but I agree with author Michael Crichton (he wrote Jurassic Park) that the environmental movement is full of bad science, foundations seeking $$$$ and more $$$$ and celebrities who want to promote a cause they know nothing about.

Crichton makes a brilliant observation about global warming in Jurassic Park. He basically says that humans are arrogant to think that they can destroy the planet Earth which has withstood much more than we could ever hope to throw at it over billions of years. Excellent point.

And Al Gore's movie... The movie cover with the hurricane spewing forth from a smoke stack? Last year was one of the quietest hurricane years on record. Nice one, Al. His movie is a joke! It's a two hour campaign ad.

The modern environmentalist movement is about hating America for it's progress. It's a ploy to destroy capitalism. It's a socialist lie. China is polluting at an astronomical rate. In the next few years their carbon emissions will eclipse ours. Do you hear anyone complaining about China? Do you hear the French calling for a global tax on China's carbon emissions? Of course you don't because it's political not scientific. Think about it.

For more on this, I recommend the book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years. It's a book written by real scientists (no they're not former politicians or movie stars) who examine the real science behind global warming. I suggest picking it up.

Get educated on this and stop listening to the hate America, BS science crowd.

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

An Irritating Truth

1/10
Author: slashlegend11 from United States
27 January 2008

In a sad but ultimately unavoidable state of affairs, the political global warming bandwagon has entered the world of cinema. Al Gore is the latest 'celebrity' to have recognised the fame and attention associated with publicly supporting global warming, coincidently in line with the US presidential elections in which he is actively involved (Hmmmm strange no?). For years now people like Bob Geldolf and Bono have been tirading the public, morally mugging them of their money, of which how much does/can help global warming is unknown. Every year Bob Geldolf curses us all to damnation for "wasting power", Bob presumably lives on the moon for most of the year, only coming to earth to take more money off people. Ironically, Bob calling his daughter 'Peaches' is the real crime, we should be raising money to help her change her name/parents. Bono similarly has he own way of damning us to hell for wasting power, by arranging massive global concerts with overpaid nobody's supposedly who all care about global warming. Of course these huge concerts waste no power at all, they are powered by CO2, so they only help global warming, or so Bono would have us believe. In short, film is not about global warming, its about Al Gores political career.

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

Good presentation, so-so science

7/10
Author: matjusm from London
24 January 2007

This is another one of those Michael Moore type documentaries but even more extreme. By that I mean that at first glance, the film seems to completely level whatever it is attacking (in this case its telling us about how we've screwed up our climate) and does a pretty good job at it but when you really focus in on the scientific aspects, you'll find out an inconvenient truth. In this case it is that you don't here the other side of the story and there is a lot to it.

Al Gore is one very good presenter and speaker. He knows how to connect to the audience and how to sell his arguments. But don't be fooled because although there is a lot of truth in what he says and the message is noble, there is more to the story than what Gore bothers telling you. He doesn't do so much lying but simply picks what he says very cleverly and knows what not to say. If you're a bit more familiar with the topic, these things become overly evident.

First of all carbon dioxide. Yes, temperature rises (only 0.6 degrees C over the last century) have gone hand in hand with carbon dioxide level rises but there is more to the story. Firstly only a small part of all the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is anthropogenic (man made), secondly the effects of carbon dioxide on global warming are logarithmic whereby the more you add, the less effect it has and thirdly, carbon dioxide isn't even the largest greenhouse gas. Water vapor (of which 99.999% is of natural origin) is and is responsible for about 90-95% of the greenhouse effect. Plus he neglects to mention all the astronomical factors that effect our climate such sunspot and sun irradiance cycles and the changes of the earth's tilt and orbit among other things. Now aren't those convenient facts to simply leave out? Then Gore talks about the sea rising by the end of this century by a whole 6 meters (accompanied by many frightening shots of famous locations like New York) being flooded. The United Nations lists a somewhat different figure- 0.48 meters. Gore simply takes the absolute worst case scenario prediction and tells us that that is exactly what is going to happen. Then very cleverly he works in all sorts of horrifying images that he passes off as the effects of global warming. One such example is the drying of lake Chad which according to Gore was caused by global warming. He says the same thing about the Aral Sea accompanied by frightening shots of boats in the middle of the desert. Unfortunately for him, both were caused by the over exploitation of the rivers that fed the lakes. There is more, a lot more.

He constantly uses demagogy to support his points by showing moving images of a drowning polar bear or the completely unrelated topic of his son getting hit by a car. But despite all his inaccuracies and convenient omissions, the message is still sound. We should be looking for other energy sources and he does touch this subject briefly. Perhaps that should have been the main focus of the film.

If you see this film, be aware that there is more to the scientific part of the story than what Gore is willing to talk about. See this to learn how to give a good speech and sell your arguments.

Was the above review useful to you?

48 out of 90 people found the following review useful:

Not true at all in many ways! Lot of slight of hand:(

2/10
Author: yrebel997 from United States
10 September 2006

Didn't tell you that Mathian is 25 times more of a green house gas than co2! Why blame us? Plants make a lot of Mathian when they ferment. Much more green house gas than they eliminate. Cut down all the trees you tree Huggers. All green house gas combined only amounts to 1% of earths gas. If green house gas was causing the oceans to heat up, the shallow water would boil before the deep water even warmed up. It would be almost as hot at night as it is in the day time if green house gas was the cause. I'm on broil when it's hot, not bake. Kyoto would only change the climate .007th of 1% in 100 years. Maybe! That's if all the poor people don't panic over the cost of energy and burn every thing they can find. They would! It's solar storms that is causing global warming. The submariners have pumped cold air into the water to freeze water for decades. They can make an island in minutes. Put big fans in the arctic and pipe cold air into the water. Water freezes at 33%. It gets -50 to -120 on the poles. You could freeze enough water with a simple trick like that to make it possible to walk from Alaska to Siberia for practically free. Put big cooling towers on the coastal regions and pump cold oxygen rich air in the water there. Why not pump steam and burned product like sugar beet into the stratosphere and block out the sun. If it was as bad as they say, Why not put a big mirror in outer space instead of that stupid space station and block out the sun. I could go on for ever. P.S. Al Gore is not GREEN!!!

Google this- usatoday gore green

Was the above review useful to you?

76 out of 146 people found the following review useful:

brilliant movie.... but a convenient omission?

7/10
Author: jarajapu from United States
4 June 2006

This movie is definitely bigger than Al Gore ! As an outsider, I see some political overtones here and there but on the whole, it is a compelling argument in favor of how we could potentially alter the 'global climatic cycles' !

The analogies he draws, his call for action and most importantly his passion for environment come across clearly.

Even more so, we understand Al Gore himself as a son, a brother, a father and most of all a human being who cannot just sit there and watch his neighbor's house burn !

As a movie, I would rate it as 'worth a watch' and 'worth telling your movie-buffet buddies about'.

Despite all this, the absence of something caught my eye. Al Gore explains all his charts and data very well...

.. but when he shows this particular chart that has the temperature-CO2 levels projected over the last 600,000 year time line, he only shows how high the 'current CO2 levels' are compared to any other time in this span!

At this point, I was really curious to know how the temperature changed with respect to it in recent years and if it still adhered to the previous 'cyclical limits' but he does not display that data or even attempt to project future estimates!

May be a convenient omission? I have not seen this data anywhere else but if one of you come across that last piece of information missing in the movie, can you please post it here?

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 5 of 51: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Awards
External reviews Parents Guide Official site
Plot keywords Main details Your user reviews
Your vote history