User reviews

I was disappointed that this movie was not an in-depth study of the science involved in the study of global warming. It seems that 90% of the movie is devoted to telling the viewer about recent climate changes and their effects on the Earth, while only 10% is devoted to explaining why and how these changes have come about.

The movie seems to be directed at a very broad audience who knows practically nothing about global warming or our current climate related problems. If that's you, then go see the movie. But if you are expecting a thorough analysis, you would be better off looking for facts on the web.

I thought that this was on the whole a good film - I can imagine it being an EXCELLENT film for teachers to show to a class to explain global warming, actually. It explains the facts very well, explains away the objections that people have been hearing about from the media, and is also pretty funny at times. The film basically consists of a tour of Al Gore's climate change speeches around the world. It is, in essence, one long speech in various cities around the world (Al Gore says that he's given this presentation thousands of times), inter-cut with some various other footage. The film starts off with a few diagrams that many of you will probably have seen already, as well as a rather famous Futurama clip. In fact, if you're well-versed in your science, you'll probably already know much of what Al Gore talks about (though probably not quite all) - this film is really for the general public who doesn't quite know all of this, and also for those who might have heard something about global warming here and there but want to see exactly how all of the facts fit together.

As I said, a very good educational film. The problems come in the short but noticeable periods when the film tries to be a biography of Al Gore at the same time. Now, I don't know about you, but I was watching this to find out about global warming, not to find out what Al Gore thought about losing the 2000 election. I imagine that these are the bits that teachers will fast-forward over when they show this to their classes, since they don't really add anything to the film. I would have respected Al Gore a bit more if he hadn't tried to make this a film also (in a way) about himself. I guess it's to be expected, since he's a politician, but it's disappointing.

In closing, although it's not a perfect film, it's a pretty good one. It is THE film to watch if you want to find out about global warming (at least, I haven't heard of any better films out there). I don't really understand all of the "10" or "1" ratings on IMDb. It's not a "10" or "1" film. Even its biggest fans will have to admit that as a movie it could be a little tighter sometimes. I think it's good enough, but it's not perfect.

Before seeing this movie I thought that it might sway the debate on global warming. I assumed that the entire movie was going to be about global warming, and if it had been it would have been much more effective. While about two-thirds of it is about global warming, the other third is a promo for Al Gore--including footage of the contentious 2000 presidential election. As someone who is deeply concerned about the issue of global warming, I am disappointed because I think this diversion from the ostensible subject of the movie makes it much less effective as rhetoric. It has the immediate effect of alienating any republicans that may be in the audience, and global warming should not be seen as a partisan issue, or nothing will ever get done. I'm afraid that because of this the movie will mostly be "preaching to the choir." It still may be an effective tool for educating democrats that were previously uninformed on global warming. As a doctoral student in climate science, I can say that Gore mostly gets the science right, although he weakens the presentation by not pointing out which things are still open to debate.

Plain and simple - all the negative comments here are from people that simply haven't seen it. See the movie before you try to disprove points that it's not trying to make. See the movie even if you think the globe is in a cooling pattern for some reason (then you can debate the evidence it lays out before you.) I for one have seen it, and it serves not as a political soapbox, but simply a filmed version of a presentation which Gore has been giving since for over 20 years - only to pick up where he left off after conceding the last election.

The film is a call to arms for us to fix a fixable problem, explaining the few things each individual can do to bring CO2 levels back down to where they were pre-1970's - On a whole - the film views a little like a college lecture, because it essentially is one. But the topic discussed is imperative.

Don't get bogged down by anyone trying to turn the film into a political issue. It's a right or wrong issue, plain and simple.

Just the facts ma'am.

... If you do not, and you have grandchildren, you should explain to them why you decided not to." - Roger Ebert

After the closing credits to An Inconvenient Truth rolled, I walked out to my car in the theater's parking lot. LA's infamous haze hung low, crimson in the twilight. In the foreground a solitary grasshopper pump drew up oil that had laid dormant for hundreds of millions of years. If Supersize Me made the prospect of a Big Mac and fries a little less appealing, imagine the feeling of slipping into a six cylinder car for a three mile trip home.

Just the same, An Inconvenient Truth is not about blame. It's also not only about the problems that global warming poses. Instead, it sets aside the matter of "who's fault is it" and leaves the viewer with the desire to ask and answer the question of "what can I do?" The film (and companion website) does not fail to deliver: both offer practicable steps to take regarding the literal sea change facing the planet.

The movie presents evidence that, to me, was quite compelling. Is it incontrovertible? Not being an environmental scientist, I couldn't say. But it's telling that out of almost 1000 peer reviewed scientific journals the film examines on the topic of global warming, the matter was not questioned by one (though doubted in more than half of the popular literature written during the same time). It's also worth mentioning that while Al Gore hosts the film, this movie is not about him. And while he may have showed up for some six years ago as stiff and stodgy, in this context he is masterful in blending the informative with the entertaining.

Go see the film for yourself. Bring a friend. Trust me, you'll be glad to have carpooled.

Regardless of how you feel about Al Gore as a politician, this documentary is worth seeing because of the gravity of the issues discussed. Gore proves to be a worthy spokesman and his arguments are clear and concise at the beginning of the film. In other words, you do not need to be a scientist to understand what he is saying about the environment and the consequences of global warming. He is an effective communicator and good at explaining the problem in layperson's terms.

The problem with the film is, ironically, too much of Al Gore himself. Less than halfway through I began to ask myself "Is this a documentary about global warming or about Al Gore?" There is a shift from the message to the messenger; global warming fades into the background while Al moves to the front and center. While a brief personal portrait (family background, political career) could have enhanced the story, in this documentary the focus on Gore dilutes the film's central theme.

Towards the end, Gore's examples become slightly disjointed as he tries to "throw too much into the bag" (ex: overpopulation). I blame this more on the editing of the film than on his live presentations (people have criticized the movie as being "about a slideshow", but seeing the film made me want to attend one of Mr. Gore's presentations in person!). Thankfully, "An Inconvenient Truth" ends on a positive note. That alone makes this documentary recommended viewing.

Is Al Gore is doing a Chicken Little act in "An Inconvenient Truth"? I wish he were. This stunning documentary about global warming is a well-reasoned, clearly-proved, intelligent, cogent, irresistible torrent of scientific data, in a curiously warm, engaging, often funny presentation. What an entertaining horror movie this is! Unexpectedly, improbably, Gore is doing a Hitchcock act here, all affable and chummy... before scaring the hell out of the audience. And that he does, with charts, statistics, projections coming from hundreds of peer-reviewed studies, none challenged, while allowing how some 50% of mass-media treatment of global warming *is* subject to questions. There is even a cute animation segment about exaggerated global-warming claims.

There is no need to exaggerate. Unchallenged studies are showing an extraordinary rise in ocean temperatures, the disappearance of glaciers, the melting of the poles - and then Gore twists the knife with a series of graphics showing areas to be inundated by rising waters. In a flooded Manhattan of the future, Gore says, the site of the World Trade Center will be under water. "Terrorism," he says, without drama or overemphasis, "is not the only danger we must face." The threatened catastrophe is not in the distant future. The US Geological Survey predicts that by 2030, Glacier National Park will have no glaciers left. In the last 30 years, 400,00 square miles of Arctic sea ice have melted; polar bears today drown when they cannot find an ice floe to rest on. What has Congress done about global warming? Absolutely nothing.

Davis Guggenheim's documentary is based mostly on Gore's multimedia presentation on climate change, a lecture he has delivered hundreds of times in recent months. While Gore is managing the show with powerful efficiency, there is nothing dry or tired about it. The film is virtually flawless, even some of the cornier visuals fit in. Gore's personal remarks are affecting: the death of his sister from lung cancer, after lifelong smoking, forced the family - after generations of tobacco-growing in Tennessee - to quit the business. No overt statement is heard, but there is an inevitable comparison with the world's addiction to many activities directly contributing to climate change.

Political references are at a minimum. The only strong criticism of the Bush presidency is in the context of the Republican rejection of the Kyoto Treaty, making the US one of two countries in the world to do so (Australia is the other one). Following a huge list of countries paying at least lip service to the cause of climate control under the treaty, Gore shows a similarly large list of US cities where local government is taking measures not supported by Washington.

Gore is clear about the danger of being overwhelmed by the danger of what's happening, and he concludes the film by saying that going from denial to despair without pausing to see what can be done is the wrong course of action, or rather inaction. "Political will," Gore says, "is a renewable resource." Gently, but firmly, he calls for attention to a clear and present danger that cannot be ignored... even if faith-based denial of the evidence before us remains largely the order of the day, with all the comfort of darkness behind closed eyes. An alternative is at http://www.climatecrisis.net/.

When this movie came out I purposely avoided it. The trailers for it seemed over the top with a doomsday sort of approach. It became a political football immediately and the extreme views of both supporters and detractors turned me off from seeing it as well. After 13 years I finally watched it out of idle curiosity rather than any strong interest in the pros or cons of any climate change debate. And maybe that's what it takes to view certain documentaries with any sort of objectivity. I always thought Gore was a bit of an alarmist on the topic when seeing him interviewed after the movie came out. However the ultimate irony is that the movie (and Gore) probably understated the peril of climate change at the time. After 13 years the predictions now seem a bit tame, if anything, especially when compared to the actually tally of extreme weather events that have affected just the US. And the actual rate of glacial melting, polar ice retreat and permafrost degradation is actually a bit faster than predicted even at the time the movie was made. I notice many negative reviews concentrate on the possible misinterpretation of certain data or the omission of conflicting sources and possible counter narratives using the same data. All well and good. The only problem with those criticisms now is that they have been overtaken by events in the space of just 13 years. Both Gore and his critics got it wrong. Climate change is worse than Gore or the even more extreme partisans predicted. Not a pleasant realization to come to.

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?

This is an aspect of Environmental Science 101 that everyone should learn. If you aren't big into charts and graphs, you may have a hard time sitting still by the end of the film, but that's the point. Cold, hard facts.

Overall, a documentary worth seeing. The bits of animation are cute and eye-catching, and Gore's humor is appropriately dispersed throughout. I could have done without the Melissa Etheridge song at the end.

This isn't some platform Gore picked up in the last few years; this is something he has been fighting for his whole life, which gives him a credible and reliable voice in this issue and documentary. The best thing about Gore in this film is that he's straightforward without being blatantly alarmist, which is a welcome change from Moore.

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.

An Inconvenient Truth puts forth nothing but propaganda. It was challenged in the courts in London when they were trying to force students to watch it. The court found that Gore's documentary contains nine key scientific errors. The judge declined to ban the Academy Award-winning film from British schools but ruled that it can ONLY be shown with guidance notes to prevent political indoctrination (see Telegraph 10/11/2007).

I got to see this at Sundance. Sometimes there are documentaries that have been accused of not being straightforward or factual, but this is not one of them. It's very fact based. It had some funny and touching moments, but they were never done at the expense of the integrity of the film. It's very science based but presented in a fascinating way (I have no science background). It was also done on a technical level that was superb. The situation presented on global warming is unsettling, but I appreciate that the filmmakers do end it with some hope. I gave it a 9/10, instead of a 10, because Al Gore (although I respect him more than ever after seeing this) is presented as a lone warrior type in trying to get the message out. I would've liked to have seen a more accurate portrayal of the community of people-- scientists, religious leaders, teachers, etc...-- who speak out for change every day. Still, it alone was worth the trip to Utah.

Clearly, the negative reviews on here are by people who have not seen it. It's actually quite good...even entertaining. Sprinkled between the charts and graphs are moments of humor and emotion. As with any documentary, not every fact is cited and backed up, etc., but I've seen nothing to indicate anything there is not factual. And that's after reading the negative reviews on this site... :) Anyway, I highly recommend seeing this movie. Even if you don't agree with the premise, it's a matter of being informed. Listen to the "other side" as much as you listen to "your side"...and you can form educated opinions.

So Democrats...go. Because you should and you'll enjoy it.

And Republicans...go. Because you should and you'll enjoy being close-minded about it.

And Independents...go. Because you should, and you'll be open-minded enough to be SHOCKED at what a different human being Al Gore is now from 2000. Remember, this is a man (who is displaying remarkable passion about global-warming) who said in a 2000 debate, "Ultimately, this is about priorities, and I want to be your EDUCATION President."

I wouldn't call this movie a "film" so much as a "forum" in which Gore is given the ability to inform the public at large of a very REAL problem that our earth is facing.

The hard facts and plain-as-day graphs are shocking to those who have not done research on global warning. But, all these facts are perfectly complemented by a quirky, humorous demeanor (believe it or not) and an overall sense of optimism.

I went from feeling fairly uninformed about global warming to feeling as though each of us as individuals can truly make a difference and participate in promoting change from the ground up.

I left with the understanding that global warming is a pertinent problem that we need to address for the sake of saving lives, and also for maintaining the same comfortable level of life we have learned to live in our lifetime and for generations beyond.

Global catastrophes have pummeled Earth and its inhabitants more so recently than in other times as recalled by our collective memory, opening vast opportunities for the cinematic community to chip in with its different takes on the issue.

Consequently, nature and ecology-related releases previously relegated to home video and/or television media have been finding their way increasingly onto commercial exhibitors of mainstream motion pictures.

It wasn't too long ago we beheld March of the Penguins (also known as Emperor's Journey), a nature flick packing potent emotional relevance for human viewers, and now here comes what essentially amounts to a traditional documentary-cum-travelogue, or a variety of product previously undesired by theaters busying themselves with money-making blockbusters.

However, a sensitized audience ever more concerned with gas prices and worldwide climatic transformation has made it possible to place An Inconvenient Truth alongside The Da Vinci Code and M:I:3. The result is thought provoking as intended, but not the unbiased triumph we would have hoped for, since its creators' agenda does creep into proceedings more than the bare minimum mandates.

Director David Guggenheim does well, having cut his teeth on a host of high-caliber TV projects like Party of Five, Alias and Deadwood. He helms a 100 minute-long look at former US vice-president Al Gore's world-hugging travels in promotion of CO2 emission reduction, a bid described by Gore himself as desperate and one set against a ticking time bomb embodied by rising sea levels and temperatures.

We follow Gore from locale to locale as he eloquently demonstrates the dangers faced by humanity, using some animation and lots of low-key, subtle exposure of various landscapes. Gore is seen visiting China, for example, and his ancestral farm, where he grew up learning first hand about tobacco as an economic engine and health hazard.

Unlike what some have been expecting, Truth doesn't cover a wide spectrum of environmental issues, but rather focuses almost exclusively on greenhouse gasses and the current state of energy production. One memorable sequence superimposes higher sea levels on Google Earth images of major world cities, chillingly visualizing the devastating effects such an eventuality will have on our civilization.

Other highlighted segments include sentimental, but not mushy, iconic images of mother Earth observed from space, with Gore, in his droning but all the same caring monotone, reminding people that there's really nowhere else to go.

Although dealing with a tremendous topic, Truth avoids deploying overtures, hyperbole or major clichés, and throughout maintains a personal instead of bombastic approach. The camera pans close to its subject matter, goes in and out of focus, shies away from grand visages. In total, the effect bring to mind borderline-indie pictures like Sofia Coppola's Lost in Translation and Michael Winterbottom's superb but rarely seen Code 46.

An Inconvenient Truth likewise boasts no top-dollar effects to dazzle you with, hoping to sway the opinions of those in attendance by simply putting forth what most of us already know, yet opt to ignore because acknowledgement is indeed inconvenient to our present lifestyle.

Thankfully, there's little of the horse-flogging so traditional with preachy items of this ilk. Gore doesn't point fingers at anyone in particular, yet succeeds in letting us know precisely who's to blame for each problem denoted. This is because Truth covers familiar territory. It does not reveal any hitherto unknown facts about climate change, nor shatter staunchly held misconceptions, save maybe for its outright conclusion that debating humanity's impact on the environment is a moot point. Gore claims there's no question as to whether we are influencing our own habitat by way of technology, a quandary of syntax more than factual validity.

An Inconvenient Truth's greatest contribution lies in being a pleasant wakeup call, poking folks with painful realities without the thorny criticism and ensuing guilt-trip. Of course, having a seasoned speaker like Al Gore helps a lot, and it's easy to listen to him explain those things we'd like to forget knowing.

What's not so effortless for them is maintaining credibility, and when Gore comes out and says now mainland China has higher environmental standards than the US things begin to fall apart, as anyone who's ever been to both parts of the world knows full well. Such sweeping statements go against the otherwise subdued grain of the project, and serve as one more post-it note: that perhaps there's another agenda running in the background.

We're not saying Gore's clamoring for another go at the White House, but certainly something's afoot, especially with the obviously positive play China gets in the documentary, with not even a peep out about its repeated environmental disasters, poor enforcement, rampant development and otherwise dismal track record when it comes to issues of ecology.

All that goes on to the tune of denouncing American and other Western societies as chiefly responsible for adverse environmental changes, and while this too is handled with care and laid-back class, it's discordant nonetheless and indicative of a hidden current bubbling under An Inconvenient Truth's supposedly benign surface.

Hence, this comes to pass as a public-minded exercise demanding cautious respect from observers. Go watch it for the prime relevance it has on your life and the lives those who will come after. Watch it so you can hear some elements of the truth, particularly those we should be conscious of but elect to ignore.

Don't watch Truth with a gullible mind, and keep ready that all-important salt shaker, it'll come in useful once taking what Gore says in perspective becomes as imperative as ingesting the responsibility we all have for our common fate on this blue planet.

From stylish presentation to ludicrously banal environmental tips upon closing ("recycle", "buy en electric car"), Truth still defies grading. It gets the job done even when devoid of bona fide revelation, achieving goals in a rational manner while wanton activism tempts, and that is impressive.

Rating: * * * ½

Here it is May, and I know there will be no more important film of 2006 than the Al Gore doc "An Inconvenient Truth". This film WILL drastically change the political and environmental consciousness of our country, and carve itself a mark in National history. This perfection in cinema will be immortalized for posterity, and emerge as the preeminent example of our medium's power of education and influence.

When the lights came up, I made for the door. The entire audience stayed for the credits, but I instantly wanted to be alone. My reactions had been emotional and it was painful stifling my welling elation. Three young girls (sixteen to eighteen, at the most) filed out of the cinema in front of me. One sniffled restraint over her own reaction, as they pushed open the heavy wooden doors and squinted into the light. "I trading my car in tomorrow," she proclaimed.

"Tsssst, come on!" her friend jeered. No doubt, the group's eternal skeptic and future anachronism.

"I don't care what you say. I'm doing it!" she persisted. The skeptic piped down and the three solemnly exited the structure.

I have never had so much optimism for our future, youth, and culture.

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.

Man, is this a good movie. Its like a science fiction thriller with real science. Its straight forward, fast paced, relevant and intelligent.

Aren't you tired of "Monster of the Week" movies, "How Fast Can People Drive" movies and "How many people can have sex" movies? If you want to watch something you haven't seen before, something that you'll actually care about after you leave the theater, you'll love this film.

There is NOTHING more misunderstood than Global Warming. People don't understand any of the theories or science behind it. Why should they? CNN, Fox News, MSNBC have better things to do than talk about climate change. They have Aruba to talk about after all.

Don't be afraid you'll be bored. Its as good as any movie you've seen in the last year, and you'll walk out of it feeling lucky to have seen it.

Gore, by the way, was a great narrator. Too bad he didn't win Florida in 2000. Ah well, he wouldn't have made this movie if he had.

I believe in global warming. As a scientists, though, I am concerned with some data in the movie, which is also a Figure on p65 of Gore book: An Inconvenient Truth. This figure shows temperature as a function of time from 1000CE - present.

(1) Why is there BOTH red (hot) and blue (cold) data in the period toward the right (the period from ~1950-present, when there is only red OR blue data elsewhere?

(2) By normalizing to data from 1961-1990, Gore is accentuating the red period (hot) from ~1950-present. If the data were normalized for 1000 - 1900CE, then there would be other regions (e.g. 1000 - 1400CE) that would also be red (hot).

The latter makes the especially HOT period from ~1900 - present more obvious (and it IS HOTTER!), but it does seem misleading.

Al Gore's supposed masterpiece should be stored under the heading of "masters of fiction." That's all this is, a work of pure unadulterated fiction and scare tactic. What is Al really doing here besides making another speech no one really wants to hear. This is a good companion piece to THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW, another work of fiction.

What has really been done? Nothing. What has Al Gore really done? Make himself a boatload of money! That simple. The only reason this film was given a 7/10 rating was because it seemed humorous (Futurama scenes only).

Al Gore still jets around everywhere, not thinking about his supposed impact of global warming, all the while condemning mankind for their "atrocities." He's nothing but a washed up joke. His time is over, his fifteen minutes of fame were up in 2001. Give up Al, it's over, you're a has-been.