Change Your Image
jay-b-markson
Reviews
An Inconvenient Truth (2006)
Not Especially Scientific
I am a Republican and by no means a fan of Al Gore, but I was looking forward to seeing this film because I had heard it was a) riveting and b) scientifically informative. I was mildly disappointed in both respects.
While the images it portrays and the consequences it predicts are ominous indeed, this film is, at its heart, not a documentary about global warming. It is a documentary about Al Gore giving a slideshow about global warming. To that end, it includes long segments describing Al Gore's childhood on a tobacco farm, a story about how his son was hit by a car, and so forth. Even in the sections of the film devoted to scientific argument, the camera lingers generously on the silhouetted profile of Mr. Gore, showing him looking determined and thoughtful. It's political self-service, and it's unseemly in what is supposed to be a scientific documentary. These sections made the film significantly too long; at 100 minutes, it's the longest slideshow you'll ever sit through, and much in need of trimming. To his credit, Mr. Gore is a fine speaker, but his snarky humor and attempts at political relevance detract from the message of the film.
As for being scientifically informative, "An Inconvenient Truth" didn't tell me anything I didn't already know. Yes, greenhouse gases, icecaps, extreme weather conditions, etc., etc. -- this is Science Lite, mostly the basic introduction to global warming you'd get in high school Earth Science. (On the other hand, I'm currently taking a climate change course, so some of the material may have been more familiar to me than to the average viewer.) I was hoping Gore would address some issues that skeptical paleoclimatologists have raised, namely:
1. That, historically, CO2 levels have lagged behind temperature changes (rather than the other way around) by around 600 yrs. 2. That global temperature data may be influenced by the "urban heat island effect" (ie, weather stations located near cities show artificially higher temperatures unrelated to global warming).
Note that I am neither a denier of nor a believer in the theory of global warming Mr. Gore espouses; I was hoping he might answer these criticisms and give me a clue one way or the other. But Gore does not delve much into refuting criticisms of global warming theory. As a result, "An Inconvenient Truth" is persuasive mostly to those who have already been persuaded.
I was VERY disappointed to see that Gore references an article by Nancy Oreskes stating, essentially, that there is a 100% consensus in the scientific literature about global warming. I have read this article, and have also read criticisms of it; furthermore, I have read a large number of articles expressing skepticism about the consensus opinion on global warming (articles which, according to Oreskes and Gore, shouldn't exist), all published in reliable scientific journals.
It is important to note that doubting the consensus opinion on the climatic effect of CO2 is a valid scientific view, simply because the environment is so hard to predict and research. Gore belittles non-consensus opinions with appallingly vicious sarcasm.
CONCLUSION:"An Inconvenient Truth" is a political vehicle for Al Gore more than an in-depth scientific study. It says nothing new, merely feeding previously researched Science to the masses in polemical form. The film is too long and has too little substance to be interesting as a work of cinema, and the way it services Al Gore is distracting and disturbing. With all that said, "An Inconvenient Truth" is a powerful film and slickly made film, and might serve as a useful primer or refresher on global warming science, so long as the viewer remembers that the science of the matter is far more complex than Gore represents it.
My Fair Lady (1964)
An Excellent Movie Musical
"My Fair Lady" has a couple of problems. For one, the pacing is gratingly slow, particularly in the last third of the film. For another, Audrey Hepburn's performance as Eliza Doolittle is only so-so. (Sorry, Hepburn fans.) While she obviously brings a lot of talent to the role, her Cockney accent is poor and she overacts her songs.
Despite these issues, "My Fair Lady" is one of the very best movie musicals of all time. The songs are witty, engaging, and sometimes beautiful; the script is clever and pointed (thanks to Shaw); and Rex Harrison is gleefully abrasive and disdainful as Henry Higgins. This movie would be worth watching just for Harrison, but also features strong supporting performances, particularly from Stanley Holloway as Eliza's father.
What sets "My Fair Lady" apart most is its relative lack of Broadway sappiness. There are no too-pat love stories, nor embarrassing melodrama; instead, the film explores bachelorhood, social classism, stubbornness, and the complexity of human relationships. The characters and circumstances feel genuine. The result is a rare movie that is satisfying both intellectually and emotionally. "My Fair Lady" is also brave enough to have an ambiguous ending, one of only three movie musicals I know to do so. (The others are "West Side Story" and "Fiddler on the Roof.") "My Fair Lady" lacks the glitz of many movie musicals, but is truer, more thoughtful, and ultimately better than, for example, "The Sound of Music." (Sorry, SoM fans. "The Sound of Music" makes me gag.) It even compares favorably to the gold standard of movie musicals: "Singin' in the Rain." "Singin'" is wildly entertaining, features brilliant choreography, and is more tightly paced. But, having seen both movies, I find that "My Fair Lady" makes for better memories.
See it.
El Naser Salah el Dine (1963)
A Yawn-inducing, Historically Irresponsible Film
Richard Lionheart's helmet appears to be a re-adapted funnel. That should give you an idea of the production values that went into this film. The characters are flat; the duologue is stale; the battle sequences are unimpressive; the history is twisted beyond recognition. At least three or four of the major characters are entirely made-up, and many of the others were twisted beyond recognition.
If you are interested in Arab propaganda from the Nasser period, you may find this film interesting. But it has nothing to offer other viewers besides a terrifically biased version of historical events. You would do better with 2005's "Kingdom of Heaven", which, for all its flaws (and there are many) at least did not make up historical figures for reasons of plot convenience.
I have no idea why viewers have rated this film so highly. 8.1? Get real.