Roger Ebert Reviews Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" (Four Stars Out of Four Stars!)

[Blitz]

Excerpts:

What he wants you to know is that he has not made a political film. Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" tries to move outside politics and focus on the facts of global warming. Gore says those facts are established, the returns are in, there is almost unanimous scientific agreement about them, and we may have about 10 years before the earth reaches a tipping point from which it cannot recover.

Gore makes no mention in the film of President George W. Bush or any of his policies. He deliberately avoids naming any names or pointing any fingers. "This is not a political movie," he said firmly. "Paramount did a lot of focus groups, and people came out said it was not like 'Fahrenheit 9/11.' It played fair and supported what it said. It appealed equally to Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives. You have to remember that the environment used to be a bipartisan issue in the United States. Religious leaders saw it as a matter of respecting God's creation."

He has been traveling the world for six years making speeches in which this message has evolved. But all of those speeches put together have not had the impact of this new documentary, directed by Davis Guggenheim, which is horrifying, enthralling and has the potential, I believe, to actually change public policy and begin a process which could save the earth.

It is not only an important film, but a good one. Guggenheim has found a way to make facts and statistics into drama and passion. He organizes Gore's arguments into visuals that overwhelm us. Gore begins with the famous photograph "Earthrise," which was the first photo taken of Earth from outer space. Then he shows later satellite photos. It is absolutely clear that the white areas are disappearing, that snow and ice is melting, that the shape of continents is changing. The polar areas and Greenland are shrinking, lakes have disappeared, the snows of Kilimanjaro have vanished, and the mountain reveals its naked summit to the sky for the first time in human history.

When I said I was going to a press screening of "An Inconvenient Truth," a friend said, "Al Gore talking about the environment! Bor...ing!" This is not a boring film. The director, Davis Guggenheim, uses words, images and Gore's concise litany of facts to build a film that is fascinating and relentless. In 39 years, I have never written these words in a movie review, but here they are: You owe it to yourself to see this film. If you do not, and you have grandchildren, you should explain to them why you decided not to.

You owe it to yourself to see this film. If that sounds overdramatic, I understand. I could not have imagined writing that before seeing the film myself. "An Inconvenient Truth" is not Al Gore's "opinion," or anyone's "political position," but a report on a process that the world's environmental scientists -- almost literally every single one of them -- are in agreement about.

Sources:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...VIEWS/60517002
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...OPLE/605280306

[Jimmy James]

What would you expect from somebody who called Michael Moore, "one of the most valuable figures on the political landscape"?

I have no quarrel with Roger Ebert. I know he doesn't represent me as well as some other critics do, and I know that these days pretty girls and politics seem to skew his reviews. That's fine. He is entitled to his opinion. He has done a lot for film, too. I don't think this review is anything to trumpet, though. The expectation was that Ebert would like the film. If he hated it, that would have been much more noteworthy.

[FINintheMOON]

Originally Posted by Blitz

Excerpts:

What he wants you to know is that he has not made a political film. Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" tries to move outside politics and focus on the facts of global warming. Gore says those facts are established, the returns are in, there is almost unanimous scientific agreement about them, and we may have about 10 years before the earth reaches a tipping point from which it cannot recover.

Gore makes no mention in the film of President George W. Bush or any of his policies. He deliberately avoids naming any names or pointing any fingers. "This is not a political movie," he said firmly. "Paramount did a lot of focus groups, and people came out said it was not like 'Fahrenheit 9/11.' It played fair and supported what it said. It appealed equally to Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives. You have to remember that the environment used to be a bipartisan issue in the United States. Religious leaders saw it as a matter of respecting God's creation."

He has been traveling the world for six years making speeches in which this message has evolved. But all of those speeches put together have not had the impact of this new documentary, directed by Davis Guggenheim, which is horrifying, enthralling and has the potential, I believe, to actually change public policy and begin a process which could save the earth.

It is not only an important film, but a good one. Guggenheim has found a way to make facts and statistics into drama and passion. He organizes Gore's arguments into visuals that overwhelm us. Gore begins with the famous photograph "Earthrise," which was the first photo taken of Earth from outer space. Then he shows later satellite photos. It is absolutely clear that the white areas are disappearing, that snow and ice is melting, that the shape of continents is changing. The polar areas and Greenland are shrinking, lakes have disappeared, the snows of Kilimanjaro have vanished, and the mountain reveals its naked summit to the sky for the first time in human history.

When I said I was going to a press screening of "An Inconvenient Truth," a friend said, "Al Gore talking about the environment! Bor...ing!" This is not a boring film. The director, Davis Guggenheim, uses words, images and Gore's concise litany of facts to build a film that is fascinating and relentless. In 39 years, I have never written these words in a movie review, but here they are: You owe it to yourself to see this film. If you do not, and you have grandchildren, you should explain to them why you decided not to.

You owe it to yourself to see this film. If that sounds overdramatic, I understand. I could not have imagined writing that before seeing the film myself. "An Inconvenient Truth" is not Al Gore's "opinion," or anyone's "political position," but a report on a process that the world's environmental scientists -- almost literally every single one of them -- are in agreement about.

Sources:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...VIEWS/60517002
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...OPLE/605280306

I plan to see the film Blitz... I am interested in what they have to say... But, I hope that you will open your mind to additional data that may disagree with the film... Hand Shake?

[Blitz]

Originally Posted by FINintheMOON

I plan to see the film Blitz... I am interested in what they have to say... But, I hope that you will open your mind to additional data that may disagree with the film... Hand Shake?

You're on

[Maynard the Hammer]

Originally Posted by Jimmy James

What would you expect from somebody who called Michael Moore, "one of the most valuable figures on the political landscape"?

I have no quarrel with Roger Ebert. I know he doesn't represent me as well as some other critics do, and I know that these days pretty girls and politics seem to skew his reviews. That's fine. He is entitled to his opinion. He has done a lot for film, too. I don't think this review is anything to trumpet, though. The expectation was that Ebert would like the film. If he hated it, that would have been much more noteworthy.

he has some great analysis of "the man with no name trilogy"

[Jimmy James]

Originally Posted by Maynard

he has some great analysis of "the man with no name trilogy"

I imagine so. He used to be a much better critic than he is now if you ask me. His comments about the latest X-Men movie were particularly silly. I think he has reached an age where sentiment has become a big motivator for him. As I said before, that's fine. It's who he is now. I just don't enjoy it as much.

[Blitz]

Originally Posted by Jimmy James

The expectation was that Ebert would like the film. If he hated it, that would have been much more noteworthy.

Ebert doesn't give many movies four star ratings, especially nowadays, nor does he frequently say in his reviews, "You owe it to yourself to see this film."

[Jimmy James]

Originally Posted by Blitz

Ebert doesn't hand out four star ratings to many films, nor does he frequently say in his reviews, "You owe it to yourself to see this film."

He does heap effusive praise on liberal cause films, though. Look at the Moore quote.

I understand why this review is exciting to you as one of the true believers. I'm telling you what it looks like from outside that realm.

[Blitz]

Originally Posted by Jimmy James

He does heap effusive praise on liberal cause films, though. Look at the Moore quote.

Ebert has not given any of Moore's films a four star rating.

If you had merely read Ebert's review, let alone seen the movie, you would know that "An Inconvenient Truth" is not a "liberal cause" film, anyway. It is absolutely nothing like Michael Moore's movies. The only thing it has in common with that trash known as "Fahrenheit 9/11" is they're both documentaries, and I'd almost go so far as to say that "Fahrenheit 9/11" is a mockumentary.

[PressCoverage]

saying a person is "valuable" politically is heaping praise?

i can sit here and say Karl Rove is valuable politically, and still rest assured he's a slimy bass turd

[Jimmy James]

Originally Posted by Blitz

Ebert has not given any of Moore's films a four star rating.

If you had merely read Ebert's review, let alone seen the movie, you would know that "An Inconvenient Truth" is not a "liberal cause" film, anyway. It is absolutely nothing like Michael Moore's movies. The only thing it has in common with that trash known as "Fahrenheit 9/11" is they're both documentaries, and I'd almost go so far as to say that "Fahrenheit 9/11" is a mockumentary.

I don't mean to suggest I think this film is like Moore's film. I do think it's most definitely a liberal cause film, though.

He gave that rubbish you're talking about a 3.5 star rating.

[Jimmy James]

Originally Posted by PressCoverage

saying a person is "valuable" politically is heaping praise?

i can sit here and say Karl Rove is valuable politically, and still rest assured he's a slimy bass turd

Saying Michael Moore is "one of the most valuable figures on the political landscape" is certainly heaping praise on him. If you think Michael Moore is even close to being on Rove's level, you're kidding yourself. I would agree that you could mean that in more than one way about somebody who truly is powerful, but you only mean it in a positive way when you say that about somebody like Moore.

[Blitz]

Originally Posted by Jimmy James

I don't mean to suggest I think this film is like Moore's film. I do think it's most definitely a liberal cause film, though.

Evangelical Christians are starting to join the cause, and they're most definitely not liberal. Global warming is a moral issue, not a political issue. That's what Gore has been saying all along, and the case is made clear in his movie.

He gave that rubbish you're talking about a 3.5 star rating

Obviously nobody is going to completely share somebody's opinion of every single film in existence, but I think Ebert tends to be on the mark, and he's definitely on the mark with his latest four star rating. There's also a big difference between a 3.5 and a 4 when it comes to him. I've seen a few films he gave 3 and 3.5 stars that I did not like, just like I've seen a few films he gave 1 and 1.5 stars that I did like, but I don't think I've ever disliked a film that he gave a 4 star rating to...

[Jimmy James]

Originally Posted by Blitz

Obviously nobody is going to completely share somebody's opinion of every single film in existence, but I think Ebert tends to be on the mark, and he's definitely on the mark with his latest four star rating. There's also a big difference between a 3.5 and a 4 when it comes to him. I've seen a few films he gave 3 and 3.5 stars that I did not like, just like I've seen a few films he gave 1 and 1.5 stars that I did like, but I don't think I've ever disliked a film that he gave a 4 star rating to...

Did you like:

The Polar Express
Affliction
A Beautiful Mind
Beauty and the Beast
The Blair Witch Project
Dick Tracy
Signs

[Blitz]

Originally Posted by Jimmy James

Did you like:

Affliction
A Beautiful Mind
The Blair Witch Project
Dick Tracy

I don't dislike them...

I haven't seen these three:

The Polar Express
Beauty and the Beast
Signs