I examined a sample of 1-star reviews and found all of them to have either no argument against global warming whatsoever, or only have the typical republican rhetoric like "the climate has changed for ___ years", or "these facts are made up". While it is not up to me to say whether these are genuinely scientifically challenged customers or fossil fuel corp bots, I can say that if you are already on the side of the scientific and global consensus that global warming is a threat or are not yet aware of the scope of the problem, this documentary will give you a few more reasons to care. If you've already made up your mind that all evidence contrary to your beliefs is false evidence (even if said evidence is presented by experts who've studied the field for decades longer than you or your information sources have), there's very little anyone can do for you except ignore your dangerous opinions. It doesn't matter which side of the argument you're on if you're certain that no amount of evidence will convince you of the contrary position; that's why virtually all of the 97% of scientists whose consensus is that climate change is real will absolutely change their consensus if evidence points in the other direction.

That being said the only thing I found irritating about this film is that the editor did a haphazard job of editing Gore's narration/speeches. Some of the cuts are unnatural, often in the middle of a sentence to squish twoWords together as if to remove a pause or another word.

Not so great. Terrible editing and production. I believe in climate change and to some small degree, Al Gore, but this doc is kind of embarrassing. Gore has the dubious distinction of being one of the two 21st century Dem presidential candidates who are just grating and have zero public appeal. There are many very positive reviews here, so some people obviously differ with me. Climate change has become such a political football (the "coming ice age" theories in the 70s were never politically debated, nor should this be, due to the complexity of climate science) so who knows the true motivations for people to say this is a "great" doc, but I think they are sorely misguided. There is zero science in this, hardly any data, and unlike the first doc, not much compelling anything. Gore barely mentions wind power and unfairly hammers Houston (I live there and have had 100% wind power for many years, has he?), equating its oil & gas industry with a lack of renewable energy. Several of the features in this "doc" were suspect and of quite irritating content. Going on and on about the Paris shootings and then launching his conspiracy theory, worthy of the best conservative news outlet, that they were connected to the climate talks, was weird. I didn't think we had to stoop to that level...

If Gore TRULY cared about the environment he would have mentioned other aspects of environmental harm. But oh, wait, this was a doc about money and power, although no real case was made for either. There are MUCH better climate and money and power docs out there. If Gore TRULY cared about climate change, he would have mentioned that factory farm meat production creates more global warming (plus food and water insecurity) than anything he mentioned, and if a person would give up a hamburger, they would do more good than if they biked to work a lot. But this wasn't about that. The most I got out of the doc was that Gore needs to walk/bike more. Or even some...

In this follow-up to the 2006 award-winning documentary, former vice-president Al Gore engages a relentless global campaign to slow the earthly havoc of climate change. In this film, he is the hero confronting the villains, the opposition of those criticizing his agenda and naysayers rejecting environmental disasters contributed by global warming. Where, might you guess are the battlegrounds of these confrontations?
In so much of An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power, these are the governmental administrations; the weapons have politics as their ammunition under the guise of diplomacy. That is the movie's story here in my viewpoint, where the real-life drama lies having political leaders, officials, and Gore's associates as supporting characters.
Al Gore has admirable qualities; he is an exceptional speaker and capable dealmaker, holding the attention of his listeners. His presentations alerting about climate change are compelling, boiling with evidence, well-researched and prepared. Kudos for the film's producers and directors gathering stunning footage from across the globe revealing how severe and life-threatening the continual damage of our spherical residence.
Here's the problem with the movie; it depends too much on politics as the ultimate solution, the happy ending. Can our world leaders save this earth by regulating their nations' carbon footprints, by enacting the policies Al Gore recommends? Mr. Gore quotes Bible scriptures including an indirect recitation of Moses' words (Deuteronomy). He indicates other Biblical references such as a statement from the book of Revelation. Oddly he seems to credit 'Mother Nature' above God.
Perhaps, the most suitable scriptures Mr. Gore may quote are Psalms 146: 3, 4. You may read them; the bleak reality of those ancient verses radiates in the documentary, especially after Gore, his endorsers confront stunning setbacks and disappointments.
A lot of what else is Mr. Gore's show, we hear some but not enough from environmental experts and scientists' expressions, hardy any shown at his capacity-filled presentations to support Gore's arguments. In the film, the camera follows Gore close enough to leave out personal involvement outside the political theater.
You and I have a stake in this matter. Isn't it true other than us urging and voting for local administrators to implant renewable energy options? (I am neutral to politics, the film isn't.) Example, Mr. Gore noted the high number of cell phones used globally, more than the earth's population. How often have you seen discarded, used, broken cell phones on streets and in the garbage? It is not unbelievable that the chemical leakage from the phones and other electronic devices affect the ground and water supply.
Why didn't the film share this little fact, in addition to how many plastic items and other materials are poorly discarding by the tons? The movie provides truth to power poof of climate change excluding much the audience's person by person impact. So, if you are not rooting for the Gore team, the film might either disinvolve or bore you into disinterest. I did not see the first film, An Inconvenient Truth; it is apparent the sequel depends on it rather than stand firmly on its own merits.

This film revisits themes from Al Gore's first movie, "An Inconvenient Truth", but with more emphasis on politics.
Impressive panoramic scenes of glaciers, storms, and forest fires set the stage for some extended discussions in the middle and end of this documentary. Clean energy, efficient transportation, rainforest conservation are all vital and slow the decline of polar ice. Where the film is short is in the details: what carbon taxes will apply? where are city limits to be enacted? which Gulf Coast towns will be converted into forest lands? what is Amtrak's role? People interested in the cause can look also to Bill McKibben's powerful online lectures, such as on YouTube (delivered at the Chautauqua Institution). More specifics are on Saul Griffith's YouTube video "Climate Change Recalculated".

This DVD was obtained as a teaching tool, to help others become acquainted with the remarkable changes in weather patterns and sometimes tragic events following "Mother Nature's Wrath". The main theme of this video presentation is that we should not be surprised by "Mother Nature," but learn to work with her instead. When sensible alternatives for a renewable source of energy is adopted (and there are multiple choices and paths we can follow), we should discover it's far more economical than if we continue to use "cheap" fossil fuel energy sources. The latter only cheapens our quality of life, weakens our economy by tragic damages that occur more and more frequently nowadays!

The documentary is about Al Gore's continued, and heroic quest to defend the planet by addressing climate change. While 'Truth' was about the crisis in the climate, this is more about the political response to that crisis. This film has been critiqued for not describing Gore's ownership stake in SolarCity and the fact that he is on their Board glides by almost without notice. Minor quips, at the end of the day.

I'm also giving IS:TP five stars, not only to discredit the biased 1-star ratings, but because this film, like Al Gore, is the genuine article. The data is not only scientifically accurate and undeniable, but presented in engaging ways, with the goal of galvanizing the audience to action. Video footage of arctic glaciers exploding into the air. News footage of streets in India literally melting in 123F degree heat, a woman's sandals sticking to the pavement, her bare feet sliding out and burning. And in contrast to those events, a slide in Mr. Gore's conference appearance showing the rise of solar wattage in Chile in 2019, scrolling up-up-up, literally off the charts.

As we face THE existential crisis of our time, hope is an invaluable message, and this film oozes hope in the face of despair, sometimes cheaply and cheesily, but I for one love getting choked up while watching a documentary (unlike its predecessor, An Inconvenient Truth, I didn't sleep through any part of the Sequel).

But to whom is this film speaking? Who is it trying to inspire? I like to think all of us. Young people have taken to the streets and are fighting, full of fire and hope that it's not to late to become much-needed agents of change, but the older generations are more complacent; this film seems to ask,albeit implicitly, what it will take to move them. I just hope this film will situate Gore, a charismatic, slideshow-wielding septuagenarian with decades of political cred and unshakeable faith in the climate movement, as a role model for the boomers as we slide more precipitously into ecological disaster stemming from 150 years of global dependence on fossil fuels and coal. Retired Florida swing voters? Take a look at the flooded streets of Miami (featured at the beginning of this film). Aging conservative republicans? Take a look at Georgetown, Tx, a deep-red city heading toward 100% renewable energy use (because it's 'common sense'--featured at the end of this film).

Needless to say, it's a definite must-watch for folks of all stripes.

If you live on earth, if you care about the future lives our children and grandchildren lead, if you know that data and understanding enable action and hope, watch this film. You will not be left with confusion or misunderstanding of the history of a vital movement.

I thought this was a GREAT film. I have loved the theme song since it came out and now to see the film that goes with it, is wonderful.

I feel like an adult with responsibility. I feel educated and purposeful. What ever your politics, watch.