It may also be ultimately the "Al Gore Heroics" trip, but what can I say except I like Al Gore and his dedication and that earth-shattering trait called leadership and dedication to a cause, no matter how difficult the leaderless make things for the country and the world. Our democracy has been hacked." A much tougher, shameful boil to pop to let the pus fester, but for now this documentary does some good to remind us how hard its been to make even incremental progress. The key is in what seems to almost br a throwaway line: "In order to solve the environmental crisis we need to solve the democracy crisis.
IN AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH THE MAIN GREENHOUSE GAS IS HOW TO
Actually, that's also putting it in a milder way than should be America has a sketchy, at best mixed, at worst horrible, series of moments in showing how to lead in fixing the climate crisis, and while this movie doesn't go into enough depth to show those reasons (perhaps you would need a Ken Burns length documentary as to the reasons why the Right think as they do about climate change and global warming), it does do a good portrait of Al Gore. In An Inconvenient Sequel, Al Gore is still at it in what Al Gore does, speaking to leaders, going to climate change conferences (including the major one of the past couple of decades, the Paris climate accords), and going seminars that act as training for other (potential) climate leaders, as he has to be, since America still has work to do - that's a polite way of phrasing it - in being an energy innovator. I definitely give it a thumbs-up and no doubt it is among the better, if not best, documentaries of the year. The fact that this documentary is contents-wise really 100% what I expected (and what you expect too if you have seen the first and at least vaguely know about the subject) is not a problem at all because it is still high quality. Quite the opposite actually as it deals with one of the most crucial issues of our times and this alone makes it a really important work. All in all, it will probably not have the same awards success like the first film, but this by no means means it is a weak film. But now I am talking about the problem per se and not really about the film anymore. There is no real connection to tragedy because it is such a creeping process and it is true that you mostly need time lapse photography to really get a visual impact of what is happening. For example you hear 100 people got killed by a flood, a hurricane or a tornado, but you don't read that 100 people died from global warming. So what can be done if Gore's words cannot change people's minds as honestly it is highly unlikely things will look any different with another decade passing? Maybe one reason is that climate change is never cited as a direct cause. The speeches by Gore feel a bit as if we are in the audience watching him live and this is definitely not a coincidence.
That should not say something negative about Gore's efforts though, it is very impressive what he does and how he sacrifices his time for the cause. The Trump election says a lot to that regard and so does the US getting out of the Paris treaty.
I personally am not (really) one of the non-believers, but sadly I am at a point where I doubt that people still care about not destroying the planet for further generations. But his fighting in here is mostly about people convincing because even after so many years the biggest obstacle is that many people still deny the existence. The entire film basically focuses on for American Vice President Al Gore's fight against climate change.
The director of that one is also a producer here. The title here gives already away of course that this is the sequel (not really long-awaited I guess) to the Oscar-winning "An Inconvenient Truth" from about a decade earlier. "An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power" is an American 95-minute film from this year (2017) by Cohen and Shenk who have collaborated in the past too.