You know how people say that movie sequels are not as good as the first one? Weirdly enough, I have to apply that logic to this documentary. I'm not saying there's a major drop off in quality since the first film, because I still consider this movie a must see. I'm criticizing this documentary for some of the decisions on how it was going to tell it's story. The messaging about the climate crisis is still very much an important element, but the narrative is questionably a bit unfocused and disjointed at times.
I suppose my primary complaint might be an odd one to make, and it's that there's too much Al Gore in this one. He may still be great at trying to get the message out to the world, but it seemed unnecessary for the movie to give more focus on who he is as a person. That's a subjective opinion of course, but having a segment about Gore's family home seems like a distraction, when I just wanted more meat and potatoes to the actual topic at hand. I like Al Gore, but the segue to his personal background felt like filler exposition.
There are still new data, charts, and videos, showcasing the case on the climate crisis, so it's not missing all that. Some of what was said felt redundant when considering what was already said in the first movie however. I did like that this documentary is more or less just an update to where we are at now in regards to climate change, the progress to fix the problem, and the detractors who would rather just ignore it. This movie might feel like a stretched out bonus feature for the first "An Inconvenient Truth," but everything involving the messaging of this documentary is still good enough to recommend seeing this film anyway.
loveditenjoyedit IT'S OKAY itsmehitsterrible
