Do you think "An Inconvenient Truth" was overrated?!
Question: I agree with the data in the movie, but recently just saw it and can't believe it got all the hype and made money it did. The movie was basically just a college lecture, and the 2000 election stuff was tossed in for vanity. None of the research was Gore's. He just presented it to a goofy audience.
Again, I agree with Global Warming and think we all need to conserve, but as a "movie" this lacked art and entertainment value. I already knew the data -- most people with half a brain do.
Someone like Michael Moore does some original research and finds human-interest angles. What did you think of Gore's film?
Answers: I agree with the data in the movie, but recently just saw it and can't believe it got all the hype and made money it did. The movie was basically just a college lecture, and the 2000 election stuff was tossed in for vanity. None of the research was Gore's. He just presented it to a goofy audience.
Again, I agree with Global Warming and think we all need to conserve, but as a "movie" this lacked art and entertainment value. I already knew the data -- most people with half a brain do.
Someone like Michael Moore does some original research and finds human-interest angles. What did you think of Gore's film?
It wasn't worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize and I agree wholeheartedly with the "vanity factor". Al Gore is just a greedy, hypocritical loser who feels entitled to fame and fortune. Considering some of the recipients, the Nobel Peace Prize doesn't carry the same meaning and value it was originally intended to. The movie itself was a snooze. You're right again, no art or entertainment value, just pure politics.
Yes it is VERY overrated. I mean, Nobel Peace Prize? COME ON!
It's not worthy of being rated at all! Global warming does not even exist; it's something that Gore imagined and presented as if it were truth (which it is not). We should be much more environmentally friendly; but, there are certainly no facts associated with the myth of global warming!
I believe it's very overrated and also could lack truth. As a scientist, I know that the Earth undergoes a series of weather changes on a rotating basis. It may take hundreds or thousands of years, but the weather will return to patterns from before; like a long song that repeats. Fossil fuel emissions don't cause the change, but they do contribute to it. I simply think that Al wanted to stay in the limelight in case the Democrats wanted him to run for election again.
As for the awards it won, they're baloney!
I think maybe he was trying to make a movie that would cater to all people. He put it on a level for everyone to understand, simple and plain. Just to get the message out there that things need to change.
Considering Al Gore refuses to debate the topic in any way and defend his conclusions, the movie is a waste of time...or should I say, a waste of time for everyone except Al Gore who is making 10s of millions of dollars off this scam while he flies in private planes and uses over 20 times the amount of energy in his home compared to the average person. The fact that the media won't even present differing views is pathetic
It wasn't meant to be a Hollywood Disaster Movie. Michael Moore gets criticized and marginalized precisely BECAUSE he tries to inject too much drama and human interest into his movies.
.