Rotten Tomatoes – An Inconvenient Sequel – An Awkward Reality

By: Duncan Smith

The Rotten Tomatoes (RT) reviews are in for Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power movie. According to RT, the movie is listed as a “Documentary” but as reviewers pointed out;

Truth to Power doesn’t want to drown viewers in data, but more fact-finding would have helped the movie’s purported message of progress and hope” – Gary Thompson
Philadelphia Daily News

 

The movie is a piece of advocacy, and it succeeds at that: The conclusive science presented is powerful evidence that there is only one side to this story” – Charles Taylor
Newsweek

 

The first step in convincing climate change skeptics is admitting some of those doom and gloom models were wrong. Gore just can’t do that. – Christian Toto

Hollywoodintoto.com

The movie did receive a 76% Tomatometer score but considering Planet of the Apes received a 93% Tomatometer score, for a defining issue such a Climate Change, this result is lackluster. Many of the Top Critics reviews are positive but there is discrepancy between the general public at only a 46% audience score. Keep in mind the majority of people who would pay to see this movie most likely champion Al Gore and the Global Warming perspective, these two results are dismal.

clip_image002

Comparing results to other movies such as “Emoji”, an animated child’s comedy with scornful ‘professional’ reviews with just a 6% RT score, the audience score was similar to Al Gore’s sequel at 43% who liked it. As I assume six-year-olds are not rating movies online like their parents, if allowed this score could actually be higher from a child’s perspective.
clip_image004

Could this be further evidence regular (even paying) public are just not concerned with evangelical scare stories about climate anymore. This movie appears to be more about Al Gore as other reviewers pointed out;

I’m still here and so is the issue I’ve been championing all these years.

 

[T]he end result feels like a runner taking a leisurely victory lap at the very start of a race, as the rest of his or her opponents sprint toward the finish line. – Mark Dujsik

Mark Reviews

The Climate message has failed to win the hearts and minds of persons outside of politics and the media even after decades of science, education and billions spent. Al Gore has pontificated on many occasions “we are running out of time”, yes I would agree, He is running out of time.

Links:
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/an_inconvenient_sequel_truth_to_power

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_emoji_movie

Advertisements

135 thoughts on “Rotten Tomatoes – An Inconvenient Sequel – An Awkward Reality

  1. It’s getting a lot of publicity from the likes of BBC and Channel 4 in the UK ahead of its premiere. Al Gore has been spouting his usual lies in front of the cameras. You’d think with all his money and his great scientific ability that he would be able to pay and get his rotten teeth fixed.

    • Wow! For an Englishman to criticize someone else’s teeth them must be Awful.

      But cereal folks, as I’ve pointed out before there is always a discrepancy on Rotten Tomatoes between professional critics and the viewing public on any ideological film. The critics know on which side of their bread is the butter. They pander to the political views of their editors and fellow journalists. Artistic merit are secondary to political correctness.
      The whole point of doing a sequel is to get Al Gore Jr. in front of the TV cameras yammering his idiotic talking points. The critical and financial success of the film is of little concern to him.

    • So, who goes to see this movie? Would you take your kids? Date night? Saturday night out with the Missus? I don’t see too many folks out there who are going to shell out ten bucks for a moral flagellation job on the Western lifestyle, which most of us are empowered to change only symbolically and incrementally.
      Or to put it more succinctly, this is a sermon of fire and brimstone, aimed at existing acolytes.

      If fact, if the MSM wasn’t keeping it before the public eye, it would already have been gone yesterday.

      • I wonder what percentage of the people who actually watched this movie were critics who get paid to do so.

      • Or people who got complimentary tickets because they were already known to be “friendlies” for various reasons, I wonder, Mark . .

        “Back in June, Paramount abandoned plans to give ‘An Inconvenient Sequel’ a wide release on July 28, choosing instead to release the film in only four screens in New York and Los Angeles on July 28 and only 180 screens nationwide a week later,” he (Washington Monthly writer D.R. Tucker) claimed.”

        Salting such a small total initial audience with people known to be sympathetic to “the cause”, so as to boost early ratings, would be relatively cheap, it seems to me. And with no apparent expectation of making serious money anyway, perhaps a small price to pay for a minimal justification to push the “piece” into schools ans such . .

      • Good point about the sermon. How many non-Baptists sit there for a stem-winder Baptist fire and brimstone sermon?

    • Channel 4 interviewer referred to President Trump as ‘denier-in-chief’ while having a cosy chat with gore.
      Such casual insults are what tv news has come to.

  2. ‘The movie did receive a 76% Tomatometer’

    My guess is that anyone who actually went and saw it is already a died in the wool marching broom. They could have put pretty much anything on screen and gotten a positive rating.

    Lock-step conformity.

    • Good friend of mine is a confirmed “libtard,” as some of you knuckledragging deniers would say, who has contributed to Democratic politicians, loves gun control and will likely own an electric car someday. He received an invitation with free tickets to attend a showing in Dallas. …. I must be having some positive effect on him — he chose not to go. … My question is, does the box-office number lump complimentary tickets in with paid tickets (in other words, do they extrapolate a dollar figure from seats filled, i.e., tickets taken in, or from actual dollars received)? Anyone know?

      • I’m sure the numbers are gerrymandered to get the most inflated bang for the bucks with no real connection to reality.

  3. “As I assume six-year-olds are not rating movies online like their parents, if allowed this score could actually be higher from a child’s perspective.”

    As would Gores sequel, from a child’s (ie: AGWA) perspective.

  4. Many of the Top Critics reviews are positive but there is discrepancy between the general public at only a 46% audience score.

    Common sense once again has overcome intellectual haughtiness.

    • I know, I was thinking that this is like rating a “movie” consisting of Joel Osteen’s favorite sermons. Osteen’s fans will flock to see it and unanimously say it was great, Osteen’s critics would deride it, and most of America would say “Joel Who?”.

      • Right, care of Wikipedia – the absolutely authoritative source, which even I can mangle, or improve – Joel Osteen is ‘The Smiling Preacher’, and “His sermons (are) also broadcast 24 hours a day on Sirius XM Satellite Radio, Channel 128.”
        Well, now I know to be cautious of tuning to Channel 128 – anywhere!

        Auto – enlightened – yes.
        Enriched – maybe less so.

  5. if you stand in the middle of a busy street in a white robe with a megaphone and repeatedly shout that the world is coming to an end next Tuesday, for a while people will stop and listen. But most people have their own lives to live, jobs to go to, mortgages to pay, children to raise. After a while most people will start to ignore you.

      • There will be no “after next Tuesday”

        There will be if global temperatures turn down, or even if they Pause for long enough.

      • “Roger, even if temperatures don’t turn down, none of the scary predictions are going to happen.”

        Right. I was just making the point that if temperatures turn down, people will start ignoring the prophets of doom, because their predictions of things getting warmer and worser will have been falsified.

      • “After next Tuesday”: That’s probably the day after tomorrow – and just as irrelevant, and untruthful..

  6. Come on now, it was a great success as a 30-second previews placement in front of unsuspecting audiences. That is their main tactic as out-of-context inserts into the psyche whether they want it or not.

  7. I think one of the things hurting this movie is the title. You don’t call a sequel a “sequel”, Al. You should have named it something like “Son of Inconvenient Truth” or “The Return of the Inconvenient Truth”. How about “Inconvient Truth II”? That would open up the possibility of coming back with III, IV, etc. You get the picture. Otherwise, you’re stuck in a rut of your own making. How are you going to name the next one? The sequel to the sequel? It sounds weird.

  8. Poor Al and the movement….got two things going against it
    More people are educated about GW now…which means more people are over it

    • True. Go on The Daily Caller, Breitbart, Drudge, Fox etc. and the comments sections to every article are running about 98 to 1 against AGW alarmism. Alan Watts’ little dog has pulled back the curtain from the smoke and mirrors man Gore, and the proverbial cat is loooonnnng out of the bag. I’d bet the number of True Believers is now roughly equivalent to the number of NPR/Atlantic/New York subscribers, which is to say under half a million net. Everyone else has ceased to believe this is a “thing.” Or have resigned themselves that “what will be will be,” otherwise known as Common Sense.

  9. Lets all believe the doom and gloom, if you really think that your country/region is at risk of imminent boiling/freezing/flooding or drought would you: (A) spend large sums of money trying to change the composition of the atmosphere, or (B) spend that money on improving your resilience to whatever is the most problematic extreme weather for your region?

    • I choose the Al Gore option.
      (C) Spend large sums on a beach-side house in Malibu so I can more closely monitor sea level rise.

  10. “The movie is a piece of advocacy, and it succeeds at that: The conclusive science presented is powerful evidence that there is only one side to this story” – Charles Taylor
    Newsweek
    Talk about a tautology. You only present one side of the story so it seems there is no arguments against it. Therefore, there is only one side of the story. I guess Mr. Taylor never heard of propaganda.

  11. Could any one of these film critics even tell you the difference between mean, median and mode? If not, their comments are useless except from a film making angle.

    • I might not give their opinions even that much credit.
      Mean = bad review
      Median = the strip in the middle of the road
      Mode = style

  12. The Houston Chronicle gave it 3.5 stars out of 4…. I don’t remember a rating that good in ages. The review was fawning to say the least.

      • The movie “balances urgency and hope”

        … analogous to the to the guy that ate the bad fish at the Indian restaurant, as he is doing the quick walk toward the restroom.

      • “The movie “balances urgency and hope””

        Only what you’d expect from a movie called, “An Incontinent Sequel.”

    • From the first sentence of the review:

      … Al Gore and his passionate climate change activism, ended with a simple challenge: “Are you ready to change the way you live? The climate crisis can be solved.”

      All I could think of was how Gore has changed his lifestyle. Jet-setting around on private charter jets along with multiple mansions. Must be nice.
      Who could forget that posh $10 Million seaside condo in San Francisco less than 1 meter above the water line.
      Sea level rise, much?
      Nah, no problem.

      I do tire of the Global Warming wars, but this time I could not stop laughing.

      • August 7 New Republic has an article explaining that Al Gore’s footprint doesn’t matter. Individual contributions are irrelevant. Only companies and governments can save the planet. (No, sadly, this is not sarcasm.)

      • What Sheri reports makes sense: The amount of CO2 that anti-CO2 advocates use is irrelevant if there is no change in the total production of CO2. It doesn’t really matter if they produce more CO2 or none at all.

        But if their advocacy is successful, they will reduce CO2 production despite their personal CO2 production.

        Sort of like fighting a war for peace.

      • ReallySkeptical: I agree. It makes no sense. However, it is an argument that was put forth in the public theater, supposedly as a rebuttal to Al Gore’s hypocrisy.

      • RS: “What Sheri reports makes sense:”

        Sh: “I agree. It makes no sense.”

        Okay.

        Not.

    • Naw.

      don’t like the man.

      I don’t pay much attention to US politicians (same for most Europeans – I’d be surprised if many people know who he is)

      The film I suspect is all very well, but with the same faults any presentation has these days -a tendency to over dramatisation and over simplification.

      which I guess is down to the audience – the general public – we have these days.

  13. Movie reviewers see themselves as part of The Entertainment Media. As such, they are required to be liberal.

    If a major documentary filmmaker created a global warming movie that accurately laid out the skeptical, scientific case and did it with skill, style, and humor in a way that was absolutely unassailable, movie critics would give it an overwhelmingly failing grade.

    • “Movie reviewers see themselves as part of The Entertainment Media. As such, they are required to be liberal.”

      Is it required that liberals can say nothing wrong about the movie, and conservatives can say nothing right?

      What ever happened to reality? One can no longer express a scientific fact about climate without being labeled a liberal or a conservative, as if reality was determined by political ideology. Reality doesn’t give a hoot about our politics. It is what it is. Have we completely lost the ability to talk about reality? Are we now a post-reality species?

  14. The only people likely to go and see it are horror movie aficionado’s.

    Why would anyone otherwise go to watch a move devoted to convincing you, you were in imminent danger of death?

    Mind you, Gore himself is fairly horrific, maybe that’s the draw, Ghoul Gore.

    • Same genre of cheap apocalyptic crap as The Day After (nukes), The Poseidon Adventure (flipped cruise ship), The Day After Tomorrow (inundation) or The Towering Inferno (which was a joke until 9/11). Cinematic equivalent of carnival rides employing centrifugal force in the service of tossing lunch; I thought this phenomenon peaked in the 1970’s.

  15. $Billions in propaganda fuel and no lift off . Gore’s travelling climate fear show is running out of fossil fuel .
    30.000 scientists who haven’t bought in will be out living the clique of climate Armageddon promoters .
    Praise the Lord the planet has been warming .

  16. On International Movie Data Base (IMDB) “An Inconvenient Sequel” is rating 5.0/10, having struggled up from 4.8/10 at the outset.
    A truly awful rating.

  17. The original gave the meme a boost. It got headlines and an Oscar when the public seemed fired up about the current “scare”.
    This “Rotten Tomato” will be hyped and cast in the best light to the public in an attempt to “relight the boilers”.
    (Maybe a tree ring or two will help?)

  18. The store I would set in Rotten Tomatoes as a short-term gauge of anything is nowadays close to zero. This was shown during the ghostbusters-rebooted saga. It really is on a par with peer-review in Climate Science.

  19. Movie is preaching to the choir (and a small one at that). If it got 100% favs it still wouldn’t mean a damn thing.

  20. ‘The movie is a piece of advocacy, and it succeeds at that: The conclusive science presented is powerful evidence that there is only one side to this story” – Charles Taylor
    Newsweek’

    Tactics of the left, in its own words:

    Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, 1971. The rules include:
    “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.” It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.
    “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.
    “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.
    “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.
    “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.
    “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
    “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
    “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals

    Also Herbert Marcuse, Repressive Tolerance, 1965:

    Surely, no government can be expected to foster its own subversion, but in a democracy such a right is vested in the people (i.e. in the majority of the people). This means that the ways should not be blocked on which a subversive majority could develop, and if they are blocked by organized repression and indoctrination, their reopening may require apparently undemocratic means. They would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Marcuse
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marcuse/

  21. Reviewers are typically pretty liberal. They’ll approve of bad movies if they approve of the subject matter. That’s why there are often large gaps between critic and audience reviews. A film is considered “fresh” if a reviewer gives it at least a 6 out of 10 rating.
    This movie was made to terrorize students into submission, where ill informed, not particularly bright teachers show it.

    • Movie critics and stock advisors have the same problem: both crave to be viewed as knowledgeable and objective, but it’s bad for parasites to kill their host

  22. Racism, sexism, and, climate science are the real money unicorns, rainbows and carbon bubble up we can bankster on. Status IDs in greenface. It sequesters attention. Carbon?

  23. I gore ngore

    Al Gore Jr race card driver, anti-sexed symbol, protege of Bob Dobbs, climate contriver and wooing gaianizer.

  24. The best review I’d like to see is the UK’s High Court follow-up from his first film – the one they decided had NINE errors (to the layman: lies) in it which had to be explained before public viewing by children.

    Just from the Biased BBC’s reports on the film I can detect many examples where Gore has been economical with the truth. But, here’s a strange thing – that a Psychology guy (Lew?) could explain better: Gore made/inherited his wealth from a family firm of tobacco and oil. In coming out about climate he often uses tobacco and big oil as examples of how “deni@lists” work to pervert the science. Is there, perhaps, some kind of psycho-drama going on in his head that he’s fighting with so as to purge a family sin? Rosebud?

  25. My wife and I do not go to movies, but some friends recently complained about having to sit through the preview of Gore’s movie while waiting for Dunkirk to start. They also were disappointed by Dunkirk, which got a 93/82 rotten tomatoes score.

  26. Ugh. Hiw could they even make a sequel after the submerging of all the coasts.

    Trying to explain Gore’s hypocrisy to his nutty followers is like trying to get a geek to stop eating chicken heads.

  27. In round numbers, CO2 is 400 parts per million. Simple arithmetic says that’s 1 part per 2,500 which is easier for a person to visualize. 
     
    If I fill a fish tank with 2499 white ping pong balls to represent non CO2 and 1 red ping pong ball to represent CO2, I’d like someone that believes in CO2 warming causation to explain the physical mechanism for warming. If CO2 were some kind of lid on the atmosphere, I’d agree that it is capable of retaining heat. But CO2 is in such a minor concentration and is heavier than “air” that I see no way for it to affect the temperature in any measurable way. 
     
    Please, someone explain the physical mechanism for one heated CO2 molecule to influence the temperature of the other 2499.

    • If I fill a fish tank with 2499 white ping pong balls to represent non CO2 and 1 red ping pong ball to represent CO2,

      Another analogy is to imagine a stack of five reams of copy paper (each ream consisting of 500 pages) compared to one sheet of paper representing CO2.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s