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.
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.
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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Al Gore needs to find another planet to save. This one is doing just fine.
But what about man-bear-pig?
I’m sure its really cereal.
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.
$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 .
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.
With getting, so far, $1,113,564 at the box-office maybe Al can use it as an IRS tax write-off.
Haha
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?)
Climate Hustle didn’t even get a Tomato-meter? Why not?
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.
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.
‘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/
Lack of interest in free passes may have been the reason for selective, limited distribution.
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
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?
Ignore him. Best way.
Ignore Gore
Gore in Gore
In Gore gore
I gore n gore
Nigore Gore
I gore ngore
Al Gore Jr race card driver, anti-sexed symbol, protege of Bob Dobbs, climate contriver and wooing gaianizer.
gore… snore….
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?
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.
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.