Reviews

A hint I think may be gathered by the various comments on this thread.

I was quite amazed at the number of people who liked this film who want to make it "mandatory" or "compulsory".

I think this gives us a little bit of insight into the reason this film and the issue underlying it is so polarizing.

The Global Warming issue appeals a lot to people who want to force others to "do right". It appeals particularly to more "liberal" leaning people because it doesn't have to do with bedroom morality which is what usually gets conservatives who want to force you to "be good" going.

And that's the problem with the film. Al Gore is a politician. And a very successful one at that. He just can't help himself from appealing to those people who want to force others to do as they would. The political appeal is just too great.

And there we are left with a scientific issue that may be of huge importance, reduced to a political issue appealing to those in the body politic with a predilection to force other to "do right".

Another interesting question is how did the Environmental movement get hijacked by such people?

How "smart" do you have to be to notice how badly made this show is? I mean really, the thing looks like it's shot by an ADT-addled four year-old who was given a camera two hours ago.

I'm sorry, but I don't see the "funny" in bad camera work.

I don't see the "funny" is not being able to see the action.

In other words, The Office is so bad, it's neither smart nor funny, and it would be so nice if its incompetent producers would use some of their brain cells to figure out why nobody watched their show in spite of all the awards.

Could it be that the audience is a lot smarter than those awards-people who vote for the biggest fruit basket they got?