An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power (2017)

Gleiberman finds the sequel vital, impassioned, and newly urgent in the political climate. He praises its emotionally compelling portrait of Gore’s climate activism and the hopeful turn toward affordable renewable energy.

Turan finds the sequel involving and unexpectedly passionate, arguing that its message is more urgent than ever. He especially praises the scenes showing Gore’s efforts to secure India’s support for the Paris climate agreement.

The critic finds the sequel fine and often hopeful, while noting it cannot match the original’s impact. They praise its vivid evidence of climate change and examples of renewable-energy progress, but fault its silence about Gore’s approach to Trump.

Freer finds the sequel important and persuasive, though less urgent and gripping than its predecessor. He praises the Paris climate-conference section for its drama and Gore’s palpable commitment to change.

Yoshida finds the film fascinating as a character study, though its upbeat, pat conclusion feels inadequate to the political moment. She especially praises the unglamorous scenes of Gore negotiating and organizing climate action.

The accessible page identifies this as a Sundance review, but the critic’s verdict is unavailable. The paywall shell reveals no specific element singled out for praise or criticism.

The page is blocked, so the critic’s verdict cannot be determined. Its praise or complaints are likewise unavailable from the page text.

Dowd finds the sequel more cinematic but less useful than its predecessor, and says its inspirational outlook feels outdated after the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. He praises the immediacy of its footage of natural disasters, while criticizing its repeated celebration of Gore as close to hagiography.

Busfield finds the film informative and thought-provoking, though only sporadically compelling. She praises its focus on people experiencing climate change and Gore’s energetic optimism.

Wise finds the follow-up somewhat premature, with much of it recapping or updating the original film. He praises how it conveys the growing urgency of climate change and Gore’s efforts to train activists worldwide.

Romney finds the film a necessary and useful climate-change lesson, though strictly functional as cinema. He praises the added force of footage from environmental flashpoints, while noting the film oversimplifies India’s role in the Paris agreement.

Turner finds the sequel a sobering, effective account of climate-change progress threatened by Trump. He singles out its footage showing earlier predictions coming true and its stark presentation of the climate crisis.

Rothkopf finds the documentary less compelling than its central figure. He singles out Al Gore as vastly more interesting than the film surrounding him.

Nijhuis finds the film effective at turning climate disasters toward practical solutions, but says its focus on Al Gore leaves grassroots activism underrepresented. She praises the useful emphasis on solutions while noting that the film gives viewers little space to absorb grief or engage with change at the local level.

The review finds the film forceful on climate change but weakened by its focus on Al Gore. It praises the moments that confront the complexity of climate solutions, while criticizing the film’s excessive adulation of Gore.

Lodge finds the film’s climate-change message vigorously on point but says it is not much of a movie. He praises Gore’s charisma and concern while criticizing the repetitive, ungalvanizing structure.

Chitwood finds the sequel a more personal and effective follow-up, despite a slow start and occasional lack of focus. He praises the film’s intimate portrait of Gore’s passion and its vivid visits to communities affected by climate change.

Hammond finds the sequel rich, human, and more urgent while still offering surprising optimism. He particularly praises the Paris sequences, including Gore’s role in securing India’s support for the climate accord.

Sciretta finds the sequel depressing and less focused than its predecessor, but more personal and emotionally affecting. He singles out its depiction of climate change’s human consequences as its most powerful element.

The review finds the documentary persuasive and often effective, though less focused when it turns to the Paris climate conference. It especially praises the poignancy of Gore’s weary commitment to the climate-change fight.

The review finds the documentary compelling and relevant, though its ending is gloomy and its message risks arriving too late. It praises Al Gore’s commitment and the film’s evidence of progress in renewable energy.

The critic finds the documentary urgent and powerful, but says it gives too much attention to Al Gore and too little to the planet. The film’s visits to communities facing climate change and its account of renewable-energy efforts are singled out as fascinating, terrifying, and inspiring.

Collins finds the documentary too focused on promoting Al Gore’s leadership to meaningfully explore climate diplomacy or the people affected by climate change. He praises its occasional insight into the diplomatic process, while wishing it observed more and declared less.

The critic finds the sequel poorly executed and diluted by political commentary, with few new ideas. They single out the explanation of Georgetown’s renewable-energy transition as a strong scene, though they feel it too is undercut by condescension.