
The An Inconvenient Truth movie shows the danger effect of global warming on our planet. It shows also a true evidences and figures to prove that danger. But it seems to be more political movie than a documentary movie. In this argument essay I will go through two opposite opinions belongs to two different writers and write my opinion.
One of the writers wrote a preview about the movie and thinks the movie is a political movie rather than being a documentary. It’s made to put pressure on Bush’s administration. "Al Gore might use the film as a platform for the 2008 presidential Run" (Morris). Also he was emotionally driven by using few sad stories.
On the other hand the oppisite writer thinks that the movie is a well made documentary and edited to show how fast the earths’ temperature is increasing. It is a necessary film to educate the people and show how big is the global warming issue (Scott). The movie was not about Al Gore as the bigger part of it was to animate the climate changes in a professional and intelligent way to convince the audience (Scott).
In my point of view about this great movie is that, this movie has showed the issue of global warming in the very true way and has all the needed data to prove the size of the issue. It is a good step to watch this movie and keep moving in changing and correcting the human faults.
Bibliography:
Morris, Wesley. "Gore's passion and compassion make world of difference in 'Truth'" 2 June 2006.
Scott, A. O. ""An Inconvenient Truth" is based partly on a presentation by Al Gore." New York Times 24 May 2006.