-message seems to be made very clear, with no chance for the other side ("critics") to reply and no second opinion from many other scientists that claim the climate change threat is not THAT immense (and there are a lot of them)
-do I feel it is a right approach? Well, for the sake of making a propagandist film, yes! Pretty sure that scientific material could be more objective, but if you really want to make an impression then that's the way to go.
-So more information could be included, and at the same time some of his personal issues could be excluded from the film. For example, his political career info is alright for the film, but reminding people that he's lost the election in a wrong manner and to a wrong man - that's all very subjective. The part with his ill kid was added to give the movie a "personal" dimension and make some people cry. It was very irrelevant and a bit of a cheap trick.
-The film was not at all technical, boring or confusing but editing made it hard for me to follow the his thoughts properly. The structure of the film was very dynamic, where he jumps from technical info to his political fiasco, and then back to the planet saving, and then to his son.
-Speaking about the simplicity of the content is unnecessary because everyone knows that that kind of films could not be too simple. It's a political film with a particular issue aimed at specific audience with political views plus at those who knows nothing about the climate change.
-The film was overall interesting if you watch it after news report, but not too exciting to watch it in cinema or buy a DVD.
-The irrelevance is not the biggest problem of the film - they made about $48,000,000 of the profit worldwide, Mr. Gore's back into politics and got his followers, "Climate Change" companies got their piece of the pie in numerous grants and sponsorships, and don't forget the Nobel Peace Prize given to Gore for his efforts.
