but long before this film was made we knew that this was his big issue.
On the one hand, the messenger DOES make a difference -- if this film starred some unknown scientist, no one would see it.
Maybe the messenger DOES make a difference -- because he's Al Gore, he has access to really great computer equipment (a powerpoint presentation that was NOT boring? Whoa!).
Maybe the messenger DOES make a difference -- you know it wasn't his idea to make this film and that he was reluctant to do so when approached by the filmmakers? And ultimately he decided that however few it might reach it would still reach more than the live audience presentations he was making.
Maybe the messenger DOES make a difference -- he won the popular vote in 2000, so that would indicate that he has a built in relatively appreciative audience.
Maybe the messenger DOES make a difference -- so why is that a criticism of the film? Gore has a great deal of credibility on the national stage and this film points out to those who weren't already aware of it how long he has been concerned with environmental issues.
Tell me again why filming Gore's presentation (which he has made to live audiences around the world) shoots the film in the foot?