Al Gore Versus '2016' | CNSNews.com
Al Gore, naturally, had every advantage of a beloved liberal almost-president. When it hit theaters in May of 2006, Time magazine wrote, "The movie got raves at the Sundance Film Festival ... In Los Angeles theaters, the trailers have been getting ovations." On NBC, Katie Couric sat down in the outdoors with Gore and told him that in the movie, "you're funny, vulnerable, disarming, self-effacing." On CBS, anchor Harry Smith gushed, "The box office receipts would indicate that it's an action movie — you did better per screening than almost anything that's come out this week."
Even after Gore's slideshow lecture/film eventually sputtered out at the Cineplex, several more rounds of fawning followed: an Academy Award and a Nobel Peace Prize, and in between the gushing lines came the idea that Gore might (or should) run again for president. The "Goracle" gush was so heavy that Time collected it all together. He was "Al Gore — the improbably charismatic, Academy Award-winning, Nobel Prize-nominated environmental prophet with an army of followers and huge reserves of political and cultural capital at his command."
The media weren't negative about that conjecture. ABC's story on Gore's movie was summed up with the words "The Comeback Kid? Al Gore Takes On The World."
Reporter Claire Shipman hailed "Gore's personal journey toward environmental evangelism." On NPR, anchor Robert Siegel hailed the film's success, and began with a "quibble" and moved on: "Our science correspondent had only a couple of quibbles on claims about the melting snows of Kilimanjaro or the increasing power of hurricanes." Gore quickly shot that down as unworthy. And The Washington Post reviewer (Desson Thomson) raved: "We're pressure-cooking the planet to death — and Al Gore has the flow charts to prove it. We know what you're thinking, but as this surprisingly absorbing film shows, Gore's lectures are anything but dull."