The Island President

I seriously don't get why this documentary scores this low on IMDb. But then again, I've seen weirder ratings on here. Good, to get to the point:

Some call this docu a propaganda film for environmentalists, or for the "island president" himself. Fair enough. But is that necessarily a 'bad' thing? In my opinion, this docu gives a great insight in the complexities (and, perhaps, to an extent the impossibilities) of global governance of environmental issues. I do not think this docu actually leaves you with a positive feeling on how to tackle environmental problems, if ever. Nevertheless, it does provide you a very compelling story of a man who tries to make a difference, though be it a tiny, tiny difference. The island president's role is comparable to that of little David trying to fight gigantic, grotesque Goliath.

A very compelling docu that, I think, you should have seen if you're interested in high-level politics.

I just saw this movie on a plane, was deeply moved and impressed by it, and I had to respond to one IMDb user's review.

User darren-511's pathetic one-star review above claims that "All Islands are at Sea Level" and that The Island President overlooked this glaring error.

Here's a basic geography lesson.

Sea level means the measurement of the average height of the ocean's surface. In the Maldives, the highest point on land is only 2.4 meters above sea level, or above the height of the water. This means on these very low, flat islands, there is no high ground whatsoever to seek refuge on if sea level rise or a tsunami occurs. Where on earth do you get the notion that "All Islands are at sea level?!" Haven't you ever seen an island with a mountain on it, like the Haleakala or Mauna Loa volcanoes in Hawaii? The Maldives are seriously in danger of being wiped out by climate change and I don't want to let your serious ignorance of basic science have any opportunity to steer viewers away from this great film.

UPDATE: Here's a spoiler for you. This film was produced 8 years ago and the island is still there.

I am moving my rating from a 1 to a 2 based on the cinematography, otherwise I would look for something below 1. Had the director chosen to tell the story of a 'man-gone-mad', then that might have been interesting but this dribble is just another propaganda film for the environmental movement.

What perplexes me is the assertion "the main island has lost 5 meters of beach front and that Manhattan Island is also at the same depth". Here's an inconvenient truth for you- ALL ISLANDS ARE AT SEA LEVEL! Here's another obvious fact that might present an obstacle to thinking people. Sometimes beaches erode because of ocean volatility and their lack of protection from the elements. Sometimes the plates of the earth sift and islands sink and sometimes islands rise because volcanoes erupt under the sea. There are a number of reasons that an island can experience beach erosion so why not explore all the reasons before jumping on one concept because it supports what uneducated people want to hear.

I love the passion of President Nasheed but it's passion misplaced. Passion for passion sake is acceptable for a child but for a grown man it is simply naive. If you think "An Inconvenient Truth" was science based then you'll love this film. If you see the hypocrisy of Al Gore purchasing beach front property in California then you might want to avoid this film.

This is movie is a PR effort helping him to win Nobel Peace Prize. He was ousted by his own people in 3 years like Hosni Mubarak and Gazzafi.

His total presidency was a drama filled lies and lies. I am sure we westerners are more civilized than a third world countries.

I doubt any ethical person will buy a ticket for this movie when this movie was funded secretly from tax payers money. Maldives is a very small country with limited resources and its ousted president want to become a Hollywood celebrity. I see no difference than the Saudi Royal Family and Him.

No offense to his loyal supporters.

In 1973 George Kukla and my then-hero Carl Sagan predicted catastrophe from global.........COOLING. A scant 8 years later the same Science guys flipped into global.....WARMING. Okay, I get it, personal "funding needs" change global climate "facts". A lot of people wonder how "cooling" morphed to "warming" morphed to "man made climate change" (and now, weirdly, just "climate change", a sort of secret hand shake short hand..). There was a period of time when journalists, and even main stream scientists, were asking inconvenient questions. For the most part, that has ceased, since they got THE MEMO.

Now, I have two horses in this game: 1. Algore's predictions that Manhattan would be under water by 10 years ago filled me with a kind of Biblical scrubbing bubbles hope. Obviously there have been dozens of similar predictions, but his were arguably the best publicized, and, heck, he is likable. So, yeah, I was rooting for rising sea levels. Sue me. 2. Oceanic and air pollution, deforestation, poisoning of fresh water sources, and a host of other lamentable, provable man made effects are very real, and, curiously, get almost no play. The international community could halt the destruction of the Amazon Basin in an afternoon. When was the last time you heard ANYTHING about the Amazon? So...linking dicey climate models and falsified data (remember climate-gate?) with other REAL stuff has resulted, inevitably, in global paralysis on ALL the issues. A person could argue that films like this are part of the problem, and not part of the solution.