The problem I see with this particular type of movie is the lack of a presentation of the opposite view which still exists in the scientific comunity. Consider the movie by Oliver Stone, JFK, which made up it's own facts based on the application of "artistic license" and being exposed as such. That film is still the foundation for the belief by most Americans, according to various polls, that JFK was assasinated via conspiracy and not by Oswald. Yet if you ask anyone of those who believe this conspiracy theory if they have ever read the Warren Commision report you usually get a befuddled look. Point being that a theatrical presentation will always trump any detailed research or opposing view points that need to be explored before making such a conclusion.
Do a search of Global Cooling and you will find opinions, charts etc that have presented this opposite point of view in the past. I wish I could locate the Time and Newsweek articles from the 1970s that discussed Global Cooling being the paramount climate problem of the time. This link mentions this "old theory" briefly:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15391426/site/newsweek/
The question one needs to ask is how can scientists from one era be completely at odds with the latest point of view. Were they completely wrong then or now or is the answer somewhere in between?
I will see the movie someday, but I plan to look at it with a great deal of skepticism, as it is a Hollywood presentation, which we know generally distorts facts for effect and the lack of credibility by the presenter (Al Gore who has made up some off the wall fabricated nonsense in the past--Did I say I invented the Internet? )