For the life of me, I can't imagine why I voluntarily went to a disaster movie. I was expecting the effects to be top notch, but I cannot right now remember even a single disaster movie that was any good. The Day After Tomorrow keeps the tradition alive and well.

The effects are pretty good, though. The CGI of LA getting wiped out from a brace of tornadoes and NYC going several stories underwater was well done, and believable (at least, as far as the graphics go). The story, however, was completely rote. Yet another entry into this summer's cavalcade of clichés.

Just a word or two on both the politics and the science of this flick. The politics: I would just like to see the size and number of people they had to use to carry the ax. To say the writer/director had a very large ax to grind would not even begin to cover the bases. The US Vice-President in this film bears more than just a passing resemblance to Dick Cheney, and the US President is portrayed as a barely functioning dimwit. Not to mention the specific references to Kyoto and other similar matters. Just a touch on the heavy handed side.

The science. Note to the writer. Just because you include dialog that would seem to be vaguely scientific in nature ("We're pulling down air from the upper troposphere!") doesn't make it actually seem intelligent. It almost seemed as if they were stringing together really big words to seem impressive. "I think we are at a desalinization point that could lead to a cataclysmic climatological alteration in the endoplasmic reticulum!" Bravo.

Watch time — well, there were two this go 'round. The first one was at about :04 into the flick when the opening stunt caused me to groan. The second time around was :27 or so.

And, as a side note, if you want some actual, real science, check out a pro-warming guy and an anti-warming guy. Never let it be said that I don't try to show as many sides of an argument as I can.