The opening flashback and the Speedman/Beckinsale love scene were worth the price of admission for me — anything enjoyable afterwards (and there were at least a few fight scenes that were) was gravy.

Saw An Inconvenient Truth today. Depressed now.

I actually learned a good deal about global warming. I mean, I always knew it was bad and I try to be environmentally aware, but science and I are unmixy things so I liked the straightforward explanations here. And the before/after glacier photos are just shocking. Shocking.

I just saw it too. It made me want to insulate my apartment. Except that I don't have a working AC, so that would probably be BAD right now.

I need to find out if that's playing anywhere near me. I'm curious to see just how alarmist they are. Many scientists have got very opposite views on global warming and I want to see if they give both sides a fair shake.

I need to find out if that's playing anywhere near me. I'm curious to see just how alarmist they are. Many scientists have got very opposite views on global warming and I want to see if they give both sides a fair shake.

I would say it's very one-sided, but very convincing.

I just went to Cars to cheer myself up. It worked, but all I could think during the race scenes was--all those emissions!

Ok.

Finally saw Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants.

Why did they screw with Lena's story so much?? God that bugged.

I should have learned my lesson with The Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood and how they murdered that all to shit.

Maybe it's movies with the name "Sisterhood" in it. It's a plot! A fuck up the story lines of women's books plots conspiracy!!

Effing stupid scriptwriters.**

**This statement only applies to the scriptwrites who eff up the movies based on books I really really like, which is, to my knowledge, no Buffista. Hear that Kevin Sullivan? Do ya?? I'll cut you for "Anne of Green Gables Three", you fucking fuck.

the before/after glacier photos are just shocking

I googled a bit and came up with these two photos that show this change. 1941 2004

On the surface of it, that seems shocking. But I notice that they didn't include dates on those photos. Is it possible that it changes throughout the year?

We watched the Three Burials of Melchiades Estrada and I have to say I'm terribly disappointed with it. I think they greatly messes up with the timeline/flashback scenes. The acting was good and the characters could have been more compelling had they been fleshed out a little more.

Barry Pepper was great towards the end.

The ending is just badly confusing.

Why did they screw with Lena's story so much??

Because they needed a romeo and juliet story, complete with the feud?

Lena's story served as the "typical teen movie romance" bit, I felt, which was okay with me since it freed them up make Carmen and Tibby's stories exactly as heartbreaking as they needed to be, and Bridget's almost as much. The main Lena thing I WISH they had kept in was her using her extra spending money to go to Mexico and pick Bridget up - the rest of Lena's story was always my least favorite part of the book, anyway.

But if you love Lena, I can see being pissed.

On the surface of it, that seems shocking. But I notice that they didn't include dates on those photos. Is it possible that it changes throughout the year?

I never studied it in detail, but I do know that glaciers take decades, often centuries, to form. To go from 2,000 ft thick to nonexistent is a LOT more than a seasonal cycle.

Many scientists have got very opposite views on global warming and I want to see if they give both sides a fair shake.

They don't look much at the other side, but they do tackle this sentence, pretty convincingly. They mention a recently taken random sample of 928 articles about global warming in peer-reviewed scientific journals, stating that 0 of these believe global warming to be anything less than proven to be happening and a significant threat. Contrarily, 58% of articles in the popular press are conflicted about the threat.

Certainly, in my experience at Caltech I never once met a biologist, geologist, or anything in between (believe it or not, I knew three biology/geology double majorns) who wasn't absolutely certain that global warming was happening and changing the face of the earth - a certainty I assume they gathered from their professors. In my opinion, the "scientific conflict" over global warming is much like the "scientific conflict" over evolution - it doesn't really exist in any serious numbers. It's all marketing.

But then, I'm pretty alarmist on this issue. Heh.