A real one, two punch on the new Fox fearfest The Day After Tomorrow. First, a Fox News critic takes the film apart from a cinematic angle, then the senior environmental fellow of the Cato Institute (who seems to believe in global warming) takes it apart from a scientific angle.
The latter also confirms something that I’d suspected: The film is based on a book by Art Bell and Whitley Streiber with a similar premise. That gives the movie enough camp factor to tempt me to see it, but not if it’s as bad a cinematic experience as the Fox News critic says.
Author: Jimmy Akin
Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."
View all posts by Jimmy Akin
Normally it wouldn’t matter the bad physics of a Summer blockbuster. The producers intended this to be an environmental message and to raise consciousness about global warming.
Though selecting a book from two authors who believe in alien abductions is hardly a way to make your case.
This movie will be as scientifically correct as their previous movie Godzilla.
There is an excellent site on the science behind movies called “INSULTINGLY STUPID MOVIE PHYSICS” They rate the movies from “GP = Good physics in general” to “XP = Obviously physics from an unknown universe”
Their reviews are good since they are educational as to what is wrong with the physics of a particular movie.
http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/