Regardless of which new movie you see this weekend, it’s going to feature attractive people wearing fantastic costumes.

“Superman Returns” opened Wednesday (Tuesday night, actually, as many cities had 10 p.m. and midnight showings), and there’s a good chance you’ve already seen it. If not, by all means, do so. I didn’t get into this very much in my review, but it’s quite different from most superhero movies. The one it’s closest to — and I hesitate to say this, because of the film’s reputation — is “The Hulk.”

“Superman Returns” is very much about Superman’s emotional state and his loneliness as an outsider to the human race, and there are many quiet moments focused on that. You tend to think it’s going to be an all-out action movie, but it just isn’t. You need to know that going in lest you be disappointed when it fails to pump your adrenaline non-stop.

What it does do, though, it does very well. No one expected Brandon Routh to be any good as Superman, but he’s fantastic, capturing Superman’s Boy Scout heroism and angsty personal drama as well as Clark Kent’s doofiness. Much has been said about how he looks like Christopher Reeve (which I don’t really see), but there are several instances where the way he says a line even SOUNDS like him.

The other new film, opening today, is “The Devil Wears Prada,” adapted from the bestselling 2003 novel. The movie is also recommended, albeit not quite as highly as “Superman Returns.” Even if you’re not the type of person who generally notices that an acting performance is great, I bet you’ll notice that Meryl Streep’s is.

That’s all we get this week. More important movie-related stuff can be found in “In the Dark,” of course, which you really ought to subscribe to if you haven’t already. I mean for crying out loud, it’s free.

Like many film critics, I’ve received a lot of e-mails in response to my positive review of Al Gore’s global warming documentary “An Inconvenient Truth,” and to my subsequent blog entries on the same topic. Not since “Brokeback Mountain” have so many people been so sure they disagreed with a film they haven’t seen.

Normally I don’t debate a movie with people who haven’t seen it — I mean, really, duh — but since the topic of “An Inconvenient Truth” extends into the real world, and since the movie purports to be an analysis of real-world circumstances, it seemed reasonable to make an exception.

But as I’ve responded to the people who have taken time to write to me — all of them intelligent and (except one, maybe) polite so far — I’ve noticed that I’m repeating myself a lot. So I thought I’d reprint some of the letters here, and then summarize my responses to the issues they bring up. I still welcome e-mails from readers, of course, but perhaps this will make some correspondence unnecessary. Consider it a FAQ RE: Al Gore and global warming.

From a longtime reader named Joe:

    You mentioned that Gore says that there is no real dissent on warming. A couple of days before your post I wrote about it on a blog, specifically about dissent on Global Warming. I know, the name of the blog is Right Wing Pundit, but I didn’t misquote the sources to prove a point.

    I know, I know- maybe I am just a right winger that doesn’t want to face facts, but there are respected people that disagree with some of the science of global warming. The fact that it HAS become a partisan issue doesn’t mean that the partisan people that disagree are wrong.

    My conclusion is that man’s effect on warming is just a theory, and will always be one. It is not scientific fact because it hasn’t passed the test.

From another longtime reader, Rob:

    I was a little disappointed in the lack of sophistication evident in your review of “An Inconvenient Truth” and other comments of yours on the topic of global warming.

    First, the idea that the Earth is warming due to human activity is indeed a theory and not one that is universally supported in the scientific community. Yes, average temperatures have gone up in recent years in many parts of the world, but we don’t know yet what’s causing that phonomenon. Could just be a normal part of the Earth’s temperature cycle, which has varied greatly over the centuries. Certainly, what’s known as “global warming” is one hypothesis that is widely, if not universally, accepted. Perhaps the fact that it IS the dominant theory in the scientific community explains why so few dissenting articles have been published in journals controlled by the scientific community. Anyone who views science as the realm of pure knowledge, and not as a hotbed for partisan politics, is naive indeed.

    (Let me suggest here a very good read: Michael Crichton’s “State of Fear,” which, although a novel, explores the global warming controversy with the depth of scientific and journalistic research that has become Crichton’s trademark.)

    Secondly, you express bewilderment that Republicans and other conservatives could take issue with what is clearly, in your mind, scientific fact. “Aren’t we all living on the same planet,” you ask? Forgive me for saying so, because I normally respect your intelligence–you’ve given me a lot of great movie tips over the years–but that’s nothing more than bumper-sticker wisdom, a trite platitude masquerading as a reasoned argument.

    Conservatives are concerned about the global warming movement because many, both inside and outside the scientific community, are attempting to use this popular theory as a weapon in the war on capitalism. As many leading economists have concluded, adhering to the Kyoto Protocol would do great damage to our economy, perhaps irreversably. Could that, and not “saving the Earth,” be the real goal of the self-proclaimed “environmentists”? Before you answer, look carefully at their politics. You will find that many of them are socialists, if not out-and-out Marxists. The “green movement” is little more than a new cover for an old agenda: redistribution of wealth.

    All conservatives are saying is, let’s not destroy the world’s economy based on panicked responses to an unproven theory. Instead, let’s begin taking sensible steps to lessen our dependence on fossil fuels, such as personal conservation, greater use of mass transit, and using our power as consumers to create the demand for more fuel efficient and alternative fuel vehicles. Meanwhile, we can continue debating the science, and eventually, the truth will emerge.

    Until then, remember that nothing has the power to liberate people and lift them from poverty like free markets.

From a reader named Shang:

    I just read your review of “An Inconvenient Truth” and had some thoughts about global warming that I thought you might be interested in hearing. Let me state first that I am no skeptic of global warming: the evidence is overwhelming and irrefutable. I even believe human activity has contributed to it. I am interested in seeing Mr. Gore’s movie, because I believe there is great value in humans being better caretakers of this planet. The only thing I take issue with is the smug certainty that Gore and those scientists who agree completely with him express when it comes to the extent of the problem, its impacts and our ability to solve it. While I do not doubt that it is mainly Big Oil that is behind the push to downplay global warming, I question the assertion that Gore and your review so elegantly made regarding the scientific consensus about global warming.

    Yes, the statistic you listed from the documentary about all 900-odd journals supporting wholly the theory is very convincing. I am impressed by that and want to know more about it, but coming from a market research background, it seems to me almost too good to be true. I wonder what the methodology is behind this assessment. Then I read articles such as this one that are candid and where the journalist is quite aware of the criticism of the skeptics’ view and easily admits the fishy Big Oil scientist connections when they are pointed out, yet explains logically how Gore cannot point out the biases that surround his research. Could it be that Gore has his “side” just as Big Oil has its “side?” Is one “side” right or might they both be wrong together?

    I cannot ignore that Gore’s evidence is extremely compelling, and most authorities seem to see things his way, but we must realize that going with his assumptions on faith and developing solutions accordingly, while they very well could lead to a viable answer, could also have significant costs and devastating, cascading socioeconomic impacts. Not going with his solutions may also have catastrophic outcomes, which is what he wants everyone to believe, and admittedly out of nothing but sincerity and no ulterior motive. But to ignore reputable sources, which I believe he might be doing, in order to push for extreme measures could be seen as irresponsible.

From a DVD Talk reader who probably had not read anything of mine before and who is named Dave:

    It’s too bad you don’t check you facts. There are plenty of scientists who dispute Gore’s publicity stunt:

[Dave neglected to mention this, but what he is about to cite comes from an article in the online publication Canada Free Press. I do not know how reliable this publication is generally, but I do know that one of their writers once plagiarized material from The Onion for a news story, apparently not realizing The Onion is a FAKE news outlet and that the material she stole from them was made-up. Anyway, back to Dave's letter/CFP quotation.]

    Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: “Gore’s circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention.”

    Carter does not pull his punches about Gore’s activism, “The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science.”

    Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, “There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth’s temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years.”

    Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore’s dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. “The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier,” says Winterhalter. “In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form.”

    Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, “Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems.”

    But Karlén clarifies that the ‘mass balance’ of Antarctica is positive – more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the ‘calving’ of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, “their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year – not much of an effect,” Karlén concludes.

    Gore’s point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. “It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records,” he says. “The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual.”

[End uncredited CFP quotation.]

    Obviously, he went to the Michael Moore school of movie making. Inuendo, half truths and misleading statements are no substitute for the facts. [Nor is copying and pasting a Web article a substitute for an actual letter!]

From Dave again, when I wrote back to him and asked why I should believe the scientists he quotes over the ones Gore uses, and also indicated that I, as a non-scientist, have no choice but to go along with what the majority of scientists believe, which in this case is that global warming is real, bad, and preventable:

    I appreciate that you are in the entertainment business and science may not be “your thing”. Still, as a journalist you have a certain responsibility to your readers. Mr. Gore is trying to make money and increase his political coin by releasing a controversial movie. I wasn’t encouraging you to believe one view or another. It’s just that I take umbrage at people who throw away their critical thinking skills and accept facts blindly. It’s clear you did by various statements in your review. As an example:

    ”They did a random sampling of 928 global-warming-related articles from all the regular peer-reviewed scientific journals. Of those 928 (which comprise 10 percent of the total published), how many suggested that global warming was not a reality, or that it was part of a natural Earth cycle, or that there was nothing we could do about it? A grand total of zero.” [That paragraph is a quote from my review of Gore's movie.]

    Did you attempt to verify this statement? What is their definition of “random”? Of those 9,000 articles, perhaps 8,000 refute their claims and they took a “random” sampling of the ones who agreed with their premise.

    Any endeavor that has the possibility of garnering the creator fame or monetary gain should be closely scrutinized, both for the facts of the subject matter and the motivation. For example, perhaps he wants to increase his visibility for a possible run at the White House? Imagine what “his” scientists would stand to gain if that would happen.

    I encourage you to listen to BOTH sides and make an informed decision, rather than believing what you are told. Question everything.

* * * * * *

So there’s a sampling of what I’ve gotten so far, and I should add a thanks my longtime brother Chris for sending me the Canada Free Press link, which is how I was able to spot where Dave had gotten his info from.

Now here is my response to all of this, more or less divided by topic of concern.

IS THERE AN OVERWHELMING CONSENSUS AMONG SCIENTISTS ON GLOBAL WARMING?

Gore says there is. In “An Inconvenient Truth,” he says that in a random sampling of more than 900 articles on the subject published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, NONE of them took the contrary position. Meanwhile, he points out, in newspaper articles about it, the contrary position gets mentioned more than 50 percent of the time — a contrary position that, he says, very, very few scientists actually hold. The media exaggerate how much disagreement there is, in other words.

So says Gore. Dave asked, “Did you attempt to verify this statement?” Well, no. I don’t know what Dave thinks I ought to have done. Gore doesn’t say who conducted this random sampling, or which specific scientific journals they used. Short of obtaining every scientific journal published in the last decade and doing a random sampling of 900 articles myself, there’s not much I can do to corroborate Gore’s claim.

There are people with such resources, and I don’t doubt they will pore over the scientific journals to see if they can refute or confirm Gore’s statistics. But I am not one of those people.

But even if Gore is right, and peer-reviewed scientific journals almost never publish articles suggesting global warming is a) not real, b) not bad, or c) not preventable anyway, that doesn’t necessarily mean the issue is settled.

In his blog entry linked above, Joe quotes the Denver Post in saying, “There are many younger scientists who voice their concerns about global warming hysteria privately but would never jeopardize their careers by speaking up.”

In other words, perhaps the reason scientific journals don’t publish articles debunking global warming is that scientists who take that position are afraid to speak up. Perhaps the reason “the scientific community” generally agrees on it is that those who disagree aren’t admitted into the “scientific community.” It is something to think about.

SO IF THERE’S NO OVERWHELMING CONSENSUS, IS THERE AT LEAST A MAJORITY OPINION?

Yes. I think even those who claim global warming is a crock admit that their viewpoint is the minority one among scientists. It may be a growing minority, and a vocal one, but it remains a minority.

And see, that’s the whole point for me. When a movie says something that I recognize as blatantly illogical or untrue, I’m quick to point it out in my review. But I’m not a scientist. What Gore says in “An Inconvenient Truth” makes sense to me. He explains himself very clearly, and the science he uses seems sound, at least to my layman’s mind.

I’m sure there are people hard at work as we speak, debunking whatever elements of Gore’s film need to be debunked. And if specific errors in fact or methodology come forth, I’ll be glad to know the truth on the matter.

But in the meantime, Gore’s opinion — that global warming is real, bad, and preventable — is the one shared by a majority of scientists. Again, maybe not so many as to be a hands-down, end-of-discussion consensus, but enough to where I, as a regular joe, can comfortably accept that majority opinion as a reliable one and act accordingly.

Dave wants me to listen to the opposing scientists, and OK, I’ve read what they say. But why take their word over that of Gore’s scientists? Logically, if there are qualified individuals coming up with different conclusions, my best course of action is to go with the prevailing, majority opinion.

ENVIRONMENTALISM AS A PARTISAN ISSUE

Rob took me to task when he said: “You express bewilderment that Republicans and other conservatives could take issue with what is clearly, in your mind, scientific fact. ‘Aren’t we all living on the same planet,’ you ask? … But that’s nothing more than bumper-sticker wisdom, a trite platitude masquerading as a reasoned argument.”

Fortunately, I didn’t actually say that. What I said, in my blog entry about the film, was: “How did the environment become a partisan-politics issue? Though it may seem otherwise, Republicans and Democrats actually live on the same planet (Earth), and the condition of that planet affects both groups.”

All I was saying was that protecting the Earth — whether that means fighting global warming, or proving global warming doesn’t exist, or whatever — should be something ALL political parties are interested in. Yet for some reason, it’s vastly partisan.

Rob said the conservative position is “let’s not destroy the world’s economy based on panicked responses to an unproven theory. Instead, let’s begin taking sensible steps to lessen our dependence on fossil fuels, such as personal conservation, greater use of mass transit, and using our power as consumers to create the demand for more fuel efficient and alternative fuel vehicles.”

The problem as I see it is, since environmentalism is so partisan now, all the conservatives can do is SAY that. If a conservative even thinks of doing the things Rob mentions, he is branded a hippie liberal tree-hugger Marxist. So instead, the conservative party line is to TALK about those things, but not to actually do much about them. In fact, some people take stubborn pride in doing non-environment-friendly things just because they don’t like environmentalists (i.e., liberals), sort of like the anti-vegetarian “for every animal you don’t eat, I’m going to eat three” joke.

IS THERE ANY HARM IN FOLLOWING GORE’S ADVICE, EVEN IF GLOBAL WARMING TURNS OUT TO BE FALSE?

What Gore and his ilk suggest is reducing oil and energy consumption, which means driving less, using hybrid cars, developing alternative fuel sources, etc. All of this will help stop global warming — but even if global warming proves false, well, aren’t those good suggestions anyway?

I mean, don’t we all agree that less dependency on oil — especially foreign-owned oil — is a GOOD thing? Wouldn’t we all like lower emissions on cars and thus cleaner air to breathe? And in addition to slowing global warming, doesn’t reducing your electricity usage save you money?

Let’s say a doctor tells you you’ve got cancer, and the only way to cure it is to eat right and exercise daily. Then it turns out you didn’t have cancer after all. Are you mad? Or are you glad you got in the habit of eating right and exercising daily?

Rob brings up what what many on his side of the issue have brought up, which is that Gore’s ideas, if followed to their conclusion, could destroy the national and world economies. Gore addresses this point in his film, but only briefly (that’s one of the movie’s flaws, I think), and not in much detail. I get the impression he talks about it more in his live presentation, and that only a few moments of it was included in the film.

I know, if this is possible, even less about economics than I do about science. But I’m smart enough to see that certain things cause other things. Using less electricity and oil will hurt the electricity and oil industries, which will hurt the many people who are employed by those industries, which will hurt the overall economy.

However, let’s not forget that the economy changes frequently as technology, trends and lifestyle choices evolve. Companies that once made millions producing film are suffering because everyone uses digital cameras now. The people who once produced typewriters have had to focus on niche markets or change their wares. I imagine at one point there were a lot of horse breeders and buggy manufacturers who were sad indeed to see the automobile become so popular.

If an alternative fuel source were found, something cheaper, cleaner and more renewable than gasoline, I think most of us would be delighted about it and would give very little thought as to how it will impact the poor oil companies. They might go bankrupt, and their employees might have to find new jobs in other fields, but life would, in fact, go on. It wouldn’t DESTROY the economy; it would merely change it.

Of course, if the prevailing notions about the severity and preventability of global warming are true, then all of this is irrelevant. We would have to do whatever is necessary, whether it hurts the economy or not. But we’ve survived other economic changes and crises and would probably survive this one, too.

ARE GORE AND HIS COHORTS EXAGGERATING OR LYING ABOUT THIS?

This has always seemed to me the weakest argument. What do Gore or the global warming scientists stand to gain by lying? What’s in it for them?

Now, denying global warming, there’s where the money is. The oil companies and car manufacturers certainly have a vested interest in global warming not being accepted by the general public. But where’s the money in environmentalism? I suppose if Gore owned a company that makes hybrid cars, maybe you’d have something there.

Rob suggested the opposite, actually: that many of the global warming fanatics DON’T want to make money, and in fact don’t want ANYONE to be rich. “Could (destroying the economy), and not ‘saving the Earth,’ be the real goal of the self-proclaimed ‘environmentists’?” Rob writes. “Look carefully at their politics. You will find that many of them are socialists, if not out-and-out Marxists. The ‘green movement’ is little more than a new cover for an old agenda: redistribution of wealth.” He calls it part of the “war on capitalism.”

I’m going to go ahead and dismiss this as what we in the business call crazy talk. I guess maybe there are environmentalist nuts who truly DO have destruction of the economy as their ultimate goal, with little or no sincere concern for actually saving the Earth. But come on, the movement as a whole?

Gore certainly isn’t a socialist or a Marxist, unless you’re one of those right-wingers who think ALL liberals are closet socialists (in which case I respond: shut up, you closet fascist). And I have no reason to doubt that the other people who claim to be concerned for the environment actually are. They may recognize an impact on the economy as a potential byproduct of reformed environmental policies, but it would be an awfully elaborate plan to have THAT as their ultimate goal, with the “save the Earth” thing just the means to that end. I mean, there are probably more direct ways of destroying capitalism, if that’s your intention.

Dave wrote, “Mr. Gore is trying to make money and increase his political coin by releasing a controversial movie.” I guess the way that would work is, he makes everyone think global warming is a serious threat, then takes the lead in defeating global warming. It would be like a knave riding into a village, announcing there are (fictitious or harmless) dragons out in the forest, then getting elected mayor on the strength of his “Stamp Out Dragons” policies.

But watching Gore in “An Inconvenient Truth” — and let me point out again that as far as I can tell, none of the people whose e-mails I’ve quoted here have actually seen it — I see a sincere, passionate man. I don’t see how you can come out of the film not believing that Gore truly believes everything he says. If he’s faking it, his talent for acting (or BS-ing) is epic.

Does that mean he’s unaware of how it might help him politically, should he choose to become a politician again? Of course not. I’m sure he knows the effect this might have on his career. I just don’t think that’s WHY he’s doing it. Now, I can only base that on my gut instinct as I watch him in his film. But one thing I AM good at, if not science or economics, is watching movies.

Here are some more recent items in Eric’s Sack of Mail, the place for e-mails I get that are neither angry nor stupid. They cover a wide range of topics, so put your thinking caps on!

First, a reader whose name I neglected to keep pointed out an amusing paragraph in a recent edition of The Daily Universe at BYU.

I thought of you when I read this. It’s from a front-page article printed in the The Daily Universe on May 25 about the rising cost of gas:

“I’m shocked and appalled,” said JaNae Besendorfer, a senior from Nephi. “It will just be so expensive to go anywhere.”

I especially like that her name is “JaNae.”

I agree! Made-up Mormon names with two capital letters are the best when using expressions like “shocked and appalled.”

Next, a fellow named Rod stumbled across my site and read my somewhat infamous Ann Landers “Snide Remarks” column, to which one angry-letter writer tried to pass off “dishonest” as a normal, common definition of “snide.” Rod had this to say:

I came across your Ann Landers column while seeking a definition of “snide”. Frankly I share the view of those readers who thought it was in very poor taste, though I don’t want to get self-righteous about it, since lots of things I like are in bad taste. By the way, I’m not sure you’re right that no one uses snide to mean dishonest – what led me to your column was reading “Fingersmith” by Sarah Waters, where the leading character describes fake jewelry as snide. However, this may be a Victorian usage, as the novel is set in Victorian times. One online source quotes a 1913 edition of Webster as referring to “snide goods”, but says this usage is archaic. This other source has more on the origin and history of the word “snide.”

That is actually pretty fascinating. I’ll summarize what the second link says: While people generally assume “snide” came from German “schneiden” or Dutch “snijden” — both meaning “to cut,” which lines up with the modern definition of “snide” — in fact “snide” in English ORIGINALLY meant “false, bogus, counterfeit.” That definition of it goes back to 1859, while the current meaning (sarcastic, snooty, sneering, etc.) is only traceable to 1933. So we actually don’t know where the English word “snide” came from — or, if it did come from German or Dutch, why we changed it to mean “fake” before eventually going back to a meaning closer to the German/Dutch one.

Or maybe it’s only interesting to people named Snider and/or people who write columns called “Snide Remarks.”

Next, Justin writes in with a question about my movie reviews:

When you give a film a C+, does that mean the film can be counted as a “good film,” or a “bad film?” (Or a “neutral film?”) Let’s take Hollywood Homicide for example. That’s a perfect example of a movie that I cannot say I feel is a GOOD movie…however, I still cannot say I feel that it is a BAD movie. So in my mind, it’s neutral. (You gave it a C+.) So would it count as a “good” or “bad” film? (I kept thinking about this, especially since your reviews are posted on Rotten Tomatoes, where it has to be either one or the other.)

Rotten Tomatoes has the cut-off at B-, so by their reckoning, C+ is “rotten.” But they don’t leave room for the middle ground: movies that aren’t good, exactly, but aren’t bad either.

As you guessed, that’s where the C+ comes in. Here’s how I think of a C+ movie: You wouldn’t see it on purpose, but if you’re standing at the theater and you’ve seen everything else and the C+ movie starts in 10 minutes, then sure, go ahead and see it. It’s better than not seeing anything.

A straight C grade to me means the film inspires no strong feelings one way or the other, a completely neutral film. C- is where I start using the word “bad” to describe it, and of course it gets worse from there.

(By the way, Justin’s e-mail address bounced when I tried to send this response to him, so I hope he’s reading this.)

Finally, a reader named Mike has a similar question regarding how I rank movie reviews. He writes:

I scanned your movie reviews and noticed that you haven’t given any teeny bopper movies an A rating. That’s as far as I looked, so maybe you’ve given one a “good” rating, I don’t know.

So, my question is whether you have given a teeny bopper movie a good rating, like above a B? You said to some guy on your blog that you try to evaluate three things when you review a movie: what’s it trying to accomplish, does it accomplish it, why. Do any teeny boppers, um, bop teens well? That is, where do most teeny bopper movies fall short?

I think it’s important to point out that I don’t give very many movies of ANY genre an A or A- grade. Since those grades are less common in general, it makes sense that if you narrow it down to a particular genre, there are going to be even fewer.

Second, I guess it depends on what you consider a “teeny-bopper” movie. If you mean movies aimed at teenagers, especially teenage girls — that’s what I think when I think “teeny-bopper” — then “Bring It on,” “Stick It,” “Crazy/Beautiful,” “Anywhere But Here” and “Mean Girls” all got very high marks from me. (Those are the first few that come to mind.) But “teeny-bopper” is kind of a vague term.

RE: “You try to evaluate three things when you review a movie: what’s it trying to accomplish, does it accomplish it, why.”

When I consider those questions, I’m not taking into account who the movie has been marketed toward. What a movie is “trying to accomplish” means what its storytelling goals are, not who it’s trying to appeal to. Plenty of very bad movies meet the goal of appealing to an audience. Saying that a movie achieves that is the same as saying, “It will make a lot of money,” which says nothing about its actual quality.

Many teen-oriented movies are bad simply because they treat the audiences like they’re stupid, talking down to them with idiot plots, unoriginal dialogue and cookie-cutter characters. The movies I cited above all buck that trend by being smart and mature. There is probably a great percentage of teen movies that are bad than with some other genres, simply because with teens, so many filmmakers (and the studios behind them) don’t even TRY to be good. They only want to appeal to teens on a superficial level.

That does it for Eric’s Sack of Mail for now. But soon there will be a new installment addressing “An Inconvenient Truth” and people’s opinions of it. Well, not of the movie, since I don’t think any of the people who have written to me about it have actually seen it, but about global warming in general. So, you know, you can look forward to that.

There are four wide releases this weekend, including two sequels and something starring Keanu Reeves. So we’re definitely looking at a quantity-vs.-quality thing here.

(Interesting note: Three of the four new films have the increasingly uncommon rating of PG.)

I’ve been in Vegas all week for the CineVegas Film Festival, and thus missed the press screenings for “Garfield: A Tale of Two Kitties” and “The Lake House.” I’ll catch the latter this weekend, for sure; I can’t promise I’ll take any strong action in regards to “Garfield” anytime soon.

The other two, “Nacho Libre” and “The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift,” I saw in Vegas. Vegas, baby! Everything’s better here!

A disappointingly under-programmed CineVegas left me with my Monday evening free, and as it happens, “Fast and the Furious” was screening in the same multiplex inhabited by the film festival. I politely asked the studio rep if I, a wayward visiting film critic, could attend her screening, and she graciously admitted me. That’s Vegas hospitality, baby!

I did have to shush an old man during the screening. Like most old men in Vegas, he was gigantically round and wore shorts. He liked to say things out loud that most of us leave in our brains (“That’s his girlfriend” “They sure are driving fast” “Look at that car”), and since he’s an old Vegas man, he’s not used to being told what to do. So when I shushed him, he looked very surprised. He was quiet for the rest of the screening, though I did notice him look over at me a couple times, perhaps sizing me up to see if he could take me in a fight.

“Nacho Libre” actually screened last night as part of CineVegas, even though it was opening today anyway. Jared Hess’ last film, “Napoleon Dynamite,” played here to great acclaim in 2004, so I assume the inclusion of “Nacho Libre” was either Hess doing CineVegas a favor or CineVegas doing Hess a favor. Random unneeded favors are also very Vegas.

Both new releases, along with write-ups for a few other, smaller releases, can be found in this week’s “In the Dark.” If you’re not already a subscriber, I urge you to remedy that at once. It’s free and exceptionally useful.

We’ve had a lot of letters recently that belong in Eric’s Sack of Mail — correspondence that is NOT angry, irrational or stupid — so we’re going to present some of them today and some of them in another installment. And here we go!

A reader named Garrett responds to my review of “The Da Vinci Code,” where I made fun of a particular detail in the plot:

I didn’t particularly like the Da Vinci Code film, but I don’t think twitting the filmmakers for using a bank account’s “safe passage clause” as a plot point is very fair. Maybe if the bank account was really, really old, back to the times where safe conduct agreements and edicts were more common. Still not very reasonable, I suppose. What is more likely is that the bank manager (in light of his true motives) was making that up in order to get them under his control.

We can, I suppose, fault the two main characters for their naive acceptance of such a ridiculous contrivance.

Was there a time when a “safe passage clause” was common in bank accounts? Like in the Wild West or something? I’ll have to look into that.

But yeah, I think you’re right that the real problem with the movie’s use of it is how the Hanks and Tautou characters accept it like it’s perfectly normal. (Also normal: Declaring “I’ve got to get to a library, FAST!!” in a loud, urgent voice.)

Speaking of big movies where characters say and do ridiculous things, a DVD Talk reader named Brad wrote in response to my review of “X-Men: The Last Stand” (which was listed after two other reviews, by the way; you’ll need to know that). I mentioned some other trilogies where the third entry was the lowest in quality, prompting Brad to say:

I respect your opinion, HOWEVER…

Back to the future III? Jurassic Park III? Godfather III? Okay, I’ll give you that last one.

But BF3 was at least as good as the first one, and better that the second by a mile.

JP3 is, in my humble opinion, much better than the first one. And don’t get me started on Lost World!!

*takes deep breath* I’m alright…I’m okay…

Anyway, all trilogizing aside, no hard feelings, and keep up the good work.

BTW, d’ja notice that of the three [reviews] of this movie, YOURS IS THE THIRD? Coincidence. I think not. What goes around…

Just kidding. 8 > )

“Back to the Future III” and “Jurassic Park III” as good as the originals?! Surely you smoke crack, sir.

And if my review was the weakest of the three, just think how bad the FOURTH one will be!

Ah, good-natured jesting! It is my favorite.

My “X3″ review also mentioned the absurd line, “I’m the Juggernaut, b****!” Consequently, a reader whose name I didn’t get wrote in with this information:

I was checking out your review (great review!) and I noticed that you mentioned Juggernaut’s line “I’m the Juggernaut, B****!” as “an effort to produce the Worst Line of 2006.” I’m sure you’ve had plenty of people inform you of this since you posted that, but in case they didn’t, that line comes from a parody that’s spreading like wildfire over Myspace and YouTube. Some guys dubbed their voices over an episode of [the animated TV series] X-men.

I was aware of that, and it actually makes the line worse, in my opinion. Not only is it a bad line by itself, but it was included for a stupid reason (i.e., as a shout-out to fanboys).

Nonetheless, I had not seen the animated dub in question, and the reader was good enough to provide a link. Here is where the little mini-phenomenon can be seen. (WARNING: It contains non-stop R-rated language. Don’t click it if you don’t want to hear it.) And here is the creators’ MySpace page. One of their blog entries chronicles their elation at discovering their line was being featured in the movie, which is kind of adorable. (By the way: I have a friend who honestly believes — and has strong evidence in support of it — that the line in “Pulp Fiction” about “it’s always time for pie” came from her. I’ll have to tell you the story sometime.)

Finally, I wrote a blog entry criticizing Fox News for snottily implying Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth” was a failure for grossing “only” $350,000 over its opening weekend when it was only playing in four theaters at which nearly every screening was sold-out. Brandon writes in with this additional insight:

You lambasted Fox News (and rightfully so) for claiming “An Inconvenient Truth” was not a sucess for grossing about $350,000 over the weekend while playing at only four theaters nationwide.

While I’d agree the movie cannot be considered a failure, I’m hesitant to view it as a blockbuster success as you seem to right now. Your argument that every single showing of the movie was sold out at every theater over the weekend reminds me of NASCAR fans. NASCAR fans are quick to point out that the main race for NASCAR sells out to a tune of over 200,000 seats every week. Other sports, they claim, hardly have any teams that sell out on a consistent basis. Here’s why I feel they are wrong:

There were only 200,000 seats available! It’s only available one day of the week! If you took every NFL team and was somehow able to put them into an arena and have them play each other in one game every week, that would sell hundreds of thosands of seats years in advance. Same goes for the NBA or MLB, in my opinion.

Mr. Gore’s movie was available to a limited number of people in limited areas, much like NASCAR. My guess is that those who really really wanted to see it went out of their way to catch it the opening weekend. These people are not few in number, but can hardly rival the numbers of people who have seen and still want to see “X-men”.

I’m willing to bet that if you’d opened “House of 1000 Corpses” to only 4 theaters over one weekend, it would have earned $350,000, too.

You cannot compare the release of “X-men” to the release of “An Inconvenient Truth” in either a positive or negative way, in my view.

Those are good points. “An Inconvenient Truth” is not a blockbuster, and likely never will be. Documentaries that gross huge amounts of money are extremely rare. And you’re right that if the film HAD played in 3,000 theaters, the per-theater average would have been miniscule.

My point was simply that, contrary to Fox’s snotty implication, less than half a million dollars is NOT a disappointment under the circumstances. By all accepted measures within the film industry, $350,000 in four theaters is stupendous, regardless of what “kind” of film it is or what audience it appeals to. A per-theater average of $90,000 over four days is good, period. No one in the film industry would dispute that.

But when Fox News says, “X3 made $120 million! Ooooh, and poor Al Gore’s movie only made half a million,” they’re being disingenuous. The average viewer is going to take the implication — Gore’s movie is a flop — at face value because Fox didn’t MENTION that it was only playing in four theaters and that its take was actually quite good. They took the outcome they wanted — Gore fails — and found a way to phrase the facts to fit that.

“An Inconvenient Truth” has dropped in per-theater average as it has expanded to more theaters, of course. That’s partly because with each passing week more and more people who want to see it have already done so, and also because the potential audience for documentaries in general is so small. It’s grossed $3 million so far. If it makes it to even $12 million, it will be among the top five highest-grossing docs of all time.

That’s it for Eric’s Sack of Mail this time. Keep those sensible and intelligent cards and letters coming!

The week’s major release is “Cars,” the latest computer-animated family film from the wizards at Pixar. It is without question the “worst” Pixar film so far; I put the word in quotes because it’s still a B- film, which is hardly bad. But it’s not nearly as good as what we’ve come to expect from Pixar. Here’s hoping it’s an anomaly and that they haven’t lost their mojo.

The critical consensus seems to be along the lines of what I just said, though I’ve seen some rave reviews, too. I wonder if some people aren’t going easy on the film because it’s Pixar. Believe me, I WANTED to love it. I tried with all my might. Just couldn’t do it.

Elsewhere, Robert Altman’s “A Prairie Home Companion” opens in semi-wide release today (760 theaters; 1,000 is considered “wide”). Fans of Garrison Keillor’s radio show will probably like it the most, while the rest of will find amusement in a few scenes and otherwise won’t have much to say about it.

I saw it in March at the South By Southwest (SXSW) Film Festival in Austin. It was my first time at the fest, and indeed my first screening of the fest, at the beautiful Paramount Theatre. My chief memory of the actual experience is that we had terrible balcony seats, with our view partially obstructed by the people in front of us. If the show had stayed on the radio, it wouldn’t have mattered, but noooo, they had to go and make a movie.

And opening a bit wider this weekend is Al Gore’s documentary “An Inconvenient Truth,” which is fascinating and informative and alarming. It played at Sundance this year, where I failed to see it, and had two or three Portland screenings that I also missed before finally catching one last night. To be honest, we could have used a little global warming in the theater, because it was freezing. But I digress.

I wanted to talk a little about the reaction to this film. Even before I saw it, I was finding it remarkably immature how people had turned it into a political thing, with conservative pundits coming out of the woodworks to discredit the movie. Why? Because it’s by AL GORE!! And Al Gore is well-known for being a liberal Democrat! Why, he even ran against our beloved and infallible George W. Bush in 2000! That makes him the ENEMY, you know.

I honestly believe that if a non-politician had made “An Inconvenient Truth,” there wouldn’t be nearly as much eagerness to refute it. It’s another example of why I’m turned off by American politics, this attitude of “if the ‘other side’ says it, we automatically have to find fault with it.” (And yes, both sides do it. A liberal would sooner die than admit Sean Hannity has made a good point about something.)

The thing is, I don’t see why the issue of global warming has to be an “other side” thing. How did the environment become a partisan-politics issue? Though it may seem otherwise, Republicans and Democrats actually live on the same planet (Earth), and the condition of that planet affects both groups. So why do conservatives dismiss global warming warnings so vehemently as “scare tactics”? I agree, some people go nuts with it (there are always people who become obsessive over their one pet project), but that doesn’t mean the basic ideas aren’t solid.

For a while, the conservative line was that global warming wasn’t real. Now it’s evolving into: global warming might be real, but it’s not because of anything we did. It’s the planet’s natural progression, the same as there were once Ice Ages and so forth.

And maybe that’s true. I mean, the vast, overwhelming majority of scientists say we ARE at fault and we CAN stop it before it’s too late. But maybe they’re wrong. The vast majority of scientists once thought the Earth was flat, too, I suppose.

So my question is: Why all the anger and vitriol? Even if Gore’s movie is dead wrong and global warming is unpreventable — well, isn’t it STILL a pretty good idea to cut down on our use of oil, and to do the various other things that promote a healthier environment? I mean, if someone made a movie that insisted everyone needed to cut off their toes or else the planet was doomed, then yeah, some skepticism and debunking would be in order. To follow that plan unless we were absolutely CERTAIN it was necessary would do a lot of damage. But what’s the downside to reducing our carbon dioxide emissions and our dependence on oil? Even if the science is all wrong, aren’t the recommendations good ones anyway?

People insisting global warming is either fictional or unpreventable reminds me of when I was an LDS missionary, and we would tell people considering joining the church that if they did so, they would have to refrain from sex outside of marriage. Sometimes they would say they didn’t believe God had issued any commandments on the subject. And why did they believe that? Because they didn’t want to stop having sex! Believing something requires action (or no action, in this case), so sometimes it’s easier to find excuses not to believe.

At any rate, it’s absurd to dismiss “An Inconvenient Truth” because of the messenger. The movie itself isn’t political; Gore makes a couple jokes in passing about the election, and that’s it. As he says in the film, saving the planet is a moral issue, not a political one. It’s the right thing to do, and in theory, both “sides” are interested in doing the right thing.

* * * * * *

I’ll be in Las Vegas for the CineVegas Film Festival tomorrow until next Friday, and then on to California to visit the ancestral Snider homeland. “In the Dark” will come out next Friday as usual, but the only major review will be “Nacho Libre.” “The Lake House,” “Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift” and the “Garfield” sequel all open that day, too, but I’ll have missed the screenings, unless I happen to get in good with one of the Vegas critics between now and then.

It has been my custom to write daily reports from the film festivals, but my experience at last year’s CineVegas suggested there wasn’t nearly as much “atmosphere” to report on as there is at Sundance and SXSW. Still, keep an eye on the blog. If something happens that’s worth writing about, I will do so.

Stephen Colbert gave a commencement address at Knox College in Illinois. It’s funny, of course, but then at the end, he becomes extraordinarily insightful, too. The full text is here. Here’s the part that impressed me:

[He's encouraging the graduates to follow the rule of comedy improvisation by saying "yes" to as many new opportunities as possible.]

Now will saying “yes” get you in trouble at times? Will saying “yes” lead you to doing some foolish things? Yes it will. But don’t be afraid to be a fool. Remember, you cannot be both young and wise. Young people who pretend to be wise to the ways of the world are mostly just cynics. Cynicism masquerades as wisdom, but it is the farthest thing from it. Because cynics don’t learn anything. Because cynicism is a self-imposed blindness, a rejection of the world because we are afraid it will hurt us or disappoint us. Cynics always say no. But saying “yes” begins things. Saying “yes” is how things grow. Saying “yes” leads to knowledge. “Yes” is for young people. So for as long as you have the strength to, say “yes.”

People have often described me as cynical, and they’ve usually meant it as a compliment. And while I appreciate what they’re trying to say — “I like your perspective on things” — I try to gently point out that it’s not true. I’m not cynical.

A cynic, as Colbert says, is someone who automatically mistrusts everything, who assumes the worst of people and their motives. That is NOT the same thing as being satirical. Satire is based on actual flaws or shortcomings that the satirist has observed in a person, group or institution. Cynicism is based on the cynic’s automatic dismissal of something, whether he’s had any actual dealings with it or not.

“Young people who pretend to be wise to the ways of the world are mostly just cynics.” Exactly right. As I’ve been taking some college film-studies classes these past several months with regular ol’ undergraduates, most of my fellow students have been some 10 years younger than I am. I’ve heard their observations on life and the world and politics and whatnot, and sometimes it makes me smile. I think, “Aw, how adorable! I thought that when I was 19, too!”

I guess at some point you grow out of that phase where you think you’ve got it all figured out. You become an actual grownup — that is, someone who understands that a big part of life is NOT having things figured out. But as an educated adult, you’re able to cope with that uncertainty and be happy and successful anyway. I think that when we’re young, there’s a fear that if you DON’T know everything, you’re screwed, and so we convince ourselves that we’re more savvy than we really are, which often manifests itself in cynicism.

It’s also nice to hear Stephen Colbert eschew cynicism. I bet well-meaning fans probably call him cynical a lot, too, even though he isn’t.

I have a regular feature in “Snide Remarks” called “Ask Eric Stuff,” where people ask me advice questions, a la Dear Abby, and I give sarcastic, unhelpful answers. It’s a comedy bit, not intended for serious questions.

The place where you can submit questions, here, makes it very clear what they’re for: By submitting a question to “Ask Eric Stuff,” you’re providing me with a set-up for a joke. If you have a REAL question to ask of me, you don’t submit it through “Ask Eric Stuff.” “Ask Eric Stuff” doesn’t ask for your e-mail address, so even if I wanted to reply, I wouldn’t know how to contact you. To send me a real e-mail, you use the regular contact form, such as can be found on 99 percent of all Web sites.

But still, I get about one “Ask Eric Stuff” question a week that is obviously a real question, sent by someone who wants an actual piece of information from me. Why would a smart person submit a real question through “Ask Eric Stuff”? Ah! It’s a trick question! A smart person wouldn’t.

It should be no surprise, then, that many of these e-mails are not only submitted the wrong way, but consist of very stupid questions to boot. (I have had two so far asking me for Raven-Symone’s e-mail address.) Here’s the latest:

I want to know when will you be coming to Dallas Tx. and will you be doing the play “The Nerd” again? Thank you

I’m guessing this person (he signed his name Arthur) stumbled across one of my theater reviews for the play “The Nerd,” and then made the following errors:

1. He concluded that since he had found the review on my site, I must be the one who performed in the play. (Performed in it, and then wrote a review of myself, I guess.)

2. He figured that not only do I star in this play, but I also take it on the road and must surely have Dallas on my itinerary.

3. He found the “Ask Eric Stuff” link and, failing to read even one word of the text above the “submit your question” box, sent me his query, failing to include an e-mail address so I could respond with the information he requested.

4. He continued to live and breathe even though he is very, very dumb.

Here’s a bit of blatant stupidity from Fox News, courtesy of Media Matters. Last Monday, Fox’s Terry Keenan said this:

“And ‘X Men: The Last Stand,’ the dominant force at the box office. The film expected to earn more than $120 million over the Memorial Day weekend as ‘The Da Vinci Code’ fell to fourth place. Al Gore’s global warming documentary ‘An Inconvenient Truth’? Well, it earned less than half a million dollars during its quote, ‘limited release.’”

That last part is said rather smugly, as you can see from watching the video clip available here.

Now, first of all, “The Da Vinci Code” fell to second place, not fourth. But more importantly, regarding “An Inconvenient Truth,” the truth that proved inconvenient in this case is that it was only playing in FOUR THEATERS when it grossed its $367,311. That’s an average of $91,827 per theater, which is in the top 25 highest per-theater averages in history. (It played on a total of nine screens in those theaters, by the way: three locations had it on two screens, and one had it on three.)

A per-theater average of $91,827 is HUGE for a four-day weekend, and it’s three times higher than “X3′s” average. It means every screening was sold-out or close to sold-out. In other words, the only way the film could have earned more than it did is if it had played on more screens, or if the four theaters it played in had installed more seats. Sorry to disappoint you, Fox News, but that makes it a success.

(By the way, I haven’t seen it yet. When I do, I’ll post a review. Stop asking me. Love, Eric.)

Happy birthday to my brother Jeff! He handles the geek aspects of this Web site in addition to his regular duties as my brother, and he turns, I don’t know, 30 or something today. So happy birthday to him!

The movies I got him for his birthday are “The Break-Up” and the semi-limited-release “District B13.” I enjoyed them both, which puts me in the minority in the case of the former and the majority in the case of the latter.

People going into “The Break-Up” insistent that it be a riotous Vince Vaughn comedy will be disappointed. It isn’t that, and it doesn’t try to be. (Don’t let the faulty marketing ruin the movie for you.) It’s very funny in places, but it’s also a very believable drama about two likable characters. I honestly wanted them to be happy, whether that meant being apart or together.

The characters in “District B13,” meanwhile, are meaningless (though they’re likable enough), with the focus instead on ACTION! ACTION! ACTION! And boy howdy, is there ever action. It’s some of the most fun I’ve had at the movies in a while, reminding me a lot of “The Transporter,” and with good reason: a lot of the same people are involved.

There’s also a limited-release drama called “Peaceful Warrior,” but don’t worry about that. The movie you need to watch for is “The Puffy Chair”. It’s playing in only a handful of cities, but it’s a real gem of a comedy, very laid-back and smart. Seek it out.

I also saw the remake of “The Omen” last night, but since it’s not released until Tuesday (6/6/06, get it?), no review yet. In preparation, my critic pals Dawn Taylor and Mike Russell and I convened at Dawn’s house to watch the original “The Omen” yesterday afternoon, just prior to seeing the remake. We knew the new film had the same screenwriter, and we wanted to have the original fresh in our minds so we could tell how close the two versions are. We’re serious journalists, you know, doing as much research as necessary to get the story.

We ate junk food and made sarcastic comments about the film, which is slow and should have starred overacting Charlton Heston instead of overacting Gregory Peck. (Mike said the remake should star “drunk angry Harrison Ford,” then did a very accurate impression of Mr. Ford.) Gregory Peck and Lee Remick seem so distant to each other as husband and wife. Could it be because he was 60 and she was 40 at the time? Who knows.

Anyway, the remake is astoundingly faithful to the original. Many scenes have the same dialogue word-for-word, and some of the shots even look the same. So why bother remaking it at all? That is an excellent question.

This weekend’s film reviews, along with loads of other movie-related stuff, DVD recommendations and general merriment, can be found in “In the Dark,” which is e-mailed free to lots of people every Friday. Sign up and be part of the crowd. It’s awesome!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!