The Day After Tomorrow Movie
| Resolution | Size | Download | ||
|
1920x816 | 9475.89 MiB | 1080p | |
|
1280x544 | 6718.85 MiB | 720p | |
|
608x256 | 1395.66 MiB | divx | |
|
480x202 | 569.74 MiB | ipod | |
Storyline
TAGLINES
This year, a sweater won't do.
Where will you be?
10,000 years ago, one storm changed the face of our planet. On May 28, It will happen again.
Whoever said "Tomorrow is another day"... didn't check the weather.
Nature has spoke
This movie takes a big-budget, special-effects-filled look at what the world would look like if the greenhouse effect and global warming continued at such levels that they resulted in worldwide catastrophe and disaster, including multiple hurricanes, tornadoes, tidal waves, floods and the beginning of the next Ice Age. At the center of the story is a paleoclimatologist (a scientist who studies the ways weather patterns changed in the past), Professor Jack Hall (Quaid), who tries to save the world from the effects of global warming while also trying to get to his son, Sam (Gyllenhaal), who was in New York City as part of a scholastic competition, when the city was overwhelmed by the chilling beginnings of the new Ice Age. In addition to all of the other challenges Dr. Hall faces, he's also going against the flow as humanity races south to warmer climes, and he's nearly the only one going north...
| Dennis Quaid | Jack Hall |
| Jake Gyllenhaal | Sam Hall |
| Dash Mihok | Jason Evans |
| Emmy Rossum | Laura Chapman |
| Jay O. Sanders | Frank Harris |
| Sela Ward | Dr. Lucy Hall |
| Austin Nichols | J.D. |
| Arjay Smith | Brian Parks |
| Tamlyn Tomita | Janet Tokada |
| Sasha Roiz | Parker |
| Ian Holm | Terry Rapson |
| Nassim Sharara | Saudi Delegate |
| Carl Alacchi | Venezuelan Delegate |
| Kenneth Welsh | Vice President Becker |
| Michael A. Samah | Saudi Translator |
| Roland Emmerich |
6.20 out of 10 (31184 votes)
Visitor Reviews
The feelings that betray us...
posted on 30 Aug 2009We just get more and more disaster movies each year. Actually we don't give a damn about less than the half of them, but from time to time, a super production costing millions and we got to see it. Last year, "The Day After Tomorrow" was that super production.These movies don't get as wild as this one. German director Roland Emmerich makes a big effort to improve his style each time he makes a new movie. The movies he directs are not always potentially prepared to be "art", but the man takes the job too seriously, and you can tell the movies are "his"; even when he doesn't write them. He commits completely and achieves visual levels beyond imagination. He takes care of little details, like not showing some computer animated wolves closely, so they look as real as possible.Regretfully, I haven't seen any good movie under his direction. I never finished watching "The Patriot", though; and I was loving it. And yes, Emmerich's specialty is "disaster" films. There's a big dilemma with disaster films, because they try untiringly to mix action and, well, disaster, with emotion. I has worked for me with "Daylight", a movie that was for me a before and after disaster films (as one of Sylvester Stallone best performances). Why? Simply because its only cliché was the "disaster"; and that's for me the best compliment you can give a movie of this type.Other recent "disaster" film was "Deep Impact"; and I admit I tended to laugh in the most dramatic moments of the film; because I couldn't feel for the one-dimensional character and I preferred them to die than to listen to them saying melodramatic shits in their final moments.Now the thing is; Roland Emmerich may know a lot about disaster, but knows nothing about drama. As he has probably done before, he checks the book of clichés so he can provide some substance in what he does worse. What we get from him in this occasion is one weak father-son relationship, with separated marriages, a father that works constantly and doesn't have time for his son. Yet, when he father arrives late or forgets things, the boy forgives him…The boy loves him, and loves a girl, and has a friend…And the three of them go to New York for a contest, but Jack is working with professor Rapson and discovers the new Ice Age is coming (and you know how it goes from that)… In another ensemble cast with the stars of the moment, the father is called Jack Hall, and is played by Dennis Quaid; who has been climbing to the top since "The Rookie". I've heard he has been doing the same for a long time (although I was shocked by his performance in "Far From Heaven"), but even in his clichéd character with hero moments, he passes the acting test. The mother's name is Lucy, and Sela Ward gives her agility and emotion. Professor Rapson is in Ian Holm's skin, and Holm is bored; looking for money maybe.The son is called Sam Hall, in the skin of Jake Gyllenhaal, coming as the best element of the film; with a lot of personality and charm to a role that as easy as the one he had. It's another big step in his short career. The girl, Laura, it's played by Emmy Rossum. She looks gorgeous and very natural. They are the ones that will stay with a bunch of other, few people (the "Survivors"), as the victims with no way out, and Sam's responsibility according to script is not more than saving them. Do the "Survivors" survive? What do you think? To accentuate things more, Emmerich supports the dramatic environment with pathetic but sweet moving music, set decorations, designs and cinematography…Once said that, the movie looks beautiful, and the special effects are flawless; but maybe that's the only thing Emmerich can do without problems.As we will see many years from now, the movie had to be set in New York…They just love to destroy those things…The Statue of Liberty, The Empire State…If they are going to freeze a city, New York will be the first choice.When the film ended and the credits were rolling, I wondered: If Roland Emmerich knows so much about disaster and nothing about drama…Why doesn't he just destroys everything without leaving any trace of life? Then the screen was black.
Where's Storm when you need her?
posted on 28 Aug 2009How could something that cost $125 million to make be this cheesy? It's unreasonable to demand a thought-provoking plot from what is essentially a special-effects movie. Still, if you're going to dispense with plausibility, intelligent dialog, and characters of any depth; then it seems reasonable to expect the effects to be stunning. This movie simply takes bits and pieces that have been seen before in other places (_Deep Impact_, _Twister_, and Discovery Channel documentaries, to name a few) and stitches them together into a cautionary tale that would be more aptly called "The Environment for Dummies". The characters, whose vellum thinness is inadequately offset with bathetic earnestness between screaming set pieces, are so cookie-cutter that the actors could all have phoned in their parts and let the computer graphics department draw them in. (Then again, with this budget, are we sure they didn't?) As far as the "action" goes, about thirty minutes into the movie, it became completely unnecessary to watch the rest. Not a single gasp of surprise or clutch of pearls awaited.As far as the principals: it would be easy to lambaste them, but why bother? Laurence Olivier couldn't have turned in a creditable performance with this unfortunate script and a director who obviously ought to stick with commercials for cold and allergy medication or adaptations of Jack London novels (reference scenes in New York City). It must be terribly hard to act one's best in a vehicle with a complete lack of subtlety, nuance, or development.It must be said, though, that the film does offer two huge consolations: that when the going gets tough, strangers will band together to survive in supremely adverse circumstances; and that when the planet's environment eventually turns against us, Hollywood will be one of the first things to go.
The Day After Tomorrow - A Dangerous Piece of Environmental Hysteria
posted on 24 Aug 2009Roland Emmerich's ‘The Day After Tomorrow' presumes that if the ocean convection current that cycles warm water north from the Equator to the North Atlantic, where it cools and gets cycled back down to the Equator, gets `broken', Northern Europe will no longer be receiving warmth transferred from the Equator and will fall into a new Ice Age. This also means that the Equator will heat up, since it won't be receiving cooler water cycled down from the North.This, thankfully, is a big load -- at least as depicted in this film. Don't get me wrong; Global Warming is a very serious issue that requires further research on how it can be more efficiently controlled. I'm not remotely enough of an educated environmentalist to argue the issue vigorously with someone who is, but what little I do know, reinforced with a hefty dollop of gut feeling, strongly suggests to me that it's the right course. Hey, at least I am willing to admit my relative ignorance. Most environmental groups on the other hand are sadly and grossly misinformed about environmental science and, since they also simultaneously carry many other, stupid agendas (like antiglobalization), the last thing they want to do is bring science to the table, simply because it will upset their carefully constructed propagandized house of cards. The environmental movement is simply chocked full of nuts, some of which were undoubtedly behind the disaster that is ‘The Day After Tomorrow.' I fear this film will hurt the cause far more than it will help.This leads to an obvious question: Is Emmerich (who got the chief writing credit here) one of these nuts, or was he simply looking for another cheap excuse to satisfy his New York City destruction fetish? Or did one of his story advisors deliberately feed him misinformation?With most popcorn flicks I might be inclined to just shut up about the science and take the movie on its own terms, as long as it adheres to whatever narrative and physical rules established up front, but this is supposed to be a serious environmental disaster film, a caveat to all us polluters and exploiters of Mother Nature. That the earth is warming up is no longer in doubt. Everyone at this point (even the greenhouse `skeptics' of the 90's) agree that there is a definite warming trend. But the scenario presented by Emmerich is based on theories that have been debunked long ago, depicted so very ludicrously they could almost serve as parody.Hell, this film does for the environmentalists what ‘The Life of David Gale' did for death penalty abolitionists. Sanctimonious political hooey, all of it. And what rebuttal does the movie present? A pseudo-Dick Cheney babbling about the fragility of the American economy. Oh, and Americans illegally immigrating into Mexico. Ho-ho.This isn't supposed to be ‘Ferngully' after all. THAT's why I'm looking for some logic and an at least rudimentary scientific basis.- THAT's why I get angry when Jake Gyllenhaal doesn't loose his hand to frostbite after being outside on the ship with no glove.- THAT's why I get angry when our protagonists can outrun a freeze during which the temperature drops ten degrees a second. - THAT's why I get angry when an entire Ice Age comes and goes in four days.- THAT's why I get angry when the cancer kid has to wait for an ambulance even though he's really only on oxygen. - THAT's why I get angry when it never occurs to anyone in the library to burn the wooden furniture instead of valuable, historically significant books - THAT's why I get angry when it never occurs to the trekkers that left the library to simply enter another building when the storm gets really bad.Of course I didn't initially consider ‘The Day After Tomorrow' to be some sort of scientifically-based anti-pollution story. I mean, I sure didn't read any ‘Lord of the Rings' reviews that stated `This film is a poorly-veiled commentary on the modern use of magic rings in military operations, damn it to hell.' Having seen ‘The Day After Tomorrow,' though, it does seem true that Emmerich is torn between wanting to save America and wanting to level New York. And that Jack Hall fellow, the one I believe was the hero, with the son, he did have a fairly unsubtle speech to make: `Whether we survive depends on whether human beings can learn from our mistakes. What say you, my son?'Donnie Darko: `I survived, thanks to the books at my local library!'Ok, just as a thought experiment let's assume that this indeed was merely supposed to be a stupid blockbuster and see if it succeeds on that level. For instance, let us compare this film to the ultimate twister epic (because both had tornados in it), a little independent film by the name of Twister, starring that very wooden actor, Will Paxton. Or Bill Patton. No matter. While I never was a big fan of ‘Twister', at least it built tension -- much like a good orgasm -- liberally spreading progressively bigger-getting tornadoes all the way through its taut narrative. ‘The Day After Tomorrow,' however, blows it's wad far too early and then timidly asks the audience to cuddle for the next hour and a half. It's a classic case of premature tornado ejaculation.Now if the tornados had faces like that of the Master Control Program from ‘Tron' and spoke in deep, falsetto voices before devouring L.A., that would be a different story.Hell, at least that volcano in ‘Volcano' was one hell of a huge volcano, if you catch my drift. Also, I like to say `volcano'. Volcano. Sorry, I'll stop now.Volcano.I don't say this often, but screw Emmerich. Screw Emmerich up his sanctimonious, political, German arse. The guy should have stuck with bad Van Damme cyborg movies or German homoerotic low-budget rape/prison dramas of the future. That's what he's good at, people.
Hey...this movie has CGI too!
posted on 24 Aug 2009Ah, summer. When a young man's fancies lightly turn to BLOCKBUSTERS. Which brings us to The Day After Tomorrow. Following gamely in the hallowed footsteps of such time honored natural disaster flicks as The Perfect Storm, Twister, Earthquake, Volcano, Volcano II (a.k.a. Dante's Peak), Driving Miss Daisy, and maybe a thousand others, this movie proves that science is a bunch of hooey. And that you really don't need to have a great personal vision in making film. It just impedes popcorn intake.This film makes the viewer all to aware that the Earth is an evil menace which should be stamped out as soon as possible. This has nothing to do with the subject matter, but the film itself. Entertaining, yes. It does deliver the sort of thrilling adventure that it promises in the trailer, while at the same time managing to wind up being a public service announcement on the dangers of your can of hairspray. This film does have you rooting, if in confusion, for the main characters. Laced with rather well timed gags and jokes, mingled with jokes that hit you like anvils and make you feel about as happy (Mexico closing the boarders...CLANG), it allows you to like the characters without really caring.The non-ugly Quaid (Jack Hall) works with the flat script as best he can, delivering lines but pretty much just winds up saying "we're in trouble," "I've got to find my son," and "Oh my God." His son (and America's next Tobey Maguire) Jake Gyllenhall, is one of those run-of-the-mill genius, shy, yet capable of dealing with the end of the world in total stride characters.Against my better judgment, I bought it, and most of the other characters too. The problem is how these characters work in the plot, which is almost the template for the summer blockbuster (hell, Independence Day boy made it)The wolves, for example. We saw it a mile away, in fact we saw it before we got in the theater. The fact that every character seemed to be utterly unaware of the biblical cataclysm which had suddenly rolled over the world. The fact that Jack Hall's meeting on environmental issues takes place right before the disaster he prophesied takes place. The arrogant politicians poo-pooing the entire thing. The film's demi-heroine wading back into the flood for a purse because of PASSPORTS - which is good, because you never know when Immigration will start hounding at you after the apocalypse. A gentle reminder: if there's a hundred foot wall of water, complete with refuse from the Hudson and East River spilling towards you at a hundred miles an hour and you realize you've left something behind...let it go, sweetie.Anyone notice that a leitmotif of Roland Emmerich's films is that he hates New York and L.A.? He can't leave them alone. First it's aliens, then bad weather. Word of advice: don't let him in either city, he'll probably start smashing things with a hammer.In any event, amidst all the noise and special effects, there is one dignified moment with Ian Holm and his cohorts in Scotland. However, any sympathy for them is shattered when the movie decides to absolutely forget that they ever existed. What about Adrian Lester's kid? They could've said something about him. And the President of the U.S., whose death is greeted with mild apathy most of the time. Loose ends galore. And please don't try and put a timeline on this film. Just assume that whenever there's a cut between scenes, time passes.Still, the film teaches an important lesson that exists in all of Emmerich's films: when something bad happens, even if it's a nuclear blast from an alien ship or typhoons or -150 degree ice, the best way to save yourself from it is find a door of some sort, go through it, and shut it at the last second. And also stop warming the globe. Don't look at me, I take the subway.Bring a girlfriend to see this, but if you do, make sure she's loud and is capable of doing a play-by-play of the film, and make sure you're sitting next to me. In addition, trust and obey your neighborhood scientists. Worship them, pay homage to them at the university of your choice. Amen.
Fair As A Summer Blockbuster But Still Flawed
posted on 22 Aug 2009If I ever get a job as a screen writing guru I shall tell my students that under no circumstances should they write an environmental thriller . Films with a message that we're destroying the planet do not make good cinematic ventures . NO BLADE OF GRASS is annoyingly sententious but is still compelling due to John Christopher's source novel . SOYLENT GREEN is poignant but much of that's down to it being Edward G Robinson's last movie . Do I need to mention Steven Segall and his pathetic attempts to entertain while educating us and failing at both ? I don't think I do The problem with THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW is that its trying to do two things at once . Both entertain the audience and get them to think about global environmental disaster . One can't help thinking that if there wasn't so much debate about climate change then the producers would have made a much simpler movie . Unfortunately by taking the film so seriously a critical audience are able to recognise the scientific implausibilities along with the stupidity of the characters . Of course there's little wrong with having stupid characters in films because many genres like horror rely on this to further plots , but even so you can't help noticing a lack of internal logic Another problem is that the film does feel a bit too epic in its scope . We're shown events happening in The South Pole , India , North America and Scotland . Personally I would have preferred a much more intimate film with less locations and characters . This is the strength of the 1970s disaster movie where the characters are drawn up early in to the film so the audience can clearly cheer the hero whilst booing the villain I rated THE DAY AFTER Tomorrow six out of ten which means I didn't think it was a bad film . But I'm sad to say this could have been a much better one if the producers had focused the story more while making things a little less serious
Conclusion - don't waste your time, it's not worth it.
posted on 20 Aug 2009This movie has only one serious drawback - it lack everything that could make it interesting and unique. It is a moralization about family relationships(father-son, boyfriend-girlfriend) and it could be quite OK, cause people come to see human relationships in the movies, but in this case it's too cliché. The special effects are OK, but special effects alone don't make a movie good. The script is weak, even more - if you have seen any catastrophe movies like Dante's peek, Twister etc. you have already seen Day after tomorrow. I was seriously disappointed by this movie cause at first it seemed to be like a post-apocalyptic drama, but turned out to be just a catastrophic script. And for those who think that bad script can be saved by good acting - the acting is weak too, the dying people look like they are dying from boredom not terrible catastrophe. The leading actors act either too shy or overact and it makes the movie even worse.
Intentionally bad
posted on 20 Aug 2009I just saw this movie tonight, and I have to say compared to Roland's other works, such as The Patriot and Das Boot, this looks to me as though it was made intentionally bad, as if to not promote liberal ideas of global warming and what could happen (The polar ice caps melting, etc.), but more as a satirical, even sarcastic, view of their position. Nothing about the movie was all that plausible.Really in my opinion, this isn't much worse (or better) than Deep Impact, Armageddon, Asteroid, Twister, or any other disaster film, though I really didn't see this film taking itself as seriously as some of those did.Was it entertaining, yeah. But really I think it's just there.
Silly, pretentious nonsense. However well intentioned
posted on 18 Aug 2009Roland Emmerich must really hate the world. Otherwise he wouldn't keep destroying it. He had aliens shoot the hell out of it in Independence Day. Godzilla stomped on it. And now in The Day After Tomorrow, Mother Nature trashes it.I must admit to not being a particularly huge fan of Roland Emmerich. His films exist only as action spectacles, with a thin semblance of plot connecting each loud setpiece together, populated by stock characters with easily predictable arcs and motivations.Independence Day may have been the top money-maker of 1996, and attracted a wealth of A-list actors, but all the criticisms I mentioned above apply. And they apply to The Day After Tomorrow too.But, I think TDAT is a slightly better film. Don't get me wrong, I know it's cheesy. Some of the dialogue is unintentionally laugh out loud funny, and the science is completely off the charts. But what allows the film to transcend the silliness is its theme of global warming. How we are slowly destroying our own home.There were times during TDAT I felt like I was watching a ballooned up documentary on the dangers of environmental hazards. But its nice to see a well budgeted flick with something profound to say in this day and age. Even if it hammers its message across to do it.Years of consuming vital fuels and polluting the atmosphere are finally beginning to take they're toll. Jack Hall (Dennis Quaid), one of the world's foremost climatologists leads an expedition to the Antarctic to measure climate shifts. But Jack and his team barely escape with their lives when the ice inexplicably breaks apart.Jack addresses his concerns to the Vice President that if we don't stop squandering our natural resources, there will be consequences. And he's proved right not long after when weather patterns all around the world go crazy. Tornadoes wreck LA (including the Hollywood sign), tidal waves flood New York, and worst of all, the world is about ready to enter a new Ice Age. As freezing winter closes in, Jack and a number of others have to ride out the storm until it blows over.As long as you're prepared to ignore the absurd science, clichéd situations and really quite laughable dialogue, you may actually have a fun time during The Day After Tomorrow.Like Independence Day, the film chooses to focus on a select number of people weathering (OK, bad pun!) the insurmountable odds in their own way.So we have Dennis Quaid trying to get to New York on foot from Washington to reunite with his estranged son Sam (Jake Gyllenhaal), who's trapped in a frozen NY library with potential love interest Laura (Emmy Rossum).Quaid's wife, Dr Lucy Hall (Sela Ward) stays by the side of (wait for it!), a dying cancer patient.And meteorologist Professor Terry Rapson (Ian Holm) is trapped in a weather station with two colleagues, resigned to their fates that they will never see another sunrise.Roland Emmerich does have a rather annoying habit of sketching his characters in easily guessable scenarios, but the good news is he's polished his act in the interim since Independence Day. There are still a few of the usual faults that crop up in just about every film he gets his hands on, but TDAT is still more enjoyable than most of his efforts.Credit is due to the cast, who give more than the film deserves. Dennis Quaid is good as always, giving conviction to the clichéd role of the inattentive father. Although I thought Sela Ward was wasted in a very thankless storyline. An actress of her talents should have been allowed to contribute more to the story.Jake Gyllenhaal is OK but he's been better in other films. What he needs is a sharp script and taut direction to bring out his natural strengths as an actor. Films like Donnie Darko and October Sky. TDAT tends to place him in a generic subplot with no real opportunity to flex his acting muscles.One bright spot to Sam's story is the actress who plays his love interest, Emmy Rossum. She's quite an appealing actress with a beautifully expressive face. She makes Laura a perfectly rounded, intensely watchable character. I'll be looking out for Emmy Rossum in films in the future.And Ian Holm does what he can with the limited screen time he's given. He's not provided with much of a part to play, but he's a good enough actor to flesh out his role with warmth and humour, without the slightest bit of pretension.Still, Emmerich can't resist including one-dimensional stock characters. Like the bureaucratic VP who doesn't see sense when it could have made a difference. One thing that is surprising about Roland Emmerich is he's German with an almost absolute reverence for the good old US of A. The Americans in ID4 almost single-handedly fought off the alien invaders, defending the flag, the pie and the 4th of July.Interestingly, Emmerich seems to have modified his views since then. The Americans no longer seem as squeaky clean in TDAT. Dennis Quaid pointedly brings up the Kyoto Accords, and there's a wonderfully amusing moment when the Americans become illegal immigrants in Mexico, because its warmer. There may be hope for Emmerich yet.The special effects are just as good as you'd expect. The sight of tornadoes shredding the Hollywood sign is awesome. As is a frozen solid Statue of Liberty. But the way it all passes over in a matter of days is startling in its narrative silliness.Still, The Day After Tomorrow is a worthwhile film. It has many glaring faults and some unbelievable acts of heroism, but it is one of Roland Emmerich's better films, it has a few gentle surprises, superb FX, and it's that rare thing. A Hollywood blockbuster with something to say.
Holy Wooly Mammoth, Batman!
posted on 16 Aug 2009Greetings again from the darkness. This could have been titled "The Poseidon Adventure's Towering Inferno on the Day after Independence Day".
Cliched special effects with lousy script and mostly lousy characters from director Roland Emmerich who delivered the same with "Independence Day" and "Godzilla". Dennis Quaid is totally miscast as a super scientist dad to wunderkind Jake Gyllenhaal. Best performance comes from Emmy Rossum (Sean Penn's daughter in "Mystic River"). Did enjoy the tribute to "Planet of the Apes" (Statue of Liberty), but most of the special effects were beyond belief and not all that special. As with most mediocre movies, the real problem lies in the weak script. I kept waiting for Gene Hackman to show up and yell "If you want to live, follow me up this giant upside down Christmas tree". In the mode of the movie, I have very little else to say.
Man, what utter tripe
posted on 14 Aug 2009I never thought I would live to see it, but this movie is worse than both "Twister" and "Independence Day". Thank god for the Internet. I would *never* pay to see this rubbish in a movie theater.There is *no* logic to the story. In the end, it all boils down to one man rescuing his (love/family/son/cat/whatever). No science, and all fiction.Actually, I sort of enjoy watching these "doom" movies. The USA gets completely wiped out, and rightly so, because of the bad acting. Fortunately, the rest of the world gets of scot-free. Perhaps it's because they have better script-writers?
Leave the Script, take the Tidal Waves
posted on 12 Aug 2009Many movies have passed in front of my eyes, and I am well versed in horrible scripts and laughably absurd plotlines, but I can assure you, my fellow viewers, that even for a eye-candy-filled pulse-pounder, this movie has a ridiculous script. Leave the characters behind and the movie stands as a testament to the magic of special effects seemlessly integrated into real-time action. All the same, the movie suffers from cardboard cut-out characters, wooden acting and insanely banal lines, not to mention the suffocating clichés. Come to see the waves, the tornadoes, the destruction and the preposterous weather events, but not the horrid acting. The plot is sound, as disaster movies go, but lets forget the snooty treatment of south American countries and the demand for a strong suspense for disbelief, not just for the weather but for the illogical reaction of our government. Get the DVD, avoid the theater unless you like snickering audiences and high-school drama class scripts.
BOOM! BANG! ... ... shhh
posted on 12 Aug 2009It's always slightly surprising when all the best moments of a film come at the start, and risky at best when what follows is not quite as good, but that is certainly what happens here. Indeed, if you missed the first part, you'd probably wonder what all the fuss was about. But fuss about it you should, as the destruction of the northern hemisphere is gleefully slammed through the screen. Scientific theories aside (well, do you really know if it's possible or not?), the effects of humanity's wasteful neglect of Planet Earth comes back to haunt us with a vengeance as America is taken by storm (ha!). The effects are certainly dazzling - the odd slip gets through but for the main part it's truly an amazing sight - Watch! LA destroyed by tornadoes! Gasp! As NY becomes part of the Atlantic. Cheer! As Scotland becomes a giant ice rink. Although the above sights are truly breathtaking at times, the small matter of the acting is a little less successful. Quaid does well enough as the Scientist Who Knew Too Much, but Gyllenhaal fares worse, as most of the time it's not quite evident whether he's trying to be sullen or is simply bored. As is usual with Emmerich, the supporting cast are largely forgettable and the best character turns out to be The Dog. It's difficult to be truly emotional in the film, as much of the time is spent simply staring slightly open mouthed at NY's icy facade. The impending doom that approaches mankind is almost an irritating distraction from the destruction that follows, and the second half of the film - in which Quaid tries to find his son - is more concerned with killing off minor characters than actually looking at the motivation behind the near-suicidal trek. Even the humble tanker, which gently floats into the centre of the city, suddenly becomes a rather tenuously-linked plot device to add a few more minutes to the running time. But to complain about the acting in this film is to miss the point. The point is, quite simply, the effects. If you can out up with the slightly daft rescue, cornball politics and the occasional dodgy comment (Mexico as a third world country? Ooh...), then just sit back, turn your brain to 'life support systems only', and enjoy. I did (dribble).
The Day After Tomorrow Okay But Flawed
posted on 12 Aug 2009The Day After Tomorrow is okay but flawed from director Roland Emmerich whose admirable in making this movie about a climatologist who must go to New York to save his son because global warming has caused a large part of the world to be taken over by a new age. The cast are good in their roles including Dennise Quaid, Jake Gyllenhaal, Ian Holm, Emmy Rossum, and Sela Ward but even their talent can hide the flaws that can be found in this film. No offense to Dennis Quaid because he is a good actor and he is the main character in this movie sort of but at least to me I felt his character played second fiddle to the special effects and most of the action sequences. Except for one action sequence early on and then a few near the end Quaid's character sort of takes a back seat in this one and lets the special effects take over for large parts of the movie. Most of the people in the cast kind of do but some of them including Gyllenhaal are in a few action sequences. I thought Gyllenhall had more to do than Quaid who for most of the film is warning ignorant people about the possibility of a new ice age that will change their world forever. The rest of the cast are okay but like Quaid they don't have much to do. The special effects are the big highlight in the movie because they're incredible even though you can tell it's CG but it works none the less. The action sequences are intense but there could have be more of them. The pacing was slow at times and the dialogue wasn't the greatest occasionally either. The only reason why I gave this film five stars is because of the attempt by the actors and the special effects. If it wasn't for those two things I definitely wouldn't have liked this movie. Overall The Day After Tomorrow is a decent sci-fi apocalyptic action drama with an interesting premise, great special effects, some intense action, and good performances by the cast but this movie could have been a lot better.
Don't see it today, tomorrow, or the day after
posted on 08 Aug 2009Yet again, another blockbuster that has stolen two hours of my life that I can never get back. I can't believe that with all that money to make a movie, they waste it on a plot like this. Sure there are some decent special effects. Actually not really. Only the one shot of the waves going through Manhattan were cool. The story was so ridiculous. Even if I overlook the fact that the guy walks from Phillie to NY City in a snowstorm, thats right, he walks. Even if I over look that, and a hundred other far fetched events, I can't get over the fact that they had hungry wolves as part of the challenges. Clearly someone with a a tragic case of A.D.D wrote this thing. I can just see them saying, " we have an Ice age,there is a really big snowstorm, the world is going to end, wait just a minute here, we need wolves". Can someone please make a movie for the sole purpose of entertainment and not how much money it's going to make at the box office. Balls.
A Good Flick That Could've Been Great!
posted on 08 Aug 2009Well I have to say that I enjoyed The Day After Tomorrow, but it could have been so much better. Initially the movie has a grand international scope and almost takes on the memorable "bigness" of Independence Day. Although it starts off as a climatic shift for mother earth, it really ends up being a dramatic shift in priorities for Dennis Quaid's character and his relationship to his son.The movie has a few warm moments, some bone chilling moments, and a few what if, moments. Especially the impact of a climate change on the northern hemisphere and its impact on the 3rd World.Overall, a good flick to go see and unwind at but not a great flick to see again.
Better than I expected it to be...
posted on 08 Aug 2009Warning: May contain spoilers...and I'm not a good review writer.."The Day After Tomorrow" is the type of movie that you can only enjoy to the fullest at the movie theater. The big screen, the sound effects, the surrounding darkness, it all enhances the feel of the movie. Makes the movie better or worse. In my case, it made it so much better. I was sitting in one of the worst seats you can imagine, but I enjoyed this film. I wasn't expecting to like it as much as I did. (Maybe my wack seat made the movie so great? I was ALL the way in the front and a bit to the right.)Here's the deal: Some guy (Dennis Quaid) 'predicts' that in about 40 or so years, effects of global warming will make the world's climate go nuts. What happens? His prediction comes true, like the next day. So then, it's a matter of survival for the people in the movie, like his son (Jake Gyllenhaal)and friends who are in New York city.. Yeah, the plot's a bit on the clichéd and ridiculous side, but the way it's carried out...I can't even describe it. It was pure excitement. And for some reason left me paranoid when I left the theater and it was drizzling a bit outside.For real, yo, the effects were CRAZY! It was so mind-blowing...I'm not even sure what's considered a spoiler...but, just in case, don't read this if you want to be surprised...The friggin wolf-chase! This was so good! It was like a highlight for me, just because it was so weird! It was funny but weird. The SPECIAL EFFECTS! Los Angeles being terrorized by a tornado was totally amazing to watch. So many aspects of this movie were so genius. Like the unexpected typical romance stuff. I wasn't expecting such corniness. But with Jake Gyllenhaal in it, I should have known...But it wasn't even major corniness. There were a lot of funny scenes in this movie. Just go watch this movie. You'll be entertained, I promise you.
Great Comedy, though it wasn't supposed to be!
posted on 08 Aug 2009This movie billed itself as a disaster movie, but as the climactic events began to occur it became obvious it was a comedy. The laughable science that the writer/director used made possible frightening events into hearty chuckles! Evacuating the entire southern U.S....HA HA HA, Ice age in a week! HA HA HA... Helicopters frozen right out of the sky! HA HA HA HA HA... Only Monty Python could've exaggerated more but of course they're trying to be funny! The initial theory that the writer is using is a well established one but the truth is that when the events begin to occur the process will take decades to centuries to change the weather on the earth. The tornado scene in Los Angeles is probably the funniest in the film. Not only do tens of tornados all appear at the same time in a small geographical area, but they specifically go after the weather reporters for the local t.v. station! I believe these were "smart storms" taking out the enemy!I also appreciated the wolves that escaped from the zoo who were ravenous and going after our main characters. The fact that there were millions of dead bodies lying about after the storm surge apparently didn't satisfy the hunger of these wolves and they were forced to hunt fresh meat! Of course, the storm surge came into Manhattan but forgot to leave, then it froze in a matter of hours! Salt water, at depths of 50 feet and more, freezing in a matter of hours! You have to love the imagination of this writer! Enjoy the laughs!
Global warming,ice age,massive storms
posted on 08 Aug 2009global warming has finally caught up with us and in very sudden fashion causing massive storms including tornadoes and hurricanes, floods and tidal waves all at once,and a new global ice age in some places.i know,it sounds weird,global warming,ice age ,but they sort of explain it in the movie.i am almost certain the science in the movie is flawed,but so what.there are some great special effects,great action and some suspense.put it all together,an you have on entertaining movie.Dennis Quaid plays climatologist Jack Hall,who must try and prevent the whole world from succumbing to the effects of global warming, and rescue his son,Sam(Jake Gyllenall)who,while on a school field trip becomes trapped in New York,which has become frozen solid in minutes.Emmy Rossum(Mystic River)plays Laura Chapman,one of Sam's classmates.Sela Ward plays Dr.Lucy Hall,Jack's wife.Ian Holm(The Lord of the Rings,the fellowship of the ring,LOTR-the return of the King,Bilbo)also stars.this movie has some breath taking moments to say the least.it is visually impressive.if you're looking for a fun ride,this is your movie.9/10
Snow job
posted on 04 Aug 2009Some say the world will end in fire, / Some say in ice. / From what I've tasted of desire / I hold with those who favour fire. / But if it had to perish twice, / I think I know enough of hate / To say that for destruction ice / Is also great / And would suffice. -- Robert Frost, "Fire and Ice"The snow in "The Day After Tomorrow" may be deep, but the thinking that went into the film sure wasn't. Apart from fleeting references to Friedrich Nietzsche and the Gutenberg Bible, the Ice Age appears to have obliterated all traces of culture and civilization from the script as well as the city of New York where it is set.I just saw the movie, and it'll be a frosty Friday before I see it again. OK, the computer-generated effects are awesome, with great attention to minute detail. But the acting, story and script are laughably funny. Don't take my word for it. Other people in the audience at my screening felt the same way.Dennis Quaid plays climatologist Jack Hall, whose son Sam (Jake Gyllenhaal) is trapped in New York with the global climate gone mad. Our man Jack sets out from Washington D.C. to rescue Sam, and if you think he won't make it in time, you don't know Jack.The science in the film is plausible, I guess, if you believe that the polar ice cap can melt overnight and cover the Northern Hemisphere in ice and snow in three days. (By the way, the opening sequence shows the continental shelf of ANTARCTICA cracking asunder. Why isn't the Southern Hemisphere similarly affected? For that matter, the weather station in Scotland is at a more northern latitude than New York. Why is it not wiped out first?)But the film loses all credibility within the first ten minutes when Dennis Quaid pulls off an action stunt against all odds. You know then that the film has nowhere to go but down, down, down from there.Several characters, who should know better, brave the elements unprotected by face masks or gloves, or -- horrors! -- touch presumably frozen metal with bare hands. Oh, and somebody else touches the metal handle of a door from which electrical sparks were flying a moment previously. Hello, didn't their mothers teach them right?To make a long story short, "The Day After Tomorrow" is a mindless piece of pseudo-scientific fluff. Sit back, relax, turn off your brain, and don't expect any of it to make any sense. Just go with the floe :)
terrible story and already've been done special effects
posted on 30 Aug 2009I'm glad I didn't pay to see this. When will they learn a bunch of computer special effects does not make a good movie. The basic plot is a scientist, Quaid, hypothesizes the earth's climate is changing and moving toward an ice age. But he never thought it would happen in a few days.At the beginning, there is a ridiculous scene in which Quaid jumps this chasm to get some metal rods. When he jumps back, he makes it with both feet landing right on the edge. It's beyond silly.Then there is a ridiculous subplot involving Quaid's ex-wife, who is a doctor. All the northern states are being evacuated but she says she will wait with a child who must be transported in an ambulance. And no explanation is given why the kid needs an ambulance; he's not hooked up to some breathing machine. So, you are telling me that kid was the only patient in the hospital that required an ambulance. What about the people in ICU! The other subplot is about Quaid's son, who is in New York City when the severe storm, that can kill people outside because of negative degree weather, strikes. He and some friends find refuge in the public library. A silly out-of-place romance is thrown in between the son and his classmate. But the worst part of all involves a pack of wolves that attack the group of 3 on a ship. 3 of them leave to find medicine for the girl who has cellulitis from a cut the director made sure of showing earlier in the movie. These wolves make their way onto the ship and give a good chase. It makes you laugh.Then Quaid goes with his two buddies to New York to rescue his son. Luckily for him, when the killing temps reach them, they happen to be over some store they can wait it out in. Plus, they must have had an extra warm tent. It was also funny when they mention Mexico letting Americans in because the US forgave all Latin American debt! The tornadoes were the best CGI effects, but tornadoes have been done so many times in other disaster movies. But, they only had one scene of natural disaster in foreign countries unlike movies before it. That's real original! Then the ending was horrible because it just stops with out a real resolution.FINAL VERDICT: This was a bad movie. Only watch it if you are looking for something so bad, it's funny.