The Day After Tomorrow
 

The Day After Tomorrow (2004)
Also known as "Tomorrow"

Where will you be?

Starring: Dennis Quaid, Jake Gyllenhaal, Emmy Rossum, Dash Mihok, Jay O. Sanders, Sela Ward, Austin Nichols, Arjay Smith, Tamlyn Tomita, Sasha Roiz, Ian Holm

Director: Roland Emmerich

Running Time: 124 minutes

Certificate: 12A

Action, Drama, Science Fiction, Thriller

In director Roland Emmerich's 'Independence Day' (1996), a boffin eventually defeats the space aliens that have wrought explosive havoc all over America (and incidentally the rest of the world) - without provocation. In 'Godzilla' (1998), a boffin eventually defeats the giant iguana that has rampaged through New York City's highrise - but the fact that the lizard's mutation was a product of exposure to Pacific nuclear testing hinted that humankind was just reaping what it (or at least what the French) had sown. And now in 'The Day After Tomorrow', there is yet more disaster and destruction on a truly massive scale all over America (and incidentally the rest of the world), only this time the enemy is global warming, the starring boffin is unable to do anything to defeat it, and the blame is placed squarely on the shoulders of Western consumerism and blinkered US governance. In other words, Emmerich's delight in sublime catastrophe may be consistent to the point of repetitivene ss, but at least the man is maturing politically.

A sequence of extreme weather conditions (snow in New Delhi, bucket-sized hailstones in Tokyo, spectacular tornadoes in downtown LA) leads palaeoclimatologist Jack Hall (Dennis Quaid) to realise that a new ice age is coming. His son Sam (Jake Gyllenhaal) becomes trapped in New York's Public Library when a tidal wave strikes the city, and is forced to fight rapidly dropping temperatures - and a pack of hungry wolves escaped from the zoo - while Jack and two colleagues attempt the perilous journey from Washington to find him.

'The Day After Tomorrow' has everything you expect from a disaster movie: personal dramas set against apocalyptic mayhem; lots of scenes set in control rooms (with no-one in control); recognisable public monuments being torn apart/flooded/buried under snow/snapfrozen; and episodes so preposterously daft that you just have to love them, as when Jack feels the need to explain the relationship between the North Atlantic current and the world's climate to a room full of meteorological experts, or when Sam and his friends outrun a towering wall of water (and later a fast-moving coldsnap). Silliest of all is the realisation that Jack has undertaken his journey not to save the good burghers of New York, nor even just to save his own son, but rather simply to prove that he can for once keep an appointment - making the final scenes of this film hilariously anticlimactic, as our hero is left with literally nothing to do except grin.

While Emmerich is really only going over visual effects already well covered by films like 'Sudden Impact', 'Twister' or even 'Meteor', he comes into his own in battering his viewers with total sensory overload to convey the sheer, overwhelming scale of the devastation. The bass rumble which accompanies the wave rolling through New York is quite simply the most ear-splitting sound ever heard in a cinema, and if the film's cataclysmic, but occasionally ropey, CGI fails to humble you, the soundtrack might just succeed.

It is for its politics, however, that this film is most audacious, as it represents a direct attack on the refusal of the current US administration to reduce greenhouse emissions. Even if it is somewhat simplistic, 'The Day After Tomorrow' may have more impact on Bush's stance on the environment than any serious science could, as it terrifies its American viewers into doing something that the British have always enjoyed - talking about the weather.

It's Got: Widespread demolition of American cities beyond al Qaida's wildest dreams; fun environmentalist Bush-baiting; neat satirical scenes in which floods of US nationals are forced to cross the Mexican border as illegals; and weather conditions as cold as a brass monkey's proverbials (still, mustn't grumble).


Badass movie, go see it.. Pwn

Ima go see it tomorrow.

D3V, you're the only person I've heard say something good about the movie. I've heard so many horrible things >.<

It's a crock of shit. Global warming is a bunch of fucking balonie. Whoever watches this movie, keep that in mind.

The movie is fucking awesome. I really liked it. Pwn.

Badboy, ... bah. How can you say global warming is a bunch of balongie... Theres been tons and tons and tons of informatino from scientists around the world warning us of this, ... Yeah. nevermind.

yeah...global warming IS a fact.

That would be bologna.

Plan on seein this movie later on today, I think it looks good anyways.

'Cuz Oscar Mayer has a way with B-O-L-O-G-N-A.

So yeah just got back, I thought it was pretty damn good. Some stuff was fakey, but for the most part it was awesome. As soon as I thought "this movie needs more comedy," I got hit with the borders being closed, and just about shat my pants. There was also the homeless guy, he got a few laughs out of me. The CG was fantastic. Also, it wasn't "stop global warming" type of shit, if it was, I would have got up and left.

On the whole it was pretty good, I suggest you see it.

The movie owned. I loved it.

Hah, that was actually going to be the first thing I said in this post. :)

Anyway, I saw it last night, and it was good. I wouldn't say it pwned or anything, but for what I expected, it lived up to the expectations of badass weather scenes of mass chaotic destruction. The simultaneous tornado scene in Los Angeles was awesome, and the coastal flooding in NY was pwn, but the storyline and plot was just good.

Entertaining movie to visually watch, but the movie as a whole was semi-weak. Still, I'd recommend it just for the special effects.

Actually Rabber, I am pretty sure it was. [spoiler]Notice how the Vice Pres (now Pres) had a speech at the end about how global warming was a real issue and we should no longer foolishly use our fossil fuels?

Also, the movie is telling us to let in all the immigrants that want to come in, by giving the exmample that we may never know when we will need to go to Mexico for refuge.

Ths movie was so propaganda-ish. I would call it liberal, but I am not sure if these are liberal beliefs.

I saw it this afternoon, very nice special effects and plot lines. Love how everything freezes in certain areas....

Well, I think he meant that the main purpose wasn't to stop Global Warming, but rather to inform people of its possible effects. If this movie was based on an essentric climateologist that wanted people to stop pollution and everything that affected global warming, he would have left the movie. Rather, they talked about the subject, but kept it objective and informative, rather than "liberalish", for lack of better words.

Well, thats what I took from his comment, anyway.

I don't honestly see how effective this movie could be in teaching people the possible consequences of global warming. Climate changes take place over hundreds of years, and sudden climate changes (the kind in this movie) take place over a period of decades. Global warming isn't going to cause buckets of hail to suddenly drop on Japan, and it's not going to cause New York to flash-freeze. Global warming will raise ocean levels, flooding coastal marshes, which in turn will only force those same marches to move further inland. Global warming will cause higher and lower temperatures in hotter and colder areas respectively because of droughts and the possible slowing or shutdown of the thermohaline ciculation.

I haven't seen this movie yet, but I intend to. I intend to watch it solely for the special effects, because the entire premise of the movie is just a bit too silly to take seriously.

Well, the end effect the movie shows is an accurate one of global warming, but the process is not. In the movie this all happens over this 7-10 day storm front, whereas in real life, it would take approximately 50 years, from what I've heard.

This movie is retarded, the acting was just plain horrible. I admit, the graphics were pretty good, but that's the only thing I liked about it. The whole movie was global warming facts, like the few scenes where they were all talking and the guy was like "I thought we were talking about global warming, how does this bring on an iceage." You want to know why, because it fucking doesn't. They just threw in big words and left out the key facts that would explain why the fuck global warming had to do with 3 big storms to make people think it can happen. And the whole part at the end was so stupid I DID GET UP AND LEAVE.

Actually when the earth warms up too much the tetonic plates will shift, Volcanoes will erupt, Cold air and warm air flows will circulate into each other, causing many storms, etc etc.

I like it, the effects were tight, the story wasnt bad and well over all I just liked it

Like I said, I'm going to see it for the special effects. Based on that alone, I think I'll end up enjoying the hell out of it.

This movie was pretty cool visually. The acting was pretty bad, and I've seen alot of the ideas in this movie too many times in other movies. I.E. tidal wave on new york (deep impact), that guy cutting his rope to save the other members of his group(I don't know name of movie, but its about them climbing k2). I am also confused about that wolly mamoth that was in the museum that they said froze instantly.

What's confusing about it? It's a preview as to what will happen.

Also, I'm getting tired of people saying the movie was bad because it was or was not realistic. Did anyone see Shrek? Reality check: It's not fucking realistic! That doesn't make it a bad movie. These types of movies have something that makes them immune to the requirement of realistic developments. It's called FICTION.

Also, wtf was bad about the acting? I didn't find any major flaws in the portrayal of any character. If you didn't like how the story was written, then say that. Don't say that the actors did a bad job unless you have a good reason to.

I didn't think the acting was so bad. I just think that they exposed the use of awesome visual effects to make the movie better than it actually was. If the movie was rated on acting, I probably wouldn't recommend it, but the visual effects make the movie.

Bob, the big difference between Shrek and The Day After Tomorrow is that one roots itself in pure fantasy, while the other tries to root itself in fact. Tomorrow tries to send a conscientious message to the viewer that this is a possible consequence to our actions, which is what is supposed to the give the movie emotional value. You're supposed to truly fear what you're seeing because it could actually happen.

Only...it can't actually happen.

Granted it is a movie, and it is fiction. But the fiction in the movie tries to root itself in scientific fact, and it doesn't (apparently) do a very convincing job of it. That kind of strips away a lot of the weight that this movie wished to attain.

I'm basing everything I've said solely off of trailers and opinions I've heard from other peeople. I haven't made any comments about the acting, or the cohesiveness of the story. I'm just pointing out that the entire fear element of the overall plot is blunted by the mechanics of the situation. Hopefully, the directors were intelligent enough to realize this, and instead chose to focus to fear-building elements off of individual character dilemmas rather than the entire apocalyptic picture.

Truthfully, I was pretty scared when I saw this movie. :weird:

I don't think it's fair that a movie can be put down based on being non-factual if people deem that it is possible. If it's non-factual, then it's obviously not possible. I never saw anywhere that the director or writer of the movie had any intent of warning people to stop global warming. I believe it was just a good setup for the movie. There had to be a reason big ass storms.

The theories in the movie are discredited because there's no such thing as a "7 day climate change". Sudden climate changes, at the very quickest, take place over the course of decades, not days. That's why the movie is non-factual.

Either way, it's not important. I'm going to see it, and I expect to enjoy it.

Well what if the sun some how has some flares and heated the earth really quick, besides everything burning and stuff could a 7 day climate change happen then?

That's not really much of a "climate change". That's "flash-boiling the entire planet." A climate change entails the Earth naturally responding to unnatural interference in the ecosystem. The scenario you just described entails the Earth being set ablaze by the sun. That's two vastly different situations.

Well I was wondering if the sun stopped burning, the climate would still stay changed?

Clarify that question. I'm not sure what you're asking me. You're saying one of two things:

1) If the sun suddenly flared up so much that it began to burn the planet, and then the heat died down, would the climate on Earth remain changed by that sudden burst of heat? Answer: uh...yeah. That's kind of a given. The planet would be dead.

2) If the sun suddenly burnt out completely, would that have a permanent effect on the Earth's climate. Answer: uh...yeah. The planet would freeze.

I mean, lets say the sun quickly melted the ice, then the sun went back to normal... would the ice just go back to normal or would it just start leading to a major climate change?

Well, in order for the sun to quickly melt the polar ice caps, it would have to burn so hot that it would most likely kill everything on the planet. The oceans would boil.

But, I understand what you're asking anyway. You're asking that if suddenly the polar ice caps began to dissolve into the ocean, would that have a lasting effect on the world's entire climate? Most certainly. I have no idea exactly what that would do (besides causing massive oceanic rises and worldwide flooding), but it would absolutely cause permanent changes to the entire planet's climate.

But do you understand the point I've been making? There's absolutely, positively no way for something like that to happen without causing death to the entire planet. The ice caps can't just melt in a matter of days, because the heat required to do so would kill everything on the planet. Climate changes don't happen in a matter of days. If one did, we wouldn't survive it. It wouldn't be a "climate change", it would be "the end of the world."

Yeah I understood you, I was just asking something else.

That's exactly what I was saying... It's not a factual movie. It's fiction. Why, then, would anyone put it down because it had things that were not realistic? It down-right just doesn't make any sense. ET, Contact, Aliens, The Terminator, The Blob, and Godzilla are all fictional movies. They don't have to be realistic; nobody expects them to be realistic. Why, then, would anyone expect TDAT to be realistic and throw a fucking fit when it's not?

This movie was made for entertainment. Go watch it, then ....yeah...

I agree, an alien could come to earth, but dosent mean it will be just like ET... but then again this movie is about something that is a "topic" in the world today. I agree with both ways, I just like the movie because it was good

Dude, Bob, calm down. I didn't insult your mother or attack you personally. I'm just pointing out a logical flaw in the movie. There's a huge difference between Aliens, The Terminator and TDAT. Aliens could very well happen at some point. So could the Terminator. There's no way to guarantee that those things can't happen because there is no scientific theorem that says time-traveling cyborgs is impossible. TDAT is different because the things they suggest in the movie are directly contradicted by scientific research. There are no studies that show that a future war between cyborgs and humans is impossible. There are numerous studies that illustrate how the events that take place in TDAT are nigh impossible.

If there is a possibility of time travelling cyborgs, then there is a possibility of a much-faster-than-expected climate shift. Stewie could make a weather controlling device and amplify its signal through the satellite dish on the top of his house... It sounds more possible to me...