RSS 2.0The Day After Tomorrow (2004)
Director Roland Emmerich could almost be named Hollywood’s disaster man. A categorization not based on the quality of his productions (if we forgive his accident called Godzilla), but on the subjects of his films. Alien invasions (Independence Day), the American revolutionary war (The Patriot), mutated lizard threatening New York City (Godzilla), Emmerich’s last three movies were all about possible and impossible earth-shaking disasters. And so is the latest addition to the resume of the originally German director. This time it’s a new ice age. ‘Don’t say we didn’t warn you’, seems to be the message dripping off The Day After Tomorrow. Okay, he might be right (albeit in a slightly exaggerated way) but this is just pure entertainment. And entertained I was.
Scientist Jack Hall (a role played by Dennis Quaid) hits the alarm after a huge chunk of ice the size of the state of Rhode Island has crumbled off the continent of Antarctica. Of course, no one ‘ world leader or ordinary man ‘ wants to believe his theory but soon the northern hemisphere’s Gulf Stream is disrupted, causing massive floodings and eventually a new ice age. Hall’s son, played by Jake Gyllenhaal, is stuck in the New York public library where people freeze to death if they stick their heads out of the window for just three seconds. Hall goes on a quest to rescue his son.
Although based on real scientific theories, everything in The Day After Tomorrow is overly exaggerated. The great thing with this movie, however, is that it doesn’t matter. This is purely meant to entertain. Emmerich loses himself several times with non-credible events, some plot holes and overly dramatic subplots of a sick little boy and adolescents in love. But he wins with amazing special effects, great shots and smashing action. What might be a little peculiar, however, is that most of the action was placed in the first half of the movie. This gives the whole thing a rather unbalanced feel. And once more, Emmerich was unable to resist any patriotism, namely a frozen flag, similar to the American flag on the moon in the opening shots of Independence Day. But even that is forgiven.
Most of all, The Day After Tomorrow is over-the-top amusement. There is nothing wrong with that, if done in a good way, unlike movies such as Deep Impact, The Core, Volcano or the biggest laugh I ever had in a movie theater: Mission to Mars. The message Emmerich wants to give his audience is somewhat so so. Although straight to the core, this is not what we are waiting for whilst sitting in a cinema. The Day After Tomorrow is as hollow as a shell, but with a nice pleasant surface. Nothing wrong with that!
______________________________________________________
Directed by: Roland Emmerich
Starring: Dennis Quaid, Jake Gyllenhaal, Dash Mihok
Official Website
‘The Day After Tomorrow’ runs 124 minutes and is now showing.
Arjan Welles (213 posts)Arjan Welles - law graduate. I work at a bank, I work as a film critic for Dutch and English media. My favorite directors are David Lynch, David Fincher, Alfred Hitchcock, Steven Spielberg, Quentin Tarantino. I love arthouse over blockbusters.
13 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Yeah, this looked the business! I must say that CGI is getting better and better because I couldn’t see a lot wrong with it (funny it is to see, that they have the most difficulty with something seemingly simple as making convincing vapour-breath).
The twister attack of LA and the flooding scene of NY are just amazing. It litteraly blows you away. I was a bit dissapointed that the extreme weather was solely confined to that particular part of the Northern hemisphere: North America, the USA in particular. Contrary to what you see on the different posters you don’t get to see Europe or Canada. A bit strange, since the director is a German.
Maybe Emmerich had to compensate for the criticism he put in the movie by showing his usual patriotic drivel. These kind of movies don’t pass so easily nowadays.
Very good fun, though.
Comment by Paco — Sun May 30, 2004 @ 11:26Just bought the new version of Independence Day on DVD. Same concept: just fun!
BTW: I noticed a goof in the movie, which I later on read at IMDB.com as well… When you see the aerial views of New York and the water comes flushing in in the bottom right of the screen you see cars washed away before the water actually hits them…
Comment by arjan — Sun May 30, 2004 @ 11:30I saw that too, but don’t consider that a goof for two possible reasons:
1. water flows more ahead down than on top; meaning that a horizontal column of water will be like the side of a pyramid: more water-mass flowing ahead on ground-level than above. So it could’ve been the water that flowed on the ground that surged ahead.
2. a massive amount of water that is pressed through a narrow cul-the-sac (a street with high buildings on the side) will create an enormous airflow by pushing ahead the air that is in front of it, causing everything in its path to be blown away by the air-pressure.
A principle that they didn’t apply consequently everytime (for example when the water-mass surged towards the library).
You shouldn’t forget that this isn’t real water but CGI-water, meaning that they put that effect in there purposely.
Mystery solved
Comment by Paco — Sun May 30, 2004 @ 23:02Well I wonder if I agree with you, Paco. Of course there is always some water surging ahead, but I doubt if the flow is strong enough to lift up and carry cars. Same goes for the airflow coming along with water…
I watched Independence Day yesterday. Very underrated movie. Still. Especially considering the fact Emmerich said he made this movie just to entertain…
Comment by arjan — Mon May 31, 2004 @ 7:20Hi,
Europe is much wamer than than USA or Canada due to the warmer ocean currents – I read that today. If the ocean cools down Europe temps will drop by 10 degrees C.
My 2 cents for what its worth.
Julie K
Comment by Julie K — Mon May 31, 2004 @ 8:28Nice review Arjan. And yes it’s an entertaining film on an ‘entertainment’ level. On the political level, I was more bothered than you we’re though. Patriotism isn’t nescessarily a bad thing. It depends on the way it’s expressed. The way Emmerich uses it, has irritated me before and irritates me in this movie as well. It’s not constructive, but offensive, because it opposes an infantile morale devoid of any nuances. And if I let my paranoia glands sweat a little. And for Americans. (In this film the rest of the world doesn’t seem to exist anyway) It’s not too hard to explain the morale as an attempt to scare them so they’ll cling to their government. I know all this is ‘old hat’, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be mentioned. The arrogance in the scene where he says ‘we (the people) we’re wrong. I was wrong.’ Darn nice of him to take the responibility of the world on his shoulders don’t you think?
The mushy ‘promise’ theme was on the virge, but ok-ish.
O well, turn-off all of that and it’s a 70′s disaster-movie revival done well.
Comment by reisneus — Tue June 1, 2004 @ 12:04Umm…. minor quibble. Patriot was about the American War of Independence, not the Civil War. It concerns me when such an obvious fact is mis-stated.
Comment by Rex Dart — Fri June 11, 2004 @ 20:08well I have changed it now… but I am not American you must know… thanks anyway for making me aware… …besides: it’s been a while since I have seen The Patriot…
Comment by arjan — Fri June 11, 2004 @ 22:04Finally saw this and had expected a little more to be honest. I am now completetly convinced that Dennis Quaid can’t act to save his life, but that wasn’t my main reason for being disappoointed. The storyline just didn’t do it for me.
I agree with just about everything in your review Arjan, especially the major plot holes and loose ends, I wouldn’t have given it such a high rating though. Of course it’s a formula disaster-movie plot, but I felt cheated out of some originality and humour (which Independence Day does have) and numerous characters were never to be seen or heard of again despite having enjoyed a relatively high number of on-screen minutes.
The moral message and born-again-nice-guy Vice President were just a little too sweet for me.
Comment by suzero — Sat November 13, 2004 @ 22:45You are right Suz, but… the special effect were amazing. Hence the 3.5 star rating…
Comment by arjan — Sun November 14, 2004 @ 15:44I hated the CGI wolves. Why couldn’t they just use real ones? They were so fake. But the rest was cool, I agree.
Comment by suzero — Sun November 14, 2004 @ 23:23I also think the CGI wolves were atrocious
the tornadoes were über-cool!
Comment by arjan — Sun November 14, 2004 @ 23:28cool movie!
Comment by bj — Mon July 24, 2006 @ 5:35