|Page 1 of 112:||          |
|Index||1116 reviews in total|
215 out of 310 people found the following review useful:
Clichéd, illogical, unscientific but the first hour really delivers even if the second hour is like the 1970's never happened, 31 May 2004
Author: bob the moo
After years of warning about global warning, Jack Hall is horrified to
find all his predictions coming true much faster than he could have
imagined. Hail stones the size of footballs decimate cities, typhoons
destroy Los Angeles and New York becomes flooded. As the big freeze
crosses the northern hemisphere, a small group of survivors try to fend
off the cold as the world prepares for a dramatic change in the world
This film may be a modern blockbuster but in almost everyway it is a 1970's disaster movie where an event happens after some build up and we then spend the rest of the film watching the survivors trying to, well, survive. In that regard the film carries all the usual problems that the genre carries but happily benefits from the fact that the effects are much better than 1970's movies could manage. For this reason the first hour is great it has dramatic pace, is involving and looks fantastic even if we have seen it before in different variations (how many times has New York been destroyed now?). However after the sheer global terror is pretty much finished we suddenly become much more small scale and the film looses much of it's impact and it's pace. After the initial danger has passed the film uses illogical and silly plot devices to put the survivors at risk a cold eye of a storm, blood infections, creeping ice and wolves are among the problems. While this is OK on a genre level it doesn't compare to the first hour and it gets a little dull and plodding at times.
The clichés are all present and correct: the politicians, the upright scientists, the sacrifice, the daring rescues and so on. It's fair to say that if you are looking for more than a basic script then you will be looking in the wrong place here. All this film does is to provide spectacle and moments of dramatic action if you want to think about it then you will only hurt your enjoyment of the action. The film tries to deliver an environmental message but in a way this film will not help the environmental movement because it is too exaggerated to be taken seriously (like the idea of Celtic and Man Utd reaching the Champions League final during this season? Please!), however it does include several surprisingly barbed attacks on the US administration (could the VP look any more like Cheney?). Just a shame that the film message is delivered with all the subtlety that Segal showed when he did something similar in his environmental action film On Deadly Ground.
The script doesn't really create characters either and it means we don't care that much about what happens to them in the final hour (countless millions are dead for goodness sake!). The dialogue in the first hour is nicely gruff and scientific and very genre but the second hour is more human and the lines aren't suited for that not even in the hands of an impressive number of good actors. I like Quaid and he is a good lead here, he gets the good scientific stuff and only is lumbered with the rather silly notion of walking to New York from Washington. Gyllenhaal must have upset legions of cult fan boys by appearing in a big budget movie but he does OK with the role (despite looking too old to be in school). The rest of the cast are fairly mixed but, as with the genre, they are just filled even if some are good. Welsh is good even if he was cast for his similarity to Dick Cheney, Holm adds a small bit of dignity in his role as well as being supported by the very fine actor Lester in a minor role. Faces like Sanders, Mihok and a few others don't really matter as they are merely victims waiting for their turn to be used for dramatic effect.
Overall the first hour of this film is good on a blockbuster level, but it blows it's wad too early (don't ya hate it when that happens?!) and is left with a second hour that is right out of the 1970's with all the weaknesses that that entails. Generally I enjoyed the film because I was just expecting a big noisy movie to pass a few hours bad script, no characters and lots of clichés? Why would I be surprised by that? It's par for the course and you should not watch this if you know these aspects will annoy you. As it is, it's an average film but one that is noisy and spectacular enough to pass muster in the summer blockbuster stakes.
128 out of 194 people found the following review useful:
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel okay., 6 June 2004
Author: Victor Field from London, England
"The Day After Tomorrow" is a disaster movie, but it isn't a disastrous
one. But if Roland Emmerich really thought he was making a movie with a
message, he didn't quite succeed - to be honest, Emmerich is to serious
film-making as Naomi Wolf is to recommending "Voluptuous" magazine. The
fact that the movie begins with the Twentieth Century Fox logo under
stormy skies doesn't make it any more significant.
Well-intentioned it may be, but the movie's plot takes second place to the imagery - the opening credits over an icy landscape, the massive weather systems over the planet, colossal hailstones pelting down on Tokyo, snowstorms over India, tidal waves - and the numerous effects houses make it an eye candy feast, especially for people with a grudge against the Big Apple (kudos to Industrial Light and Magic, Digital Domain and all the less renowned FX companies involved). So on that level, it works; the music by Harald Kloser and Thomas Wanker is also a bonus, being more restrained and serious in its support than is usually the way with Emmerich movies.
And then there's the script - it has a whole load of characters but doesn't do much with any of them. Example: Climatologist Dennis Quaid's relationship with son Jake Gyllenhaal doesn't seem to be as estranged as it's intended to be, and similarly the friendship Quaid has with a longtime colleague gets about as much emphasis as the crush his younger colleague has on fellow scientist Tamlyn Tomita (and the movie pays for it later on in a sequence shamelessly ripped off from "Vertical Limit," which has little of the emotional resonance it should). In fact, all the human elements - Gyllenhaal's repressed feelings for classmate Emmy Rossum, his doctor mother Sela Ward's problems with a young patient, etc - all of them are underdeveloped or just plain undeveloped, and some moments practically scream "Contrived Climax Ahoy!"
Those moments are there because "The Day After Tomorrow" doesn't have an enemy as a natural outgrowth of its story; the elements aren't really villainous as they have no concept of right or wrong, and the closest thing to a villain here is the current administration in the White House, so Emmerich and co-writer Jeffrey Nachmanoff have to impose a tangible enemy (why else are those wolves there?) on the proceedings. This does help things from getting totally boring in the second half, though it's still pretty watchable even then - but if some more thought had been put into the screenplay, like exploring the characters or developing the promising ideas therein (like Americans fleeing to Mexico, or further looks at the Government side), it would have carried more weight and made the movie into more than an improvement on "Godzilla."
As it is, it's a competently done if implausible attention-holder that wants to be more; that it actually had the potential to be more makes it a bit of a disappointment, but at least it's a watchable one.
158 out of 255 people found the following review useful:
Oh! The Weather Outside Is Frightful..., 24 December 2004
Author: BaronBl00d (email@example.com) from NC
I really enjoyed this film by director Roland Emmerich a great deal. It is a fast-paced, exciting, suspenseful film filled with wonderful images, great CGI effects, plausible acting, and even a coherent script. How realistic is it? I hope not at all, but the director made the film so that it seems very real and like something that MIGHT happen. The story revolves around some major climatic shifts that cause the entire Northern hemisphere to become Artic tundra. New York City is devastated as are other major cities all over Europe. Dennis Quaid gives a good performance as a climatologist that predicted some of these events. We see things through his perspective and that of his son for much of the movie. The acting in general is good in this film. I particularly liked Ian Holm's role as the British meteorologist stuck in the middle of nowhere while these changes advanced. Much of the credit for the film's success must go to Emmerich. This is easily one of his best films. He keeps his viewer on the edge of his/her seat through the entire film. Action is the film's primary objective, but Emmerich also uses a lot of humanity in what his character's motivations are, and I for one, enjoyed seeing that side of humanity rather than what I probably would see under similar circumstances. As a previous viewer noted, this is a great popcorn movie!
160 out of 268 people found the following review useful:
One of the worst movies of all time., 20 February 2005
Author: spmckain from United States
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
The folks who actually like this movie are the reason Hollywood makes very few quality movies any more. If you don't care then why should they? This movie is so bad from the beginning. Numerous tornadoes pummeling a West Coast city and there are actually people flying in helicopters to get a closer look. That's a brainy idea. Buildings freezing and crumbling yet the people outside don't seem to be affected so much. The "walk" from Philadelphia to New York? And in record time no less. I do like the fact that they had the foresight to have Antarctic weather gear handy for just these occasions. What of the tent that was able to withstand the chill but not the Empire State building? Call your local Army Navy store....they really need to stock these tents. I also found it amazing that any lines of communications were not really affected, including the under freezing water pay phone. The only ones who had communications losses were, of course, the main characters.....ah drama!! I know they were in a library but you think they could have possibly tried to burn all the wooden tables and chairs around them? Seems that they would burn warmer and for longer than books. The acting was horrific, the directing was terrible, the script was unbelievably bad and the special effects were anything but special. It certainly rates up there with Godzilla 2000 and Armageddon......it actually makes Independence Day look like one of the all time greats!
177 out of 302 people found the following review useful:
A gorgeous movie to watch., 11 January 2005
Look people, what it comes down to is this: you don't go to an "end of
the world" movie for the plot. You go for the special effects. And I
can honestly say these are some of the best special effects I've ever
seen in my life.
I work a lot with computer graphics, and can distinguish them (AND miniatures) by sight. This movie blends them seamlessly. The only other movie I've seen that does that is Lord of the Rings. If you want to see a movie that makes you believe that what's happening is real, watch this. If all you care about is plot, there are better choices.
I give this movie a 9 based on exactly what I expected of it. Mindboggling visuals.
Hope you've got a big-screen and surround sound. You're gonna need it.
71 out of 108 people found the following review useful:
I could write a better story by "The Day After Tomorrow", 2 June 2004
Author: TheSteak002 from New York
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
This movie is TYPICAL Hollywood. And by that I mean it's all glitz and
glamour without any substance. Don't get me wrong
the special effects
are great (although weather effects are easy to pull off at this
point). But the movie has no point what so ever!!! Whatever little plot
there is, is terrible.
OK, basically it goes like this Big storm comes, and spreads around the world in a matter of days threatening humanity with the 2nd ice age. Storms destroy all the big cities, blah blah blah Since the movie follows Sam Hall (Jake Gyllenhaal) most of it is set in New York. So NY gets hit with tidal waves, and then it all freezes over and then you have everyone stuck in the NY public library. Not bad so far but that's it. Jack Hall, Sam's father is some kind of weather expert specializing in Alaska and global warming so he predicts this whole storm. So when he finds out that his son is trapped in NY he WALKS (drives to Philadelphia and then walks the rest of the way) from Washington D.C. to NY in like two days (All during this 2nd ICE AGE!!!!). No trying to stop the storm or anything he just WALKS. He's not even trying to save his son because he can't he just walks hundreds of miles to meet his son. That's it.
Oh yeah, and during the middle of the movie the kids trapped in the library in NY must venture out in the 'STORM' for medicine and as luck would have it (or Hollywood overkill) they're attacked by a pack of wolves that escaped from the zoo. And the wolves look TERRIBLE. The special effects for the weather are easy so that all looks great but these wolves looked horrible. Like these kids were being attacked by cartoon rejects from 'Who Framed Roger Rabbit?'
They just made this movie cause they could make the effects... there was no thought put into anything else other than the effects. I've seen porno's with better story lines.
72 out of 114 people found the following review useful:
Ridiculous Story, But Fun To Watch, 5 October 2006
Author: ccthemovieman-1 from United States
I was leery of a heavy propaganda piece on "global warming," but I
still saw this and found that, yeah that's what it was but it was
really more of just a straight adventure story than anything
else.....and not a bad one, at that. The first 50 minutes of this
two-hour film have the "fun parts" where the special-effects dominate.
We see all kinds of radical weather disasters that are extremely
dramatic and entertaining to watch, even if they don't make a bit of
After the blizzard and sub-zero, unlivable weather conditions arrive the movie settles down to a young romance and survival story with Jake Gyllenhaal, Emily Rossum and other people trapped in a library in New York City and Jake's father, played by Dennis Quaid, walking all the way from Philadelphia to rescue him. Yes, it's very, very far-fetched - the whole thing - but it's a fun adventure story with nice people. It's especially refreshing to see Hollywood portray a father as being so loving and selfless. The romance wasn't overdone and the young people were not profane and/or annoying, as so often is the case.
Except for the over-exaggerated and extremely erroneous scare tactics of this movie, and a ridiculous portrayal of the Vice Preseint of the United States, the movie works strictly as an entertaining fantasy-adventure story.
84 out of 138 people found the following review useful:
Absolutely Pathetic, 9 June 2004
Author: tokentaker from Orlando, FL
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
--WARNING: Spoilers below-- Terrible writing, terrible acting, terrible
plot. One of the worst films I've ever seen. How convenient that right
after Jack Hall discovers the plate breaking away in Antarctica and
right as he presents this to the "Global Warming Conference," all his
predictions begin to come true! Wow, what a coincidence. What an insult
to my intelligence. At least have all that take place >75 years prior.
From there the movie gets even more ridiculous, with nothing but plot devices tossed in an attempt to pull emotions of it's viewers. For example, Dr. Lucy Hall decides to stay behind with a dying boy because he can only be removed via ambulance. How touching - he's going to die anyway, lady, and he has absolutely nothing to do with the film. But wait, her morals are rewarded as someone manages to get an ambulance to them despite 13 feet of snow! In a scene involving the President we see the Seal of the President of the United States displayed prominently behind him in a random room -- so the target audience would know who he was just in case the plot got too deep for them.
Then another plot device is delivered as a Russian ship ends up right in front of the library where Sam and his cohorts are hiding out. Usually with a plot device you at least try to disguise the fact that it is nothing more than a plot device. Nope, not in this movie! So someone has an infection and we need medicine. Well what do you know - "THERE HAS TO BE MEDICINE IN THAT SHIP!" clearly. And what do you know, the bottle they need is the only one designated in English. These guys are very lucky. But wait, some wolves that escaped a holding cell earlier happen to find the ship many miles away just as the kids are attempting to retrieve the medicine!! I didn't realize this was a comedy!
I could go on with these examples for hours...don't even get me started on the homeless man and his faithful dog. But I think you get the idea. Do not go see this even for the special effects - you've already seen them in Armageddon.
48 out of 75 people found the following review useful:
Completely predictable, sadly lacking, and fatally flawed.. (some SPOILERS), 2 June 2004
Author: darren-142 from Birmingham, England
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Well for me this film wasn't one I was looking forward to, initially
when I saw the adverts I thought I wanted to see it, but after reading
some blurb about it I was concerned that it was going to turn into the
usual Hollywood 'adventure' drivel...Sadly my thoughts came true.
I thought the movie started well, all the science seemed to be dealt with in a good and sensible fashion, and you do feel a sense of impending doom. The early disaster effects are typically top notch, although I felt a huge chunk of ice falling on someone's head would have made them bleed! And strangely for a Hollywood movie they didn't depict their administration as being infallible, which made me think maybe I was wrong to prejudge the film.
Sadly, things then deteriorate into the typical Hollywood fare. The hero does everything you'd expect, in the way you'd expect. The good old stiff upper lipped Brits perform their background tasks and do the usual (i.e. Die in a research bunker that turns out to have less stocks of the essentials than a New York library (where can I buy a vending machine that provides sustenance for 6 or 7 people and a dog for a week or more?)).
When the 'hero' becomes all heroic the major mistakes become evident. We've all touched something ice cold and had our skin stick to it, so surely someone holding onto to frozen metal with blood oozing out of their hands would suffer a similar fate (especially considering how cold it's alleged to be!). They also seem quick to remove their facial protection, without a care in the World.
The other thing that makes you go uhmmm is that the temperature at one point is supposedly dropping at a rate of -10 degrees every SECOND, yet it clearly takes the hero, and his son and friends for that matter, well over 10 seconds to get to safety. This despite earlier in the film someone in similar circumstances freezing on the spot in less than 3 seconds! (oh and it was also cold enough to freeze aviation fuel, but obviously American film stars have more in their veins than everyone else!? )
The temperature drops so fast that all the windows shatter, uhmm except of course on the building where the stars are! (either that or their room would have literally been snowed under, like the rest of New York!). Added to the fact that their chimney seems to work despite being blocked by snow and ice, surely if they hadn't frozen to death due to having no windows, they'd have choked to death on the smoke flooding their room since it had nowhere to escape to (this can be seen near the end because the hero can't even tell that he's reached his destination, and you certainly can't see any smoke coming from where the chimney should be!).
Oh and to cap it all, once the hero finds his son (bet you never thought he'd do it..YAWN!) the sun miraculously appears, as do hundreds of survivors! (can anyone tell me how they'd survived in skyscrapers that had no windows, and had been ravaged by tsunamis earlier int he film!??!)
All in all I found myself wishing that it had been an English film, for then some reality may have been preserved.
Sadly this film completely loses the plot half way through and all credibility goes out of the window.
78 out of 140 people found the following review useful:
A lot of fun!, 26 January 2005
Author: mihvel from Novi Sad, Serbia
OK, definitely this is not very smart movie and it has many holes in the storyline, but if you like this kind of movies you will got a lot of fun! I mean, you should know what you can expect of this kind of movies. If you like movie "Independence Day" you will know what I mean (BTW good recommendation from IMDb team!). If you want art or some wisdom message or you are searching for holes and sanity in the storyline, forget it. Go and watch some European authors. But if you are looking for fun, want to relax yourself, to see some amazing and very realistic computer effects go and watch it! You will not regret. For true impression big theater screen is mandatory!
|Page 1 of 112:||          |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||Newsgroup reviews||External reviews|
|Parents Guide||Official site||Plot keywords|
|Main details||Your user reviews||Your vote history|