The Day After Tomorrow

I don't get it why this film just got 6.4, maann the visual effect alone was amazing. The tension is so high especially the new york scene. Maybe the science isnt accurate but I found this film is very entertaining. I watched this when I was 9 or 10 yo, now I'm 24 and this film still my fave disaster movie. The tsunami, tornado etc was perfect. Good job for the writers, director, producer especially the cast.

Now before you judge me for my 8/10 rating you gotta understand that you can't judge this film for its wacky science and all. It's a disaster film and none of them ever abide by science or the laws of physics and all. It's story and characters are pretty good and straightforward and the acting. Dennis Quaid is a good lead, Jake Gyllenhaal is alright, Emily Rossum is good, Ian Holm is always great to see etc. The story is straightforward and I won't spoil that but it flows well and makes sense mostly but I'll get to that in a bit. The effects are very good and still hold up almost 20 years later! That alone makes it worth a watch.

The only downsides to the film that I don't like are that 1) they cut out some good deleted scenes that would help build up things more and show more chaos around the world. And beyond what they cut I wish there was more to see how the whole world was effected. 2) the first half of the film is very strong. The build up and the unfolding disaster and how things get worse and how everyone reacts and the phony science babble, I love it! But the second half is a tad underwhelming in comparison and turns into a rescue film. It's not bad but it weighs the film down and I wish it was more about the various disasters and climate change instead of all that time spent on the rescue.

Overall a fantastic disaster film and one enjoy watching on a rainy spring or summer day.

The Day After Tomorrow is not a bad movie by all means. In fact, it's an uneven but decent film. The film does start off absolutely brilliantly, with a wonderful idea for a story and truly spectacular special effects. As a matter of fact, the whole film is well worth watching for the special effects alone. The acting is not too bad; Jake Gyllanhaal is rather bland, but Dennis Quaid is a superb lead. Plus Emmy Rosum looks positively radiant and Ian Holm is as reliable as ever. The direction from Roland Emmerich was surprisingly good, there have been times when I have found his direction too murky and unfocused, but no it was above decent here.

However, the second half isn't as impressive. Whereas the first half is very like a typical disaster movie, the second half for me as it focused on the rescue mission felt more of a thriller. The screenplay in general could have done with more precision and focus too, there is good interplay sometimes but on the whole I found the screenplay and some of the characters underdeveloped. My main problem though with The Day After Tomorrow was the pace, for my liking it was too leisurely and too stodgy.

All in all, uneven it is but it is a decent disaster movie. The first half I can watch again and again, but the second half for me was a bit of a letdown. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Yes yes, plot holes blah blah, this movie is so fun to watch if you don't pretend you're a know-it-all scientist. If you are a a scientist, it's probably not for you.

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 order.

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.