The Day After Tomorrow

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.

"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.

Roland Emmerich's The Day After Tomorrow is one of those textbook disaster flicks where every recognizable element is in full swing: determined scientist, sure of his curveball theories that no one else buys, saddled with a dysfunctional family and a clock that's quickly ticking down towards some looming cataclysm, in this case severely bat tempered weather. It's cliche after cliche, but this is one of the ones that works, and I have a theory why. These days it seems like the formula for the disaster film is pretty dead, or at least doesn't carry the same magic it did throughout the 90's and early 00's.

Stuff like San Andreas, 2012, Geostorm (shudder) just feel dead on arrival, and instead we go back and revisit things like Armageddon, Independence Day, and for me, ones like this. There's a quality, a feel for time and place that got lost somewhere along the way as time passed in Hollywood, and this is one of the last few that serve as a milestone as to where that happened. The first half or so is cracking stuff, followed by a slightly underwhelming final act. Dennis Quaid is the scientist who gets all in a huff about an extreme weather front that's apparently barrelling towards the east coast, threatening to give the whole region one wet day in the park. There's an exaggerated halfwit Vice President (Kenneth Welsh) who scoffs at him, an excitable veteran professor (Bilbo Baggins) who eagerly supports him, and an estranged family right in the storm's crosshairs who he must rescue. The special effects are neat when the maelstrom slams into New York like a battering ram, pushing over buildings with walls of water and chucking hurricanes all about the place. Quaid's wife (Sela Ward) and wayward son (Jake Gyllenhaal) are of course stuck in this mess, as he races to find out what's causing it, and how to escape. The initial scenes where it arrives are big screen magic, especially when Gyllenhaal's girlfriend (Emmy Rossum) is chased down main street by a raging typhoon and barely scapes into a building, a breathless showcase moment for the film. The second half where the storm levels off isn't as engaging, despite attempts to throw in extra excitement, such as wolves, which I still can't quite figure out the origin of, despite watching the film a few times now. Holed up inside a library, it's a long waiting game in the cold dark where the writing and character development is spread a bit thin for the time they have to kill, but what can you expect here. Should have thrown in a T Tex or some ice dragons to distract us from sparse scripting. Still, the film gets that initial buildup deliciously right, the nervous windup to all out chaos, the editing between different characters and where they are when the monsoon shows up, and enough panicky surviving to make us thankful for that cozy couch and home theatre system all the more. One of the last of the finest, in terms the genre.

How many times do I need to read other's reviews on disaster films before I remember most people on here writing these think they are actual film critics? It is a disaster movie. Yes, the science is terrible. Yes the coincidences are fantastical. If you watch these for ground breaking stories with rich plots, or for an Oscar worthy performance by one of the actors, then you are watching these for the wrong damn reasons. This movie shows a future where due to the rise in global temperatures, a modern ice age is triggered. How it is ushered in is by these violent, giant hurricane-like storms that cause flash freezing, and bring in a myriad of disasters with them. These include tsunamis and blizzards that drop so many feet of snow that people are walking level with the signs on the interstate that you would normally drive under. It also tries to throw in a lot of relatable human elements, such as the struggle of a man that is an absentee parent because of his job, trying to connect with his son, a lonely boy dying of cancer, and just the human death that this kind of disaster would bring. Do not watch this for the science, though I do feel that they had the causation of another ice age correct. Do not watch this for deep plot. Watch this for the enjoyable ride on which it takes you.

Honestly I love this movie. No matter what I'm doing if I see this on tv I go ahead and grab a drink and put my feet up. Don't watch this expecting realism. Just watch it for what it is - a disaster movie that suspends reality and science to reunite a father and his son during the storm of the ages.