The Day After Tomorrow (2004) January 18, 2007
Posted by gproject in : Recently Viewed , trackbackDirected by: Roland Emmerich
Post-apocalyptic visions of the future are no new thing in 20th century cinema - but when the ‘apocalypse’ is global warming, and it’s not a vision of the future but an alternative present that’s being effected, you can’t help wonder if it’s not just another ‘disaster’ movie. And it is. Although of course, this one has a timely message.
Now to say it’s about global warming isn’t strictly correct, as it’s actually about global cooling, an effect brought on by global warming. The story follows climatologist Jack Hall (Dennis Quaid), who theorises that the world is going to enter the next ice age sometime in the future. Unfortunately, it begins happening right away, causing entire regions of the world to become covered in ice and snow, as tornados and hurricanes destroy the other areas. Jack’s son Sam (played by Jake Gyllenhaal) is in New York, and becomes trapped after the weather takes a turn for the worst. Against all the odds, Jack packs a rucksack and goes out to rescue his son from the elements.
So a disaster movie then: the story of a large-scale catastrophe affecting the lives of the human characters within it. This was not what I had prepared myself for, but it wasn’t the only element of the film that surprised me. From the posters I was expecting a Twelve Monkeys style future, where things had already turned bad. It’s actually more like the global warming version of Deep Impact. Don’t judge a book by its cover I suppose. Lesson learned.
I was also under the impression that Jake Gyllenhall was the lead, but it is Dennis Quaid who performs most of the heroics – apparently I must not have paid any attention to the deluge of marketing this movie received. Although it is worth saying that both actors do a fine job in their roles and neither the main cast, nor the supporting characters played by Ian Holm, Emmy Rossum or Dash Mihok, are any reason to avoid this film.
What might be a sticking point is your tolerance for computer-generated special effects, as this is without doubt the most CG-reliant movie I’ve ever seen. And it’s not all positive either, varying in quality from the great (the water flooding New York), to the not so great (some of the sequences with the wolves, for example). Also, while the science of what is happening is well explained throughout most of the story (I can’t be sure that it all makes complete scientific sense, but it seems fairly solid), as with lots of films in this vein, when the ending appears, the explanations fade away and we are left to accept what is happening without question.
It’s certainly not completely awful, but neither is it a standout film. While nowhere near as much fun as writer/director Roland Emmerich’s earlier blockbuster Independence Day, there’s a mixture of good and bad that eventually comes together to form an interesting, if uninspiring, two hours. Predictably, the obligatory global warming message appears at the end to remind you that this is not just a movie; it’s an environmentally-aware geography lesson too. To be honest though, it’s more fun as a straight disaster piece. So put the books away and break out the popcorn instead. You’ll have a much better time.
Comments»
no comments yet - be the first?