Yet another disaster movie -- between this and last year's The Core, it would seem September 11 has not diminished our enthusiasm for the virtual destruction of major national landmarks after all.

- - -

NASA Curbs Comments on Ice Age Disaster Movie
In "The Day After Tomorrow," a $125 million disaster film set to open on May 28, global warming from accumulating smokestack and tailpipe gases disrupts warm ocean currents and sets off an instant ice age. Few climate experts think such a prospect is likely, especially in the near future. But the prospect that moviegoers will be alarmed enough to blame the Bush administration for inattention to climate change has stirred alarm at the space agency, scientists there say.
New York Times, April 25

Man the NY Times must really think people are stupid. What an insult to humanity in that last sentence.

-s.

Come on, Stef...Americans bought Pet Rocks in the 70's. In the 80's they believed in a Super computer called the beast of brussells. In the 90's they believed there was a vast right wing conspiracy against Clinton and the Left Behind books represent the future that will happen.

It's not like they don't have something to base their low opinion on the public upon.

[gasp.] ...There is no beast of Brussels?!?

-s.

I know that Peter Travers said in Rolling Stone recently that The Day After Tomorrow helps to bring up an important issue: the ice caps melting.

Now - Matt Drudge has this "scoop" -

Saw this one today. Like a lot of disaster movies, it's got lots of effects and not a whole heck of a lot of time for building character in any meaningful way. Some nice touches by Dennis Quaid, Ian Holm, Jake Gyllenhaal and Jay O. Sanders, but that's all they are -- touches.

I find it interesting that Al Gore is so on-board with this film, given that the President in this film looks, to my eyes, more like Gore than Bush. (He has very little to do in the film -- very little presence -- so looks are about all we've got to go by. The President's dithering and constant appeal to others for advice could easily reflect either George W. "I'm supposedly just another Republican puppet!" Bush or Al "I need more focus groups!" Gore.) Though the Vice President character definitely seems to be patterned after Dick Cheney. (Y'know, I watch so, so little TV, I'm not even sure what Cheney sounds like these days, or how he comes across on TV -- though I've certainly seen his photo, of course.)

Interesting that Roland Emmerich would make a gung-ho rah-rah-America disaster movie like Independence Day -- a movie that dared to assert that America's national holiday would be gladly, globally accepted as a new holiday for the world -- back when Clinton was campaigning for re-election in 1996, but now that Dubya's running for re-election in 2004, he makes a movie heavy on international co-operation. (In 2000, when it was Gore vs Bush, he made the patriotic revenge epic The Patriot. And I have no idea what that means.)

I would hate to be Ted Baehr reviewing this film. In one scene, a guy says he's an atheist and the Gutenberg Bible reflects NOT the greatness of religion but, rather, the greatness of mankind, because the written word is such a cool invention; nobody really challenges him on any of this. But then, in the immediate scene following, an ambulance shows up somewhere else, and the woman who's been waiting for it says, "Thank God. Thank you for coming." So ... is the movie anti-God? Or is it pro-God? If I were Baehr, I think my brain circuits would melt. Assuming they hadn't already.

Oh, wait a minute, what am I saying. This movie is pro-environment? Bash it, bash it, bash it!

And now that I have exorcised my inner Baehr ... I have to ask ... does anyone know ... did the Ice Age of about 10,000 years ago cover the whole planet, or just the northern hemisphere? I would have assumed the whole planet, but this film seems to suggest that it may have been more restricted than that.

I knew the answer to that a long time ago...

It was more restricted than just the whole planet. I want to say it got as far as the Balkans, maybe even a little further, but I won't swear on it. I don't know how far the south pole ice reached. In the Americas, I *think* it reached down into the Great Plains, but I don't know if it made it as far as Texas or Mexico.

And that's all I remember from my environmental--beg pardon, history--class in junior high. (I'm not sure what a sarcasm smilie looks like, so please use your imagination.)

In a debate marginally less intense than the historical accuracy of The Passion, scientists dispute this movie's doomsday scenario:

Science, and fiction

As an ex-Environmental consultant I'm quite interested to see this. I did a lot of work on Climate Change, and remember being gutted when virtually Bush's first move was to renegade on the Kyoto treaty.

Anyway I'm interested to see this, if only to ask if the film is trying to gain support for a climate trade campaign, or to discredit it, by showing it as over the top and the threat being of an ice age, rather than global warming.

Matt

kebbie wrote:
: i've never liked this kind of movie, but it sort of disgusted me that american
: appetites are again whetted for disaster and destruction.

As with so many other things, I'm kind of a fence-sitter here. I do like seeing a bit of destruction every now and then -- it's that whole boy-makes-a-sandcastle-so-he-can-tear-it-down thing, and hey, nothing beats watching the Death Star explode or the land of Mordor shake itself to its roots -- but it does seem a bit hypocritical when a movie like this promotes an anti-consumerist message even though THE MOVIE ITSELF, like all disaster movies, is ultimately all about the spectacle of consumption (look how many things we can build and destroy!).

MattPage wrote:
: I did a lot of work on Climate Change, and remember being gutted when virtually
: Bush's first move was to renegade on the Kyoto treaty.

Did you mean "renege"?

From what I hear, Kyoto was never going to happen anyway, partly because Russia and other countries weren't going to commit to it either. To quote Colby Cosh's column of April 2:

. . . any group of countries accounting for 45% of those emissions has veto power over the protocol: the United States and Russia, for instance, have 53.5% between them. Which is a problem. In 1997 the U.S. Senate voted 95-0 in favour of what was, in essence, a resolution not to ratify. On the Russian side, President Vladimir Putin has criticized the Protocol, his economic advisors don't want to sacrifice growth for a short-term bonanza in tradeable emissions permits, his science advisors can't see how global warming is bad for Russia, and senior Kremlin officials have categorically ruled out ratification. In short, you can stick a fork in this deal.

: Anyway I'm interested to see this, if only to ask if the film is trying to gain
: support for a climate trade campaign, or to discredit it, by showing it as over the
: top and the threat being of an ice age, rather than global warming.

Actually, the film includes a scene in which Dennis Quaid's character explains how global warming can LEAD TO an ice age. But the film ties it all to the Quaid character's theory regarding how the Ice Age of 10,000 years ago got started. And if THAT ice age could start without man's industrial help, then it stands to reason that any ice age which starts NOW might also be unrelated to human factors.

Two things, as Peter noted, the Senate did vote overwhelmingly against. In our system, no administration has power to ratify a treaty without the advice and consent of Congress, I believe, not just the Senate. Because of this, it would not be unreasonable for an administration to consider it a lost cause.

Further, though the North Pole is losing ice, I have heard that Antarctica is expanding, giving us a recent net gain in total polar icecap volume.

: any group of countries accounting for 45% of those emissions has veto power
: over the protocol: the United States and Russia, for instance, have 53.5% between them.
I suspect you overplay Russia's influence. I would suspect their emissions are a great deal lower than the states (in fact my hunch is that the 45% threshold above is the figure for the states alone). Which is why I was so gutted that Bush pulled out of it.

: And if THAT ice age could start without man's industrial help, then it stands to
: reason that any ice age which starts NOW might also be unrelated to human factors.
It certainly does stand to reason, but in looking at the scientific evidence the vast majority of western leaders seem to think human factors are having an undue influence.


Matt

Rich Kennedy wrote:
: Further, though the North Pole is losing ice, I have heard that Antarctica is
: expanding, giving us a recent net gain in total polar icecap volume.

Really? The film's opening scene takes place on the Larsen B ice shelf in the Antarctic, and in that scene we see a huge chunk of the ice shelf break off and drift out to sea. How huge? Dennis Quaid's character describes it as bigger than Rhode Island, and lo and behold, when I Googled "larsen b ice shelf" yesterday, I came across a number of sites describing how a massive chunk of it went out to sea in 2002, and one site even said the chunk was -- wait for it -- bigger than Rhode Island.

MattPage wrote:
: I suspect you overplay Russia's influence.

That's not me, that's Colby Cosh. Since he's a newspaper columnist and not an academic who has to footnote everything, I haven't a clue where he gets his figures from.

: I would suspect their emissions are a great deal lower than the states (in fact my
: hunch is that the 45% threshold above is the figure for the states alone).

I would be VERY surprised if that were the case, since if it were, it would seem the Kyoto treaty gives the United States a veto all by itself.

: . . . in looking at the scientific evidence the vast majority of western leaders seem
: to think human factors are having an undue influence.

Like I trust the scientific opinions of "western leaders".

My point is, if nobody was to blame 10,000 years ago, then it is quite possible nobody is to blame today, but of course, politics is often all about scapegoating and playing the blame game.

Alan wrote:
: My car can crash without my help, but that doesn't mean I'm going to accelerate
: the process . . .

And no one was saying you should.

Anybody want to contribute a review to Looking Closer?

I personally have no desire to see the film, and would be grateful for a volunteer review on this one.

I'm a bit surprised that no one has commented on the NY disaster scene. From what I could tell in that 10 minute preview, the same angles and reactions that are in that scene are the same ones found another Emmerich film - Independence Day. I borrowed a friend's copy of that movie, and was not too surprised to see that it was essentially cut and pasted into Day After Tomorrow.

Anyone else notice that similarity?

For the record, I have a volunteer reviewer now.

Personally, in this chaotic time, I have a hard time finding any desire to see American cities being devastated by anything, natural or otherwise.

Wow. Just got back. What a disaster--I mean the movie, of course. Pitch-perfect special effects and visuals, but dull, preachy, flatly acted, condescending, recycled blah.

More later.

I would link to my review, but CT's website is down right now.

Anyway, the Independence Day connection -- e.g., the way we see a person in a vehicle watch in horror as a wall of fire/water sends cars flying towards him -- is something I thought about mentioning, but never got around to.

I also toyed with the idea of making a closer comparison between this film and The Core, saying something to the effect that I actually cared about the characters in that film because it had moments of genuine drama and humour no matter how ridiculous or mediocre the film as a whole might have been, but I didn't; I settled instead for making an observation to the effect that disaster movies post-September 11 have been explicitly agnostic, if not atheistic, whereas the disaster movies of the '90s tended to make significant (albeit superficial) use of religious symbolism (the crucifix in Daylight, the 'Messiah' in Deep Impact, the rotor-blade haloes in Armaggedon, etc.).

BTW, re my "spectacle of consumption" line a few posts back, my favorite opening paragraph of any review I have seen so far is this one, from the National Post's Chris Knight:

Finally, a summer disaster movie where you are the villain! Did you drive to the theatre? Do you have air conditioning? Did your popcorn come in a non-biodegradable container? J'Accuse!

my review

Gyllenhaal Admits Diva Antics

Hollywood heart-throb Jake Gyllenhaal has admitted to unlikely diva behavior on the set of his latest film The Day After Tomorrow. The Donnie Darko actor, 23, loved starring in the big-budget disaster movie, but on several occasions refused to say some of the lines in the script and suggested new ones. Gyllenhaal says, "There were a couple of instances where I said, 'No way am I saying that line!' and they rewrote it.' There won't be any subtitle saying, 'Sorry, these guys don't sound like real human beings, but they just didn't have the balls to say the dialogue sucked." And Gyllenhaal knows more about screenwriting than most actors - his mother Naomi Foner is a writer. Gyllenhaal continues, "Coming from a family where my mom is a writer, I just respond to how people speak. I thrive on the process of getting this stuff right. It drove them crazy, but it was fun. You have to entertain yourself when you're spending seven months in Montreal."

I'll reserve any comment. There's really way too much comedic material in that paragraph to make it fair.

Too bad he wasn't so discriminating in The Good Girl.

I just got tired of all the characters who existed just to say, "That can't be possible-what are you really saying?" or "what do you mean?" or "so what you are saying is..." to Quaid so his character could expound on the plot and remind us what was happening. Cuz apparently we might forget.

This was the Left Behind of mainstream movies.

Ebert gives it THREE STARS.

He liked the effects.

Do reviewers burn out like directors do?

When it comes to action/adventure movies, Ebert's judgment holds no water. He gave Van Helsing and the first two Harry Potter flicks better ratings than The Fellowship of the Ring.

Just a qiuck question... During the destruction of Los Angeles, and all the "live" media coverage of the event... was I the only person longing to hear Les Nesman's WKRP Tornado Alert? You know, the emergency alert Les originally prepared for use if the Communists attacked, but wherever the word "communist" appeared he substituted the word "tornado". I kept watching the scene in "The Day After Tomorrow" hoping to hear those immortal words... "Stand up Los Angeles and fight!! Fight these Godless Tornadoes!!

I have known that Ebert has a screw loose when it comes to reviewing action movies ever since he gave Speed 2: Cruise Control three-and-a-half stars. It was only afterwards that I discovered he liked Die Hard 2 better than the original Die Hard.

Nezpop wrote:
: This was the Left Behind of mainstream movies.

Nah, I still say Signs has a better claim to that title.

I actually found Signs far less annoying in the area of preachy dialogue.

If I ever write a script like the Day After Tomorrow, I will have to shoot myself.

Ah, in terms of preachiness, yes, you may have a point. I was thinking more in terms of the general dramatic style of the film. But Signs does get preachy, too.

And now this from the BBC:

Planet Earth dims then brightens

A study of sunlight bounced between the Earth and the Moon shows that during the 80s and 90s the Earth reflected less of our star's light out into space

...

The scientists say that the warming effect of the apparent change in the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface in the two decades is greater than the effect of greenhouse gas warming since 1850.

PTC wrote

Just saw this last night. I must admit I had fairly low expectations, which might be why I came out saying it was quite good. Well better than I was expecting anyhow.

On the plus side, I thought the visuals were really good. To say the whole film was practically CGI, there were only a few bits where it didn't work (that said I'm not too hot on this stuff - the trailer for Troy impressed me!). And the scenes at the Artic had pretty stunning skylines etc.

On the down side most of what has been said above about covers it. Except no-one mentioned the wolves. At that point I wanted to stand up and shout oh come on (but didn't mainly cos we all knew an hour before that it was going to happen). Ditto the little ill kid - oh will he survive, against all odds?



There were two things I thought were particularly interesting about this compared to Independence Day. Firstly, Peter mentioned something on this, but I thought I'd expand. This film had a much less pro-America stance than Independence Day. I mean there you guys must have cowered with embarrassment at some of that stuff. But aside from the whole "all the world will take on Independence Day" thing you also had the President being the main hero, saving the day, and being generally a dream president, and an America saves the world theme. It was meant to be a coalition of the world thing but really the US did all the major bits and everyone else tagged along to slapp them on the back and say "Tally Bally ho, the Yanks have saved the world - jolly good chaps" (or whatever horrible piece of dialogue it is that the terribly stereotyped Englishman comes out with)

In this being American is much less of a good thing. Firstly the scale of the destruction is far greater, secondly the (Vice)-President (who effectively is the President for all intents and purposes - he makes all the decisions and ends the film as the president), is the film's villain - ignoring our hero's advice at almost every turn. Finally the majority of the people are seen to be cast in the same mould. So when it comes to whether to leave the library or not, mst spurn good advice and follow the voice of authority - to their deaths. ANd of course there's a real dependency of the American people on Mexico, even if there's initially a bit of a side swipe.


The other thing I wanted to mention is the environmental macguffin. Its really not the message of the film IMHO, so I'm a bit confused by accusations of preachiness. Essentially, global warming is changed from being something that is arguably man made, generally agreed to be man aided, to being something that is more akin to an Alien invasion from nowhere - i.e. Independence Day. Thats quite a mutation.

If the film had been adressing the actual situation it should have had more in common with the type of Alien film where there has been a history of animosity between 'them and us' resulting in a potential conflict, which may or may not be avoidable. By distorting the situation in this way it leaves it with little to say re. the environmental arguments, and by ending on a clear sunny day & a bland "let's all love each other" speech the film ultimately sweeps the disaster under the carpet. Actually while I'm thinking I'm sure it also dwells on the characters that ultimately get killed her a whole lot less. Once the lights go out on Ian Holm that's the last we see or hear of them.

Anyway that's some of what I'm thinking.

Matt

MattPage wrote:
: Finally the majority of the people are seen to be cast in the same mould. So when
: it comes to whether to leave the library or not, mst spurn good advice and follow
: the voice of authority - to their deaths.

Yes, I remember thinking that too -- it kinda fits in with what that critic said about this being a disaster film in which the villain is you. The film seems to criticize the average person for having a sheep-following-the-shepherd mentality, yet it is EXACTLY that mentality that blockbuster marketing teams try to encourage, to get millions of bums into seats at the theatre.

That scene was very similar to the scene in The Poseidon Adventure when Gene Hackman tries to convince everyone to try his route rather than follow the priest (to their deaths).

William Hyde critiques this movie's climatology.

I cried during this movie when all the people came out on top of the buildings in the end and the inspirational music started. Beat that.

Well, at least you show some courage in admitting it. At least it was miles ahead of the awful Independence Day, the only other film of Emmerich's I have seen.

Awful? Awful? I can't believe you think it was awful?

Awful? Really?



You think it was as good as that?

(b'dum tsch)


Matt

The movie whas ok, not a super movie But it gets 3 out of 5 Soundfreak Stars!!

Sure it was a bad movie... but it wasn't so bad that I would do the following after watching it...