Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ebert: THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW / ***
Chicago Sun-Times ^ | 05/28/04 | Roger Ebert

Posted on 05/28/2004 5:02:53 AM PDT by Monty22

It is such a relief to hear the music swell up at the end of a Roland Emmerich movie, its restorative power giving us new hope. Billions of people may have died, but at least the major characters have survived. Los Angeles was wiped out by flying saucers in Emmerich's "Independence Day," New York was assaulted in his "Godzilla," and now, in "The Day After Tomorrow," Emmerich outdoes himself: Los Angeles is leveled by multiple tornados, New York is buried under ice and snow, the United Kingdom is flash-frozen, and lots of the Northern Hemisphere is wiped out for good measure. Thank god that Jack, Sam, Laura, Jason and Dr. Lucy Hall survive, along with Dr. Hall's little cancer patient.

So, yes, the movie is profoundly silly. What surprised me is that it's also very scary. The special effects are on such an awesome scale that the movie works despite its cornball plotting. When tornados rip apart Los Angeles (not sparing the Hollywood sign), when a wall of water roars into New York, when a Russian tanker floats down a Manhattan street, when snow buries skyscrapers, when the crew of a space station can see nothing but violent storm systems -- well, you pay attention.

No doubt some readers are already angry with me for revealing that Jack, Sam, Laura, Jason, Dr. Lucy Hall and the little cancer patient survive. Have I given away the plot? This plot gives itself away. When cataclysmic events shred uncounted lives but the movie zeroes in on only a few people, of course they survive, although some supporting characters may have to be sacrificed. What's amusing in movies like "The Day After Tomorrow" is the way the screenplay veers from the annihilation of subcontinents to whether Sam should tell Laura he loves her.

The movie stars Dennis Quaid as the paleoclimatologist Jack Hall, whose computer models predict that global warming will lead to a new ice age. He issues a warning at a New Delhi conference, but is sarcastically dismissed by the American vice president (Kenneth Welsh), who the movie doesn't even try to pretend doesn't look just like Dick Cheney. "Our economy is every bit as fragile as the environment," the vice president says, dismissing Jack's "sensational claims."

Before long, however, it is snowing in India, and hailstones the side of softballs are ripping into Tokyo. Birds, which are always wise in matters of global disaster, fly south double-time. Turbulence tears airplanes from the sky. The president (Perry King) learns the FAA wants to ground all flights and asks the vice president, "What do you think we should do?"

Meanwhile, young Sam Hall (Jake Gyllenhaal) goes to New York with an academic decathlon team, which includes Laura (Emmy Rossum of "Mystic River") and Brian (Arjay Smith). They're stranded there. Ominous portents abound and Jack finally gets his message through to the administration ("This time," says a friend within the White House, "it will be different. You've got to brief the president directly.")

Jack draws a slash across a map of the United States, and writes off everybody north of it. He issues a warning that super-cooled air will kill anybody exposed to it, advises those in its path to stay inside, and then ... well, then he sets off to walk from Washington to New York to get to his son. Two of his buddies, also veterans of Arctic treks, come along.

We are wondering (a) why walk to New York when his expertise is desperately needed to save millions? (b) won't his son be either dead or alive whether or not he makes the trek? And (c) how quickly can you walk from Washington to New York over ice sheets and through a howling blizzard? As nearly as I can calculate, this movie believes it can be done in two nights and most of three days. Oh, I forgot; they drive part of the way, on highways that are gridlocked and buried in snow, except for where they're driving. How they get gas is not discussed in any detail.

As for the answer to (a), anyone familiar with the formula will know it is because he Feels Guilty About Neglecting His Son by spending all that time being a paleoclimatologist. It took him a lot of that time just to spell it. So, OK, the human subplots are nonsense -- all except for the quiet scenes anchored by Ian Holm, as a sad, wise Scottish meteorologist. Just like Peter O'Toole in "Troy," Holm proves that a gifted British-trained actor can walk into almost any scene and make it seem like it means something.

Quaid and Gyllenhaal and the small band of New York survivors do what can be done with impossible dialogue in an unlikely situation. And Dr. Lucy Hall (Sela Ward), Jack's wife and Sam's mother, struggles nobly in her subplot, which involves the little cancer patient named Peter. She stays by his side after the hospital is evacuated, calling for an ambulance, which we think is a tad optimistic, since Manhattan has been flooded up to about the eighth floor, the water has frozen, and it's snowing. But does the ambulance arrive? Here's another one for you: Remember those wolves that escaped from the zoo? Think we'll see them again?

Of the science in this movie I have no opinion. I am sure global warming is real, and I regret that the Bush administration rejected the Kyoto Treaty, but I doubt that the cataclysm, if it comes, will come like this. It makes for a fun movie, though. Especially the parts where Americans become illegal immigrants in Mexico, and the vice president addresses the world via the Weather Channel. "The Day After Tomorrow" is ridiculous, yes, but sublimely ridiculous -- and the special effects are stupendous.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Political Humor/Cartoons
KEYWORDS: day; dayaftertomorrow; ebert; goofiness; kyoto; moviereview; tomorrow
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last
Odd how he claims to have no opinion, then also manages to blast Cheney and pine about Kyoto. Ebert's truly lost it.
1 posted on 05/28/2004 5:02:54 AM PDT by Monty22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Monty22; hchutch

He tried to do a puff-piece on a piece of crap. It didn't work.


2 posted on 05/28/2004 5:07:33 AM PDT by Poohbah (Four thousand throats may be cut in a single night by a running man -- Kahless the Unforgettable)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Monty22

As long as I can remember, Ebert has always been a liberal girly-man. He just got to where he is too fat to fit in that closet any longer.


3 posted on 05/28/2004 5:10:22 AM PDT by capt. norm (Rap is to music what the Etch-A-Sketch is to art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: capt. norm

He never used to be so overtly political though. Since Siskel died and gore lost he's really been out there.


4 posted on 05/28/2004 5:12:19 AM PDT by Monty22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Monty22

My biggest question for Roger is: Are you doing, Atkins, South Beach, or Jenny Craig diet. He has lost weight, but has jowls heavier than Nixon's.


5 posted on 05/28/2004 5:16:03 AM PDT by GreyFriar (3rd Armored Division -- Spearhead)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Monty22

Roger was one of the most obnoxious Bush-haters during the 2000 election.


6 posted on 05/28/2004 5:21:51 AM PDT by Loyal Buckeye ((Kerry is a flake))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah

Say rather, that it's a puff piece on a hit piece.

Besides, Harry Potter III premieres next week...


7 posted on 05/28/2004 5:23:41 AM PDT by Old Sarge (It's not Bush's fault - It's THE MEDIA'S fault!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Monty22
Of the science in this movie I have no opinion.

Is there science in this movie?

8 posted on 05/28/2004 5:25:30 AM PDT by Cincinatus (Omnia relinquit servare Republicam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Monty22

I saved another $8.00 dollars I wont be wasting money on this one either.


9 posted on 05/28/2004 5:31:36 AM PDT by sgtbono2002 (I aint wrong, I aint sorry , and I am probably going to do it again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Monty22
Summary of Ebert's review: If you have an irrational hate of Dick Cheney, are gullible to fearmongering and don't let actual facts get in the way then...

... this is the movie for you!

10 posted on 05/28/2004 5:32:03 AM PDT by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Monty22
Not surprisingly, today's Houston Chronicle movie review gave it a B. Earlier, they gave The Passion of Christ an F.

You see, it's the message that counts.

11 posted on 05/28/2004 5:33:49 AM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Monty22
The movie stars Dennis Quaid as the paleoclimatologist Jack Hall, whose computer models predict that global warming will lead to a new ice age.

Ummmm, wouldnt warming kind of, well, er....I mean, isnt an ice age, er, cold? Uhhh, hmmmm, well, I am no scientist, but, ah screw it...JFK

12 posted on 05/28/2004 5:35:16 AM PDT by BADROTOFINGER (Life sucks. Get a helmet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Monty22
Quaid and Gyllenhaal and the small band of New York survivors do what can be done with impossible dialogue in an unlikely situation.

Let's try that one again, shall we?

"Quaid and Gyllenhaal and the small band of New York survivors do what can be done with unlikely dialogue in an impossible situation."

There, that's much better. I guess no one should tell Ebert that the idiotic countries who have indoor plumbing and accepted the Kyoto Treaty are also completely failing the Kyoto emissions' standards.

13 posted on 05/28/2004 5:37:30 AM PDT by Future Snake Eater ("Oh boy, I can't wait to eat that monkey!"--Abe Simpson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Monty22
Hmm. Even the liberal Boston Globe sh$t all over this movie in this morning's review. I guess fatboy must've gotten his signals crossed.
14 posted on 05/28/2004 5:39:40 AM PDT by 54-46 Was My Number
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Monty22

I like the quote (sorry I forget who said it) "this movie is to global warming what Hogan's Heros was to life as a POW."


15 posted on 05/28/2004 5:43:50 AM PDT by Aeronaut (Why be a politician when it is so cheap to rent one on those rare occasions that you need one?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 54-46 Was My Number

16 posted on 05/28/2004 5:44:03 AM PDT by bmwcyle (<a href="http://www.johnkerry.com/" target="_blank">miserable failure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Monty22
He never used to be so overtly political though.

At the very least in never skewered his movie judgement until now.

17 posted on 05/28/2004 5:46:49 AM PDT by Semper Paratus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BADROTOFINGER
whose computer models predict that global warming will lead to a new ice age.

The environazi's who push this theory see no problem. After, all, computer models, if tweaked properly, can predict anything you want them to predict. And in this scenario, no one can ever prove them to be wrong. If the climate gets a little warmer, then it is the global warming. If it gets a little cooler, it is the beginning of the ice age. And, if it stays about the same, it is the transition.

So this particular scenario works very well for watermelon enviromentalists (red on the inside, green on the outside). It can never be proved wrong, allows for all the worst scary scenarios of both global warming and a coming ice age, calls for more and more funding from the federal government for "research" and immediate controls over all aspects of human existence to "prevent" the "disaster".

Perfect.

18 posted on 05/28/2004 6:00:16 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Can they sneak in gun banning to the global warming agenda somehow?


19 posted on 05/28/2004 6:01:46 AM PDT by Monty22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Monty22
Can they sneak in gun banning to the global warming agenda somehow?

Of course. All those nasty hot sulfur gases escaping in uncontrolled explosions of the shells and all. We need catalytic converters on the end of all gun barrels immediately. Uh, no wait, those would also be known as silencers. Nevermind.

20 posted on 05/28/2004 7:04:12 AM PDT by kylaka (The Clintons are the democRATS crack cocaine. They know they're bad for them, they just can't stop.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson