The Day After Tomorrow...

[teke184 0]

'Day After' and $200 Million Short

 

The press was banned from the after-party for Roland

Emmerich's "The Day After Tomorrow" last night — a bad

sign, and a sure sign that the movie was no good.

 

Even this reporter, who gets his paycheck from the

same company which made the film, 20th Century Fox,

was unceremoniously booted from the Museum of Natural

History as everyone else who'd endured the

two-hour-plus ordeal filed by for the free food and

cocktails.

 

A publicist for Fox — who bragged about my expulsion

later to paparazzi — actually said to me, "It sounds

like you're going to blackmail us. If you don't get

into the party, you'll say the movie was bad."

 

Ah, well: No amount of edible swag could save "The Day

After Tomorrow," a $200 million disaster film that is

quite the disaster, indeed. (Although, let's face it,

a shrimp and a diet Coke couldn't have hurt at that

point.)

 

Hilariously awful in most places, with an incoherent

script and questionable acting, "Day After" will come

on Friday and the question will be: Can innumerable,

mind-numbing special effects, nearly all of them

created on a computer and placed in what can only be

called a random order, overcome sheer inanity?

 

It's not like I'm a snob, either. I count Emmerich's

"Independence Day" — or "ID4" as it became known — as

one of my favorite films. But "ID4" had a strong

script with, well, developed characters.

 

Bill Pullman and Will Smith, not to mention Mary

McDonnell, Jeff Goldblum, Vivica A. Fox and Margaret

Colin, made the otherwise preposterous story of aliens

invading Earth seem plausible. They each had a

tremendous nobility and spoke with wit and

intelligence, and there was a feeling of a common

threat and an equally shared goal.

 

None of this, not one bit of it, is evident in "The

Day After Tomorrow." This fish stinks from the head

down, the head in this case being Emmerich's president

(Perry King) and vice president (Kenneth Welsh).

 

Unlike Pullman in "ID4," this president is a bumbling

idiot, a puppet manipulated by his evil,

self-motivated vice president. I guess this is

supposed to be a clever reference, but it backfires

instead, disarming the film and undermining it

critically.

 

You see, when America is imperiled in a disaster film,

it's the president to whom we turn as the moral

compass. The hero — in this case, a poorly conceived

one played by Dennis Quaid — can have all the

adventures, but he must report ultimately to a fair

and wise leader.

 

For example: If Batman walked in on Commissioner

Gordon taking a bribe, all hope would be lost. That's

what happens in "Day."

 

Quaid's storyline doesn't help matters. His Jack Hall

is a "climatologist" who knows that global warming may

catalyze a new ice age. When tornados hit Hollywood

and start ripping up other cities instantaneously, he

still lets his moody high-school-age son (Jake

Gyllenhaal) go to New York on a school outing.

 

After the son leaves, and Quaid realizes that the

world may be ending, he decides that in order to bond

with the boy he will brave the calamitous floods,

blizzards, hurricanes and tidal waves bearing down on

the Northeast corridor and walk — yes, walk, if he

must — from Washington, D.C. to Manhattan just to show

the boy he cares, he really, really cares.

 

His trek replaces Diane Keaton's walk through the

snowy Russian woods in "Reds" as the most

ill-conceived hike in movie history.

 

For some reasons that are unexplained, Quaid takes

with him on this quest two buddies who you know will

not make it. This is supposed to be noble just because

it's noble.

 

Do these men have families of their own? Do they owe

Quaid's character some debt? The answer to each of

these questions is: We never know.

 

Is Jack's son either perilously young or terminally

ill? No, and no. He is fully grown and able to take

care of himself, or at least wait until the

catastrophe passes to be reunited with dear old dad.

 

The rest of "Day After" is simply a rehash of past

triumphs. The special effects are clearly from the

Emmerich school: lots of stopped traffic, yellow cabs'

horns honking furiously, crowds running in all

directions from the oncoming horror of meteor-sized

hail.

 

You've seen it before in "ID4" and "Godzilla." Whole

cities are demolished and flood waters rise to the

tops of buildings while the main characters fret that

"things are getting really bad out there."

 

You'd think when the sea level rises to the chin of

the Statue of Liberty people would be smart enough to

evacuate themselves, if they are not already dead. But

there's no logic at work here.

 

There's also a peculiar insensitivity, I think, to

those of us who lived through September 11.

 

In "Day After," downtown New York, in an aerial view,

is flooded with water and then snow. The whole thing

resembles the billowing smoke that poured between the

canyons of buildings on that horrible day from real

life. Later, survivors are seen waving from rooftops

of buildings, a grisly reminder of the tragic souls

who made that mistake at the World Trade Center hoping

for safety.

 

New Yorkers do not need to see our city in this

condition, whether or not it's fantasy. I'd rather fly

on the wings of soaring birds with Harry Potter than

relive those grim images as entertainment.

 

The premiere last night, by the way, was preceded by a

"red carpet" of fake snow which Fox sprinkled on the

steps of the Museum of Natural History. The guests

included Quaid, Gyllenhaal (along with his famous

sister Maggie and their parents, plus the younger

Gyllenhaals' respective beaux: Kirsten Dunst and Peter

Sarsgaard), the lovely Sela Ward (she plays Quaid's

wife, the Mary McDonnell role), Michele Lee (who came

with "Good Morning America" film critic Joel Siegel),

plus Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins, and Julianne

Moore and Bart Freundlich.

 

I was told by an off-duty member of the NYPD that

there were three security teams employed by Fox in

addition to the police.

 

"And it's not like there are any really big stars

here," observed the very nice cop, who wore a 9/11 pin

on his lapel.

 

Then he changed his mind. "Don't let Dennis Quaid hear

me saying that."

 

 

This didn't look too promising BEFORE I found this, so I can imagine what the reviews will look like on Friday morning. Have Ebert and Roper ever given any film one finger up before?

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Source? Not that I disagree with you, but I would like to mention this elsewhere and need the reference.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Ebert HATED ID4, which is from the same guy doing this film -- I can't wait for this review...

[teke184 0]

The writer's name is Roger Friedman and the article was originally from the Fox 411 e-mail column, which is a part of the Fox News site.

 

I can forward the article to you if you need it, but the text of it is already posted here.

[Guest MikeSC]

Source? Not that I disagree with you, but I would like to mention this elsewhere and need the reference.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120825,00.html

-=Mike

...Yeah, the events in the movie could occur --- provided that the Earth, you know, stop rotating and all...

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Ebert HATED ID4, which is from the same guy doing this film -- I can't wait for this review...

He didn't hate ID4, he merely disliked it. He liked the first act, but felt they brought in too many characters, not all of which that worked, and that it got too goofy at the end. Very valid arguments that I agree with, even though I think he placed too much emphasis on it (I like the film). He gave it **1/2 which makes for a thumbs down, but not significantly so.

 

He did hate Godzilla and disliked Stargate too though.

 

EDIT: Thanks, teke and Mike. That was what I was looking for.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I loved in ID4 that scene with the black chick stuck in the tunnel. She kicks open a side door and goes in it, and the fire goes RIGHT PAST HER.

 

Even though I loathe science, I had to laugh at that one.

 

EDIT:

 

He didn't hate ID4, he merely disliked it.

 

I stand corrected. Odd, I thought he trashed that film (Just did an Ebert search and he gave it a few stars...)

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

I stand corrected. Odd, I thought he trashed that film (Just did an Ebert search and he gave it a few stars...)

 

Back when it came out he and Siskel gave two thumbs down, but were forced into seeing and reviewing it again on their show about two weeks later. They were considerably annoyed by this and trashed it quite a bit on that show.

[razazteca 0]

What is the deal with Jake Gyllenhaal? Is he suppose to be the chosen one of the summer movie season? He might be good in dramas but in a disaster movie he does not make a good hero!

[Guest MikeSC]

Ebert HATED ID4, which is from the same guy doing this film -- I can't wait for this review...

He didn't hate ID4, he merely disliked it. He liked the first act, but felt they brought in too many characters, not all of which that worked, and that it got too goofy at the end. Very valid arguments that I agree with, even though I think he placed too much emphasis on it (I like the film). He gave it **1/2 which makes for a thumbs down, but not significantly so.

 

He did hate Godzilla and disliked Stargate too though.

To be technical, since Ebert uses a **** scale, a **1/2 would BARELY be a thumb up.

 

Now, as for a film he hated, his views on "Spice World" (because, for his faults, nobody does a negative review quite like Ebert):

 

"The Spice Girls are easier to tell apart than the Mutant Ninja Turtles, but that is small consolation: What can you say about five women whose principal distinguishing characteristic is that they have different names?

 

They occupy ``Spice World'' as if they were watching it: They're so detached they can't even successfully lip-synch their own songs. During a rehearsal scene, their director tells them, with such truth that we may be hearing a secret message from the screenwriter, ``That was absolutely perfect--without being actually any good.''"

 

"All of these elements are inspired in one way or another by ``A Hard Day's Night.'' The huge difference, of course, is that the Beatles were talented--while, let's face it, the Spice Girls could be duplicated by any five women under the age of 30 standing in line at Dunkin' Donuts"

-=Mike

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

To be technical, since Ebert uses a **** scale, a **1/2 would BARELY be a thumb up.

 

Normally, but the way Ebert uses it *** is thumbs up, **1/2 is thumbs down.

 

My favourite Ebert review was of Concorde - Airport 79. Anybody who has read this in I Hated, Hated, Hated This Movie will know what I am talking about.

[Guest OctoberBlood]

Blah blah blah.

 

I liked Armageddon and ID (along with most of his other movies for that matter). They weren't and aren't great movies, but I liked them for what they are. I expect Day After to be in that same boat. Simple, mindless sci-fi diversion. Fun and enjoyable. We'll see. Comes out friday.

[Guest MikeSC]

To be technical, since Ebert uses a **** scale, a **1/2 would BARELY be a thumb up.

 

Normally, but the way Ebert uses it *** is thumbs up, **1/2 is thumbs down.

 

My favourite Ebert review was of Concorde - Airport 79. Anybody who has read this in I Hated, Hated, Hated This Movie will know what I am talking about.

I loved his review of "The Jackal" primarily for this one little snippet:

There was never a moment in ``The Jackal'' where I had the slightest confidence in the expertise of the characters. The Jackal strikes me as the kind of overachiever who, assigned to kill a mosquito, would purchase contraband insecticides from Iraq and bring them into the United States by hot air balloon, distilling his drinking water from clouds and shooting birds for food.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Blah blah blah.

 

I liked Armageddon and ID (along with most of his other movies for that matter). They weren't and aren't great movies, but I liked them for what they are. I expect Day After to be in that same boat. Simple, mindless sci-fi diversion. Fun and enjoyable. We'll see. Comes out friday.

THING IS, some people *coughAlGorecough* are trying to use this to "spur a discussion" and advance an agenda.

 

Using a likely bad movie (disaster movies seldom are good) with embarrassingly weak science as a political tool is only going to generate a backlash. Heck, the borderline psychotic Art Bell LOVES it.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Greatest scene in Armageddon was when Bruce Willis was hitting those protestors with golf balls...

[Guest OctoberBlood]

Blah blah blah.

 

I liked Armageddon and ID (along with most of his other movies for that matter). They weren't and aren't great movies, but I liked them for what they are. I expect Day After to be in that same boat. Simple, mindless sci-fi diversion. Fun and enjoyable. We'll see. Comes out friday.

THING IS, some people *coughAlGorecough* are trying to use this to "spur a discussion" and advance an agenda.

 

Using a likely bad movie (disaster movies seldom are good) with embarrassingly weak science as a political tool is only going to generate a backlash. Heck, the borderline psychotic Art Bell LOVES it.

-=Mike

Who the fuck cares about Al Gore and his wet dreams?

 

What people do with movies does not factor in my opinion of liking or disliking it.

[Ravenbomb 0]

Best Ebert quote ever:

I hated this movie. Hated hated hated hated hated this movie. Hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it. Hated the sensibility that thought anyone would like it. Hated the implied insult to the audience by its belief that anyone would be entertained by it.

I think he liked it

[NYU 0]

There's also a peculiar insensitivity, I think, to

those of us who lived through September 11.

 

In "Day After," downtown New York, in an aerial view,

is flooded with water and then snow. The whole thing

resembles the billowing smoke that poured between the

canyons of buildings on that horrible day from real

life. Later, survivors are seen waving from rooftops

of buildings, a grisly reminder of the tragic souls

who made that mistake at the World Trade Center hoping

for safety.

 

New Yorkers do not need to see our city in this

condition, whether or not it's fantasy. I'd rather fly

on the wings of soaring birds with Harry Potter than

relive those grim images as entertainment.

*sigh*

 

Enough already. I'm tired of this viewpoint. As someone that has lived in New York City my entire life, I wholeheartedly agree that 9/11 was the worst event I've ever had to experience.

 

But stop with the oversensitivity already.

 

There are virtually no similiarities between global warming and hijacked planes crashing into a building. A building collapsing into a pile of smoke and mangled steel......is largely different than the Statue of Liberty being enveloped in a pile of ice. The one thing that IS alike - people are in danger. But then again, *gasp*, that is the main plotline of any action movie.

 

If there was a movie about Arab terrorists hijacking planes on destination to New York, then I would obviously agree that it's an inappropriate movie. But at this point, these comments about the supposed insensitivity are just invalid. At this pace, there can never be any action movie set in New York City again. And, if there are, God help the director if something gets knocked down or a New Yorker is in trouble.

 

I doubt the writer of this article even felt any outrage over the "similiarities" between the two events. He just wanted to find something else to back up his opinion that the movie wasn't very good, and felt that bringing up 9/11 for his own personal gain was as good an excuse as any to keep people away from seeing the movie. If this theory is true, then that's pathetically sad. But if the other idea is true, and he really DOES believe that people at this time can't handle a disaster movie set in New York - with almost no correlation between this movie and the events of 9/11 - then that may just be even sadder.

[Guest NaturalBornThriller4:20]

When did people start going to see disaster films for the acting ? Who gives a crap what type of performance Jake Gfemfornrdogttght gives. It's all about the special effects, people. A mindless, enjoyable, big-budget, summer blockbuster. Get that through your heads...

 

Why did this critic even bring up 9/11 ? It's pathetic, he's obviously reaching. Can't really find a good reason to dislike the movie.

[2GOLD 0]

So, what they are saying is a movie about the Earth going ape is filled with unrealistic acting and a nonsense plot?

 

No kidding!

 

As for the New York thing, I think you can get away with destroying the city if you are considered a good and successful movie. Like say, "Spiderman" which did destroy a small amount of the city. If you are a bad movie that is full of nonsense then no dice.

[Exslade ZX 0]

*Raises hand*

 

I for one would have liked to see good acting...

 

When I first saw the commercials, just like a lot of other people I thought the first look was great. The special effects that were seen were awesome. THEN, I saw the 'special preview' I think it's called, the 15 minute one, that gave teh plot of the movie, and it definitely didn't look that good to me. Especially when I realize that all the disaster stuff that attracted me, wouldn't even last that long, because a short while in, it would eventually become "ice aged". Our movies unlike most people are only 2$ so I might go see it, but now, I defnitely won't be expecting much out of it.

[NYU 0]

Well, Spider-Man is a different animal in the fact that the movie is so unrealistic by nature. People consider a disaster movie about a flood - which, as impossible as it might seem now, could actually happen - much differently than a movie about a superhero called Spider-Man and his evil nemesis the Green Goblin.

 

Also keep in mind that many of the stuff destroyed in Spider-Man were fictional New York City landmarks. The building that the Green Goblin bombed during the festival was fictional, as well as Aunt May's house and the office of the Daily Bugle. Besides the scene on the bridge, in which nothing was really destroyed, and the scene in Times Square, there wasn't much else done to damage New York City. This is in contrast to the buildings, and specifically the Statue of Liberty, that are being focused on in "The Day After Tomorrow."

 

I don't think the Spider-Man mention works too well in this context, simply because its NYC landmarks weren't as geographically and factually correct as they might be in "The Day After Tomorrow." I also don't feel the varying acceptances of destroying New York City is based on how enjoyable a movie is. It pretty much comes down to how overly sensitive people are about the issue, and possibly how they might stretch the truth to prove their own biases and opinions are correct. I really feel the author of this article exploited 9/11, searching for similarities between water & ice flooding the city and buildings collapsing from a terrorist attack, for his own personal gain. And if he didn't, it's time to let go of the idea that any movie depicting New York City in any sort of danger immediately draws parallels to 9/11.

[teke184 0]

I'm unfortunate enough to be watching the CliffNotes version of this POS on FX right now... I wish the goddamn thing would end so I could watch The Shield.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Disaster movies almost always suck. The best one I've ever seen was Twister and that wasn't really trying to be a "The whole Nation (or in some cases the whole planet) will be flattened" type deals.

[spiny norman 0]

Bah, Airplane is the greatest disaster movie ever, everyone knows it.

[cabbageboy 0]

The 70s disaster movies were pretty cool (Airport, Poseidon Adventure, Towering Inferno). I'd have to say Airport is probably the best of those.

 

Anyway, Day After Tomorrow looks like it will suck from the previews. Never a good sign when the closest thing to a draw the movie has is Dennis Quaid, and I'm not going to RUSH to the theater to see him. Poor guy is likely to have 2 mega turds this year, this movie and the Alamo.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Disaster movies almost always suck.  The best one I've ever seen was Twister and that wasn't really trying to be a "The whole Nation (or in some cases the whole planet) will be flattened" type deals.

The problem with most of the recent ones is that they mess with the formula. Instead of having a disaster and then weeding out the characters until a handful are left at the end, they usually try to form some sort of agenda. Man should not mess with nature. That sort of thing.

 

Oddly enough, my favourite disaster movie, Jurassic Park, is of that type, but Spielberg had a much greater vision than most of those that followed him. It was also a good thing that he didn't villify Hammond too. That is the one difference from the book that I prefer the movie verision.

[Guest Ram]

I'm a fan of disaster movies so I have to see this. Heck, I even liked The Core for some reason.

[Vyce 0]

I loved in ID4 that scene with the black chick stuck in the tunnel. She kicks open a side door and goes in it, and the fire goes RIGHT PAST HER.

 

Even though I loathe science, I had to laugh at that one.

 

EDIT:

 

He didn't hate ID4, he merely disliked it.

 

I stand corrected. Odd, I thought he trashed that film (Just did an Ebert search and he gave it a few stars...)

That's not my favorite part of that scene.

 

It's the part where the director focuses on their dog - will the dog make it to safety, or will he perish in the fire?! The drama!

 

Of course, while the focus is on the dog, they're conveniently neglecting the dozens of HUMAN BEINGS who are turning into man-flavored bacon.

 

But hey - the dog came out okay.

[Vyce 0]

Blah blah blah.

 

I liked Armageddon and ID (along with most of his other movies for that matter). They weren't and aren't great movies, but I liked them for what they are. I expect Day After to be in that same boat. Simple, mindless sci-fi diversion. Fun and enjoyable. We'll see. Comes out friday.

THING IS, some people *coughAlGorecough* are trying to use this to "spur a discussion" and advance an agenda.

 

Using a likely bad movie (disaster movies seldom are good) with embarrassingly weak science as a political tool is only going to generate a backlash. Heck, the borderline psychotic Art Bell LOVES it.

-=Mike

I saw that and couldn't believe it.

 

It was just so mind-numbingly idiotic.

 

"Well.....this movie is a complete work of fiction, mind you......But President Bush's environmental policies are so horrendous that something like this could happen one day!"

 

Dear Lord, give me strength.