The Day After Tomorrow (2004) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
1,368 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
Spectacular special effects, uneven film
TheLittleSongbird29 November 2009
The Day After Tomorrow is not a bad movie by all means. In fact, it's an uneven but decent film. The film does start off absolutely brilliantly, with a wonderful idea for a story and truly spectacular special effects. As a matter of fact, the whole film is well worth watching for the special effects alone. The acting is not too bad; Jake Gyllanhaal is rather bland, but Dennis Quaid is a superb lead. Plus Emmy Rosum looks positively radiant and Ian Holm is as reliable as ever. The direction from Roland Emmerich was surprisingly good, there have been times when I have found his direction too murky and unfocused, but no it was above decent here.

However, the second half isn't as impressive. Whereas the first half is very like a typical disaster movie, the second half for me as it focused on the rescue mission felt more of a thriller. The screenplay in general could have done with more precision and focus too, there is good interplay sometimes but on the whole I found the screenplay and some of the characters underdeveloped. My main problem though with The Day After Tomorrow was the pace, for my liking it was too leisurely and too stodgy.

All in all, uneven it is but it is a decent disaster movie. The first half I can watch again and again, but the second half for me was a bit of a letdown. 7/10 Bethany Cox
23 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
One of the last great disaster flicks
NateWatchesCoolMovies29 December 2017
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.
23 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Excellent catastrophe movie by the great director Roland Emmerich
ma-cortes16 June 2004
The film deals about ice melting of the Arctic created by global weather change of the hole ozone. The movie is impressive , New York's flood is overwhelming .

The plot summary centers in Dennis Quaid a climatologist who predicts disaster and he goes to looking for his son Jake Gyllenheal to New York staying all the way freezing cool fighting against amount dangers because middle United States are frozen. The F.X. of computer generator are first rate , better than the classics 7o and 80 :"earthquake", "Inferno towering" and likeness to "Volcano" or "Armaguedon". Thrilling screenplay dispenses absurd excitement as well as spectacular scenes and lots of action . This is a fast-paced, stylized disaster-spectacle film . Cinematography and musical score by Harald Kloser are breathtaking .

Direction by Roland Emmerich is fitting as in all spectacle film that he makes . Roland Emmerich estimated that at least 1000 digital artists worked on the film . The motion picture was well realized by Roland Emmerich . Roland made his feature length film in 1984 : ¨The Noah's ark principle¨ , he subsequently made ¨Joey¨ . In 1997 wrote, directed, and produced the critically acclaimed "Moon 44" . Filmmaker Roland Emmerich quickly understood the freedom and malleability that direct in USA presents and has gone about creating some incredibly interesting genre fare in ¨Universal Soldier¨, his first American movie in which displayed an acute understanding of the action genre . Roland ulteriorly directed 1994 Stargate , 1996 Independence Day , 1998 Godzilla , 2000 The Patriot , 2004 The day after tomorrow , 2008 : 10.000 , 2011 Anonymous and his last movie 2013 White House Down .

Rating : 7/10 , above average. The picture will appeal to disaster genre fans . Well worth seeing .
31 out of 50 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Clichéd, illogical, unscientific but the first hour really delivers even if the second hour is like the 1970's never happened
bob the moo31 May 2004
After years of warning about global warning, Jack Hall is horrified to find all his predictions coming true much faster than he could have imagined. Hail stones the size of footballs decimate cities, typhoons destroy Los Angeles and New York becomes flooded. As the big freeze crosses the northern hemisphere, a small group of survivors try to fend off the cold as the world prepares for a dramatic change in the world order.

This film may be a modern blockbuster but in almost everyway it is a 1970's disaster movie where an event happens after some build up and we then spend the rest of the film watching the survivors trying to, well, survive. In that regard the film carries all the usual problems that the genre carries but happily benefits from the fact that the effects are much better than 1970's movies could manage. For this reason the first hour is great – it has dramatic pace, is involving and looks fantastic even if we have seen it before in different variations (how many times has New York been destroyed now?). However after the sheer global terror is pretty much finished we suddenly become much more small scale and the film looses much of it's impact and it's pace. After the initial danger has passed the film uses illogical and silly plot devices to put the survivors at risk – a cold eye of a storm, blood infections, creeping ice and wolves are among the problems. While this is OK on a genre level it doesn't compare to the first hour and it gets a little dull and plodding at times.

The clichés are all present and correct: the politicians, the upright scientists, the sacrifice, the daring rescues and so on. It's fair to say that if you are looking for more than a basic script then you will be looking in the wrong place here. All this film does is to provide spectacle and moments of dramatic action – if you want to think about it then you will only hurt your enjoyment of the action. The film tries to deliver an environmental message but in a way this film will not help the environmental movement because it is too exaggerated to be taken seriously (like the idea of Celtic and Man Utd reaching the Champions League final – during this season? Please!), however it does include several surprisingly barbed attacks on the US administration (could the VP look any more like Cheney?). Just a shame that the film message is delivered with all the subtlety that Segal showed when he did something similar in his environmental action film On Deadly Ground.

The script doesn't really create characters either and it means we don't care that much about what happens to them in the final hour (countless millions are dead for goodness sake!). The dialogue in the first hour is nicely gruff and scientific and very genre but the second hour is more human and the lines aren't suited for that – not even in the hands of an impressive number of good actors. I like Quaid and he is a good lead here, he gets the good scientific stuff and only is lumbered with the rather silly notion of walking to New York from Washington. Gyllenhaal must have upset legions of cult fan boys by appearing in a big budget movie but he does OK with the role (despite looking too old to be in school). The rest of the cast are fairly mixed but, as with the genre, they are just filled even if some are good. Welsh is good even if he was cast for his similarity to Dick Cheney, Holm adds a small bit of dignity in his role as well as being supported by the very fine actor Lester in a minor role. Faces like Sanders, Mihok and a few others don't really matter as they are merely victims waiting for their turn to be used for dramatic effect.

Overall the first hour of this film is good on a blockbuster level, but it blows it's wad too early (don't ya hate it when that happens?!) and is left with a second hour that is right out of the 1970's with all the weaknesses that that entails. Generally I enjoyed the film because I was just expecting a big noisy movie to pass a few hours – bad script, no characters and lots of clichés? Why would I be surprised by that? It's par for the course and you should not watch this if you know these aspects will annoy you. As it is, it's an average film but one that is noisy and spectacular enough to pass muster in the summer blockbuster stakes.
320 out of 478 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A lot of fun!
mihvel26 January 2005
OK, definitely this is not very smart movie and it has many holes in the storyline, but if you like this kind of movies you will got a lot of fun! I mean, you should know what you can expect of this kind of movies. If you like movie "Independence Day" you will know what I mean (BTW good recommendation from IMDb team!). If you want art or some wisdom message or you are searching for holes and sanity in the storyline, forget it. Go and watch some European authors. But if you are looking for fun, want to relax yourself, to see some amazing and very realistic computer effects go and watch it! You will not regret. For true impression big theater screen is mandatory!
103 out of 189 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A Plea For Kyoto
bkoganbing5 June 2007
I'm certainly in no position to comment on the science put forth in this film. When I was going to school, I remember being taught in science class that the Ice Age was a gradual process that took place over thousands of years and then it took thousands again to reverse it. Of course we didn't have man around using all the planet's resources for industry.

But scientist Dennis Quaid says that the Ice Age will dawn upon man again and soon. But it happens a whole lot sooner than even he predicts and the nations of the world pay for it.

The first half of the film is Quaid's struggle in vain to persuade our government, particularly a Vice President played by Kenneth Welsh who bears no accidental resemblance to Dick Chaney of the folly of its environmental policy.

When doomsday strikes, the action shifts to Quaid trekking to New York to rescue his son Jake Gyllenhaal who is trapped in the New York Public Library with other kids from an Academic Bowl they were participating in.

IF the science is open to speculation, the special effects are spectacular. Personally the sight of that freighter sailing up a flooded 42nd Street is something to behold. And the whiz kids who survive prove to be pretty resourceful.

The Day After Tomorrow is Hollywood's appeal for the USA to sign and obey the Kyoto Accords. Hollywood has taken up worse causes.
17 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
An enjoyable 'Disaster' Film with some nice set pieces
maue-1967430 April 2020
This Film harkens back to the old 70's Disaster flicks - taking situations and just magnifying them 1000 fold for entertainment sake. Yes, the Science here is questionable (apart from the effects of the currents being disrupted!) - it is all in the service of a storyline. The weather systems across the entire Planet are thrown into chaos by 'climate change' and it is up to Paleo-climatologist Dennis Quaid to convince all that the unthinkable is going to happen - while at the same time trying to re-bond with his estranged son - Jake Gyllenhal. All of this is hardly new but this Film does it with great dash and with a few great set pieces - the inundation of New York is superbly done and the characters are allowed to develop in quite a natural way. Unlike many of Emmerich's film (which I find overblown) this one he approaches in a more serious manner - the opening shots of Antarctica set the scene extremely well and the accompanying score by Harold Kloser is actually very haunting. All in all, an enjoyable film with some very nice performances.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Climate catastrophe
jperkio23 April 2021
Warning: Spoilers
A decent filmitasion what could happen because of climate temperature raising.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
ALL TIME FAVE DISASTER MOVIE.
andrewchristianjr30 March 2019
I don't get it why this film just got 6.4, maann the visual effect alone was amazing. The tension is so high especially the new york scene. Maybe the science isnt accurate but I found this film is very entertaining. I watched this when I was 9 or 10 yo, now I'm 24 and this film still my fave disaster movie. The tsunami, tornado etc was perfect. Good job for the writers, director, producer especially the cast.
207 out of 231 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Very fun if you like disaster movies :D
CatfishOpinions1 May 2020
I saw this once and my sister was hiding under a blanket the whole movie. that's not really relevant, but it is funny. hehe.

This movie is pretty fun. It has surprisingly good romantic chemistry for its genre, and you really feel the weight of everything that's happening. Super dramatic, not scientifically accurate at all (but who cares really), decently romantic, and attention-grabbing. Like ya want to know what happens next.

Not much else to say. Watch it if you like disaster/action stuff. I thought it was a lotta fun. My favorite part is when the boat goes through the thing. haha.
10 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Total nonsense that really looks nice.
planktonrules9 February 2022
Warning: Spoilers
I agree with the review I read on IMDB that said the film is cliched and illogical...but the special effects and catastrophe that happens in the first hour make it worth seeing. I also agree with them, however, that the last half just looks like a survival film...like Irwin Allen's "The Poseidon Adventure" or "The Towering Inferno". This is especially because any pretense at making the story plausible seems to have vanished! So, New York City has zero power and has been innundated with walls of water...so why are the cell phones and pay phones STILL working? And, only a couple days after,it's so cold and frozen that wolves are running about NYC eating folks?? Huh? It just seemed like after a while, the writers were tossing anything into the mix...and I'm surprised they didn't introduce aliens like the Great Gazoo or Uncle Martin!

So, my advice is to go ahead and watch this spectacle film if you'd like...especially if you have a big screen TV. But don't think any of this is well written. It abounds with scientific nonsense and silly, one-dimensional characters doing the most ridiculous things!
24 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Lower Manhattan is INACCESSIBLE
Calicodreamin20 February 2021
One of my all favorite time disaster movies! It's got the right mix of over the top weather moments, dramatic storylines, and Dennis Quaid. Endlessly rewatchable and surprisingly heartfelt.
46 out of 50 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
It's better than most disaster movies
MayuMG30 April 2020
-Like how it brings global warming the attention it deserves. -The survival tactics were commendable.

-I didn't get too attached to the characters, thus there wasn't much suspense.
11 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
One of the worst movies of all time.
spmckain20 February 2005
Warning: Spoilers
The folks who actually like this movie are the reason Hollywood makes very few quality movies any more. If you don't care then why should they? This movie is so bad from the beginning. Numerous tornadoes pummeling a West Coast city and there are actually people flying in helicopters to get a closer look. That's a brainy idea. Buildings freezing and crumbling yet the people outside don't seem to be affected so much. The "walk" from Philadelphia to New York? And in record time no less. I do like the fact that they had the foresight to have Antarctic weather gear handy for just these occasions. What of the tent that was able to withstand the chill but not the Empire State building? Call your local Army Navy store....they really need to stock these tents. I also found it amazing that any lines of communications were not really affected, including the under freezing water pay phone. The only ones who had communications losses were, of course, the main characters.....ah drama!! I know they were in a library but you think they could have possibly tried to burn all the wooden tables and chairs around them? Seems that they would burn warmer and for longer than books. The acting was horrific, the directing was terrible, the script was unbelievably bad and the special effects were anything but special. It certainly rates up there with Godzilla 2000 and Armageddon......it actually makes Independence Day look like one of the all time greats!
216 out of 440 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel okay.
Victor Field6 June 2004
"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.
163 out of 253 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
The Day After Tomorrow Revisited
timdalton00721 January 2019
Warning: Spoilers
2019 marks the fifteenth anniversary of the release of The Day After Tomorrow. Co-written and directed by Rolland Emmerich in the midst of his being the modern "master of disaster," it was a sizable hit in cinemas and a TV re-run staple. How well has it aged though?

One thing that the film has going for it, as does so many of Emmerich's films, is its cast. Dennis Quaid's casting as paleoclimatologist Jack Hall is something of a foundation for the entire film with Quaid bringing both an everyman quality to the role as well as a sense of intelligence necessary to make him believable as a scientist. The other significant bit of casting is Jake Gyllenhaal who is just about believable as Hall's teenage Sam who becomes the audience's main in-road to the incredible weather events taking place in the plot. That Gyllenhaal has strong chemistry with his co-stars closer to being the actual age of their characters helps while the handful of scenes early in the film between father and son help establish their relationship as potential loving but slightly estranged. It's something that, while invoking cliches perhaps at times, helps anchor the film all the same.

It also helps that the rest of the cast is solid. A young Emmy Rossum shines as academic decathlon contestant Laura who becomes a love interest for Sam in the New York portions of the narrative. Though not a sizable role, Sela Ward does well in her brief appearances Dr. Lucy Hall, Jack's ex-wife and Sam's mom who is trying to care for patients. It's also a cast nicely filled with veteran character actors such as Ian Holm in a delightful role as a fellow climate scientist, Kenneth Welsh as the Dick Cheney like Vice President, Dash Mihok as Hall's aide Jason, and the ever reliable Jay O. Sanders as Hall's longtime colleague Frank Harris. They're just the tip of a strong cast, something which even in recent turkeys like White House Down and the Independence Day sequel Emmerich has been good at putting together.

It is also, perhaps not surprisingly, a special effect feast. From the still impressive all CGI opening credit sequence to tornados in Los Angeles, a tsunami striking Manhattan, and British Royal Air Force helicopters frozen out of the sky, it is everything that one might ask from an Emmerich film. It's also well realized with much of the CGI holding up after all this time with the singular exception of a pack of wolves who even by the standards of the time look unconvincing. Combined with the sound design and music of composer Harald Kloser, the results are still incredible to watch. Of all of Emmerich's films, it is perhaps only second to Independence Day in how well its effects hold up.

Where the film suffers, as does so much of the director's work, is in its script. There are more than a few cliches and thin characterizations at play in the film's two-hour running time which are grating at times. More often than not, especially with the Sam and Laura relationship, the film is saved from going too far by the sheer chemistry of the cast. Well, that and well-timed uses of humor to boot. Just how right and wrong the film gets its science too is interesting and has, of course, been discussed far better than I can hope to do so here. Needless to say, as someone who has read the film's non-fiction source material (The Coming Global Superstorm by Art Bell and Whitley Strieber), it's hard not to find the ideas compelling even if the timetable undergoes sizable, if not implausible, acceleration.

Despite some of those issues, The Day After Tomorrow is a film that, even after fifteen years, still plays to all of the director's strengths. It's a bold, epic tale that takes in a large cast of characters and a worldwide scope. Despite that scope, it's principally focused on the United States with glimpses of what is happening elsewhere. It's a tale of survival told in as unsensational a style as it can. In short: It's the War of the Worlds of the climate change era, doing for it what HG Wells did for alien invasions.

Plus, as I write this, it's hard not to find the scenes of Americans fleeing into Mexico funny. Heaven forbid if something like what the film portrays actually happens. In that regard, at least, it could well be The Day After Tomorrow...
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Overcritizited
angelika-6451817 December 2023
I am aware of some critizing opinions about this movie. I realize a lot of scientistic facts are disorted even I am not the climate specialist. Nevertheless I enjoyed watching this production. First of all, great cast. Specially, I think about Jack and Sam. Fun fact for me is that Jake Gyllenhall (I have no idea how to spell his surname haha) played 17 years old teeneger white he had 24 white shoooting. Even of this fact, cast was reliable for me and I kept my fingers crossed for the future face of the characters. I have no doubts special effects was really good. I know some green screen was too obvious for our eyes, but it did not disturb me from watching. In this movie we can see tipicak scheme of character who is always right and nobody listen to him until it is too late to prevent the danger. But also this did not make me tired. I rate for strong 7. ;)
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
It's important to protect the environment
o-5407923 March 2020
The first time I saw this film was when I was a senior in high school. My English teacher at that time showed it to us. The film was so powerful and powerful that it left an indelible impression on my mind, so much so that I can still recall what I felt and saw then.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Come on people.
acedj18 November 2019
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.
203 out of 236 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Nothing wrong with this
rythestampede17 March 2021
Not super gripping or suspenseful but just a good all round by the books disaster film, good acting, reasonably entertaining, never boring. I was expecting worse based on everything I've seen and heard about it, but it's a solid watch.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Completely predictable, sadly lacking, and fatally flawed.. (some SPOILERS)
darren-1422 June 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Well for me this film wasn't one I was looking forward to, initially when I saw the adverts I thought I wanted to see it, but after reading some blurb about it I was concerned that it was going to turn into the usual Hollywood 'adventure' drivel...Sadly my thoughts came true.

I thought the movie started well, all the science seemed to be dealt with in a good and sensible fashion, and you do feel a sense of impending doom. The early disaster effects are typically top notch, although I felt a huge chunk of ice falling on someone's head would have made them bleed! And strangely for a Hollywood movie they didn't depict their administration as being infallible, which made me think maybe I was wrong to prejudge the film.

Sadly, things then deteriorate into the typical Hollywood fare. The hero does everything you'd expect, in the way you'd expect. The good old stiff upper lipped Brits perform their background tasks and do the usual (i.e. Die in a research bunker that turns out to have less stocks of the essentials than a New York library (where can I buy a vending machine that provides sustenance for 6 or 7 people and a dog for a week or more?)).

When the 'hero' becomes all heroic the major mistakes become evident. We've all touched something ice cold and had our skin stick to it, so surely someone holding onto to frozen metal with blood oozing out of their hands would suffer a similar fate (especially considering how cold it's alleged to be!). They also seem quick to remove their facial protection, without a care in the World.

The other thing that makes you go uhmmm is that the temperature at one point is supposedly dropping at a rate of -10 degrees every SECOND, yet it clearly takes the hero, and his son and friends for that matter, well over 10 seconds to get to safety. This despite earlier in the film someone in similar circumstances freezing on the spot in less than 3 seconds! (oh and it was also cold enough to freeze aviation fuel, but obviously American film stars have more in their veins than everyone else!? )

The temperature drops so fast that all the windows shatter, uhmm except of course on the building where the stars are! (either that or their room would have literally been snowed under, like the rest of New York!). Added to the fact that their chimney seems to work despite being blocked by snow and ice, surely if they hadn't frozen to death due to having no windows, they'd have choked to death on the smoke flooding their room since it had nowhere to escape to (this can be seen near the end because the hero can't even tell that he's reached his destination, and you certainly can't see any smoke coming from where the chimney should be!).

Oh and to cap it all, once the hero finds his son (bet you never thought he'd do it..YAWN!) the sun miraculously appears, as do hundreds of survivors! (can anyone tell me how they'd survived in skyscrapers that had no windows, and had been ravaged by tsunamis earlier int he film!??!)

All in all I found myself wishing that it had been an English film, for then some reality may have been preserved.

Sadly this film completely loses the plot half way through and all credibility goes out of the window.
76 out of 145 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
I am the only person on earth that loves "The Day After Tomorrow"
UniqueParticle4 November 2019
I have seen this movie so many times in the last 15 years and still relish it for what it is! I really enjoy a lot of the scenes and story. I'm blown out of the water that a bunch of reviews were bashing the script and story, really unfortunate. I got silly thoughts like I'd like to see anyone of you make a movie script lol it's cool though I have fun! Very cool to see the storms and all the smart people gather to talk about everything, I love all of it!
152 out of 178 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Fun Ride
jorgebaeza-449698 August 2021
Maybe a few lulls in the action, not believable at all, but fun, funny, exciting, great special effects and Jake at the top of his game. Seen this many times, own the disc, this is the type of film you go out and buy. When Hollywood can take an outlandish story and make you believe it, they are doing good. What has happened to Hollywood since 2004 ? They ain't makin' em believable anymore !
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I could write a better story by "The Day After Tomorrow"
TheSteak0022 June 2004
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is TYPICAL Hollywood. And by that I mean it's all glitz and glamour without any substance. Don't get me wrong… the special effects are great (although weather effects are easy to pull off at this point). But the movie has no point what so ever!!! Whatever little plot there is, is terrible.

*Spoilers*

OK, basically it goes like this… Big storm comes, and spreads around the world in a matter of days threatening humanity with the 2nd ice age. Storms destroy all the big cities, blah blah blah… Since the movie follows Sam Hall (Jake Gyllenhaal) most of it is set in New York. So NY gets hit with tidal waves, and then it all freezes over and then you have everyone stuck in the NY public library. Not bad so far… but that's it. Jack Hall, Sam's father is some kind of weather expert specializing in Alaska and global warming so he predicts this whole storm. So when he finds out that his son is trapped in NY he WALKS (drives to Philadelphia and then walks the rest of the way) from Washington D.C. to NY in like two days (All during this 2nd ICE AGE!!!!). No trying to stop the storm or anything… he just WALKS. He's not even trying to save his son because he can't… he just walks hundreds of miles to meet his son. That's it.

Oh yeah, and during the middle of the movie the kids trapped in the library in NY must venture out in the 'STORM' for medicine… and as luck would have it (or Hollywood overkill) they're attacked by a pack of wolves that escaped from the zoo. And the wolves look TERRIBLE. The special effects for the weather are easy so that all looks great… but these wolves looked horrible. Like these kids were being attacked by cartoon rejects from 'Who Framed Roger Rabbit?'

They just made this movie cause they could make the effects... there was no thought put into anything else other than the effects. I've seen porno's with better story lines.
125 out of 248 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I'm gonna head to the bathroom and take a Day After Tomorrow
TheMovieMark28 May 2004
Do you like a good old-fashioned action-packed Summer movie with a good story and scientific accuracy? Welp, you best keep on looking because you won't find those ingredients in "The Day After Tomorrow."

This is one of those movies where the entertainment value is in how much you can make fun of it. And believe me, Stephanie, Mr. Shade, and I poked fun at the movie for the entire two hours. What else can you do with a movie this ridiculous? I'll admit the special effects are really good. The problem is that they're used up in the first half of the movie. I was expecting a full 2 hours of action and chaos, but they got all that out of the way and the rest of the movie focuses on the characters and their attempts to survive.

How cheesy is this movie? Let me count the ways...

1) Gyllenhaal supposedly fails his math class because on his final exam he only wrote the answers. He did all the work in his head, you see. That's just how much of a genius he is. So he and Quaid determine the teacher just failed him because he's jealous. Um, when I was in school I had to show my work. Sorry to be the bad guy here, but it's easy to see why the teacher might be suspicious. But this is a final exam, so wouldn't this issue have been addressed earlier? Sigh. I thought for sure later in the movie Gyllenhaal was gonna save the world but he was gonna figure it out in his head so the movie wouldn't have to explain to us how he did it. Thankfully, the movie didn't get quite that extreme.

2) This movie leads us to believe that a tornado warning cannot be issued until turning on the news and checking the weather report.

3) You gotta love the overdramatic delivery of dialogue: "Looks like a hurricane." *dramatic pause* "Only hurricanes DON'T FORM OVER LAND!"

4) The temperature supposedly starts to drop 10 degrees per minute. Riiiiiiiight. So within an hour the temperature would be 600 degrees below zero? And as the temperature starts dropping, we see everything freezing. Particularly ridiculous is when Gyllenhaal and his buddies are in a library and we see the floor freezing and chasing after them. They manage to jump in a room and close the door JUST IN TIME! For some reason the door magically shields them from the cold. Whatever.

5) Quaid and his friends are able to survive walking in sub-zero temperatures with little more than parkas and gloves. And they have these tents that apparently have magical warming powers because once in the tents they're able to take off their gloves and hats and not be cold at all!I could go on, but I think you get it. Ohhh, and what was the point of Quaid walking all the way from D.C. to New York just to find his son? He knew his son was holed up in the library, and he didn't show up with a rescue squad or anything to take him home. Oh yeah, he made a promise. Mr. Shade leaned over to me and said, "If I ever promise you that I'll meet you at the movie theater and the whole world freezes over, then don't expect me to be there." Fair enough. It was obviously supposed to add an emotional element to the story, but it did nothing for me. Quaid should've just waited and taken a helicopter to New York after the storm died down. It would've been better than risking his and his partners' lives.

I could write a thesis on the absurdity of the science used in the movie, but I won't bore you. There are plenty of articles by climatologists you can read that state how the events in the movie are impossible, especially a glaciation of this magnitude occurring in three days and catching the ENTIRE WORLD by surprise. Folks, Memphis weathermen interrupt my regularly scheduled programming whenever a drop of rain is registered, so you better believe they'd be on top of this.

Let me just add that this movie is based on the book, "The Coming Global Superstorm" by Art Bell and Whitley Strieber. Strieber wrote another book called "Communion," in which he claims he was told of the Earth's upcoming apocalypse by aliens. If that's who you wanna get your science from then go ahead. I hope you'll excuse me while I point and laugh at you.

I feel sorry for fringe groups who are actually using this movie to tout their political agenda. Saying this is a movie people should watch to prepare for a possible global warming catastrophe is about as legitimate as saying people should watch "Dawn of the Dead" to prepare for what would happen if zombies attacked. I'd say they're on equal ground in regard to scientific accuracy. But I doubt too many moviegoers are gonna take this seriously.

There's so much more to make fun of, but I'm gonna stop myself. I was extremely disappointed in the movie, so there's a good chance you will be also. This is the type of movie that shows a weatherman get hit by a huge billboard during the middle of the storm, and the only emotion it prompts is laughter. You've been warned.

"The Day After Tomorrow" is the kind of movie that might have scared me when I was 6 years old and uneducated. Now I can't help but laugh at the absurdity of it all. But hey, if you like movies with overwrought dialogue, a lame attempt at a love story, a severe lack of tension, no emotional pull (other than laughter), less believability than "Independence Day," and one of the most anticlimactic endings I've ever seen in a Summer blockbuster, then this is the movie for you.

Now if y'all will excuse me, I'm gonna head to the bathroom and take a Day After Tomorrow.
70 out of 121 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed