It deserves to be listed on here.. you know a movie is bad when people watching laugh out loud at the romance scene. The CGI wolves, the instant freeze weather system that can be outrun, the raining ice blocks, the kid suffering from cancer (what was the point in having him in the movie? it just made no sense). I could list loads more, the actors must have been embarassed to be a part of this piece of s**t.
But the important question is: is it so bad that it is entertaining?
It made me laugh.
Cool!!
I liked the scenes of things being destroyed, tornados in L.A., etc. That's the only reason to see disaster movies in the first place.
This one had the honour of being the first new release to be reviewed in my So Bad It's Good newspaper column. It's a rare treat to find a current big-budget pic that offers as much cheese as a classic disaster movie. I loved it.
Deffinately a Godzilla level of destructive silliness. Thumbs up!
Haven't seen it myself, but it's my understanding all that makes it bad is its politics, which it drives home with a sledgehammer. Having a moral point is all well and good if it can fit into the story, but when the point comes off as needlessly alarmist and silly, the film's credibility suffers. As for the disaster imagery, no complaints there. (It looked fine in the previews.) With what little plot held it together, though, Hollywood should try using it for what it really is: high-quality stock footage! Next time you need a movie about a city getting flooded or snowed under or something, just dip into this repository.
The movie? Probably fun to watch if you just turn off your mind and don't think too much about the bad science and bad politics. Trashing big cities, especially New York City, has been a favorite plot device since the old pulp novels of the Depression, when a lot of people felt civilization had failed them and might as well be swept away. In Japan, it's the same way with the Godzilla movies except that it's Tokyo that got trashed, and what little political subtext there was in those movies had to do with the nightmarish reality of atomic weaponry and the possibility of more cities being leveled because of it.
The Austin Powers films had quite the right idea about what to do with this kind of film: use it to threaten the national leaders when you're trying to extort money. "That was a very realistic simulation of what's going to happen to you if you don't pay me!"
It's about on par with Emmerich's other silliness. It's a good popcorn movie (which does try to be preachy), which in the end is worth watching for all the destruction.
Just like Independence Day, once you walk out of the theater it dawns on you just how illogical it was. Still it was enjoyable.
It appears to borrow liberally without acknowledgement from a book called "The Sixth Winter" by Orgill and Gribbin, written about 20 years ago. The book, need I add, is far more entertaining than the film.
No, it isn't.
...so, yeah, it was bad.
NO, it WASN'T
(in my opinion, that is)
I found THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW a film worth seeing once, despite the bad drama and acting. It's true that I won't be caught watching it again though. Not bad enough to reject totally.
I liked it. Like always.
I have to agree! This movie was the worst! The best parts were the previews!
Donnie Dark....I mean Jake Gyllenhall getting chased by the freeze. Great cinema moment.
This movie is alarmist nonsense inspired by Chicken Littles who think they can predict another ice age based on 40-50 years of data on a planet millions of years old. That said, sometimes movies outlive their contemporary messages and become famous (or infamous) in their own right. Breaker Morant is an example -- when it came out it was obviously a commentary on the Vietnam War. Almost 30 years later and removed from its context, it stands out as a genuinely great military drama in its own right.
I think the Day After Tomorrow may -- fifty years from now when the Chicken Littles have moved onto another flavor of the month -- stand out as a bizarre and uproarious slice of early 21st Century radicalism. The most ingenius part of the marketing for this film was the way they got Dennis Quaid (a moderately respected actor I think it's fair to say) to actually go on TV talk shows and, as preposterous FX laden scenes of the planet getting flash-frozen are played, actually say that "This could really happen and probably will happen in our life times."
That, ladies and gentlemen, is entertainment!
Where is George Pal when you need him?
I found The Day After Tomorrow to be very bad, but very entertaining. We enjoyed giving it the MST3000 treatment throughout.
My biggest problem with it was when I went to listen to the commentary on the DVD and it was loaded with foul language. There was no point in that, and in my opinion, lowered my opinion of the work as a whole. So, you take a mildly entertaining, alarmist disaster pic, full of cheese, over-drama and bad acting and demean it to toilet trash with adolescent eff words where they really aren't needed. Great.
I'll never buy it because of that.
My biggest problem with it was when I went to listen to the commentary on the DVD and it was loaded with foul language. There was no point in that, and in my opinion, lowered my opinion of the work as a whole. So, you take a mildly entertaining, alarmist disaster pic, full of cheese, over-drama and bad acting and demean it to toilet trash with adolescent eff words where they really aren't needed. Great.
Ill have to agree! Thats the problem I have with that HBO series "Deadwood" Thats all its about is saying about 4 cusswords! Over and Over!
"Ill have to agree! Thats the problem I have with that HBO series "Deadwood" Thats all its about is saying about 4 cusswords! Over and Over!"
No kidding! If I want to sit around and listen to a bunch of guys in cowboy hats call each other "c**ksucker," I'll go to country-western night at Secrets.