"Or was it one-in-a-million?" -- Day After Tomorrow
After much stalling, I finally bring you you a review of a truly, truly rotten movie. I watched it by myself, which is really really boring, so you'd sure as hell had better appreciate this! It's also almost as long as the Wonderfalls review ("Defy the chicken"), which should give you an idea of how much I hate it (and, as I said in the aforementioned review, feel free to skip to the ratings for a shorter summary).
Day After Tomorrow is ... Terrible. This rotten piece of sci-fi (I differentiate between Science Fiction and Sci-Fi. Dune or Timeline are Science Fiction. Look at me! I have robots and really cool rocket ships with explosions and people blowing each other up with ray guns! is sci-fi) was created by one of Satan's speech-writers in an attempt to screw with us and make us waste our money. The only redeeming qualities of the movie are the special effects (which are undeniably quite good, for the most part) and the MSK3k-ability of it.
Ok, let's start with why I primarily dislike it so violently. The. Lines. Oh my good gracious God, please deliver us from these terribly terrible lines. I can deal with crap science (which it has ad infinitum ), because it's really fun to laugh at it, but the lines injure the artist in myself. I honestly had to rewind and replay several parts of the movie just because I thought "They couldn't have said something so stupid, could they?" and my worst fears were always, without fail, confirmed. For example, here's a short dialogue between the main character and his boss:
Boss: "I hope you're right [that we're headed towards the next ice age within two months], Jack. My ass is on the line."
Jack (main character): "You saw the model."
Boss: "And I hope to God it's wrong."
What?!?!?!! Why would the screenwriter do this to us?!?! Why!??!?!? As I said, the only reasonable answer is that (s)he hates us and wishes us great ill. This sort of stupidity pops up all over the movie, making it a staple rather than fluke. My blood pressure is reaching dangerous levels right about now, so I'll be moving on to the mistakes more pleasant to mock.
As I mentioned earlier, the CG in this movie tends towards the "v. Good." Although it was almost all stupid (because of science reasons which I will mention in the hereafter), it looked really nice. I don't think that that's enough of a reason to waste time and money on this, but if you do, more power to ya. However, there's always an exception: The Wolves. More on them later, but they looked so fake that the director drastically darkened whatever scene they were in to try to hide how bad they look.
The music kinda sucked. I never noticed it unless it stuck out as if it was trying to tell us what to feel. The sound effects were ok, I guess, but most of them were connected with the stupid science, and that I do not forgive.
Which brings us to the stupendously insipid "science" elements. Oh boy, are they fun to lampoon. In fact, pretty much the only fun I gleaned from this terror of a movie was the privilege to rip on the false science with my friends. Let's start with the "explanation," or what it boils down to: "Heat from THE SUN enters the earth at the equator and the Atlantic current thingey takes it here and here, but GLOBAL WARMING is melting the ice caps, and that makes the Atlantic current thingey turn off, which causes an Ice Age." If you'll notice, this explanation doesn't actually explain anything. Terms are thrown around (and given overemphasis), but it never really shows us a relationship between the supposed causes and the supposed effects. It's hand waving of the highest degree, a hallmark of sci-fi.
A lot of the science is also flat out wrong as well. For example, it would have taken about three minutes for the helicopter pilot to freeze rather than a five or so seconds that it did, and opening the door wouldn't really have had much of a difference (or so I am told). Tents, despite evidence to the contrary, do not maintain a constant 72 degrees Fahrenheit regardless of outside temperatures. The way New York floods is patently absurd: it's not a tidal wave / tsunami, but rather a massive influx of new water which could only occur if a huge part of the Arctic had suddenly melted and RAISED THE LEVEL OF THE ATLANTIC OCEAN SEVERAL HUNDRED FEET. Now if we assume that the Arctic holds 15% of the world's water (which is probably far too much), that ice is as dense as water (which is certainly false), and that what must have occurred was the equivalent of dropping the Arctic into the ocean, you get the equivalent of A LOT OF WATER in the ocean, but it still isn't anywhere near what one would need to raise the sea level anywhere near that much. The ocean is freaking huge, for goodness sakes.
And another thing: Twisters in LA?!?! Much like the flooding, they NEVER EXPLAIN THIS. More insipid hand waving! "Um ... Well, you see ... uh ... GLOBAL WARMING! BOO! There. Weird weather explained." I honestly don't care if twisters really would form and New York really would flood that thoroughly that fast if what the movie makers are saying is true. At no point do they explain to us the causality, and that is just really sloppy.
There are more problems with the science, I assure you. I leave them to you to make fun of.
Speaking of causality, the continuity editors needed to be either fired or hired for this movie, because they either didn't do their job or their job needed to be done by someone. At one point, the movie makes a big deal of the main character's sled of supplies being destroyed. Three scenes later, they have it again! What the deuce!?!?! Moving anywhere above a certain point on the US is really really difficult, and yet the main character can make it by civilian truck from the Mexican-US border just about to DC (ignoring the lack of gas along the way). The concept of "time" is conveniently ignored for most intents and purposes. The "superfreezeing" eye of the storm is completely insane. Like most of the movies faults, the list of problems goes on.
Even when stuff occurs that is possible, it all fits together just a little bit (or, if we're being brutally honest, a big bit) too nicely. "Of course the wolves would be the only animals to escape" or "of course she would become stricken with blood poisoning and need medicine from the ship just as New York was about to completely freeze over." It's hard to go five minutes without using "of course" or "how very convenient" less than a half-dozen times with this movie.
A few trends: the characters are archetypical to the point of caricature (the Important Father Who Never Has Time For His Son, the Shy Gifted Brave Lovestruck Youngster, the Diligent and Dedicated Pediatrician Who Will Stand By Her Patients Until the Very End, the Loyal Friends Who Are Willing To Sacrifice Themselves For Their Leader the Protagonist, etc etc etc). Women, almost without exception, agree with the main character and his analysis of the weather problems, and men, almost without exception, disagree with him (at least until the end, when they admit their mistakes with their tails between their legs). The movie beats us over the head with its viewpoints at every twist and turn (the Vice President's speech is so ham-handed I almost doubled over laughing). And finally, Day After Tomorrow has a dangerously severe fetish for loooong boooooring scenery shots. I appreciate some nice pictures of arctic ice flow as much as the next guy, but do I really need to see three solid minutes of it while I wait for the movie to begin? If these had been cut down significantly, the movie would have been many degrees less boring (not the least because it would have been simply shorter).
Action: 2/5 magical reappearing sleds (Contrived, convoluted, and confusing, the action really quite sucked).
Acting: 2/5 chucks of ice (Really, really poor. It almost seemed like the actors weren't trying).
Humor: 1/5 continental hurricanes (When they did try for a laugh, which was not often, the jokes fell flat as a geometric plane).
Story: 1/5 $1500 raincoats (Haven't we seen this basic story line a couple hundred already, only done much better?).
Sound: 2/5 Gutenberg bibles (Extremely forgettable, except for when it obviously tries to railroad our emotions for scenes that couldn't do it for themselves).
Script: -1/5 bottles of penicillin (Yes, it is really that bad. The lines are just so incredible stupid).
Visuals: 2.5/5 frozen helicopters (Virtually the only thing about the movie that didn't suck. It could have gotten a 3 or even 3.5 if not for the terribly rendered wolves, the overly dark sets with the wolves, and less scenery. If I wanted pictures of beautiful vistas, I'd use Google Images).
Science (intended usage): 1.5/5 snowshoes (Most of it is utterly absurd and/or totally wrong).
Science (unintended usage): 4/5 crushed Porches (It's very fun to talk about how crappy it is. Indeed, reports of this quality in the movie were my motivation for watching it).
Overall (not necessarily determined by the above categories): 1/5 stupid motorcades (Only see it with a few friends, and even then only if you really like looking at pretty pictures or to MST3k it).
Day After Tomorrow is ... Terrible. This rotten piece of sci-fi (I differentiate between Science Fiction and Sci-Fi. Dune or Timeline are Science Fiction. Look at me! I have robots and really cool rocket ships with explosions and people blowing each other up with ray guns! is sci-fi) was created by one of Satan's speech-writers in an attempt to screw with us and make us waste our money. The only redeeming qualities of the movie are the special effects (which are undeniably quite good, for the most part) and the MSK3k-ability of it.
Ok, let's start with why I primarily dislike it so violently. The. Lines. Oh my good gracious God, please deliver us from these terribly terrible lines. I can deal with crap science (which it has ad infinitum ), because it's really fun to laugh at it, but the lines injure the artist in myself. I honestly had to rewind and replay several parts of the movie just because I thought "They couldn't have said something so stupid, could they?" and my worst fears were always, without fail, confirmed. For example, here's a short dialogue between the main character and his boss:
Boss: "I hope you're right [that we're headed towards the next ice age within two months], Jack. My ass is on the line."
Jack (main character): "You saw the model."
Boss: "And I hope to God it's wrong."
What?!?!?!! Why would the screenwriter do this to us?!?! Why!??!?!? As I said, the only reasonable answer is that (s)he hates us and wishes us great ill. This sort of stupidity pops up all over the movie, making it a staple rather than fluke. My blood pressure is reaching dangerous levels right about now, so I'll be moving on to the mistakes more pleasant to mock.
As I mentioned earlier, the CG in this movie tends towards the "v. Good." Although it was almost all stupid (because of science reasons which I will mention in the hereafter), it looked really nice. I don't think that that's enough of a reason to waste time and money on this, but if you do, more power to ya. However, there's always an exception: The Wolves. More on them later, but they looked so fake that the director drastically darkened whatever scene they were in to try to hide how bad they look.
The music kinda sucked. I never noticed it unless it stuck out as if it was trying to tell us what to feel. The sound effects were ok, I guess, but most of them were connected with the stupid science, and that I do not forgive.
Which brings us to the stupendously insipid "science" elements. Oh boy, are they fun to lampoon. In fact, pretty much the only fun I gleaned from this terror of a movie was the privilege to rip on the false science with my friends. Let's start with the "explanation," or what it boils down to: "Heat from THE SUN enters the earth at the equator and the Atlantic current thingey takes it here and here, but GLOBAL WARMING is melting the ice caps, and that makes the Atlantic current thingey turn off, which causes an Ice Age." If you'll notice, this explanation doesn't actually explain anything. Terms are thrown around (and given overemphasis), but it never really shows us a relationship between the supposed causes and the supposed effects. It's hand waving of the highest degree, a hallmark of sci-fi.
A lot of the science is also flat out wrong as well. For example, it would have taken about three minutes for the helicopter pilot to freeze rather than a five or so seconds that it did, and opening the door wouldn't really have had much of a difference (or so I am told). Tents, despite evidence to the contrary, do not maintain a constant 72 degrees Fahrenheit regardless of outside temperatures. The way New York floods is patently absurd: it's not a tidal wave / tsunami, but rather a massive influx of new water which could only occur if a huge part of the Arctic had suddenly melted and RAISED THE LEVEL OF THE ATLANTIC OCEAN SEVERAL HUNDRED FEET. Now if we assume that the Arctic holds 15% of the world's water (which is probably far too much), that ice is as dense as water (which is certainly false), and that what must have occurred was the equivalent of dropping the Arctic into the ocean, you get the equivalent of A LOT OF WATER in the ocean, but it still isn't anywhere near what one would need to raise the sea level anywhere near that much. The ocean is freaking huge, for goodness sakes.
And another thing: Twisters in LA?!?! Much like the flooding, they NEVER EXPLAIN THIS. More insipid hand waving! "Um ... Well, you see ... uh ... GLOBAL WARMING! BOO! There. Weird weather explained." I honestly don't care if twisters really would form and New York really would flood that thoroughly that fast if what the movie makers are saying is true. At no point do they explain to us the causality, and that is just really sloppy.
There are more problems with the science, I assure you. I leave them to you to make fun of.
Speaking of causality, the continuity editors needed to be either fired or hired for this movie, because they either didn't do their job or their job needed to be done by someone. At one point, the movie makes a big deal of the main character's sled of supplies being destroyed. Three scenes later, they have it again! What the deuce!?!?! Moving anywhere above a certain point on the US is really really difficult, and yet the main character can make it by civilian truck from the Mexican-US border just about to DC (ignoring the lack of gas along the way). The concept of "time" is conveniently ignored for most intents and purposes. The "superfreezeing" eye of the storm is completely insane. Like most of the movies faults, the list of problems goes on.
Even when stuff occurs that is possible, it all fits together just a little bit (or, if we're being brutally honest, a big bit) too nicely. "Of course the wolves would be the only animals to escape" or "of course she would become stricken with blood poisoning and need medicine from the ship just as New York was about to completely freeze over." It's hard to go five minutes without using "of course" or "how very convenient" less than a half-dozen times with this movie.
A few trends: the characters are archetypical to the point of caricature (the Important Father Who Never Has Time For His Son, the Shy Gifted Brave Lovestruck Youngster, the Diligent and Dedicated Pediatrician Who Will Stand By Her Patients Until the Very End, the Loyal Friends Who Are Willing To Sacrifice Themselves For Their Leader the Protagonist, etc etc etc). Women, almost without exception, agree with the main character and his analysis of the weather problems, and men, almost without exception, disagree with him (at least until the end, when they admit their mistakes with their tails between their legs). The movie beats us over the head with its viewpoints at every twist and turn (the Vice President's speech is so ham-handed I almost doubled over laughing). And finally, Day After Tomorrow has a dangerously severe fetish for loooong boooooring scenery shots. I appreciate some nice pictures of arctic ice flow as much as the next guy, but do I really need to see three solid minutes of it while I wait for the movie to begin? If these had been cut down significantly, the movie would have been many degrees less boring (not the least because it would have been simply shorter).
Action: 2/5 magical reappearing sleds (Contrived, convoluted, and confusing, the action really quite sucked).
Acting: 2/5 chucks of ice (Really, really poor. It almost seemed like the actors weren't trying).
Humor: 1/5 continental hurricanes (When they did try for a laugh, which was not often, the jokes fell flat as a geometric plane).
Story: 1/5 $1500 raincoats (Haven't we seen this basic story line a couple hundred already, only done much better?).
Sound: 2/5 Gutenberg bibles (Extremely forgettable, except for when it obviously tries to railroad our emotions for scenes that couldn't do it for themselves).
Script: -1/5 bottles of penicillin (Yes, it is really that bad. The lines are just so incredible stupid).
Visuals: 2.5/5 frozen helicopters (Virtually the only thing about the movie that didn't suck. It could have gotten a 3 or even 3.5 if not for the terribly rendered wolves, the overly dark sets with the wolves, and less scenery. If I wanted pictures of beautiful vistas, I'd use Google Images).
Science (intended usage): 1.5/5 snowshoes (Most of it is utterly absurd and/or totally wrong).
Science (unintended usage): 4/5 crushed Porches (It's very fun to talk about how crappy it is. Indeed, reports of this quality in the movie were my motivation for watching it).
Overall (not necessarily determined by the above categories): 1/5 stupid motorcades (Only see it with a few friends, and even then only if you really like looking at pretty pictures or to MST3k it).
posted by Lexi Archer | 12:39 PM
3 Comments:
Day After Tommorrow in 15 Minutes.
'Nuff said.
Bwa ha ha ha ha! I just saw the movie at my friend's house. We had a lot of fun mocking it...
Just a science point here, it's irrelevant how much ice melts if it's floating. If ice is floating in water (like arctic ice in the ocean) and melts, the surrounding ocean will not rise at all. This is a because the
ice displaces the exact volume
of water that has the same mass.
Post a Comment
<< Home