The Day After Tomorrow
If the goal of Spectacular Optical is to introduce some sort of new experience, then, by all means, it aims to do so by introducing its readers to the most eclectic, the most interesting, and the most innovative films possible. Whether this applies to new film, cult choices, or some small film from some decade long past begging for new evaluation, hopefully in some way we are not presenting merely the mundane. That said, if you believed me just now, ha, sucker—I enjoy watching schlock just as much as the next guy, and fully intend to write about it (although...we'll hope interspersed with films of actual merit...). At the moment, certain writers (ahem) at Spectacular Optical are temporarily stuck with only sub-suburban multiplexes; when forced to choose between Van Helsing or The Day After Tomorrow, one should always go with the liberal propaganda.
The Day After Tomorrow isn't a bad movie, per say, if held up against other movies of similar ilk. It has good, if a bit too CGI-y, special effects; it has decent, if a bit wooden, acting; it has hot hot hot Jake Gyllenhaal. It will probably have a decent box office, at least until Harry Potter 3 opens next weekend. All of this, of course, adds up to an exercise in mediocrity.
Jack Hall (Dennis Quaid) is a paleo-climatologist, one who insists that global warming will lead to the polar ice caps melting, which will lead to the North Atlantic current stopping, or something like that. Shortly into the movie, the earth is suddenly hit by a major global climactic change (killer hail! tsunamis! insta-freeze!) that proves Jack's theory right, and the northern hemisphere is thrown into a new ice age in a matter of days. In the midst of saving the world from all of this crizazy weather, Jack decides to trek from D.C. to NYC (in the midst of aforementioned insta-freeze) to save his son (aforementioned Mr. Gyllenhaal), a neglected high school student on an academic decathlon trip. This is essentially the main plotline, or rather, the main subplot.
The director (and co-writer) Roland Emmerich, however, apparently felt that this alone was not plotline enough for one movie. Instead, he divided the movie into as many subplots as he could possibly cram into two hours. Now, if you’re a contemporary director, and your name doesn’t end in Anderson and begin with P.T. or Wes, you should remember one basic principle: you will not possibly be able to control the ginormous cast and the countless interconnecting stories, so don’t try. Edit, people, edit! Emmerich clearly realized this principle half-way through the movie, at which point he promptly dropped all plotlines not directly relating to the Hall family. This would work, except for the fact that—no scratch that, this never works. You can’t introduce characters to just forget about them half-way through the movie.
The most effective subplot in the movie concerns a group of scientists, led by Ian Holm, trapped in Scotland and freezing to death, if only because it somehow is the most human. That sounds so lame, and I hate when reviewers write things like that, but hey, it’s true. Their dialogue is neither the material of stale action sequences, nor particularly saccharine (although, I suppose one could argue that in its attempt to be “human” it is the most grating of all, but at the moment I’m not feeling cynical enough to argue that). And Ian Holm rocks. This particular subplot also remains the only acceptable exclusion from the second half of the movie, but believe me when I say it would have been helpful had those good scientists stuck it out just a bit longer.
The movie has had the pundits in a tizzy because of the blatant political commentary. The Vice-President is clearly a rip-off of Mr. Cheney, the Prez a clone of W. Some have argued that the sensationalism of the movie has harmed the global warming debate—no wall of water will be crashing down on New York in the next week, so we should focus instead on long-term effects and goals. We can all agree that the time frame is ludicrous, but clearly global warming is a legitimate concern, and I somehow expect that The Day After Tomorrow will have very limited impact on this debate. Is this movie going to affect the election as constant CNN coverage wants to suggest? Uh. No? Let’s face it--people went to see it either for love of big action sequences or to lust after certain actors, not because they trusted the latest disaster flick to proficiently inform them on global environmental crisis.
So, there's a lack of narrative focus, somewhat overdone, if impressive, special effects, limited merit as a political tool...What is left, then, for a movie a bit too long and way too overhyped? In fairness, it is less dumb than most action movies, it has swell disaster movie music, and have I mentioned Jake G.? I feel a bit bad about reviewing something so ubiquitous though, so I promise to address shortly something more interesting (I also promise a review in two weeks of Almodovar's new extravaganza Bad Education complete with Gael Garcia Bernal and Spanish soaper goodness).
