The Day After Tomorrow (2004)

[K1stpierre]

Discuss

[ShouldIBeHere]

Was kind of fun at the time... Rossum and Gyllenhaal were an abysmal couple though that couldn't carry the movie. Neither could Dennis Quaid (he has one emotion during the whole movie... concerned. He must have gained a lot of wrinkles on his forehead during that shoot.).

 

It had the kind of destruction scenes that one re-watches on youtube from time to time and it just doesn't hold up. For rewatching the entire movie, the arcs and the tension-building just isn't strong enough. And it gets kind of boring after NYC is flooded.

 

The development of the VP to Mr. Green is ridiculous and one of the worst environmental-messages ever.

 

C-

Edited October 7, 2014 by ShouldIBeHere

[James]

I liked this one. One of my favourite disaster movies. Yeah, the romance angle was bad,but the acting was pretty good overall.

 

A  

[luna]

lol

 

D-

[Goffe]

It suffers serious editing problems and the dialogue is laughable sensationalist at times. TDAT is a lot better than 2012 though, at least I can watch the drama parts without fastfowarding it. It's just a okay film.  65/100

 

When I was young I used to think that this was one of the best films of all time lol

Edited October 7, 2014 by Goffe R Swanson

[ShouldIBeHere]

I remember Emmerich giving all these interviews back then stating that  the most unrealistic aspect of the movie was the change of heart of the politicians in the movie... listening to him one actually started to believe that this move was politically relevant. Lol. It wasn't, of course.

[Omario]

Some of the best SFX for its time. The marketing for this was spot on. Those tornadoes scared the shit out of me. All the main stuff happened in the beginning though which left the other half of the movie pretty empty.  Still very good though.

 

B+

[The Stingray]

I guess it's worth watching for the beauty of the vfx and Emmy Rossum.

[Plain Old Tele]

Absurdly terrible and terribly absurd.

[John Marston]

plot is silly but the first half has a surprising amount of tension and the effects are so good it is scary. Overall an entertaining movie. 

[luna]

2012 was actually a bit better because it was more gleeful in its destruction. i wish they'd axe the godawful family drama in these things.

[Jessie]

This was just a showcase for special effects. As bad as the film was, it got snubbed at the Oscars, it should have won best VFX but instead it wasn't even nominated?? lol, what a joke

 

Same with 2012, Avatar aside, it had easily the best vfx of 2009 but wasn't even nominated yet Star Trek was? Its obvious the Academy have their favourites. Star Trek was great and all but nothing in that film compared to the sheer spectacle of 2012, it was truly mind blowing.

 

Maybe the Academy just doesn't like awarding bad movies but it's hardly fair on the VFX team who pour their heart and soul into their work making an otherwise shitty movie watchable. Special Effect awards should be judged on the special effects and nothing else.

Edited October 20, 2014 by jessie

[Goffe]

This was just a showcase for special effects. As bad as the film was, it got snubbed at the Oscars, it should have won best VFX but instead it wasn't even nominated?? lol, what a joke

Same with 2012, Avatar aside, it had easily the best vfx of 2009 but wasn't even nominated yet Star Trek was? Its obvious the Academy have their favourites. Star Trek was great and all but nothing in that film compared to the sheer spectacle of 2012, it was truly mind blowing.

Maybe the Academy just doesn't like awarding bad movies but it's hardly fair on the VFX team who pour their heart and soul into their work making an otherwise shitty movie watchable. Special Effect awards should be judged on the special effects and nothing else.

"Muren sums up a common opinion that the effects are there to serve the story and help create an emotional effect — the technical cannot be considered on its own. “Some films will not get nominated because the emotion was not there when you saw the shots, and it didn’t matter what the technology is at all,” says Muren."

http://deadline.com/2012/12/oscars-distinguishing-the-best-visual-effects-not-as-easy-as-it-may-look-380875/ you should read the article, it is very interesting

Edited October 21, 2014 by Goffe R Swanson

[Goffe]

2012 was actually a bit better because it was more gleeful in its destruction. i wish they'd axe the godawful family drama in these things.

Even if its destruction scenes are better, 2012 is 35 minutes longer than TDAT, 35 more minutes of insuferrable drama, it feels like's never going to end. I also think that the drama in TDAT was considerably better

[Jessie]

"Muren sums up a common opinion that the effects are there to serve the story and help create an emotional effect — the technical cannot be considered on its own. “Some films will not get nominated because the emotion was not there when you saw the shots, and it didn’t matter what the technology is at all,” says Muren."

http://deadline.com/2012/12/oscars-distinguishing-the-best-visual-effects-not-as-easy-as-it-may-look-380875/ you should read the article, it is very interesting

 

Yet Independence Day, Gladiator and Golden Compass managed to take home this Oscar.....

 

Hell even Lone Ranger got nominated for the very reason I originally said. It was a great technical achievement for a shitty movie. It didn't add to the 'emotion' of the film, that's just stupid.

 

damn that just reminded me of 2007, what a joke of a year for visual effects that was. Bay created something new and refreshing with his Transforming robots and Davvy Jones looked absolutely amazing, yet they lost to a fake looking Polar bear lmao, who did they screen these too? were they blind or something?

Edited October 22, 2014 by jessie

[Jessie]

Even if its destruction scenes are better, 2012 is 35 minutes longer than TDAT, 35 more minutes of insuferrable drama, it feels like's never going to end. I also think that the drama in TDAT was considerably better

 

I didn't watch 2012 for the drama, I wanted to see stuff gets destroyed and it delivered. No movie has managed to top 2012 for pure destruction, its on a 5 year record at the mo, nothing has even come close.

[Goffe]

I didn't watch 2012 for the drama, I wanted to see stuff gets destroyed and it delivered. No movie has managed to top 2012 for pure destruction, its on a 5 year record at the mo, nothing has even come close.

most people, including me, watch movies for the whole package.

[Goffe]

Yet Independence Day, Gladiator and Golden Compass managed to take home this Oscar.....

Hell even Lone Ranger got nominated for the very reason I originally said. It was a great technical achievement for a shitty movie. It didn't add to the 'emotion' of the film, that's just stupid.

damn that just reminded me of 2007, what a joke of a year for visual effects that was. Bay created something new and refreshing with his Transforming robots and Davvy Jones looked absolutely amazing, yet they lost to a fake looking Polar bear lmao, who did they screen these too? were they blind or something?

you can't even understand what the quote tried to say, so I'll not waste my time with you

Food for thought: the category visual effects isn't only about computer generated effects

Edited October 22, 2014 by Goffe R Swanson

[Jessie]

most people, including me, watch movies for the whole package.

I never for one minute expected the whole package from 2012 going by early reviews so my lowered expectations were met.besides, your point is irrelevant. If you really expected the whole package from 2012 then you sir are not wise.

you can't even understand what the quote tried to say, so I'll not waste my time with you

Food for thought: the category visual effects isn't only about computer generated effects

Waste your time with me? What I'm saying is right, going by your theory, if someone delivered a superb performance in an otherwise not so great movie, they shouldn't get any recognition for their role? So basically Meryl Streep shouldn't have won an Oscar for The Iron Lady because despite her great performance, the movie wasn't very good?

It should be the same with VFX and sometimes it is. I don't remember there being much emotion in The Golden compass.

Edited October 22, 2014 by jessie

[filmlover]

I still like this movie, but good lord does its stupidity remain unsurpassed a decade (whaaatttt it doesn't even feel it's been that long) later. Remember how Dennis Quaid and that other guy traveled on foot from DC to NY through a freakin' Ice Age? Or Jake Gyllenhaal and pals encountering WOLVES on a boat in New York? Or Quaid and Gyllenhaal as possibly the least believable father/son pairing in the history of cinema?