By Jeremiah Lewis (Guest Critic)
In the simple causative world of Roland Emmerich, science and even logic are no hurdles for presenting his cause célèbre in such a way that minds will be stirred, and questions will go unasked in the ensuing wake. To say the movie is a poster film for environmentalism is akin to saying Vixen is a deeply sensitive film exploring issues of racism and politics. Emmerich touches on the mammoth question of global warming and its consequences, but only in a way that suggests he is unfamiliar with its mechanisms. Despite the ramifications of using a movie (and a summer blockbuster at that) as a political podium piece in such a reckless manner, Emmerich has succeeded in making something worth watching for pure spectacle.

Emmerich thrives on making big movies with ultimately small messages. His 1998 flick
Independence Day never boasted such a "hot" button topic as global warming, but did revel in its moments of moralization and standard flag-bearing canards of world peace and all of humanity working together. It's cute for the family and is inoffensive to all but the criminally insane, so movies like that tend to bounce through the radar of public policy rather quickly. The Day After Tomorrow, on the other hand, attempts no Aesop's fable message. The vaguely frightening phrase 'global warming' is bandied about several times, and Dennis Quaid's concerned and heightened facial expressions imply the devastations wrought by humans is about to reap the whirlwind.

Thankfully, Emmerich at least realizes his strengths are movie effects rather than plot nuance, character growth, or complex political issues. Effects he handles quite well--they're the movie's highlights and do make for utter enjoyment. The seamless use of CG, miniatures, and clever editing create the world's biggest storm system in a frighteningly realistic manner. While New York is the frontispiece, Los Angeles is also treated to some world-class destruction; in both places it is the realism of the effects that wins hearts, if not minds, and this is how the movie succeeds. Granted, use of CG wolves in the second act is startlingly cheesy, but it is not so much the CG as it is the situation that flounders.

The plot is simple. Quaid is a climatologist whose studies of ice core samples from the polar caps indicate that 10,000 years ago a massive storm plunged the earth into an ice age that covered most of the Northern Hemisphere. His briefs to the Vice President and a world council on environmentalism warn them of the damage caused by humans' overextension of the planet's natural resources. Being bureaucrats, they ignore his warnings (the resemblance of the Vice President to current Vice President Dick Cheney is obvious and tired--certainly Emmerich can do better, can't he?). Within 48 hours, the earth is buffetted by the greatest storm systems seen in 10,000 years, culminating in a new ice age that covers the upper half of the planet in subzero temperatures and glaciers.

The human story is equally simple (and, well, stupid). Quaid's son Sam (Jake Gyllenhaal) is trapped in New York by flooding and then freezing temperatures. As Sam and a small group of survivors try to outlast the cold by burning books in the New York Public Library, Quaid journeys across the freezing scape to rescue his son. Meanwhile, the rest of the country plunges south into the world's second largest immigration pattern, sending millions across the border illegally into Mexico to escape the freezing temperatures. Eventually, the Vice President issues an address to the world issuing an apology for being wrong on the environment. Wrap-up tidily, no one significant dies, and fade to black.

Emmerich uses irony in this movie the way a German dictator wields a tank. There is no denying Emmerich's 'message' movie is childish and his methods for conveying the message are ineffective. His use of cracked science is laughable, and the illogic of the movie's thinking left me with a smile on my face. Someone who shall remain unnamed...oh what the heck--it was Al Gore...endorsed the movie as a plausible, insightful movie that reveals the dangers of global warming and continued human recklessness in using the planet's resources. He called it a devastating blow to the Bush administration naysayers who, he implies, are simply obsessed with overusing our resources and destroying the environment.

The movie's most mentioned fact was that the earth experienced a similar 'superstorm'
10,000 years ago. If that is the case, then does that imply that humans 10,000 years ago also caused global warming? Or does it imply that this is a cyclical storm pattern? Either way, the argument that says humans are to blame for global warming is at least diminished, if not demolished outright. Then there is the moral at the end of the story, that human beings will hopefully learn from their mistakes and take the environment seriously. Emmerich peddles a disingenuous message at best.

Despite the leaps in logic, science, and common sense, and the bad dialogue, wooden performances, and errant plot, for some reason the movie was enjoyable. Though it takes itself seriously, the audience clearly should not. If they can laugh and hunch concerned in their seats, wondering if Sam and his friends will escape the freezing temperatures in time and also knowing that they will (for what cruel plot would have the main characters die?), then this escapist fare will have worked. Enjoy the special effects, and just smile when you hear of the impending ice age. Don't worry, you tell yourself--it's just a Roland Emmerich movie.

Jeremiah Lewis

See what other Frank's Reel Reviews critics have to say about The Day After Tomorrow. Read Frank's review.

Don't agree with this review? Read or post comments about this film or review on the
The Day After Tomorrow Discussion Forum