Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: The Day After Tomorrow

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews » The Day After Tomorrow (Page 3)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: The Day After Tomorrow

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 08-23-2004 03:32 AM

Yup, it's shite. The 'no politics' rule prevents me from enlarging on that very much (as it has done everyone else), except for to note that the Brits, of course, have to be the first to go. 'We've got enough tea and biccies to sink a battleship, so we'll be fine just as long as the loo doesn't back up.' [puke]

Oh, and Manchester United would be very unlikely to play Celtic in the F.A. Cup Final, as Scottish soccer teams do not take part in that tournament. Maybe people in California think we abolished Scotland as revenge for inflicting Braveheart on us! Some lowly production researcher did a good job there...

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 08-23-2004 12:06 PM

quote: Jack Ondracek
I can live with occasional mediocre CGI. If we all hold out for perfection, we'll never enjoy a movie. I know... crappy rationale, but it seems the way the system works right now.

This isn't the way the system used to work. The whole idea of a visual effect is fooling the audience with something that appears real. This is main reason why "Forrest Gump" won the visual effects Oscar for 1994. Even in the old "analog" days of the 1970's and 1980's, shops like ILM went to painstaking efforts to make shots look as real as possible.

Overall, I sense a very broad lack of discipline in doing this with CGI these days. Sure, CGI is not going to be "perfect" all of the time. But it should not be laughable either.

| IP: Logged

Robert L. Fischer
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 145
From: Montreal, Quebec
Registered: May 2004

posted 08-24-2004 11:20 PM

I never wrote a review on this one because I saw it before I posted regularly on the message boards, but since it has been resurrected, I would like to take the time to mention that this is one of the worst films ever put into wide release.

OK, so it's almost a given that the movie is terrible. The scattershot dialogue actually ellicited laughter at some of the most "serious" moments. The side love stories were completely undeveloped and unnecessary, and the sunny ending was one of the most cliched stretches of film ever recorded.

This leaves the big-budget effects, which are pretty much all that one could hope for from this movie. Luckily, we're treated with slow-moving twisters that are out of proportion, as well as not even shaped correctly. Oh yeah, not to mention the totally unbelievable CGI wolves where real wolves would have been completely appropriate. There were many more atrocities in this horrid film, but, luckily, I had all but forgotten about it until tonight.

| IP: Logged

Ben Holley
Film Handler

Posts: 65
From: Texas
Registered: Feb 2004

posted 08-25-2004 09:06 PM

This movie did very at the theatre I work at with people who dont speak english. [Big Grin]

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 10-15-2004 07:49 PM

I was forced to watch this DVD last night and I HAVE to comment. It is an awful movie! I was hoping everyone would die quickly so the movie would just end. But nooooooo.....

First off am I the only one who has a hard time telling the difference between Toby McGuire and Jake Gyllenhaal? They both suck.

Spoilers:
First of all, the CGI in this movie was unwiped-ass qaulity. They definitely farmed a lot of the effects work out to the lowest bidder. The people who did the tornados (probably an effects house in India) have obviously never seen a tornado before. The fact is that The Wizard of Oz has a more realistic looking tornado BY FAR, and that movie is older than the projection equipment generally used at film festivals (ie: older than the planet Earth). The tornados here seem fatter at the bottom, have little or no debris clouds, and move exceedingly slow. My guess is that German director Ronald Emmerich told the people in India "We need you to make computer tornados for us! Tornados are basically funnels of wind or something. Achtung!"

Then there are the wolves who just happen to be wandering around a frozen New York City. How they survived the massive tidal wave that went through the city is beyond me. Obviously they enter a huge Russian tanker which has somehow floated down the narrow streets of NYC to chase Spider Man and his amazing super-friends. What the group doesn't realize is that these wolves can't actually hurt them because they are incredibly fake-looking CGI. Maybe they are running away because they hate bad graphics? That must be it. Why don't the wolves freeze? They've obviously been outside for a very long time. Also where did the huge tanker go at the end of the movie? It's not by the library. It's just gone! And as you look at the wide shot above the library at the end, you see that there was no way the tanker could have ever have gotten there in the first place. That makes me gaseous.

Then there are the sappy side stories which amount to nothing at all. I don't care if Toby McGuire/Jake Gyllenhaal has feelings for the smart chick. She's actually not very smart at all. She knows enough to heat Toby/Jake/Spider-Man up when he comes out of the water, but she's too much of a dip shit to do anything about a giant gash on her leg. She is a stupid whore and she deserves to die. And while I think the 30-something asian lady in the movie is indeed desirable material, the way he young guy looked back at her as he was leaving and the way she looked at him almost made me puke up pizza bits. And what is up with the homeless guy's dog? SHUT UP ALREADY! Ronald Emmerich loves having barking dogs in his movies, and they never die like they should. The scene in Independence Day where the dog narrowly escaped the explosion made me go diarrhea on my seat. Also, am I supposed to feel sad when the old guy cuts his own rope and falls down to save the other two assholes? My reaction was "Good riddance! You should have died 10 years ago you old fart!" I would have killed myself too if I was in this crappy movie. Oh! And the 3 idiots in England drinking 12 year old scotch worrying about the loo was just retarded. Am I supposed to care about them? Their contribution to the story is about as essential as picking the lint out of my belly-button before I shoot myself for having to watch this P.O.S. BUT THAT'S NOT ALL!!! There are so many side stories in this movie that you may think that some of them are commercials in a TV show. Spider Man's mom is caring for this dippy kid in a hospital bed. We are supposed to be worried and/or concerned for the kid who needs transport to some place. For some reason he can only be moved with an ambulance even though the only thing hooked up to the little bastard is an oxygen tank which could be carried by hand. Sela Ward should be frozen and thawed out when they find a cure for lousy acting.
End Spoilers

Sucks.

| IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 10-15-2004 10:53 PM

Best. Review. Ever.

I thought the CGI tidal wave action was pretty well-done. The rest of it varied from passable, to just plain awful. And yes the tornado in Wizard of Oz is one of the best special effects ever. I think I read somewhere they used a pair of women's nylons to do that.

| IP: Logged

Michael Schaffer
"Where is the
Boardwalk Hotel?"

Posts: 4143
From: Boston, MA
Registered: Apr 2002

posted 10-16-2004 05:03 AM

quote: Leo Enticknap
Oh, and Manchester United would be very unlikely to play Celtic in the F.A. Cup Final, as Scottish soccer teams do not take part in that tournament.

Why is that? Because English teams are afraid the Scots would kick their pale asses?

quote:
Maybe people in California think we abolished Scotland as revenge for inflicting Braveheart on us!

Well, didn't England pretty much abolish Scotland?

quote: Ben Holley
This movie did very at the theatre I work at with people who dont speak english.

Did very what? That's not a complete sentence. Do you speak English?

I'll put a smiley here: [Wink]

[ 10-16-2004, 06:46 AM: Message edited by: Michael Schaffer ]

| IP: Logged

Jeremy Fuentes
Mmmm, Dr. Pepper!

Posts: 1168
From: Corpus Christi, TX United States
Registered: Jan 2004

posted 10-16-2004 06:50 PM

Awesome review Joe. At first, I liked the movie. You made me see the light.

Everyone who liked this movie, then sees it again after Joe's review will change their mind as well. Guaranteed.

| IP: Logged

Jennifer Pan
THE JEN!

Posts: 1219
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: Nov 2003

posted 10-16-2004 07:00 PM

Indeed.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 10-16-2004 07:22 PM

While I agree with everything in your review Joe, I must ask who it was that forced you to watch this terrible movie?

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 10-16-2004 10:51 PM

quote: David Stambaugh
And yes the tornado in Wizard of Oz is one of the best special effects ever. I think I read somewhere they used a pair of women's nylons to do that.

No, no... It was a 35-foot-tall piece of muslin that was attached to a crane and turned with a motor. I have here a copy of a special-effects sheet from the movie (it's in a "Wizard" book) which says the following:

"For the tornado used in Kansas farm sequence a Gantry Crane travelling the length of Stage 14 was hung from the bottom of roof trusses. The Gantry car supported a canvas cone in the shape of a tornado which was rotated by a D.C. motor on a speed control. The motor assembly was arranged to tip sideways and was controlled from the car together with its cross travel. The approach was controlled by a motor winch on the stage floor. The base of the tornado cone was fastened to a car traveling on a predetermined track and containing arrangement for dust. This car was moved by operators below set. Set was built on a platform and was 3/4 scale. Sky was projected moving clouds on white backing. This was augmented by cotton clouds on moving foreground glasses. Air was piped around set for wind effects. Wind machines were also used."

According to the book, the cost of the scene was $12,423 for construction costs including materials and labor, and another $4173 to actually film the shot.

OK, now back to bashing on "The Day After Tomorrow."

| IP: Logged

Robert L. Fischer
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 145
From: Montreal, Quebec
Registered: May 2004

posted 10-17-2004 02:25 AM

I definitely saw the light when I first saw this horrid piece of shit. One would be hard-pressed to find a worse movie in 2004; even Paparazzi is better. And thanks to this movie, Without a Paddle has a shot at not winning the worst movie of the year award. I say they should be co-champions though.

| IP: Logged

Christian Appelt
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 505
From: Frankfurt, Germany
Registered: Dec 2001

posted 10-17-2004 04:29 PM

If you ever saw one single film by Roland Emmerich, maybe even two or three, you should know what to expect. (INDEPENDENCE DAY is the exception from the rule because it goes so far over the top being patriotic science fiction trash that I found it funny, and it moves so fast that it always stays slightly ahead of its own stupidity.)

Look at JOEY/MAKING CONTACT (1985) or HOLLYWOOD MONSTER/GHOST CHASE (1987) or MOON 44/INTRUDER (1990) - all Spielberg imitations, just on a lower budget, a kind of extract from too many (generally better) American mainstream movies. [Roll Eyes]

To me it seems not fair to blame Mr Emmerich for doing what he has been doing successfully for years, you always know what you'll get.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.