| Username |
Post |
| DWI |
Posted
on 29-May-04 10:33 AM
The Day After Tomorrow
The theatre was pack for the weekend surefire blockbuster. I knew it was another highly commericalized sci-fi movie (some are just wacky sci-fi) heavily loaded with special effects. Without any prominent actor (I only knew Dennis Quaid) the effects were the protagonist of the movie.
<< Might contain Spoiler >>
It sure was a special effect movie trying to 'enforce' human emotions (father and son, two lovers) to give the movie a story. Personally I thought the emotional scenes were forced, in bollywood style; though it did manage to create a wave of applause inside the theatre I was watching (biggest applause on father-son reunion, although I never understood why the dad promised to meet his son)
Like a typical bollywood masala movie, the director doesn't leave any aspect of movie making unturned. The best humor punch of the movie might be American Citizens crossing the Mexican boarder illegally. The turn of obvious villain (Vice President) to President is..well, obvisous.
The movie has a very timely and good message, Global Warming and its effect on northern current. If the movie does a good job selling tickets, it might be addressed in higher level as well. It will seem like a highly scientific movie for a layman
and some scientists (specially Goelogical & Meteorogical) might even laugh at times.
All in all, standard wise, the movie doesn't deserve anything more than a 'B.' But, the movie is made for a mass viewers, and I won't be surprised if it trashes all its competition like Shrek, Troy & Van Helsing and earns more than 100 million within 2 weeks.
Did you watch it?
|
| KaLaNkIsThAn |
Posted
on 29-May-04 01:13 PM
Watched it!!! ;)
Special Effects were awesome!!! But I didn't get few things... why did a dad have to go to NYC from DC to save his son? The son survived on his own, didn't he? Why was mother worried more about her cancer patient than her husband and son who were stuck in devastated NYC? Normal driving takes about 4 - 5 hours to reach NYC from DC. In the movie, it seems like it just took about 2 hours to reach PA in such a worst blizzard. From PA to NYC, They walk, again in a blizzard that covered northern Hemisphere with nothing but huge pile of ice and snow, and they reach Manhattan in couple of days. Why was the president a last person to leave DC? Don't they protect and evacuate president before anybody else? Or is it like a captain of the ship who has to remain inside until everyone is evacuated?
I hadn't expected this movie to have great script or anything but special effects. Afterall what can you expect from a director who gave us Godzilla? LOL. Anyway, pure time pass... worth a watch for special effects. Actually when I came out of theater, it was kinda chilly and dark outside, sky was dark grey as if it was going to rain and thunderstorm.. eh... I almost ran for a shelter. :P
|
| Arnico |
Posted
on 29-May-04 02:15 PM
Watched it last night.
I was skeptical before I went, but thought it was an enjoyable movie to watch. Especially enjoyed watching the Dick Cheney character getting hammered, as well as the illegal immigration of US refugees across the Rio Grande.
***if you have not seen the movie you might not want to continue reading yet****
Of course the global warming message would have been stronger if the science had been more realistic as well. The main problems I found:
(1) The timescales were messed up. If the thermohaline circulation shuts down a new ice age can start (it did for about 1000 years roughly 10,000 years ago)... quite rapidly... within the course of a few years. And the thermohaline circulation can get shut down if too much fresh water is dumped into the north Atlantic (by melting ice). So the professor's presentation at the Delhi conference was in line with present-day scientific understanding. But then the rate at which change happened in the movie... that was messed up. The movie lets happen in days what would take similar numbers of years or even decades.
(2) The storms defied the laws of thermodynamics. Stratospheric air cannot be brought down to the surface without warming up due to compression. There is no such thing as air sinking so fast that it won't warm. The compression heating of sinking air is not related to its speed. And it heats up by about 10 degrees per kilometers.
(3) Even if it were possible to bring stratospheric air down to the surface without heating, they got the initial temperature wrong. They talked about the fuel lines on the helicopter freezing at -150 C. Well, the coldest air in the stratosphere is only about -70 C.
(4) The whole idea of forming hurricanes over COLD land (such as over Scottland) seems messsed up. Where would the energy come from to drive the storms??? Hurricanes only form over warm sea water (warmer than 26 degrees Celcius). Global warming has the potential to increase the area where hurricanes can form by increasing the area of oceans with a surface water temperature warmer than the threshold temperature of 26 C... hurricane-size storms will NOT form over cold continents.
(5) The scientific community studying global climate is much larger, and the computing resources are much better than what is portrayed in the movie (a movie that clearly takes place some time later than September 2001). A few scientists in the movie mumbled that grid models were not going to be good enough. Of course not! But come on... grid models are not the only thing available widely to climate scientists!! And to think that only one person's paleoclimate model could give insights into consequences of rapid changes in ocean salinity? And for that person to have to fight for computer time?? Hey I'm pretty sure that there are more people in my department alone who could do a better job faster with their coupled atmosphere-ocean models on computers sitting within one building!
An additional thing I am skeptical about: Given how cold it was when the rapid cooling started, was there really enough moisture left in the atmosphere to crystallize out such huge layers of ice...so rapidly...? (for example on the empire state building).
Anyway... so my overall assessment: it was a FUN movie to watch, and though it screwed up the science, it did a pretty good job with the political message: "don't re-elect Bush and Cheney or they will sell your future"
|
| tabasco |
Posted
on 29-May-04 07:00 PM
.watched it on friday night with a full house.
if someone is expecting relationships, emotions and good story line up, definetly this film is not for them. i would suggest you to wait till the DVDs are out.
but if you are visitng the theatre just to enjoy the graphics, like i did, then folks its worth spending 5-6$. simply, the graphics are the only + part of the film. they also managed to create some laughter with the american refugee at mexico thing.
it wud have been much better if they had made a documentry showing the same theme without characters :D
regarding arnico's comment, comeon dude its just a movie. ;)
waiting for "GARFIELD"
|
| babaal |
Posted
on 29-May-04 09:16 PM
They were talking in fahrenheit when they mentioned -150 degrees, not celcius.
|
| confused |
Posted
on 29-May-04 09:36 PM
Movie's Message
Listen to a high school kid, they are SMART..
Open the border for "AMIGOS"
:)
Overall it was a good movie w/ SPecial affects AND HUMOUR...if there would have been no humour placed into it, i would have been bored to death...
|
| confused |
Posted
on 29-May-04 09:37 PM
kids*
|
