Recensioni degli utenti

The Day After Tomorrow is entertaining during the first half of the film but by the second half of the movie it starts to drag. Global warming and the greenhouse effect have devastating effects on the earth when a series of hurricanes, tornadoes and tidal waves kick off a second Ice Age. Professor Adrian Hall (Quaid), a leading scientist studying weather patterns, must try to save the world as well as find his son (Gyllenhaal) who was in New York City when it was struck by the sudden weather catastrophe. This type of movie has three factors that it needs to have if it wants a wider audience. First, Are the destruction scenes thrilling? Judging by the trailer alone you can see that they are. Second, Is the science sound? In this case it isn't as global warming is a big issue and making a joke out of it will upset some people and turn them away. And third is the dialog good or will you laugh out at some of the scenes? Well there are some unintentional funny moments when they are trying to be serious but it sounds too stupid and its hard to take seriously. If you want the last two factors in this film then I recommend you don't watch it, however if the destruction scenes are good enough for you then its worth it. Roland Emmerich has a good eye for destruction and he makes this movie very action packed but left out everything else. The cast is good for the most part with the best being Dennis Quaid who really made up for The Alamo and does a good job in his role. Jake Gyllenhaal was good and I am kind of surprised he isn't more popular in Hollywood since he is a very good actor. Emmy Rossum, Sela Ward and Ian Holm all play their roles fine and try their best with a unrealistic plot. The first half of the movie is great with tons of action and with a lot of great scenes like the tornadoes in LA, though I think they should have destroyed another city. The second half starts getting boring and there's not much action also it has a very cheesy ending. Rating 6/10 it was a decent destruction flick and it was very entertaining in the beginning but loses steam by the end.

Global Warming is accelerated to incredible levels, propelling the planet Earth into another Ica Age. Most frequently, the cameras find climatologist Dennis Quaid (as Jack Hall) and estranged son Jake Gyllenhaal (as Sam Hall). Both men are strong, and smart. Mr. Quaid is one of the few who knows the seriousness of the matter. Mr. Gyllenhaal is smarter than his calculus teacher; he does appear like he's been "kept back" a few years in high school, but this is probably because teachers are jealous of Gyllenhaal's intelligence. Quaid has not won any "Father of the Year" awards; but, he really loves his son. Can Quaid save Gyllenhaal from the Global Warming monster?

Indulgent cliché-ridden idiocy!

Some money was obviously spent on "The Day After Tomorrow", which means there are exciting, well-produced scenes. Roland Emmerich is an obviously very skillful filmmaker; but, his story premises favor mindless blockbusters over enduring classics. The story renders its serious subject unintentionally (?) nonsensical; although, it is, admittedly, only a movie. Emmy Rossum (as Laura Chapman) and Sela Ward (as Lucy Hall) are the lovely love interests. Capable Ian Holm (as Terry Rapson) doesn't have much to do.

Everyone watches FOX "News" channels. No wonder!

***** The Day After Tomorrow (2004) Roland Emmerich ~ Dennis Quaid, Jake Gyllenhaal, Emmy Rossum

Jack Hall is certain that another ice age is imminent due to the effects of global warming, but the government just will not listen to him. Sure enough the climate changes and the world is at threat from perilous frozen weather, worse still for Jack is that his son is trapped in New York City!

Roland Emmerich was the perfect choice to direct this particular piece. There is no denying that he has no little panache when it comes to destroying and blowing things up, think Independence Day, Stargate, Universal Soldier and Godzilla. What runs true through an Emmerich picture is that he is great on the CGI money shots and knows how to whet an appetite for destruction. Sadly, what is also true is that his second halves rarely deliver on their promise, so shall it be with The Day After Tomorrow. Even allowing for the expected mawkishness that comes with disaster/survival pictures, this picture relies too much on its contrivances, thus completely losing sight of its eco-conscious heart, something that I'm sure the politically aware Emmerich set out to deliver at the start.

Packing his picture with solid and professional performers (led by the always watchable Dennis Quaid as Jack Hall), Emmerich is all too aware that his money shots are what the popcorn masses have chiefly paid to see. Tornados, floods and the subsequent freeze are all excellent moments in the piece, but now, some years later the film has to be called out for being the shallow showcase that it is, in fact the CGI looks unintentionally artificial. It's a missed opportunity to make a blockbuster with an intelligent heart, and sadly Emmerich, either through boredom or ignorance? failed to seal the deal and craft one of the better genre entries.

Just about average for the destruction sequences, but very little else to recommend here I'm afraid. 5/10

The Day After Tomorrow is a messy blockbuster. It's a spectacle with formulaic beats, but the film doesn't have a cohesive point (besides destruction). Typical of Roland Emmerich, The Day After Tomorrow follows several characters through a global cataclysm. Massive death is trivialized, vulnerable characters are rushed, and the disaster solves itself without shaping the protagonists. Plus, the science and politics aren't realistic. Lastly, the conclusion lacks falling action. Once the climate event stops, the movie ends without reflection. This is because The Day After Tomorrow had nothing to say. The film's sole purpose was to present weather set-pieces.

Meanwhile, Emmerich's mediocre filmmaking continues. Imagery is plain, sound is standard, and music is forgettable. The unimaginative production design lacks tangible craft because it's all sterile CGI. Had the film utilized varied effects, it would've been more impactful. The best scenes use real water and believable hail, but even those are undercut by glossy CGI additions. Finally, the tone is erratic. Cartoonish action doesn't mesh with forced drama. Films are either sincere or not. The Day After Tomorrow tries to have it both ways and contradicts itself. Overall, it's an adequate source of shlock, but The Day After Tomorrow isn't good.

Writing: 3/10 Direction: 4/10 Cinematography: 5/10 Acting: 6/10 Editing: 5/10 Sound: 6/10 Score/Soundtrack: 5/10 Production Design: 4/10 Casting: 6/10 Effects: 6/10

Overall Score: 5.0/10.

Supreme silliness doesn't stop The Day After Tomorrow from being lots of fun for connoisseurs of epic-scale disaster flicks. After the blockbuster profits of Independence Day and Godzilla, you can't blame director Roland Emmerich for using global warming as a politically correct excuse for destroying most of the northern hemisphere. Like most of Emmerich's films, this one emphasizes special effects over such lesser priorities as well-drawn characters and plausible plotting, and his dialog (cowritten by Jeffrey Nachmanoff) is so laughably trite that it could be entirely eliminated without harming the movie. It's the spectacle that's important here, not the lame, recycled plot about father and son (Dennis Quaid, Jake Gyllenhaal) who endure an end-of-the-world scenario caused by the effects of global warming. So sit back, relax, and enjoy the awesome visions of tornado-ravaged Los Angeles, blizzards in New Delhi, Japan pummeled by grapefruit-sized hailstones, and Manhattan flooded by swelling oceans and then frozen by the onset of a modern ice age. It's all wildly impressive, and Emmerich obviously doesn't care if the science is flimsy, so why should you?

THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW is your typical disaster movie: At a conference meeting, a climatologist named Jack Hall (Dennis Quaid) states his theory that with the continuing elevation of global warming, in about 100 years, the world's icecaps will melt, thereby causing disastrous floods, and then the globe will freeze over again, causing "the next Ice Age." Even though most people can see the sense in this, the board he is speaking to doesn't. Little do they know, this theory rapidly becomes true, in much less than 100 years--more like 2 days. Gigantic pieces of icebergs in Antarctica break off and then melt, increasing the water level in the ocean and causing terrible flooding all over New York City. The only people who survive are locked in buildings with little hope.

As far as disaster movies go, THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW is either at the better end of the stick or right among the pack, depending on how you look at it. On the one hand, all of the cliches are present, from the turned-away scientist looking to earn his son's love back, to said son's inevitable love interest, to said love interest's possibly lethal condition... etc. The acting is pretty poor, even from Jake Gyllenhaal (as Jack Hall's son Sam) and Dennis Quaid, who actually are good actors, but are given nothing to work with. The script is almost laughable (some people sitting behind me did laugh, actually), with more than its fair share of cheesy moments. Particularly the ending, which almost did make me laugh aloud. The direction is acceptable.

But, on the other hand, there are some good points. There are several humorous moments, as well as several genuinely tense and even scary ones. The special effects are extravagant, namely in the scenes of floods overtaking New York City. And of course, the fact that this could (and probably will) happen one day, not to us, but possibly to our grandchildren or even great-grandchildren, is pretty terrifying. Even if it is a little far-fetched.

Overall, the bad points outweigh the good ones. A simple rewrite would've done the film a lot of justice. 5/10.

When anyone begins to talk about a contemporary special effects film, he needs to start out with the fact that if you throw enough money at something, it will look impressive. What makes it a good movie is plausibility. Are the characters possible? Is the situation possible? Are there things that just don't work. The stuff that happened in "Independence Day" is happening again. It's not aliens; it's us. We have opened the Pandora's box and let out all the evils with our radiation, our ozone layers, our whatever. So all of a sudden, the world is pretty much ending. There are so many remarkable things that come to pass, but the main one is that there are people who seem to understand everything that happens; they are experts on uncertainty. Give me a break. If things were as bad as this, the shock wave would be way too much to handle in such a short time. The only people who would survive would do so because of being lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time. I was astonished by people running down streets being chased by a wave of cold. Holed up in the big public library, burning books and furniture to keep the temperature up. It's just too much. The rescues are too unbelievable because they call for too much knowledge to pull off. It was a visually exciting film. If you are willing to suspend a ton of disbelief, you could get caught up in it. I never did.

The Day After Tomorrow is just another Roland Emmerich big-budget extravaganza which pays little attention to trivial aspects of film-making, such as a good plot, dialogue or even a large amount of excitement. But hey, it has awesome special effects, so who the hell cares? In my opinion, The Day After Tomorrow is overrated - it's 6.2 rating on IMDb is a bit too high for my liking. Not only that, but the ending is both stupid and inconclusive.

Anyhow, The Day After Tomorrow revolves around a father, son and the world around them, which suddenly suffers the effects of global warming. Los Angeles suffers tornadoes and twisters, while Washington D.C freezes over. In fact, the world enters a state of climatic flux. There is an underlying subplot indicating how their struggle for survival has brought Sam and his father Jack closer together, but I see it as little more than an excuse for Emmerich to showcase more special effects. The dialogue is also substandard, but I more or less expected this. This movie's greatest fault is that it is simply not exciting enough. For a high-budget disaster epic, it is rather boring and unengaging, which is a surprise. Another issue I have with The Day After Tomorrow is with its ending. The film ends just like that, leaving me with a quizzical expression on my face and a reasonably sour taste in my mouth.

On the other hand, the acting, particularly by the leads Dennis Quaid and Jake Gylenhall, is quite decent, as they both manage to capture some of the urgency which would be prevalent in such a precarious situation. The rest of the cast are OK, but no outstanding performances come to mind. Did I mention that the special effects in this movie are bloody awesome and are among the best that I have ever seen?

Some people may think that I have not given The Day After Tomorrow much of a chance. Well, if you are thinking that, let me tell you...I really wanted to enjoy this film, I really did. I have tried to sit through it multiple times but I have only managed to once. This is because I feel that The Day After Tomorrow is little more than an overrated bore which tries to compensate for its lack of entertainment value by using (admittedly great) special effects.

If you are a special effects buff or a Roland Emmerich fan, by all means, go see The Day After Tomorrow as it is one of his better pictures (not like that's saying much). But if you want to see a good disaster movie, go see War of The Worlds.

2.5/5 stars

A heavily advertised film. Non stop advertisements of the new film of the director of 'INDEPENDENCE DAY' fooled millions of cinema viewers who went to watch the Day After Tomorrow. The short trailers that showed world catastrophes and eye catching special effects reflected the impressive $530,000,000 of Box Office Intake.

"Moderately Entertaining film. Special Effects are not always enough to impress **1/2"

"Scientifically Inaccurate, exaggerated facts"

When the whole world is undergoing a new Ice Age, the whole film concentrates on one man's mission to save his son. We are not shown scenes of Europe destroyed, Africa even an other part of the USA. It is always New York City that gets destroyed, whether it is by Godzilla, Aliens or Natural Disasters. New York, New York

"Worth watching. Nothing more, nothing less"

A cool concept that was not executed well. I also strongly believe the movie would have been ten times better if it mainly focused on the kids. The relationship between sam and laura was by far the best part of the movie. Jack's storyline was super boring and it felt like Dennis Quaid was doing a really bad Harrison Ford impression the whole movie.

Emmy rossum and Jake Gyllenhaal were both the highlight of this movie and the acting was all pretty strong

However the movie was super boring average and kinda stupid

what was Roland Emmerich thinking when he made this film he obviously thought that special effects makes a good movie well he might have been missing some key ingredients including plot and better acting. but even with those the movie still would have sucked what was with that little boy with cancer in the hospital did he have anything to do with the movie it was like every one else in the world is dying and nobody does anything for them but as long as they save the boy with the terminal disease it will be okay. and what was with everything being okay as soon as Dennis quaid got to his son. i guess id have to say besides good special effects this movie flat out sucked but its still entertaining to see. my advice to yow would be go see it and find out what all the hype is about. but if you ask me this movie sucked

Only in Hollywood could thousands of centuries of global climatic changes occur in the span of a few weeks (or for the sake of this movie, in less than two hours). How senseless and naive can one be?

Okay, I admit that The Day After Tomorrow does tend to keep one on the edge of their seat with a steady dose of action, but come on, this plot is so hokey that even a whacked out environmentalist would be scratchy their heads.

They could not even get the cataclysmic weather sequences right. I'm from the Midwest and believe me, those tornados that struck LA were pure Hollywood fabrications. I suggest the director and special effects supervisor spend a little time in Tornado Alley before doing another storm scene. The massive storms were called super cells? Wrong, super cells are large isolated thunderstorms not inland ice age cyclones. Watch the Weather Channel a little more, please!

On the positive side, I was impressed with the special effects in The Day After Tomorrow, as improbable as they are. My wife spent more time with her eyes covered than not, so kudos to the effects.

Would I recommend this movie, sure, as long as you take its socio-commentary with a grain of salt. The earth is not going to end as a result of global warming by this weekend, honestly!

6 out of 10 from Tornado Alley!

As I was at the theater and I was buying my tickets there were only 4 tickets left and luckly I brought one of the 4. It was soo crowded and there were only like 6 seats left. Everyone was talking about how great the movie looked. I was guessing since Dennis Quaid was in it and he is a good actor that this movie might be really good. As I was watching this film I noticed the plot went in to quick. Some of the scenes in this movie made me wanna laugh since it was so unrealistic. The scenes with the news reporter feet away from a tornado, the fact that there were several tornados at once, and that Hollywood sign scene was really fake and I never seen anything like it. Now let's think realistically-how often does that happen? Not very often huh? This movie was just an "okay". It wasn't bad yet it wasn't wonderful either. This movie was completely different from what I expected.