Disaster film not disastrous

Rating: 7/10 (30 May 2004)

Disaster movies are in general a part of cinema best avoided; despite Irwin Allen's commercially successful spate in the 70s (and Poseidon Adventure wasn't that bad, but), I still feel they are a genre more or less best eschewed if possible. But the teaser trailer released at the top of the year for Day After Tomorrow was very enticing; brief shots of hurricanes, destruction, and then, echoing one of the most memorable shots in cinematic history, a frozen Statue of Liberty as we pan up from a team of arctic travelers to see New York as a giant frozen tomb. I was intrigued by this film until I saw that it would be masterminded by Roland Emmerich, who in my mind is responsible for more bad modern cinema than any other one person (even Jerry Bruckheimer). Emmerich is the 'genius' who brought us the tepid Stargate and the blasphemous American version of Godzilla, and taught us with Independence Day that a crappy film craftily advertised will do big box office. So he has a history of misleading us with glossy trailers that promise a quality that his movies never contain, and has proven to be a master at enticing the public to see films best avoided even on video.
Thus I went in skeptically yesterday, prepared to be let down as the movie failed to live up to even a sliver of the promise of the trailer. And, yes, Day After Tomorrow is not without its flaws. But I was rather surprised to find that while it is a disaster film, it is not a disastrous film, as some have claimed (to me, critics are especially ignorant this summer), but rather a fairly well done film with effects and concepts that will, yes, knock your eyes out.
The plot mechanics owe a lot to lesser films like Armageddon and the like: we've screwed up the earth and we don't realize it, and Mama Nature bites us in the butt faster than we can prepare for. That an ice age can be triggered overnight is a bit much to take, but they at least try to explain why it can happen and I'm nowhere near enough of a meteorologist to know if what they said was bunk or not. All I know is that the science sounded good, and that's all it needs to in a decent story. And anything that gets gas-guzzling Americans to even consider global warming is doing a huge public service.
Emmerich (wrote and directed) chooses the necessary human element in such a story to revolve around the Halls; father Jack (Dennis Quaid) is a climatologist who in the Emmerichian tradition is the first to realize we're headed to hell in a hand basket (see Jeff Goldblum in ID4 for a far less effective version of this character). Mother Lucy (Sela Ward) is a doctor, and is given only minor screen time. Most of the human angle revolves around son Sam (Jake Gyllenhaal, the guy you get when you can't get Tobey Maguire), who is trapped with several brainy school chums in NYC at a nerdy academic contest. Also along for the ride is the ever-terrific Ian Holm, who plays English weather guru Terry Rapson.
Though the entire world is affected by the events in the story, Emmerich wisely has most of the story take place in New York, a place most of us are familiar enough with so the massive destruction means a little more (come on, if he had destroyed Reno, who would have cared?). We are treated to sumptuous visuals of New York flooding and then freezing in some of the most effective computer wizardry ever, and though we know what we are seeing isn't real, never once can you actually tell. The visuals are simply perfect, not only well-rendered but well-realized, and though we will probably never live to see the next ice age, I had no trouble accepting that it may look like this (though it will likely develop a lot more slowly).
Sure, the plot dips into some clichés  Lucy stays behind at the hospital to tend to a tug-at- your-heart bald cancer child, Sam has to try and win the affection of his pretty teammate Laura (Emmy Rossum) from the hunky local rich kid who helps them out, and once again the scientists know more than them evil guv'mint types, but for all that pablum, the human element in the story comes off pretty well. Quaid can play earnest with the best of them, and his performance goes a long way in helping to sell the film (at one point I wondered what the film would have been like with ID4's Bill Pullman in the Quaid role and shuddered). Ward, though her part is small, is also very good, and Ian Holm plays Rapson with his standard understated grace; when the good doctor at one point raises his scotch and utters, 'To mankind,' it's not maudlin, it's heartfelt. A large part of the film rests on Gyllenhaal's shoulders, and he, like Holm, underplays his role, which is a relief in this type of film.
Day After Tomorrow isn't exactly brain candy, but it is an interesting and well-executed disaster movie. The few times it goes overboard  like a silly race against a chilling wind  are easily forgiven because they are surrounded by all of the things done well. It won't win any awards for the movie of the year, but it was a damn sight better than I expected, and, preaching at the end aside, I left the film extremely pleasantly surprised. The Day After Tomorrow entertains completely, pulling us in at the start and never letting go of its hold on our imagination, and really, isn't that what we go to the movies for?