Weak......

Rating: Null/10 (2 June 2004)

The Day After Tomorrow
Directed by Roland Emmerich Runtime: 124 min
Real generosity toward the future lies in giving all to the present. - Albert Camus
I know it's very first year university of me the begin with a quote. But for reasons beyond my under standing, It has been lingering in my mind.
It's simple, prophetic logic, to which most would agree on in principal, speaks clearly to environmental issues which are the basis of this film.
We see the torrential down pour, the tornados etc. Scary, very real stuff.
But I wonder how many of us would accept the proposed sacrifices?
Who would be willing to give up the SUV or the air conditioner not just for the sake of our own children, but for the children of many a faceless individual.
Not many I imagine
We see this in the films opening frames. A brilliant scientist (Played by the loveable dufuss Dennis Quaid.) with provocative global warming evidence, is marginalize (as are so many environmentalist / scientists) by state officials, who justifiably so, wish to protect the world economy. But this comes at the expense of the environment. A little ostrich syndrome.
History has shown us precaution is never a bad investment. Maybe not as profitable as clear cutting and strip mining, but profitable nonetheless.
Which begs the question, can we do anything to ensure a healthy, ever changing and highly unpredictable biosphere? Should we sacrifice billions of dollars to postpone the inevitable, natural evolution of our planets climate? Or are we, through global warming , precipitating our own destruction?
This is somewhat aptly conveyed. Whether we could change our ways or not is no longer the issue. The world is indeed powerless to stop the trend and is forced to face the grim reality. The northern hemisphere is lost. And all we can do is retreat. The characters in this picture are set against a cataclysmic backdrop. It's the characters reaction to this new environment (which is the real star of the picture) is what, sould make it interesting. This is where it falls flat. Emmerich has managed to pull every cliché out of the proverbial book, in attempt to provoke a tear jerk affect that, due to lack of character development, fails miserably. The characters are so poorly defined we seldom identify with or care if they die. Quaids cross country trek, to save his estranged son, though well motivated is clearly asinine. But the kind of asinine we can identify with.
(I don't have kids of my own but I'm pretty sure I would trek across half a frozen continent to rescue one of my sisters kids.) This is a survival film. But it stops right where the survival gets interesting. I would like to see what kind of world would evolve with North-Western occupation of the third world. Can we believe that after the US has retreated to Mexico and Central America they would be content to be guests? Or would they slowly begin to usurp control from their host nations? Would they have a choice, or become assimilated themselves? This is where the real drama would lie.
Sadly not much money could be made from a film like that. We will have to content with speculation. Or we can deny prudence and leave our children to bare witness to cataclysm.
I'll take a page from Emmerich's cliché book and say, the film left me a little cold'
1 dick up! (Out of five)
Go to the movies
Theflickdick@hotmail.com