I used to laugh at this film before Katrina

Rating: 8/10 (11 May 2007)

People forget that Hollywood DRAMATIZES things, and in this case, Hollywood sure didn't forget it, because what we have here is a dramatization of a predicted outcome of current events left unchecked.
The political hot-button issue of global warming ensures that this movie will be attacked mercilessly for its technical inaccuracies, yet if we were to hold other films to the same standard, other classics like Star Trek (in which people are BEAMED around the galaxy; who were the guinea pigs?) and The Bad News Bears (a satire of overzealous little league parents in a litigious society) would never have gotten off the ground.
The initial criticisms of this film are telling, especially in light of Katrina: a "superstorm" hits an unprepared America, stranding large amounts of people to the point where even the rescue workers can't locate them, and they are left to fend for themselves in horrible conditions. It might not play out as it did in the movie, but not only is it not nice to fool with Mother Nature, it's not wise to underestimate history's greatest terrorist by far, who can kill millions in an instant.
The film itself lends itself to jokes and drinking games. Dennis Quaid stars as Jake Hall, the world's foremost expert on global warming. The subplots center around his relationship with his son, Sam (Jake Gyllenhall), an honors student caught in transit from New York City from a debate competition, but fortunately he has Laura Chapman (Emmy Rossum) to keep him company. Throw in an assortment of stereotypical New Yorkers (type A businessman, street-smart homeless man with dog, know-it-all cops, etc.), and we realize that this is the Big Storm because while the city may never sleep, it might just freeze if it doesn't drown first, thus grinding Manhattan to one of its rare halts. The cast is rounded out by the Washington Bureaucrats who are portrayed typically as well.
The death scenes occasionally rival that of any horror movie, especially the Final Destination series, and the movie seems to draw on the theme that "death" has a design, or is a part of mother nature's design to fix the planet in one fell atmospheric swoop. There is tremendous historical precedent for climate change, but as the scientists point out, such changes takes years or decades rather than weeks. Why this is supposed to comfort me is beyond me, because it almost seems like the quick-kill of this film is better for humanity than the slow torture currently predicted. Is it any easier to adjust to a long-term climate change that will just as surely sink us, possibly without us realizing when we have reached the point of no return? Intelligent folks will see this film as dumbed-down, but who says that is a bad thing when the typical "dumb" American pays admission? That class of people needs overdramatization before it pays attention to an issue, and even finding the mistakes in the film would be a good exercise for youngsters who otherwise might not take much of an interest in science or global warming.
I'll lose patience with films like this when I see other films held to the same standard. However, for as long as people are transported in the Star Trek films, or the Bad News Bears win their lawsuits so they can play out of their league, I'll forgive the scientific inaccuracies of which there are many here, and just enjoy the excellent cinematography and birds-eye view of nature putting humanity in its humble place.
"The Century After Tomorrow" just wouldn't have had the same ring to it. The truths in this film which remain after you strip away the impossible and fictitious are most inconvenient and need to be addressed. This movie is as good a starting point as any.