The Day After Tomorrow.

[Planogirl]

Of course the movie was about the environment and of course it was over the top! The whole premise of many movies is to take an idea and turn it into a wild adventure if I'm not mistaken. I mean, how would a filmmaker who believed in global warming show it happening a little at a time which is more likely the case? That would be awfully dull.

As for environmental concerns being strictly a liberal cause, from what I've seen people on both sides of the fence at least think about these things. Al Gore was only hoping for a dialogue between those interested parties.

I liked the movie by the way but I took it no more seriously than Independence Day. I want to buy it too.

 

[Kendra17]

Dawn,
When the movie came out, there were all sorts of comments about it being political-- the Dick Cheney lookalike, the references to Kyoto, and the idea that the President asked the Vice President for advice . . . because he couldn't think for himself. And, the VP was evil-- he had no care at all for the environment until after disaster struck. But, of course, he came around in the end.

Slate even had a contest regarding this when the movie came out. Look at this:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2101281/

Cheney Spins the Apocalypse!
A Slate contest for The Day After Tomorrow.
By David Edelstein
Posted Wednesday, May 26, 2004, at 12:13 PM PT

Faux Cheney: peculiar weather we're having


The Day After Tomorrow has one of the most absurd and implausible plot turns I've seen in a movie, ever. Global warming melts the polar ice caps, which makes the oceans rise and disrupts the Gulf Stream. There are lethal hail stones in Tokyo and ravaging tornadoes in L.A.; and after New York City is flooded by sea water, the temperature plunges at a rate of 10 degrees per second so that people are transformed into ice sculptures where they stand. Tens of millions are dead, and the upper United States is uninhabitable. Now, here's the implausible part. The vice president (Kenneth Welsh), who is closely modeled on Dick Cheney, who has pooh-poohed all evidence of global warming, goes on TV and says, "I was wrong."

What would Dick Cheney actually say? How would he spin it? Whom would he blame? What would he acknowledge or fail to acknowledge in the face of an actual environmental apocalypse?

Send us your version of Dick Cheney's address to the nation at the start of the new ice age to movies@slate.com (please put "Cheneyspeak Contest" in the subject line) no later than tomorrow (May 27) at 5 p.m. ET. The author of the pithiest and most characteristic statement will win a copy of The Deluxe Election-Edition Bushisms by Slate editor Jacob Weisberg. The winner and runners-up will be posted along with my review of the movie around 7 p.m. ET.

Though, I must admit some of the responses were funny!

http://slate.msn.com/id/2101417/#ContinueArticle

I took the kids when it came out, and want to rent it for dh to see. No, I don't think it was a great movie, but I loved the NYC scenes. Just thought it was a good disaster movie, even though the slant bothered me. I think even the director admitted it was biased. . .i'm going to check.

 

[Kendra17]

Looks like the liberals that are implying you're not thinking clearly are clearly wrong.

The director, Roland Emmerich, was interviewed and was asked:

How political were you trying to get with a president and a vice president that, at least visually, referenced Bush and Cheney?

RE: Well, when you make a movie about global warming causing a new ice age that takes place in America, you have to portray a government. If you want to make it real you have to portray somewhat the political government which is in place right now. And it's a fact that they kind of don't do anything the environment. They think it's all a big hoax.

You also took a shot at Cheney, with the President deferring to the Vice President all the time...

RE: Well, (laughs) think whatever you want. I'm only a stupid filmmaker (laughs).

Here's the interview.
http://www.blackfilm.com/20040528/features/rolandemmerich.shtml

Kind of a leftie, that Emmerich, don't you think?

 

[Lucky4me]

So since I cover my eyes during any major death and destruction in a movie, I probably should just skip this one, huh?
Darn. I was so looking forward to the sub plot.
Thanks for saving me a rental fee DawnCT!

 

[CourtasanSatine]

I got a kick out of this movie plus I happen to like Jake Gyllenhaal

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by Beth76
So why on Earth are you renting this movie if Al Gore is recommending it to you? You rented the movie "knowing" you were going to hate it because of the "liberal agenda". So, why even bother?

Actually there was no "out of pocket" expense. I have the movie card and pay on a monthly basis. I watched it because of the special effects and comic relief. There is something humorous about watching a bad "B" movie now and then.

 

[year2late]

Say, Dawn, some of the earliest casualties in the movie were FOX employees. Do you think that is a veiled terrorist threat towards the right wing station?

 

[peachgirl]

Originally posted by year2late
Say, Dawn, some of the earliest casualties in the movie were FOX employees. Do you think that is a veiled terrorist threat towards the right wing station?

A plot around every corner you know....

 

[year2late]

Originally posted by peachgirl
A plot around every corner you know....

For the record, I saw the implied similarity between Cheney and the movie character - let alone the President in the movie dumbfounded and needing VP to stay afloat. The message of global warming was, of course, front and center - and most (hopefully all) would realize it was taken to ridiculous extremes.


That being said - what does this say about so many Disney movies leaving orphan children - my Lord - what does it mean!???

 

[EsmeraldaX]

I didn't really see anything terribly preachy in this movie. It was a big special effects disaster movie. They've been making big special effects disaster movies for ages. This one was no different.

A few parts were kind of silly. I don't think anyone really thinks that this will actually happen in our lifetimes. So, if there was a slight message that we should take care of our environment, what is the big deal? Are there actually people who are opposed to that?

As for Al Gore saying it was a Must See, if he thinks that this might actually happen in his lifetime, I'm happy to say I think he's probably wrong. But who cares. If a politician thinks a movie with a save the planet message should be seen by all, so what?

I didn't see this because Al Gore said so.

I saw this because I thought the special effects looked nifty and my BF likes to watch disaster movies. I'd be willing to bet most people who saw this movie saw it for the same reasons.

 

[lilpritch04]

I thought the movie was stupid, but I didn't look at it as a political piece--just a *wannabe* thriller.

There were some good special effects, but I thought the wolves looked incredibly fake and it actually made me LOL in the theater. DH was not happy.