Jouny Published on: 2010-09-23 08:30
The Day After Tomorrow (2004) 7.9/ 6.0 The Day After Tomorrow
(2004)
Film Review (1284)
Collection (3828)
Because of Geography After learning about the weather system in class, the teacher prepared to play a disaster film about the weather, and then [the day after tomorrow] the film was selected. Fortunately, it was the film that I helped to create. Otherwise, in addition to enduring the bad film itself, I also have to endure things that make me more irritable, such as unclear Mandarin dubbing pictures.
In fact, if it weren’t for the teacher to show the classmates who were ignorant enough to scream after seeing a special effect, they would not have watched it. First of all, I didn’t have a good impression of disaster movies. The shadow left by [2012] is still there, now I really don’t know why I suffer from insomnia because of it. It’s nothing terrible. Secondly, the IMDB6.3 rating makes me reluctant to waste time on this. In the end, even if I don’t like a movie, I can still go for the actors I like. Look, but this male protagonist JACK is really inferior to another JACK.
Let’s first express my anger at the brain-dead translation of the title. Before I know anything about the film, I just look at the two words [后天] and guess it might be a comedy. , Tell a story around the time point of "the day after tomorrow". After a little understanding that this is Emmerich’s disaster film, you may feel that the focus of the film is to tell the upcoming disaster of "the day after tomorrow". But after watching it I found out that the English literal translation of the name is really blind. The focus of the film is to express the fear and despair of the unknown disaster [after tomorrow]. I really think [After Tomorrow] is pretty good, with a little sense of mystery, very in line with the tone of the film.
I have only watched two disaster movies, and two special effects disaster movies, both of which are Emmerich. Although it has been five years, it is inevitable that they will be compared. Because it is a first look [2012], there are many preconceived notions that cannot be eliminated, so try to be objective. Generally speaking, the two films are very bad except for the special effects. If you want to choose the one you like better, you will still choose this film.
Almost every movie that is crowned with action thrills will use one trick-a cut.
The protagonists can always get rid of danger at the last second. But this method, which has never been used since when, has long made the audience numb and expressionless and no longer nervous about the protagonists' awkward fate. If they die now, who will play the remaining one and a half hours later? Even if he is dead, the screenwriter has reasons to suddenly bring the dead back to life. Sarah in [Prison Break] was brought back to life under the call of the audience. This film has been used several times, but each time it is not of the same nature, it is still a bit new. But in [2012], one of the people of that family climbed onto the plane/rescued/jumped onto Noah's Ark at the last second countless times. Fortunately, in the process of watching the movie, I kept venting myself to experience the little pleasure brought about by surprises, otherwise it would be a waste of the moment of cold that Emmerich brought in the hot summer.
The other thing about the two films is the plot.
[2012] is even worse. In addition to the time and background of the film, as soon as the camera is aimed at the five people in the family after the disaster, the two children will always use the undeveloped voices called "daddy" and "mommy", and then A man who has always said that he can't fly a plane again and again avoids flying objects that even stunt pilots are afraid of. The other two are responsible for screaming with the child, soothing the child screaming, and then screaming by themselves. The period after getting on the plane was even more boring. I must have fallen asleep, otherwise I would have no impression of their warmth and nonsense for more than half an hour.
This film is almost the same routine, two lines, one is the protagonist’s normal life, after suffering a disaster, and living after the disaster, the other is that a certain scientist discovers an abnormality, first tell some important person in the country that he will not listen, and wait until something really happens. Realizing that it was too late, that important person died as a glorious victim. Generally, this important person is called the President of the United States. The most dissatisfied is the handling at the end of the film. The disaster passed in less than a day. New York in the United States was frozen so terribly. Although Mexico is far away, there is no need for a drop of rain and no temperature at all. Let the sun shine without falling. Even more unbearable is the fact that the number of people who popped out from the top of the building at the end did not conform to the logic in front of the film. With such a beautiful ending, what do you want to express? Human beings are tenacious, or is it just a disaster? The only highlight of the film can be said to be an emotional line, which makes the film less serious. Although there are some small details that are processed for the effect of the movie, they are also very unsatisfactory. No matter how heavy the rain is, there is no ability to raise the water level in New York by 50 centimeters for tens of minutes; and finally, the ice closely follows the footsteps of the protagonist. When did the ice freeze horizontally, if it is horizontally. Where is the logic of the close-up of the building from top to bottom in the front?
I don't like disaster movies unless there is a director who can make a new disaster movie without going the old way. Otherwise, just like Emmerich, you don't need to think about the name of the film, and add a year name to make a new work.
View more about The Day After Tomorrow reviews
