VH 1610158:

We've seen movies about astroids hurtling themselves on a collision course towards earth, the core of the earth stop spinning, jarring earthquakes, twisters, and unimaginable assortment of natural disasters. So Roland Emmerich and Jeffrey Nachmanoff decided to write the mother of all natural disaster movies. Bigger, better, and bolder. Unfortunately, as big as it is, the movie falls extremely short as it follows the generic formula of disaster warning ignored by people in high position, loved one of scientist trapped somewhere, loved one saved by scientist, and finally a recap of lessons learned to ensure the sustainability of the human race. Though the graphics are simply stunning, but i was stunned by the atrocious plotline. I was hoping that Jake Gyllenhaal (also seen in donnie darko) would be able to salvage some of the movie. Maybe he did, it's not the worst natural disaster movie i've ever seen, but pretty bad enough. Please watch this movie sparingly and only in case of emergerency.

Rigel:

Wow, cool, the flooding of NY scene was fantastic. Too bad it only lasted 10 minutes. Too bad the rest of the film was silly, cliched catastrophe drama. The FX are fun, but they're not taken to their full extent - it seems as if the writers only thought of the most basic, expected scenes and put them in, never coming up with any original imagery. The Tokyo hail scene is wasted. The LA twister scene is static and basic. And I'm not spoiling anything because if you saw one commercial or one preview, you've seen the whole movie. The script is so cookie cutter generic that you never feel for anybody. It's a paint-by-number film where the audience can call all the shots before they happen. Horribly predictable with lots of inappropriately tacked-on scenes. And let's not forget the gaps in logic and science. If you find yourself discussing how much was wrong with the film when you leave the theater, it wasn't a good movie.

JDoors:

Enjoyable, if entirely improbable, movie. I like Jake Gyllenhaal but, like Keanu Reeves, every character he plays seems muted, reserved, repressed maybe? Great F/X throughout.

VJ Purplequeen:

Rather pedestrian, and didactic exploration of what global warming might look like. Some good information about global warming was given, and those parts of the movie that showed the landscape freezing were imaginative and interesting, but not spectacular. The father/son story was also rather stereotypical and implausible, but kind of endearing.

Firewater:

Yes, THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW is the movie Irwin Allen would have made if he had the budget and the modern miracle of CGI to pull it off. There are plenty of likeable actors in this one, but the true star of the movie is the special effects. This one was mind-blowing in the theater, and scary. Is any of this possible? Could any of it really happen? Al Gore thinks so, and I think we should always listen to the man who invented the Internet. This movie is fun, troubling, and exhilerating, and is probably worth a couple of viewings to take it all in.

Celluloid Sally:

One star for the special effects, that?s it! This was a perverse waste of time, money, actors and film. These silly actors, writers and producers who thought they were going to make the environmental movie of the decade and persuade, or possibly scare, millions of viewers that ?the earth is fragile? and we?re all going down in eight days really need to get a gripe. I know one thing for sure they all need to have IQ tests administered on them before they ever make another movie! Pseudo science at its worst!! Outrageously stupid script, dumb dialogue and worse acting. A chuckle a minute ? now that?s not good for a movie that?s supposed to move, scare and impress you into calling your Senator and scream at them that they need to save the planet from our SUV?s, sign the Kyoto Treaty or tax the rich! I remember Ted Danson claimed about 15 years ago if we didn?t do something about global warming the fish would all die in the oceans! Hmm, should we really take any of these people seriously? Tell me again, what degrees do these writers, producers and actors hold? BS?s in hot air? That?s about all they have between their ears as far as I see it. If you love special affects and want to be lectured to by actors using dialogue written by twits and produced by morons then by all means rent the darn thing. But, if you want to be entertained with something a bit more challenging or amusing then rent something else because about the only thing you?ll want to do after watching this movie is take a hot shower!

MattyMatt:

Trashy and adequate; it reaches - but oh, just barely - its extremely shallow ambitions. It's the sort of movie where a brilliant, ignored scientist gazes at sheetful of data and the camera moves in close as his eyes widen and his brow furrows and he exclaims, "but this is impossible!" You almost want to shout in delighted anticipation, "we've got to warn The President!" Hollywood's had 60 years to perfect these movies, and this one hits all its marks - they're tedious and predictable, but there's some sort of pleasing comfort in seeing them acted out yet again. The vice president doesn't listen to the Perfessor until it's too late; the plucky teen saves the day; there's monsters (in the form of creepy, uncanny-valley wolves that look to be made of putty and completely weightless); an impulsive woman-scholar in distress; a wise homeless guy; a concerned mother who cares for a placid cancer-boy; and lots of big stuff getting ruined. That's why it's sort of sad when the movie slips up and tries to bite off more than it can chew. There are moments when the movie actually tries to be ABOUT something; here and there, there's hints that the film will attempt to say something about life, or humanity, or something. A scientist makes a huffy remark to the vice president about ignoring science - is this going to be a movie about the perils of blinding oneself to evidence? A woman waits with a dying boy for an ambulance that may never come - is this movie going to be about having faith in humanity in the face of disaster? An astronaut marvels at storm's cleansing power - is this movie going to be about rebirth? Er, no; no; and no. Those would all be kind of neat themes, but they only get a gasp of life since the director has clearly decided that the thesis of his film is going to be, "Hey, wouldn't it be really awesome if it snowed A WHOLE LOT?" Yeah. I guess. It's KIND of awesome. Whatever.

JO 1385604:

I guess when the opening scene of the movie screams STUPID it's best just to walk out and try to theater hop to something more interesting. I don't want to give away the movie because obviously some of you will want to see it, but I'll save you two hours of your life and recommend that you don't even think about renting this movie!! Oh and if Dennis Quaid had said the name SAM just one more time.... Breakdown is a good word...

Ed Hammerbeck:

I love disaster movies. I love movies where the world ends and everybody dies. I know it's sick, but I do. I'm always rooting for Godzilla or the aliens or the volcano. In this movie, I got to root for the weather. *sigh* This movie had potential. It had some good actors. The special effects in the trailers looked nice. Unfortunately, it was as boring as watching... the weather. On a sunny day. The moments that should have been cliffhanger-y, were not. I wanted the bland, one dimensional characters to fall off the cliff. All the stock characters of the disaster film were there. There's nothing much else to say except that it was a) a piece of environmental propaganda about as subtle as a board with a nail in it, b) broadcast all of its emotionally manipulative scenes from a mile away, c) bad CG, and d) poorly written. One last thing: the CG wolves were awful. What, did they blow their budget on computer graphics so much that they could not afford real wolves? Granted, they wanted the CG wolves for the stunts, but when they weren't doing stunt things, they looked god-awful. Claymation wolves would have been better. Don't waste the slot in your queue with this load of garbage.

Badasstronaut:

It was good enough for what I was looking for. Of note though, no one seems to know who the director is, instead in all the advertisements, they just say,"From the director of Independence Day." And I have to wonder how many more of these pictures we'll have to see before they'll just say ,"directed by Roland Emmerich." Still, it's was a better idea to advertise it in this way than as "From the guy who brought you that sad Godzilla movie." (really, why does Godzilla care about Manhattan again?). Okay , I didn't care about the love interest or the father/son relationship. But I guess neither did Roland. I enjoyed the final wave attack on the city, though realize that I saw it all already in the trailers. Wanted to note, it's easier to outrun tidal waves than explosions we see in most films. In the end, who in Texas could really fear this, the ice age wouldn't reach us, bah!

Mike Mayes:

You know you are watching a bad movie when... -- people are instantly flash freezing in NYC -- Dennis Quaid and a tornado again appear together. Be prepared to throw everything you learned in science class out the window when you watch this disaster...film.

bpiot:

The effects in "The Day After Tomorrow" are incredible. The story isn't half bad either and the acting was just fine. It cracks me up how some of the reviewers have remarked how the characters seem "too calm". I hope I never find out how I would act if I these events really occurred. Another really good reason to see this one is the portrayal of the (idiot) President and (over-controlling) Vice-President--sound like anybody we know?

64fe764802:

ah another great disaster movie, I love 'em, I only wish there was more about the catastrophies that occured around the world rather than just the USA