Conan Xiao

Mrs. Lodge

APLAC

February 12, 2012                                           

Evaluation for The Day After Tomorrow

                                                                                                                                                                        Roland Emmerich, the director of Independence Day, presents a science-fiction film entitled The Day After Tomorrow in 2004. This film was based off of what environmental and political advocacy groups believed would be the possible outcomes of global warming. Even though it was criticized for making its science purely fictional it was generally enjoyed by many of its viewers making it a truly good film.

            In order to rank a movie as very good, the term “good” needs to be defined. It’s simple. Anything that is good is satisfactory in quality (Dictionary.com). Jim Ferguson of ABC-TV commented that the film was “spectacular”. Roger Ebert of Ebert & Roeper commented, “Thumbs up! The special effects are terrific!” Joel Siegel of Good Morning America commented, “What a ride!” These comments show that Emmerich proved that he had the ability to provide his audience with a full satisfaction.

The general criteria of a “good movie” according to Daniel Bennett’s article What Defines a Good Movie? is to grab the attention of the viewing audience and keep them watching until the very end, not by the production and the earnings of the film. What Emmerich demonstrated in the movie to attract his audience to the edge of their seats were the stunning visual effects that he illustrated by exaggerating different weather conditions by expanding their impact on the human characters as a result of global warming.  It has been strongly believed that global warming would occur in the next number of years but the possible outcomes of how it would affect current civilization was never really pictured yet it has been a common interest among many individuals. Therefore, Emmerich steps in and creates his visual interpretation for those to see as a fictional simulation of what may happen to mankind as a result of global warming. He depicted some of the ideas of global warming into a storyline in which anomalous climate changes result from simple acts of pollution. Emmerich then incorporates additional theories of the outcome of global warming in which it would trigger a cooling trend when the melting of the polar caps of the earth would rise the water level high enough to disrupt the flow of warm heat from the equator, putting out the warm climate leading to another ice age as climatologist Jack Hall called, “a paradox.”

Despite the stunning visual effects that enhanced the viewing experience, the director took this film another level involving other nations of the world portraying a large family, stepping into the darkness as one and willing to fight for their lives and others with courage, devotion, and sacrifice. In the story, Jack Hall had a son competing in New York City with three friends. Alarmed when he heard that New York was flooded and then frozen, Hall sets out from Washington D.C. (which was not flooded yet) to New York to rescue his son on his own knowing that the trip was going to be perilous. Jack however does not go alone. As many people were evacuating towards the south for warmer climate, two of his own friends decide to help him search for his son. In this part of the film, Jack Hall begins to connect more to his son knowing that as the world was coming to the end, his family and his friends were all that he had left. Jack was not going to give up looking for his son. What makes this movie a good movie is that it has the power to speak to its audience which makes them feel for the characters and in this case forcing the audience to form a realization on how to improve and evaluate their own lives by seeing how valuable it is to have a family.

This aspect of The Day After Tomorrow appeals to the emotions of the audience and may even shed a tear, especially when characters would sacrifice their own lives to save another. As interesting as Emmerich visually made the film, many would say that it is a sad film making the viewers expect that not all the characters will make it out alive at the end. This happens at one scene where Jack Hall and his two other companions, Frank and Jason, reach the city but Frank falls through a glass they did not realize they were walking on. Jason and Jack tried to pull him up as Frank hung on a string attached to Jason’s jacket. In order to let Jack continue finding his son, despite Jack and Jason trying to rescue him, Frank cuts the string and sacrifices his own life so Jack could continue his journey. His two friends were devastated but they continued to get their job done. This comes to show how these situations when traveling are not very easy but knowing that Jack wanted to reach his son badly, there was still a very strong bond of friendship with him and Frank that did not allow them to part. As stated before, a good movie has the power to speak to its audience by having an impact to their emotions. This scene was one example that appeals to pathos when tragedy strikes one of the main characters in the film.

The Day After Tomorrow fulfills the definition of what a good movie is. Emmerich not only attract an engrossed audience to a science fiction film with dazzling camera effects projecting the future but also incorporated certain moral values that individuals can learn from and appealing to his audience’s emotions. These all fall under the category of communicating with the audience which is what a good movie should do.

Works Cited

“What Defines a Good Movie?” Daniel A. Bennett. 2011. Accessed February, 12, 2012,   http://www.abiederman.com/finance/what-defines-a-good-movie.html

“The Day After Tomorrow Review” The Powell Blog. 2011. Accessed February, 12, 2012,

Dictionary.com