"THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW" (2004) Review

 

"THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW" (2004) Review

I have seen only five movies directed by Roland Emmerich. All of them were disaster films of some kind, whether they centered on an alien invasion or a natural catastrophe. Of the four movies, only one of them I had failed to see in the movie theaters. That movie happened to be Emmerich’s 2004 movie, "THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW".

The movie depicted the catastrophic effects of global warming in a series of extreme weather events that ushers in global cooling which leads to a new ice age. "THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW" began with a paleoclimatologist named Jack Hall on an expedition in Antarctica with his two colleagues, Frank and Jason. While drilling for ice core samples on an ice shelf for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Jack almost falls to his death, when the shelf breaks off. Later, Jack presents his findings on global warming at a United Nations conference in New Dehli. Unfortunately, many diplomats and Vice President of the United States Raymond Becker remain unconvinced by Jack’s findings. But Professor Terry Rapson of the Hedland Climate Research Centre in Scotland believes Jack's theories. Two buoys in the North Atlantic simultaneously show a massive drop in the ocean temperature and Rapson concludes that melting polar ice is disrupting the North Atlantic current. He contacts Jack, whose paleoclimatological weather model shows how climate changes caused the first Ice Age, and can predict what will happen. Jack believes the events will take hundreds or thousands of years. But his team and NASA's meteorologist Janet Tokada build a forecast model with their combined data.

Across the world, violent weather causes mass destruction, including a massive snowstorm in New Delhi, a hailstorm destroying Tokyo, and a series of devastating tornadoes in Los Angeles. President Blake authorizes the FAA to suspend all air traffic due to severe turbulence. Meanwhile, Jack's son, Sam is in New York City for an academic competition with his friends Brian Parks (Arjay Smith) and Laura Chapman (Emmy Rossum). There, they befriend a student named J.D. (Austin Nichols). During the competition, birds migrating south suddenly fill the sky and the weather becomes increasingly violent with intense winds and rains. Sam calls his father, promising to be on the next train home. Unfortunately, the storm worsens, forcing the closure of the subways and Grand Central Terminal. As the storm worsens a massive tidal wave hits Manhattan, causing major flooding. Sam and his friends seek shelter in the New York Public Library.

When I first saw Emmerich's 2009 film, "2012", I came to a conclusion that the director likes to follow a pattern regarding his disaster films. One, most these films usually feature a dysfunctional family or divorced couple, a new romance, cheesy dialogue (especially from minor characters), questionable science, an annoying government official, a head of state – friendly or otherwise, a friendly foreign-born colleague and a noble scientist in one of the leads. Well, "THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW" certainly featured every one of those traits. Which goes to show that the movie is not exactly an epitome of originality. I also have one more complaint. In my recap of the movie’s first forty minutes, I failed to point out that Dr. Lucy Hall, Jack’s ex-wife and Sam’s mother, remained behind at a Washington D.C. to care for a very ill young patient, while the city’s remaining citizens are evacuated to Mexico with the rest of the country’s southern citizens. Northern citizens, along with Sam and his friends in New York, are forced to remain behind and wait for rescue. The movie made such a big deal about Lucy’s willingness to sacrifice her safety for the sake of her patient. Yet, very little time passed before an ambulance appeared to evacuate both doctor and patient to the south. Talk about a wasted storyline.

Despite my quibbles about the movie’s lack of originality and the Lucy Hall story line, I must admit that "THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW" has become one of my favorite disaster movies of all time. I really enjoyed it. I was surprised to discover that screenwriters Emmerich and Jeffrey Nachmanoff may have used the historic 1993 Storm of the Century as an inspiration for the film. The screenwriters also did an able job of setting up the story with a series of natural disasters – the breaking of the ice shelf in Antarctica, the hailstorm in Tokyo and the series of tornadoes in Los Angeles. Emmerich and Nachmanoff also did an admirable job in setting up the movie’s centerpiece – the tidal wave that hits New York City – with a series of events that began with Terry Rapson and his colleagues detecting the drop in oceanic temperatures and ended with a heavy rainstorm that threatened Manhattan. With the exception of the Lucy Hall storyline in Washington D.C., I feel that this movie was well-paced not only by the screenwriters, but also by Emmerich’s direction.

However, I cannot talk about "THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW" without discussing the film’s special and visual effects. And I must be honest that I found them mind blowing. The special effects teams supervised by the likes of Louis Craig, John Palmer and Christian Rivest did a superb job in depicting the film’s natural disasters. I also found Greg and Colin Strause, Greg Anderson, Remo Balcells and Eric Brevig’s visual effects featured in the movie equally stunning. And with the assistance of cinematographer Ueli Steiger, these two teams made the Manhattan tidal wave and Ice Age sequences two of the most memorable I have ever seen in a disaster film. I have not been a fan of the musical scores featured in Emmerich’s films such as 1996’s "INDEPENDENCE DAY" and 1998’s "GODZILLA". But I was surprised to find myself impressed by Harald Kloser and Thomas Wanker’s score for this film. It had a haunting and smooth quality that seemed lacking in some of Emmerich’s other films.

Despite my love for this film, I must admit that I found it almost difficult to endure some of the cheesy dialogue and acting by many of the minor characters. In fact, one could find some of the worst acting by minor characters in the sequence featuring the New York City tidal wave. Thankfully, "THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW" featured a solid cast that proved to be more talented than many of the minor supporting actors. I think that Dr. Jack Hall might prove to be one of my favorite Dennis Quaid roles. I realize that the actor is more known for portraying sexy, roguish types in movies like "THE BIG EASY" and "THE RIGHT STUFF". But I must admit that I found it refreshing to see him portray a no-nonsense and intense type like Jack Hall. He was ably supported by Jake Gyllenhaal’s portrayal of the character’s son, Sam Hall. Gyllenhaal must have been at least 22 or 23 years old at the time, but he skillfully projected a sardonic weariness, tinged with a little offspring resentment that strongly impressed me.

I also enjoyed the performances of Ian Holm as the intelligent and warm-hearted Terry Raspon; Sela Ward as Jack’s nearly frantic ex-wife Dr. Lucy Hall; and Emmy Russum as Laura, Sam’s tender-hearted, yet ambitious love interest. Perry King’s President of the United States may have come off as a little too noble, but he still gave a solid performance. Austin Nichols was also solid as the Washington D.C. visitors' new friend, J.D. I was especially amused by Arjay Smith’s portrayal of Sam’s sardonic friend Brian; Glenn Plummer as the blunt, yet hilarious homeless man who decides to remain at the public library with Jack and his friends in order to survive; and Nestor Serrano as Jack’s no-nonsense boss at the NOAA. But the one performance that surprisingly impressed me came from Kenneth Walsh as the irritable Vice-President. The actor ably developed his character from a snide and bureaucratic politician to a man who had the grace and wisdom to realize that he had been wrong to doubt Jack.

I realize that "THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW" had received mixed reviews upon its release nineteen years ago. Many critics had complained about the questionable science behind Roland Emmerich and Jeffrey Nachmanoff’s story and some of the film’s other flaws. I could care less about the questionable science, since the movie is basically science-fiction. But I believe that its virtues – a solid cast led by Dennis Quaid and Jake Gyllenhaal, stunning special and visual effects, a well-paced script and solid direction Emmerich – outweighed the flaws. And this is why "THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW" has remained a personal favorite of mine after so many years.

"THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW" (2004) Photo Gallery

 

Below are images from the 2004 science-fiction disaster film called "THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW". Directed by Roland Emmerich, the movie starred Dennis Quaid and Jake Gyllenhaal:




"THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW" (2004) Photo Gallery

"'FLASHFORWARD': A Potential Nipped in the Bud"

 

"'FLASHFORWARD': A POTENTIAL NIPPED IN THE BUD"

Ever since ABC had cancelled one of its freshman series from the 2009-2010 television season, the science-fiction drama called "FLASHFORWARD", many television critics and fans have expressed the belief that the series had failed to garner enough viewers due to its less than stellar writing. Now . . . I have stated that although many have expressed this belief, but there were a good number of viewers who believe that the network should have given the series a chance to grow over the years. I happen to be one of those who agree with the latter.

Based upon the 1999 novel written by Robert J. Sawyer, "FLASHFORWARD" revolved around the lives of several people after a mysterious event caused nearly everyone on the planet to simultaneously lose consciousness for two minutes and seventeen seconds on October 6, 2009. During this "blackout” people saw what appeared to be visions of their lives on April 29, 2010 - a global "flashforward". Created by Brannon Braga and David S. Goyer, the series starred Joseph Fiennes, John Cho, Courtney B. Vance, Christine Woods, Jack Davenport, Sonia Walger and Dominic Monaghan.

When the series had first aired in late September 2009, it became an immediate ratings hit and stayed that way during its first ten (10) episodes. Then ABC made the decision to put the series on hiatus for three-and-a-half months. Why? I have no idea. But after the series resumed its run in mid-March 2010, its ratings tanked. In fact, the ratings remained low until it was finally cancelled by ABC some two-and-a-half months later. Does this story sound familiar? Why, yes it does. The very same fate nearly befell the CBS science-fiction/post-apocalypse series, ”JERICHO”. Thanks to a campaign by fans to save the series, ”JERICHO” was given a second season – which amounted to eight episodes that aired in a new time slot that guaranteed its rating failure - namely Tuesday nights at 10:00 PM. A similar thing happened to NBC's "TIMELESS", which was moved to Sunday nights at 10:00 PM. And both shows have become cult favorites. But no amount of fan campaign could convince ABC to give "FLASHFORWARD" a second chance. Even though there were a good number of fans who became angry at how the network handled the series, it never became a cult favorite like "JERICHO" and "TIMELESS".

Yet, those critics and fans who did not criticize ABC’s handling of the series claimed that "FLASHFORWARD" was an immediate failure that destined for cancellation. Many of these critics and viewers claimed that the series failed to live up to the same quality as the pop culture classic, "LOST". To this day, I still have a problem with this assessment of "FLASHFORWARD". One, its only season had just begun, when this assessment was made against it. To expect the series to be perfect right off the bat had struck me as ridiculous. Now, I realize that both "LOST" and the NBC series, "HEROES", managed to immediately dazzle U.S. viewers and critics with highly regarded series premieres and well written first seasons. "LOST" managed to toe the line and become what I believe to be one of the best television series ever. But I feel that "HEROES" managed to do nothing but decline in quality in years, following its freshman season. "LOST" managed to maintain the momentum of its dazzling debut, despite a minor setback in quality during the first half of its third season. As for "HEROES", I thought its writing simply went down the drain following its first season. How it managed to stay on the air for another three seasons amazes me to this day.

Ever since the dazzling debuts of "LOST" and "HEROES"; television network executives have expected and demanded that other multi-seasonal series with a science-fiction/fantasy background repeat their initial success. I believe that this was a mistake. Some of the best science-fiction/fantasy television series I have seen have started out with a less than dazzling or even mediocre season debut. Good examples of this are “BABYLON 5″, “JERICHO” and “BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER”. Both ”BABYLON 5” and ”BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER” were given chances to fulfill their potential. Just as "JERICHO" was developing into a well-written series, CBS permanently pulled its plug . . . aborting its chances of fulfilling any potential.

As I had stated earlier, "FLASHFORWARD" also started with a less than dazzling first season. I might as well be frank. It was not perfect. But I do believe that it had great potential to grow into a well written saga. If the series had first aired over two decades ago, I suspect that it may have been given the chance to develop into something remarkable. I believe it certainly had that potential. Unfortunately, we viewers are still mired in the "LOST"/"HEROES" era of television broadcasting in which certain shows are expected to dazzle viewers in the pilot episodes.

Today’s television network executives, critics and viewers seemed to lack the patience or willingness to give a series a chance to grow. They want and demand instant success. In fact, I am beginning to suspect that many are becoming less tolerant of the television serial format. Unless these executives, critics and viewers are willing to change their modis operandi; future serial science-fiction/fantasy television series with levels of qualities similar to "BABYLON 5", "BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER", "LOST" and "JERICHO" threaten to become a thing of the past. I certainly did not see that level of quality writing in shows like "HEROES", despite its longevity on the air.

"LOOPER" (2012) Review

 

"LOOPER" (2012) Review

Time travel can be a tricky topic for a fictional story. Some writers can do wonders with a story featuring time traveling. Some writers start out well end up creating a mass of confusion. And other writers . . . well, they end up simply creating a bad story. When I had first learned about the premise for the 2012 science-fiction movie, "LOOPER", I feared I was about to see a time travel movie with a bad plot.

According to writer/director Rian Johnson's tale, the United States is in a state of economic collapse in the year 2044. There is social decay, a high rise in crime and a mutation has developed within a small number of the Earth's population that gives them a telekinetic ability. Thirty years later, time travel has been invented, but immediately outlawed. Tracking technology has made it impossible for criminals to dispose of bodies. Crime bosses use illicit time travel to send their victims back in time, where they are killed by assassins called "loopers". These assassins are paid with silver bars strapped to the back of their targets. When the crime bosses want to end a looper's contract, they send his older self back to be killed by his younger self, paying the latter with gold bars as a last payoff. Failure to kill the older self is punishable by death.

Joe Simmons is a looper in 2044 Kansas, whose boss - a time traveler named Abe - is sent back to the past to supervise him and his fellow loopers in the area. Best friend and fellow looper Seth tells Joe that he failed to kill his old self and that the latter informed him of a criminal mastermind named the Rainmaker, who is closing down all loops. Joe eventually betrays Seth in order to maintain his secret stash of silver. Joe's older self eventually arrives from the past and Joe first kills him. But due to a tragic incident thirty years in the future, Old Joe changes time by escaping to the past on his own. He escapes and Joe tracks him down to a diner, where he tells Joe that the Rainmaker sent him back to be killed, and that Old Joe's wife was killed during his capture. Old Joe killed his captors and traveled back to kill the Rainmaker as a child. Joe attempts to kill Old Joe and fulfill his contract, but both of them flee when they are attacked by Abe's hit men or "Gat Men". Due to a piece of a map in Old Joe's possession, Joe finds a string of digits that leads him to farm owned by a woman named Sara, who lives with her son, Cid. Meanwhile, Old Joe uses the remaining digits on the map to track down the location of three candidates who might turn out to be the Rainmaker as a child. Old Joe intends to kill all three to prevent his future wife's death.

Sounds complicated? Trust me, that was only the beginning. For reasons that escape me, Rian Johnson, along with Kimberly Amacker and the rest of the movie's makeup team decided to use prosthetic makeup to ensure that Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who portrayed the younger Joe Simmons, bear some resemblance to Bruce Willis. They hired Kazuhiro Tsuji for the job. Tsuji did his best in altering Gordon-Levitt's looks, but in the end, it all depended more on the actor's performance to make the transformation work. A part of me feels that his prosthetic makeup was not really necessary.

Also, complicated time travel stories such as the one for "LOOPER" tend to turn me off. Dealing with the subject of time travel is bad enough. But I tend to view complicated plot twists, such as the ones found in "LOOPER" as impossible to follow. But thanks to Rian Johnson's direction and script, I found the movie surprisingly easy to follow . . . aside from one particular scene. I might as well talk about the latter. The sequence featuring Old Joe's first escape from death at the hands of Joe ended with the latter falling out of the window of his apartment. The movie never made it clear whether he lived or died. But the next scene featured Old Joe's reappearance at the fatal cornfield again. This time, Joe killed Old Joe, leaving me somewhat confused. Was there a time reset of some kind? It finally occurred to me that Johnson simply revealed that Old Joe had escaped death, left his fate a mystery . . . and then went back to how this scenario came to be. In other words, following Old Joe's second appearance in the cornfield, audiences learn of the circumstances that led to that moment - Joe's murder of Old Joe, his retirement as a looper, his years in China as a hired killer, his marriage and eventually, his wife's death. The latter drove Old Joe over the edge and he set out time travel on his own, prevent his younger self from killing him and kill the younger self of the Rainmaker, before the latter can grow and cause the death of his wife. Now, I understood.

Once I realized what was going on, I was able to enjoy "LOOPER" a lot more. Not only did Johnson create a fascinating tale in which time travel played a heavy role, he created some fascinating characters - especially the leading one, Joe Simmons. Johnson did an excellent job in showing how the time traveling not only affected Joe Simmons' character, but was also responsible for the creation of the Rainmaker. I was amazed at how Johnson's story revealed the ugly consequences of time travel in a way no other writer or filmmaker has done before. His story also developed from the typical science-fiction action thriller into a poignant, character-driven tale about the consequences of grief and revenge. By the time I left the movie theater, I realized that I had seen one of the most original science-fiction thrillers in recent years.

"LOOPER" also had the good luck to have some first-rate performers to grace its cast. The movie featured interesting performances from the likes of Paul Dano, who gave an emotional performance as the looper Seth, who set things in motion by warning Joe about the Rainmaker. I also enjoyed the performances of Noah Segan, who gave a colorful performance as Abe's main "Gat Man", Kid Blue, who is eager to earn his boss' respect by going after Joe; Piper Perabo's sexy take on showgirl Suzy; Qing Xu, who projected the perfect air of sensibility and calm for Old Joe; and Garret Dillahunt, who oozed intelligence and danger as another "Gat Man", who manages to track down Joe to the Kansas farmhouse.

But there were performances that really impressed me. One of them came from Jeff Daniels, who was an absolute delight as the sharp-tongued crime boss Abe. His advice to Joe about relocating to China upon retirement turned out to be one of the movie's highlights. Emily Blunt acquired an impressive American accent for her role as Sara, the practical farm owner that gave Joe shelter. Not only was I impressed by her different accent, but also her performance and strong screen presence. I cannot say enough about Pierce Gagnon, the child actor who portrayed Sara's son, Cid. Gagnon gave one of the best child performances I have seen in years . . . and one of the creepiest. Of the entire cast, Joseph Gordon-Levitt had the most difficult role. Not only did he have to capture many aspects of Bruce Willis' portrayal of the older Joe, but also the older actor's speech pattern, body language and screen persona. And too my surprise, he stood up to the plate and knocked it out of the ballpark. I can also say the same Bruce Willis' performance as Old Joe. Sure, his usual wise ass screen persona was there . . . somewhat. But he also took his character beyond the usual persona and to greater heights by portraying Old Joe as a man caught up in his grief over a dead wife and obsessed with vengeance and determination to change time.

I would not say that "LOOPER" was perfect. Instead of writing a clear and straight narrative that a story of this complexity needed, director-writer Rian Johnson tried to be a little clever in explaining Old Joe's arrival in the past. And I feel that the prosthetic makeup for Joseph Gordon-Levitt was unnecessary. But despite these quibbles, I was surprised by how much I enjoyed this movie. Johnson, along with an excellent cast led by Bruce Willis and Joseph Gordon-Levitt, delivered one of the most original movies I have seen in years.

"KNOWING" (2009) Review

  

"KNOWING" (2009) Review

Roughly eight years ago, Nicholas Cage starred in a science-fiction disaster film with a plot that took me by surprise, when I saw it. Directed by Alex Proyas and written by Ryne Douglas Pearson and Juliet Snowden, the movie proved to be a surprise box office hit, despite mixed reviews.

"KNOWING" told the story about M.I.T. professor John Koestler, whose son Caleb stumbles across a piece of paper from a time capsule that had been dug up at his son's elementary school fifty years ago. In it are some chilling predictions of disasters - some that have already occurred and others that are about to occur in the near future. This discovery leads Koestler to believe his family plays a role in the events that are about to unfold, as he sets out to prevent the ultimate catastrophe.

I must admit that I had not been that eager to see "KNOWING", when it first came out in 2009. Cage’s previous movie, "BANGKOK DANGEROUS", had been such a piece of crap. And if I must be brutally honest, his movie choices have been mixed for quite some time. But after learning that the movie had managed to reach the number one spot on the U.S. box office, I decided to give it a shot. Fortunately, "KNOWING" turned out to be somewhat of an improvement from "BANGKOK DANGEROUS". Pearson’s intriguing story, along with the screenplay co-written with Snowden, Alex Proyas’ direction and Cage’s performance helped a bit. I was especially impressed by one sequence that featured a commercial plane crash that occurred not far from where Cage’s character was stuck in a traffic jam, in the middle of a highway. I liked how Proyas and cinematographer Simon Duggan hinted the horrors of the crash’s aftermath through the use of rain, fire, smoke and soot-covered bodies, instead of giving the audience more graphic images. It was probably the best moment in the film.

In the end, what started as a mystery surrounding a series of natural and man-made disasters turned into one of those "end of the world" stories. It seemed a group of aliens have been using the codes found on the list of disasters to warn children all over that the world was about to end, due to a massive solar flare that will have a global affect. This turn in the plot seemed to have a negative effect on the movie, transforming it from an intriguing mystery into a rather depressing and frantic tale. Rose Byrne, who portrayed the daughter of the young student who first left the mysterious piece of paper in the time capsule, did not help matters when her performance spiraled into a hammy rendition of a frantic mother trying to save her daughter and herself from being caught up in the oncoming apocalypse. Even worse, the story's narrative ended up reminding me of the plot for 2008's "THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL". And I found that rather unoriginal on the screenwriters' parts.

Most of "KNOWING" proved to be . . . okay. The movie's three stars - Nicholas Cage, Rose Byrne and Chandler Canterbury - gave solid performances. Yes, the movie spiraled into a theatrical "end of the world" story. But despite the movie’s over-the-top ending and switch from an intriguing mystery to a badly handled disaster film, I found "KNOWING" rather tolerable. I would not mind watching it again . . . on cable television.

"LOOPER" (2012) Photo Gallery

 

Below are images from the new science-fiction thriller called "LOOPER". Written and directed by Rian Johnson, the movie stars Bruce Willis and Joseph Gordon-Levitt:



"LOOPER" (2012) Photo Gallery

"KNOWING" (2009) Photo Gallery

Below are images from the 2009 science-fiction thriller, "KNOWING". Directed by Alex Proyas, the movie starred Nicholas Cage:




"KNOWING" (2009) Photo Gallery