Reviews (203)

A Powerful Film By Master Of Disaster Emmerich
Roland Emmerich directed the 1996 blockbuster hitIndependece Day which many still consider his best work. Later, he directed Godzilla, which according to some was not well-crafted. But 2004's "Day After Tomorrow" is quite powerful and moving and Roland Emmerich brings back the magic and dynamics of his old masterpiece Independence Day. This time the threat is not alien, it's our own earth. Global warming has caused the polar ice caps to melt and erratic weather to errupt. Hail begins to attack Tokyo, Japan and it snows in the usually hot New Delhi, India. Star Dennis Quaid gets a hold of the fatal news that the world is going to end as it experiences a new Ice Age. His son Sam (Jake Gallynhaal) is away in New York City on an Academic Decathelon which he joined to be with the girl he loves. Sela Ward plays Sam's mother and Dennis Quaid's wife, a doctor who is caring for a cancer-struck little boy. The President of the U.S. and the Vice President (who looks a bit like Dick Chaney)completely ignore the warnings and it's not long before Los Angeles is destroyed by a tornado. The Hollywood sign gets blown away. New York City is flooded. The special effects are top-notch and the characters and plot stunningly engaging. Only a small group who has listened to Sam, who in turn was going by his father's directions, remain in the New York City Public Library even after it freezes entirely. Dennis Quaid searches for his son in the extreme weather. This is a movie about survival, as is expected about humans when confronted with great disaster. It is about courage and human compassion. To contrast the epic disaster with its serious drama is touches of humor such as the bum and his dog who survive the disaster and the fac that the tables are turned and it is desperate survivor Americans who are crossing the border illegally into Mexico, which was not effected by the disaster. All the performances are credible and though one can easily criticize for its typical disaster movie routine, it does'nt matter. The success of this film proves that we love to see this kind of genre. Humankind surviving all sort of disasters and the will to live. Five stars. An incredibl experience at the movies and hopefully it will make a wonderful DVD loaded with interesting features.

Disaster movie
We don't need to get too intellectual on this movie, nor make any pretense of why you should see it - there is one reason and one reason only to view The Day After Tomorrow, the special effects. We all know this. So I really don't want to spend a page writing about the dialog that is worse than a soap opera, the science that made Lord of the Rings look reality based, or the believability factor that made Cliffhanger look like CNN. C'mon, you kind of expect that from a movie like this don't you?

All of that nonsense aside, there are several scenes which are truly spectacular, some of the best special effects that I've seen. True, a great deal of those scenes were shown in the previews, but there are still many staggering effects that are saved for the film.

Yes it's melodramatic. Yes it's preachy (Al Gore and Al Franken actually used this movie to promote their environment agenda). But if you would enjoy seeing LA destroyed by what would be the largest tornado in recorded history, or New York getting swallowed by a wall of water, it's worth the price of the movie ticket. And here's another idea - go with some friends and keep notes of the best (i.e. worst) lines, and then afterwards you can argue about which was the worst line of dialogue. Mine was probably, "Jake...tell her how you feel," with "I think I will go close my eyes for a while," coming in at a close second.

One final note to the dude at Amazon who filters these reviews: Here's a little inside tip - *stop posting reviews written by people who haven't even seen the film - and even ADMIT this in their reviews!* And certainly don't make them the spotlight review. Maybe you could have a special "trailer review forum" for these idiots and stop wasting our time.

Best new movie
The Day after Tomorrow is a outstanding movie. The special effects are awesome. I was not sure about the movie at first but after I rented it from blockbuster and viewed it, I definitely will buy it on dvd fullscreen. There have been a few movies made involving natural diasters but this one is the best. If you have not seen it yet, definitely watch it. The director did a fantastic job, the cast members put a outstanding job. It's one of those movies you'll want to watch again and again.

Great Thrill Ride Movie
When you watch this movie it will feel like you are in the movie. Trust me I have seen it 4 times in the theaters. You will have to watch it again and again and each time you will find something new. Enjoy the movie.

"Independence Day" minus the aliens, plus eco-propaganda.
If you've seen the 1997 sci-fi hit "Independence Day", then for all practical purposes you've seen this movie too. The only real difference is that instead of a bunch of ticked-off aliens, the threat of human extinction comes from a ticked-off "Mother Nature". In the former, however, it was all about "us versus them" and the triumph of the human will to survive. In "Day After Tomorrow", the message is: "We have met the enemy, and they are the Republicans."

Yeah, the movie is about the epic struggle to survive in the face of an overwhelming natural catastrophe, but it's pretty obvious that the producers were less interested in telling a story and more concerned about sending an election-year political message. From the early scenes of the movie, the "hero" character (a very forgettable paleoclimatologist played by Dennis Quaid) serves as the "voice crying in the wilderness" against the environmentally unsound excesses of corporate America. He warns of the doomsday scenario which does in fact unfold throughout the movie, but the heavily stereotyped conservative politicians (who are, no doubt, in the pockets of the polluters) shrug off his warnings. Maybe it's just me, but I thought the "vice president" character looked uncannily like Dick Cheney. Coincidence? I don't think so, but feel free to decide for yourself.

The main story is about a dysfunctional family whose members find themselves separated by the unpredictable (yet somehow predicted) chain of natural events. Of course, the events aren't really natural -- they're caused by foolish and greedy men who fail to pay attention to the needs of Mother Earth. Somehow, against incredible odds, the family manages to reunite, save the human race, and resolve their own domestic issues all at the same time. And of course, the tale is duly concluded with the humiliation of America and its (implied Republican) leaders, as well as some cheap jabs at American immigration policy.

In short, this is enviro-hysteria at its cheesy best, but election year political propaganda at its worst. There isn't even a mild attempt to veil the message -- it's right there in your face. If you're a Bush-hater, you'll cheer. If you're a little more honest with yourself, you'll see this film for the cheap trash that it is. The ONLY reason I gave it a second star was because it was chock full of stunning visual effects from beginning to end. Beyond that, your enjoyment of this movie will stand in direct relation to your political affiliation. That's no way to make a movie. ... Read more

Reviews (168)

The okay movie that became a really great television series
It is interesting to watch the 1994 "Stargate" film from the perspective of the spin-off television series, "Stargate SG-1," which is on its way to becoming the longest running science-fiction series of all-time. As was the case with "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," we have an okay film that becomes a first-rate television series.

Once upon a time, 1928 to be exact, archeologists discovered a strange disc buried in the sand of Egypt. The next thing we know we are in the present, and Egyptologist Daniel Jackson (James Spader), is having his colleagues walk out on him as he explains his radical theory about the ancient Egyptians and their language. But then a mysterious old woman (Viveca Lindfors) gives him an invitation to travel to a secret military base buried beneath the Rocky Mountains to do translations. Jackson has nothing else to do, so he shows up, immediately corrects all the mistakes and figures out all the mysteries, and the next thing we know he is being shown the Stargate. He then joins a military group led by Colonel Jack O'Neil (Kurt Russell), who has been recalled back to active duty to find out where you go to when you step through the Stargate. The answer is you go to the other side of the known universe where you discover a desert planet where an alien who was known as Ra (Jaye Davidson) by the ancient Egyptians is lording it over the local humanoids.

This movie is mostly eye candy. Being shot on a desert planet means that it has lots of scenes shot in bright sunlight, which really is unusual for a science fiction film, where they tend to be dark and murky. "Stargate" brings back the same sort of ideological tension between scientists and the military that we enjoyed during the 1950s with films like "The Thing From Another World," as Jackson is all excited to explore a brave new world and O'Neill is looking for an excuse to blow everything up with the nuke in the big suitcase.

Truth about this movie is that it the ideas are a lot better than than the execution. The idea of the Stargate is a nice way of circumventing the laws of physics that scoff at warp drive and other narrative necessities to a good space yarn. It is not a far leap of logic to get from this one Stargate to the idea that there are others, and there is also the nice corrollary that this system explains why there are so many humans scattered throughout the galaxy where they all live on oxygen breathing planets.

Beyond that the television series picks up on the Jackson-O'Neill dyad, reducing it to the idea that one is an academic and the other is a warrior and never the twain shall meet. Of course Richard Dean Anderson's O'Neill is even quirkier than Spader's Jackson, while Michael Shanks's Jackson starts off even more humorless than Russell's O'Neill. But it all works, so why quibble? The original "Stargate" ends up being more about style than substance, which is why it is so interesting that the television series could find something substantial upon which to build a television series.

If you have yet to see "Stargate" in any version, then you are strongly urged to proceed immediately from this 1994 film to the first season of "Stargate SG-1." Even if you find this film tedious, just get through it and move on to the good stuff. You could not pass go and head directly for season one of "Stargate SG-1," but you really need to know the players and some of the rules of the game before hand.

Director's Cut Is Excellent!
I'm not sure what makes the ultimate edition much different from the special edition, as both include the director's cut and theatrical version. The ultimate edition does include a 'making of' featurette, as well as a 'Is there a stargate' featurette that isn't included on the special edition. These are both interesting, but nothing to write home about. One big difference is the audio. The ult. ed. includes DTS 6.1 audio, as well as dolby digital 5.1.

Good: Being a fan of Stargate SG-1, I wanted to own the original movie as well, and when the ult. ed. was released, knew it was time to buy. I watched the director's cut, and was amazed. There were added scenes, as well as extended existing scenes. These changes really gave me a better understanding of how things in the tv show came to be the way they are, such as the relationship between Jack O'Neill and Daniel Jackson. In the director's cut, we see more interaction between them. We also get more into the head of Jack, and better understand just how messed up he really is after the loss of his son.

Bad: The only disappointment I have with the ult. ed. is that there were no 'gag reels' or bloopers, or other deleted scenes included. I enjoy watching these on other DVDs I have, and would have loved to have seen them for Stargate.

Overall, I'm glad I added this DVD to my collection. My only wish is that the Stargate SG-1 DVDs included behind the scenes or blooper reels as well.

Just an attempt to get more bucks from fans
If you're like me, you are really - really - getting tired of producers, film compaines, whomever there is to blame re-re-re-releasing the same DVD with different packaging, and calling it the "Ultimate" or "Supreme" or "this time it really is a Limted edition" special releases. The motivation? Raking it in from fans who expect and want more. You'd be better off spending your bucks elsewhere.

There is NOTHING to make this DVD stand out from any of the numerous previous releases. Save your money! Sure the director's cut is great - but it's on what, three previous releases?

Solid Flim, This DVD Is Lacking, However...
Stargate, as a film, is really a solid example of imaginative science fiction. The characters are a little cardboard-y, and the plot is, of course, wholly unbelieavble (as is the norm for science fiction, though!)...Overall, though, this film succeeds in being very, very entertaining to watch. Additionally, the entire premise of the film is so original that it was a thoroughly enjoyable - if light - film experience. The ending had something to be desired, but this is still an entertaining movie.

Of course, this film really doesn't have much to do with the actual stargate conspiracy, but it is interesting, nonetheless. Kurt Russell does, believe it or not, an excellent job with his role and manages to balance a powerful character in this film.

Now, for this DVD. Firstly, the DVD is cheap. That's always a plus. However, all the DVD has on it is the movies: I was pretty much expecting there to be what MOST DVD's have (-ie, traliors, interviews, etc)...I was disappointed to find that this edition did not contain any theatrical trailers. There is, however, a short side-film about the Stargate and the prospect of there even being one.

In a way, a very realistic movie...
First off, once you get past the idea of a Stargate the rest kind of falls into place. The government, with the help of Professor Daniel Jackson (James Spader), figures out how to work it. Pro. Jackson, with an escort of soliders led by Colonel Jack O'Neil (Kurt Russell) step through it to the other side.
They find a desert planet where humans are being made to mine for the same material that the gate was made from.
The people are Egyptians who were removed from Earth over 10,000 years ago, by an alien, and even Daniel Jackson can't understand their language because living languages CHANGE.
The movie is careful to stay away from many of the cliches of most sci-fi movies but also stays away from having characters which are TOO simple. Both Daniel and Jack (played by James and Kurt) are real people, not cardboard cut-outs, with all the flaws and merits of our own reality. The natives are catch between trying to be friendly towards strangers AND not pissing off their Gods.
The science and technology used by Ra and his men look very sleek and very real. From the spaceship to the gliders, everything has a touch of old Egyptian myth mixed with advanced alien know-how.
The DVD comes with two versions of the movie, Director's Cut and the theatrical cut, in which the former has audio commentary. The DVDs also have a great 'Making of Stargate' featurette, a 'Is There a Stargate?' short starring Erich von Daniken himself, trailers, scane access, crew and cast information and production notes.
Everything you could want in a DVD set, a mixture of sound science fiction, a touch of great effects and the pinch of old fashion adventure. This is a great pop corn flick. Enjoy! ... Read more

Reviews (528)

Typical Big-Budget Fun Ride
Director Roland Emmerich (The Day After Tomorrow & The Patriot) became a popular name in big-budget summer movies with the successful 1996 blockbuster "Independence Day". Massive alien spaceships mysteriously enter the Earth's atmosphere and unleash a devastating assault on the world's major cities. Now, a small human resistance organizes a final stand against the powerful invaders. "Independence Day" is a 153 minutes of pure movie fun. Its simple plot and stereotypical characters are rather predictable but still quite enjoyable. Its amusing humor, intense battle sequences and outstanding special effects are this Sci-Fi film's true highlights. The all-star cast features Will Smith, Bill Pullman, Jeff Goldblum, Judd Hirsch, Randy Quaid, Vivica A. Fox and Robert Loggia.

"Independence Day" Limited Edition is a worthy bargain DVD. Both theatrical and extended cuts are presented in 2.35:1 anamorphic widescreen format. The DVD contains an amazing picture quality with rich color detail and great resolution. The clear 5.1 Dolby Digital sound delivers some well balanced surrounds and awesome bass, but a DTS audio track should have been included in this new release. Among special features, it contains two audio commentaries by filmmakers and FX crew, and a sneak peak at Emmerich's FX epic "The Day After Tomorrow". Despite the lack of supplements, "Independence Day" receives a pleasant "B-".

There's always something...
This fulfills all of the expectations of a summer blockbuster;
things flying around, stuff blowing up, flag waving, etc etc

and yes it is escapist and all good fun

all good stuff (although a little over done, as others have
pointed out, with the flag waving bits -- but then given the
title, i think people must have known that before going in)

but it does fall foul of the usual fault of having one
supremely bad plot element. i'm referring to the odd idea that
the alien shields can be taken down by injecting a computer
virus (oh so easily). in this case, it is a cop out -- a cheap
way for the screenwriter to get from point A to point C without
bothering with B

a wise man once said never let the facts get in the way of a
good story. and a writer once said he never checks the technical
aspects of a screenplay (for the same reason)

the problem with this (and many films suffer a similar problem)
is that it pulls me right out of the film. the suspension of

disbelief of an action rah-rah film can take you to a certain
point, but it is easy to step over that line. the virus did it
for me in this one

any film that uses classic dialogue such as "this is real
life -- not a film" is almost guarenteed to suffer this sort
of problem

You didn't like this film? What are you anyway, a commie?
Normally I don't use reviews as a forum for sniping at other reviewers, but it would appear that Thomas B. Clark came as close as he could to calling me un-American because I didn't care for the jingoism that saturates this film. Well by golly, I guess it is now clear that this film must be a litmus test of the patriotism of all Americans. If you hate it, you must be some sort of com-symp pinko --- it's off to the Russkies with ya.

Incidentally --- I would have refrained from socio-political commentary if only you had also --- I would gently remind you that the Indian Air Force is reported to have done very well against the USAF in exercises conducted in February this year, so maybe the USA really isn't the only one who can get the job done. I'd be willing to bet that the Israeli Air Force, to name just one, might be able to hold its own as well. Of course, maybe I am just whining again.

The argument also seems to be that critics (in addition to being part of the 5th Column) cannot endure a film that engages in make-believe. You can't be serious. Just because a film requires the viewer to suspend belief doesn't necessarily mean it has to suck. I enjoyed "Hellboy," "Men in Black," and "Alien," for example. None of these is remotely believable, but they are well-crafted films with decent performances from their respective casts. Likewise, films packed with explosions & mayhem can also have compelling storylines & characters --- "Master & Commander," for example. I guess I am guilty of expecting the makers of a movie --- even one that is "just fun," should give us more for our money than some paint-by-numbers hack job.

And that is exactly what this movie is, Thomas B. Clark. Contrary to what you claim, I hardly did any nit-picking on all the plot holes in the story, although other reviewers have gone over this movie's silly inconsistencies with a fine-toothed comb. My main complaint was that with the disengaged acting, the cardboard-cutout characters, and the painfully predictable storyline, all the movie really could rely on is lots of special effects & nifty explosions, which really on works on the big screen. The commercial success of this turkey has only encouraged Hollywood to even greater FX excess, to the point that filmmakers seem to think that if they throw enough CGI and special effects at you, they are not responsible for also giving you a decently-crafted movie with a plot & characters and stuff like that.

Hey, it's your money. I spent $1.50 at the budget theatre watching this and I guess I broke even. I pity the people who blew 7 or 8 dollars for this, but again, spend it on what you want. I learned my lesson sooner rather than later. Being the anti-American creep that I am, I just purchased a nice bottle of the 2000 Canon-la-Gaffeliere, which is the equivalent of about 10 viewings of "ID4"-type films, and I think I got the better end of the deal.

AWESOME!!!!
I absolutely love this movie because it's so much action packed fun where vicious aliens from outer space unleash destruction upon the earth's human population and now they must fight back and destroy the aliens before they destroy humanity. This is just so much fun. The special effects are top notch and the acting is great! I really loved the way the spaceships looked like as opposed to looking like flying dinner plates. Go and buy this movie 2day!

Aliens Ate Our Brains!
What else would explain the hit this banal tripe was? ... Read more

Reviews (762)

Lethal Hatchet Part 4
So sue me, I stole that by-line from Newsweek. But it's the most apt description I've heard. It really is a Mel Gibson revenge flick, with him running around with a couple dozen hatchets and rifles rather than a semi-automatic Glock. Don't get me wrong, I loved this movie, but it wasn't historically accurate, and for anyone who wants a truly good Colonial period drama(I'm one of those), they'll have to keep looking. The Last of the Mohicans didn't do it(yes, I know that that was the French and Indian War), and this one doesn't do it either. It's pure action, pure revenge, pure adrenaline. Same as almost any Mel Gibson picture. The scene where he eliminates a 20 man British contingent is definitely a cool sequence; The follow up to this movie should have Bruce Willis and be called "Die Patriot". Ok, bad joke, but basically, this is an adventure film that is fun to watch, as it is in the vein of all my favorite adventure films, like Die Hards 1-3 and Lethal Weapons 1-4. Cool movie, not exactly Oscar material. Heck, not even Golden Globe material.

The Patriot a perfect Fourth of July rouser
What is it about American wars that brings the best out of otherwise trivial filmmakers? Ten years ago, the glorious Glory came from "thirtysomething" creator Edward Zwick. Now, Godzilla's Roland Emmerich, about the last director from whom we could expect full-bodied characters, brings us The Patriot--in every sense of the word, the most beautiful movie of its year.

Part of the credit should probably go to screenwriter Robert Rodat who, as Saving Private Ryan proved, surely knows which patriotic buttons to push. Whoever should be credited, there's not a false move in this rousing three-hour tribute to American spirit. When they say "They don't make 'em like that anymore," point to this one as an example of how it can still be done.

And who knew Mel Gibson still had any actorism left in him? As Benjamin Martin, a reluctant war veteran who is finally moved to fight in the Revolutionary War when a redcoat kills one of his sons, Gibson sheds his familiar love-me mannerisms like an old winter coat. He never relies on cutesy tics, and not once does he strike a false note. His character elicits laughter, tears, and bloodshed, and for the first time in years, Gibson emotes an honest-to-gosh person on the screen.

The movie's basic point--stated outright by Martin early on in the story--is that the Revolutionary War was won by wily militiamen who served as a direct counterpoint to the straight-on British manner of battle. But that's about the only thing in the movie which is stated so blatantly. The dialogue, rather than being laden with jingoism, is appropriately sparse, letting the movie's considerable action tell the story. And as such, this movie is a perfect argument against gratuitous movie violence (despite its R rating)--it shows the devastating effects of war (Martin loses a great deal of his family, one by one) and yet doesn't linger on its horrific effects.

Gibson's magnificent underplaying and Rodat's spare screenplay seem to have invigorated the rest of the cast as well. Everyone from Jason Isaacs (the British colonel with a bug up himself about Martin) to Tom Wilkinson (terrific as British warlord Gen. Cornwallis) to Trevor Morgan (the actory smart-aleck in The Sixth Sense) as one of Martin's sons, seem just as juiced up as Gibson is.

I haven't told a great deal about the plot, have I? (I haven't even touched upon Caleb Deschanel's beautiful cinematography, or John Williams' best movie score since E.T.) And this is as it should be. Please just trust that you should devote nearly three hours to one of the most perfectly realized movie visions you're likely to see for a long, long time.

The Patriot is rated R, mostly for very graphic violence, though in context, a PG-13 would be far more appropriate. Its only dramatic effect is to get kids talking about the story, an opportunity that I'd imagine most history teachers and parents would welcome.

STIRRING AND MOVING
Once again, people crave for authenticity...the way it really happened....and once again, I say, "It's a movie. It's entertaining and moving....I didn't take my history book along to make sure it was totally accurate. I like escapism, and movies that move me." This movie did that. It's beautifully filmed by the respected Caleb Deschanel; the music by John Williams is moving, and the cast on a whole is exceptional. Mel Gibson has been labeled an okay actor, but if you look deep inside his performances, the man does his best in filling whatever shoes his role dictates. As the family-oriented and somewhat stubborn father, he evokes the pain he feels from his actions in an earlier battle with the French; he seems devastated by his youngest daughter's silence to him; and he loves his family. Joely Richardson is effectively cast as Mel's sister in law, who helps take care of his family during this crisis. Heath Ledger is all gungho and spirited as Gabriel, and plays well with the rest of his cast. Tom Wilkinson is superb as Cornwallis, a man steeped in tradition and British fanfare. His scene with Gibson in which the patriot negotiates for the release of his 18 prisoners is exceptional. Jason Isaacs is pure evil in his role as the heartless Haverton (or whatever), and shows that war to him is merely licensed murder. The rest of the supporting cast: Chris Cooper, Rene Auberjonois, Adam Baldwin, Gregory Smith, Mira Boorkem, and Donal Logue, in particular, are great additions.
The movie is a manipulative film, of course...how else would it work, but it's to director Roland Emmerich's credit, that when the credits were over, I felt moved and touched. That's what films are meant to be in my opinion.

Complete and Utter Waste of Time
I am genuinely surprised at this movie's good rating!
1)The historical innaccuracy is horrible
2)It is a movie that glorifies the WRONG things about the American Revolution
3)The love story is nauseating
4)The characters are weak and underdeveloped. Mel Gibson is an ok (Just OK) actor. Most of the others are too, with some really really bad ones thrown in- just for kicks!
5)People say it was entertaining- really? I was writhing through the entire thing. Oh, and the war scenes really aren't that gruesome... maybe its because I saw Kill Bill a month ago?

I wish I didn't waste my time with this movie! Please, please watch something else! There are so many better (historical or otherwise) movies!

An American Patriot
The 2000 summer film, "The Patriot" which I believe was in theatres appropiately on the 4th of July, stars Mel Gibson in the heroic role of Benjamin Martin, a father fighting for his family and his colony from the British enemy forces of General Cornwallis (played by Tom Wilkinson). The movie was directed by Roland Emmerich, the director of Independence Day, which, though science fiction blockbuster epic that it was, still maintained the 4th of July American patriotism theme much like this movie. Being entirely different from his usual blockbusters (Godzilla, Day After Tomorrow most recently) Emmerich immerses us into the historical period of early America in the 1770's, when the budding, newfound country was at war with Great Britain. The American Revolution was the first real war in America. The country was earning its independence and fighting for it in the most literal sense.

Althoug the movie keeps its period piece/costume drama visuals, in the dialogue you can find traces of modernism. For example, in one scene, Mel Gibson sits with his wife and asks "Can I sit here ?" and she replies in comedy tone "Hey it's a free country.. or that is it will be". Much of Mel Gibson's own influence is in this movie. He did not direct this movie although he could have easily done so. The fighting scenes, the battles, the gunfights and the violence is very Mel Gibson in nature (he is after all responsible for such films as Braveheart). The portrayal of the British is of course biased since it's on the American side we're sympathezing with. Cornwallis is a man we love to hate-rude, arrogant and cruel. The other British in the film are also portrayed as very nasty. The message of patriotism, love of family and home is all quite strong here. But it does make a good film if you're into this period, if you want to see Mel Gibson doing a historic piece and as the hero which he always does so well in. Mel Gibson, though much older now, is still a great actor and provides much romantic/sex appeal. On DVD, the movie is loaded with extra features including commentary and "Making Of" segment. ... Read more

Reviews (203)

A Powerful Film By Master Of Disaster Emmerich
Roland Emmerich directed the 1996 blockbuster hitIndependece Day which many still consider his best work. Later, he directed Godzilla, which according to some was not well-crafted. But 2004's "Day After Tomorrow" is quite powerful and moving and Roland Emmerich brings back the magic and dynamics of his old masterpiece Independence Day. This time the threat is not alien, it's our own earth. Global warming has caused the polar ice caps to melt and erratic weather to errupt. Hail begins to attack Tokyo, Japan and it snows in the usually hot New Delhi, India. Star Dennis Quaid gets a hold of the fatal news that the world is going to end as it experiences a new Ice Age. His son Sam (Jake Gallynhaal) is away in New York City on an Academic Decathelon which he joined to be with the girl he loves. Sela Ward plays Sam's mother and Dennis Quaid's wife, a doctor who is caring for a cancer-struck little boy. The President of the U.S. and the Vice President (who looks a bit like Dick Chaney)completely ignore the warnings and it's not long before Los Angeles is destroyed by a tornado. The Hollywood sign gets blown away. New York City is flooded. The special effects are top-notch and the characters and plot stunningly engaging. Only a small group who has listened to Sam, who in turn was going by his father's directions, remain in the New York City Public Library even after it freezes entirely. Dennis Quaid searches for his son in the extreme weather. This is a movie about survival, as is expected about humans when confronted with great disaster. It is about courage and human compassion. To contrast the epic disaster with its serious drama is touches of humor such as the bum and his dog who survive the disaster and the fac that the tables are turned and it is desperate survivor Americans who are crossing the border illegally into Mexico, which was not effected by the disaster. All the performances are credible and though one can easily criticize for its typical disaster movie routine, it does'nt matter. The success of this film proves that we love to see this kind of genre. Humankind surviving all sort of disasters and the will to live. Five stars. An incredibl experience at the movies and hopefully it will make a wonderful DVD loaded with interesting features.

Disaster movie
We don't need to get too intellectual on this movie, nor make any pretense of why you should see it - there is one reason and one reason only to view The Day After Tomorrow, the special effects. We all know this. So I really don't want to spend a page writing about the dialog that is worse than a soap opera, the science that made Lord of the Rings look reality based, or the believability factor that made Cliffhanger look like CNN. C'mon, you kind of expect that from a movie like this don't you?

All of that nonsense aside, there are several scenes which are truly spectacular, some of the best special effects that I've seen. True, a great deal of those scenes were shown in the previews, but there are still many staggering effects that are saved for the film.

Yes it's melodramatic. Yes it's preachy (Al Gore and Al Franken actually used this movie to promote their environment agenda). But if you would enjoy seeing LA destroyed by what would be the largest tornado in recorded history, or New York getting swallowed by a wall of water, it's worth the price of the movie ticket. And here's another idea - go with some friends and keep notes of the best (i.e. worst) lines, and then afterwards you can argue about which was the worst line of dialogue. Mine was probably, "Jake...tell her how you feel," with "I think I will go close my eyes for a while," coming in at a close second.

One final note to the dude at Amazon who filters these reviews: Here's a little inside tip - *stop posting reviews written by people who haven't even seen the film - and even ADMIT this in their reviews!* And certainly don't make them the spotlight review. Maybe you could have a special "trailer review forum" for these idiots and stop wasting our time.

Best new movie
The Day after Tomorrow is a outstanding movie. The special effects are awesome. I was not sure about the movie at first but after I rented it from blockbuster and viewed it, I definitely will buy it on dvd fullscreen. There have been a few movies made involving natural diasters but this one is the best. If you have not seen it yet, definitely watch it. The director did a fantastic job, the cast members put a outstanding job. It's one of those movies you'll want to watch again and again.

Great Thrill Ride Movie
When you watch this movie it will feel like you are in the movie. Trust me I have seen it 4 times in the theaters. You will have to watch it again and again and each time you will find something new. Enjoy the movie.

"Independence Day" minus the aliens, plus eco-propaganda.
If you've seen the 1997 sci-fi hit "Independence Day", then for all practical purposes you've seen this movie too. The only real difference is that instead of a bunch of ticked-off aliens, the threat of human extinction comes from a ticked-off "Mother Nature". In the former, however, it was all about "us versus them" and the triumph of the human will to survive. In "Day After Tomorrow", the message is: "We have met the enemy, and they are the Republicans."

Yeah, the movie is about the epic struggle to survive in the face of an overwhelming natural catastrophe, but it's pretty obvious that the producers were less interested in telling a story and more concerned about sending an election-year political message. From the early scenes of the movie, the "hero" character (a very forgettable paleoclimatologist played by Dennis Quaid) serves as the "voice crying in the wilderness" against the environmentally unsound excesses of corporate America. He warns of the doomsday scenario which does in fact unfold throughout the movie, but the heavily stereotyped conservative politicians (who are, no doubt, in the pockets of the polluters) shrug off his warnings. Maybe it's just me, but I thought the "vice president" character looked uncannily like Dick Cheney. Coincidence? I don't think so, but feel free to decide for yourself.

The main story is about a dysfunctional family whose members find themselves separated by the unpredictable (yet somehow predicted) chain of natural events. Of course, the events aren't really natural -- they're caused by foolish and greedy men who fail to pay attention to the needs of Mother Earth. Somehow, against incredible odds, the family manages to reunite, save the human race, and resolve their own domestic issues all at the same time. And of course, the tale is duly concluded with the humiliation of America and its (implied Republican) leaders, as well as some cheap jabs at American immigration policy.

In short, this is enviro-hysteria at its cheesy best, but election year political propaganda at its worst. There isn't even a mild attempt to veil the message -- it's right there in your face. If you're a Bush-hater, you'll cheer. If you're a little more honest with yourself, you'll see this film for the cheap trash that it is. The ONLY reason I gave it a second star was because it was chock full of stunning visual effects from beginning to end. Beyond that, your enjoyment of this movie will stand in direct relation to your political affiliation. That's no way to make a movie. ... Read more

Reviews (528)

Typical Big-Budget Fun Ride
Director Roland Emmerich (The Day After Tomorrow & The Patriot) became a popular name in big-budget summer movies with the successful 1996 blockbuster "Independence Day". Massive alien spaceships mysteriously enter the Earth's atmosphere and unleash a devastating assault on the world's major cities. Now, a small human resistance organizes a final stand against the powerful invaders. "Independence Day" is a 153 minutes of pure movie fun. Its simple plot and stereotypical characters are rather predictable but still quite enjoyable. Its amusing humor, intense battle sequences and outstanding special effects are this Sci-Fi film's true highlights. The all-star cast features Will Smith, Bill Pullman, Jeff Goldblum, Judd Hirsch, Randy Quaid, Vivica A. Fox and Robert Loggia.

"Independence Day" Limited Edition is a worthy bargain DVD. Both theatrical and extended cuts are presented in 2.35:1 anamorphic widescreen format. The DVD contains an amazing picture quality with rich color detail and great resolution. The clear 5.1 Dolby Digital sound delivers some well balanced surrounds and awesome bass, but a DTS audio track should have been included in this new release. Among special features, it contains two audio commentaries by filmmakers and FX crew, and a sneak peak at Emmerich's FX epic "The Day After Tomorrow". Despite the lack of supplements, "Independence Day" receives a pleasant "B-".

There's always something...
This fulfills all of the expectations of a summer blockbuster;
things flying around, stuff blowing up, flag waving, etc etc

and yes it is escapist and all good fun

all good stuff (although a little over done, as others have
pointed out, with the flag waving bits -- but then given the
title, i think people must have known that before going in)

but it does fall foul of the usual fault of having one
supremely bad plot element. i'm referring to the odd idea that
the alien shields can be taken down by injecting a computer
virus (oh so easily). in this case, it is a cop out -- a cheap
way for the screenwriter to get from point A to point C without
bothering with B

a wise man once said never let the facts get in the way of a
good story. and a writer once said he never checks the technical
aspects of a screenplay (for the same reason)

the problem with this (and many films suffer a similar problem)
is that it pulls me right out of the film. the suspension of

disbelief of an action rah-rah film can take you to a certain
point, but it is easy to step over that line. the virus did it
for me in this one

any film that uses classic dialogue such as "this is real
life -- not a film" is almost guarenteed to suffer this sort
of problem

You didn't like this film? What are you anyway, a commie?
Normally I don't use reviews as a forum for sniping at other reviewers, but it would appear that Thomas B. Clark came as close as he could to calling me un-American because I didn't care for the jingoism that saturates this film. Well by golly, I guess it is now clear that this film must be a litmus test of the patriotism of all Americans. If you hate it, you must be some sort of com-symp pinko --- it's off to the Russkies with ya.

Incidentally --- I would have refrained from socio-political commentary if only you had also --- I would gently remind you that the Indian Air Force is reported to have done very well against the USAF in exercises conducted in February this year, so maybe the USA really isn't the only one who can get the job done. I'd be willing to bet that the Israeli Air Force, to name just one, might be able to hold its own as well. Of course, maybe I am just whining again.

The argument also seems to be that critics (in addition to being part of the 5th Column) cannot endure a film that engages in make-believe. You can't be serious. Just because a film requires the viewer to suspend belief doesn't necessarily mean it has to suck. I enjoyed "Hellboy," "Men in Black," and "Alien," for example. None of these is remotely believable, but they are well-crafted films with decent performances from their respective casts. Likewise, films packed with explosions & mayhem can also have compelling storylines & characters --- "Master & Commander," for example. I guess I am guilty of expecting the makers of a movie --- even one that is "just fun," should give us more for our money than some paint-by-numbers hack job.

And that is exactly what this movie is, Thomas B. Clark. Contrary to what you claim, I hardly did any nit-picking on all the plot holes in the story, although other reviewers have gone over this movie's silly inconsistencies with a fine-toothed comb. My main complaint was that with the disengaged acting, the cardboard-cutout characters, and the painfully predictable storyline, all the movie really could rely on is lots of special effects & nifty explosions, which really on works on the big screen. The commercial success of this turkey has only encouraged Hollywood to even greater FX excess, to the point that filmmakers seem to think that if they throw enough CGI and special effects at you, they are not responsible for also giving you a decently-crafted movie with a plot & characters and stuff like that.

Hey, it's your money. I spent $1.50 at the budget theatre watching this and I guess I broke even. I pity the people who blew 7 or 8 dollars for this, but again, spend it on what you want. I learned my lesson sooner rather than later. Being the anti-American creep that I am, I just purchased a nice bottle of the 2000 Canon-la-Gaffeliere, which is the equivalent of about 10 viewings of "ID4"-type films, and I think I got the better end of the deal.

AWESOME!!!!
I absolutely love this movie because it's so much action packed fun where vicious aliens from outer space unleash destruction upon the earth's human population and now they must fight back and destroy the aliens before they destroy humanity. This is just so much fun. The special effects are top notch and the acting is great! I really loved the way the spaceships looked like as opposed to looking like flying dinner plates. Go and buy this movie 2day!

Aliens Ate Our Brains!
What else would explain the hit this banal tripe was? ... Read more

Reviews (528)

Typical Big-Budget Fun Ride
Director Roland Emmerich (The Day After Tomorrow & The Patriot) became a popular name in big-budget summer movies with the successful 1996 blockbuster "Independence Day". Massive alien spaceships mysteriously enter the Earth's atmosphere and unleash a devastating assault on the world's major cities. Now, a small human resistance organizes a final stand against the powerful invaders. "Independence Day" is a 153 minutes of pure movie fun. Its simple plot and stereotypical characters are rather predictable but still quite enjoyable. Its amusing humor, intense battle sequences and outstanding special effects are this Sci-Fi film's true highlights. The all-star cast features Will Smith, Bill Pullman, Jeff Goldblum, Judd Hirsch, Randy Quaid, Vivica A. Fox and Robert Loggia.

"Independence Day" Limited Edition is a worthy bargain DVD. Both theatrical and extended cuts are presented in 2.35:1 anamorphic widescreen format. The DVD contains an amazing picture quality with rich color detail and great resolution. The clear 5.1 Dolby Digital sound delivers some well balanced surrounds and awesome bass, but a DTS audio track should have been included in this new release. Among special features, it contains two audio commentaries by filmmakers and FX crew, and a sneak peak at Emmerich's FX epic "The Day After Tomorrow". Despite the lack of supplements, "Independence Day" receives a pleasant "B-".

There's always something...
This fulfills all of the expectations of a summer blockbuster;
things flying around, stuff blowing up, flag waving, etc etc

and yes it is escapist and all good fun

all good stuff (although a little over done, as others have
pointed out, with the flag waving bits -- but then given the
title, i think people must have known that before going in)

but it does fall foul of the usual fault of having one
supremely bad plot element. i'm referring to the odd idea that
the alien shields can be taken down by injecting a computer
virus (oh so easily). in this case, it is a cop out -- a cheap
way for the screenwriter to get from point A to point C without
bothering with B

a wise man once said never let the facts get in the way of a
good story. and a writer once said he never checks the technical
aspects of a screenplay (for the same reason)

the problem with this (and many films suffer a similar problem)
is that it pulls me right out of the film. the suspension of

disbelief of an action rah-rah film can take you to a certain
point, but it is easy to step over that line. the virus did it
for me in this one

any film that uses classic dialogue such as "this is real
life -- not a film" is almost guarenteed to suffer this sort
of problem

You didn't like this film? What are you anyway, a commie?
Normally I don't use reviews as a forum for sniping at other reviewers, but it would appear that Thomas B. Clark came as close as he could to calling me un-American because I didn't care for the jingoism that saturates this film. Well by golly, I guess it is now clear that this film must be a litmus test of the patriotism of all Americans. If you hate it, you must be some sort of com-symp pinko --- it's off to the Russkies with ya.

Incidentally --- I would have refrained from socio-political commentary if only you had also --- I would gently remind you that the Indian Air Force is reported to have done very well against the USAF in exercises conducted in February this year, so maybe the USA really isn't the only one who can get the job done. I'd be willing to bet that the Israeli Air Force, to name just one, might be able to hold its own as well. Of course, maybe I am just whining again.

The argument also seems to be that critics (in addition to being part of the 5th Column) cannot endure a film that engages in make-believe. You can't be serious. Just because a film requires the viewer to suspend belief doesn't necessarily mean it has to suck. I enjoyed "Hellboy," "Men in Black," and "Alien," for example. None of these is remotely believable, but they are well-crafted films with decent performances from their respective casts. Likewise, films packed with explosions & mayhem can also have compelling storylines & characters --- "Master & Commander," for example. I guess I am guilty of expecting the makers of a movie --- even one that is "just fun," should give us more for our money than some paint-by-numbers hack job.

And that is exactly what this movie is, Thomas B. Clark. Contrary to what you claim, I hardly did any nit-picking on all the plot holes in the story, although other reviewers have gone over this movie's silly inconsistencies with a fine-toothed comb. My main complaint was that with the disengaged acting, the cardboard-cutout characters, and the painfully predictable storyline, all the movie really could rely on is lots of special effects & nifty explosions, which really on works on the big screen. The commercial success of this turkey has only encouraged Hollywood to even greater FX excess, to the point that filmmakers seem to think that if they throw enough CGI and special effects at you, they are not responsible for also giving you a decently-crafted movie with a plot & characters and stuff like that.

Hey, it's your money. I spent $1.50 at the budget theatre watching this and I guess I broke even. I pity the people who blew 7 or 8 dollars for this, but again, spend it on what you want. I learned my lesson sooner rather than later. Being the anti-American creep that I am, I just purchased a nice bottle of the 2000 Canon-la-Gaffeliere, which is the equivalent of about 10 viewings of "ID4"-type films, and I think I got the better end of the deal.

AWESOME!!!!
I absolutely love this movie because it's so much action packed fun where vicious aliens from outer space unleash destruction upon the earth's human population and now they must fight back and destroy the aliens before they destroy humanity. This is just so much fun. The special effects are top notch and the acting is great! I really loved the way the spaceships looked like as opposed to looking like flying dinner plates. Go and buy this movie 2day!

Aliens Ate Our Brains!
What else would explain the hit this banal tripe was? ... Read more

Amazon.com

As "gigantic monster reptile attacks New York" movies go, you've got to admit that Godzilla delivers the goods, although its critical drubbing and box-office disappointment were arguably deserved. It's a shameless, uninspired crowd pleaser that's content to serve up familiar action with the advantage of really fantastic special effects, and if you expect nothing more you'll be one among millions of satisfied customers. There's really no other way to approach it--you just have to accept the fact that Independence Day creators Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin are unapologetic plagiarists, incapable of anything more than mindless spectacle that can play in any cinema in the world without dubbing or subtitles. The whole movie plays out like a series of highlights stolen from previous blockbusters of the 1990s; it's little more than a rehash of the Jurassic Park movies. The derivative script is so trivial that it's unworthy of comment, apart from a few choice laughs and the casting of Michael Lerner as New York's mayor, whose name is Ebert and who closely resembles a certain well-known movie critic. Perhaps that's a clever hint that this movie's essentially critic-proof. It's stupid but it's fun, and for most audiences that's a fitting definition of mainstream Hollywood entertainment. The widescreen Special Edition DVD includes a wealth of bonus materials--audio commentary by the film's special effects supervisors, a "making of" featurette, the Wallflowers' music video "Heroes," a photo gallery, and a variety of features related to this and all the classic Godzilla films from Japan. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (582)

Hollywood duo Devlin and Emmerich reinvent a Cult classic
Reading some of the more generous reviews one might actually believe this movie was a fun romp. Not at all. A fun romp is what the better half of the Japanese monster movies represent and what Devlin and Emmerich failed to provide. This is a truly awful adaptation both from the point of view of someone looking for a good time and the Godzilla fans out there who craved for considerably more. Not to gloss over the Japanese monster movies with their characteristically laughable dubbing and their sometimes equally ludicrous plots but at worst, the original product could be enjoyed or excused as mere camp. However, at best, the Japanese Godzilla was shown as an irresistable force of nature smashing cities with impunity and leaving behind a tremendous wake of devastation. Japanese monster movies are really natural disaster movies in which the natural disaster is the star rather than the survivors. Godzilla is more related to an earthquake, volcano, or typhoon than King Kong, Frankenstein, or Dracula. Sure, it's not Masterpiece Theater nor meant to be, but Devlin and Emmerich's movie is too involved with meandering through the leading character's absurd escapades around famous New York City landmarks and developing dull "Beverly Hills 90210" like relationships to be even that entertaining or to be any fun at all. This version doesn't reach high enough to be a good disaster movie or low enough to be humorous B-movie material. Rather, it spends less on Godzilla or the havoc she causes than it does on the shallow love story between Matthew Broderick and Maria Pitillo's characters or Jean Reno's involvement as the leader of a French team whose sole purpose seems to be to spout clever quips with an accent while maintaining a pose of heroic bravado. All in all, the Army's endless cavalcades to kill the beast with several poorly aimed rocket barrages actually cause more damage than Godzilla's torpid strolls through the city. Rather than an invincible force of nature wrecking havoc like a thousand hurricanes we are given a giant mutant stumbling through New York and meeting a torturous end straddled on a bridge. I do not mind movies that are made solely for entertainment, for fun, but this was really no more exciting than watching a giant reptile hunt! For all intent and purposes, this was a 100 million dollar marketing vehicle for merchandise and The Wallflower's hit single.

A disgrace to sci-fi monster movies and Toho's creation
Whether or not you perceive him as a hero or villain, there's no doubt that Godzilla has become a global name. The old Godzilla movies have always been known for their outlandish storylines, cheesy special effects, fake costumes and sets, and overall lack of realism. But in the end, they were still surprisingly entertaining. Dean Devlin and Roland Emmerich try to achieve that same notion with their own version of the monster. The 'campy but fun' formula worked well with the old Godzilla, but it fails miserably with this one. The old Godzilla movies may have been cheesy, but at least they aspired to be good, fun and charming. They weren't shallow and soulless and all were made with a technique that worked. You can tell the filmmakers tried. Too bad it's not the same case here.

It's difficult to watch this movie and not compare it to the original Toho creation. The Toho Godzilla movies featured gibberish plots and obviously fake laughable production, but at least they didn't insult your intelligence. This Godzilla film showcases absolutely no hint of logic, especially regarding the size of the creature. We can see Godzilla towering over New York's tallest skyscrapers yet it can fit in the subway tunnels and evenly distribute eggs inside Madison Square Garden. As usual, the military is always determined to destroy a monster in a monster movie, but here they are made to look like a bunch of bumbling idiots, always being outwitted and losing track of a creature that size in Manhattan. Godzilla has the ability to breathe fire, yet he doesn't even use it. The characters serve no purpose here except to witness Godzilla get assaulted and killed. It's one ridiculous action scene after another. To top it all off, the soundtrack of the movie has Puff Daddy butchering the riff of Led Zeppelin's 'Kashmir'.

It's not common for many movies to deserve one star. Godzilla is one of those movies. There's nothing wrong with creating a Godzilla movie or any cheesy monster flick, it just has to be executed correctly. The Japanese makers of Godzilla make Devlin and Emmerich look like amateurs. There is no heart to this film whatsoever, a ploy to cash in on an already infamous hero to many. A lizard arrives in a city, is angered and attacked by humans and dies. Dean Devlin and Roland Emmerich prove once again that they are two of the worst filmmakers in history. They take cult classic genres and turn them into mainstream abominations enhanced with action-oriented special effects. Independence Day was a disgrace to sci-fi alien invasion movies and now this. The original 1954 Godzilla and Godzilla 1985 were no masterpieces, but they were still far more entertaining than this one. Look past the dull action scenes and special effects, and the rest of the movie's attributes wear thin quickly (like most of Devlin and Emmerich's work). This is a bad movie, but most of all, it's empty and downright forgettable.

Not bad for people who aren't into original Godzilla movies
I'm a fanatic of the original Kaiju flicks, inclunding the first period of Godzilla era(1954-1975). So as the header implies, i didn't like this movie. Just to make it clear, i'm judging beyond the special f/x, the soundrack and all kind of technical details. What i'm geting into is the essens of this movie by Devlin & Emerich which, in my opinion was totaly wrong and innapropriate.
To tell you the truth, i enjoyed all the other effords of these sci-fi creators but i hated this one.O.K., in order to make myself clear i'll write 2 paragraphs just to explain why people who aren't font of the original Godzilla films enjoy this one and people who love the original rubbersuit bigfella, just despise it.
First of all the movie is well made. It has an ok script, its well directed, with talented actors and plenty of action. The visual effects get an A+ and hold up till now. The sound effects are also top of the natch and will make any home cinema out there rock. You know, all the above are more than satisfactive for most of the sci-fi action-adventure followers. But my guess is that everyone else who'll watch it just for the fun will be fully repaid. Despite some cheesy plot turnovers and some out-of-time comical enstandes the film is watchable for the majority of people.

And that's where Classic Japanese Kaiju belivers come along. I haven't really got into population percentage for this kind of audience, but my guess is that it does not excide 1% of the active cinefuns worldwide. Maybe i'm more than optimist even for the number above. The problem with us is that we excist and we have an opinion which, i do agree, sometimed tends to be a bit annoying or peculiar for everyone else. But hey, thats us. And to tell you the truth i think it sould be us that mr. Devlin & Emmerich sould firstly consider in order to shape this movie. Instead he blow off everything that had to do with the original monster keeping only what was critically nessesary for the plot outline. But let me ask some retorical questions.
Why the hell he deform Godzilla into this? Wasnt the originall form good enough for him?
Where is the good old city wrecking and rampaging?Hasn't he watched wat the big G did everytime he entered poor Tokyo?
Where is G's atomic mouth ray?
Whats with the little jurassic park rip off Godzilla baby figres?as i recall Godzilla has a son and its name is "Minya".
The only reason G was born was to travel in the showres and gave birth to younglings?
Are three airborn missiles enough to stop the big guy?(And if they are does it worth the efford to make a movie out of him?)
Where is the President of the u.s. isnt Godzilla a good reason for him to make an apearrance?who wants to see a mayor a cernel and a seargent throughout the whole movie?
At last, wouldnt it be better for the film to come out with the different name like "Rodzilla" or "Tortilla"?

I could continue till tomorrow but i hope everyone got the point with all the above. Thanx mr.Devlin & mr.Emmerich.......Thanx for ruining every discent's Godzilla-fun day. It really took a lot for you to achieve this.

Short review/other stuff
Short review:I really liked this movie! IMO, this Godzilla looks better than the japanese Godzilla!

(...)

Not Bad or Excellent
i rated this album quite high because it had featured trakcs that were really good .
Track 2 , P.Diddy and Jimmy page including Tom mOrello on the guitars with Jimmy page
Jamiroquoi
a quite good song but not excellent
my favorite track , No shelter by Rage Against the machine .

the rest werent up to my standards .
i woudlnt prefer this record to my friends or any one else .
thsi is a pop record and deserves not to be released .
but the between track 2 and 4 are like the only deserved buying tracks ... Read more

Reviews (528)

Typical Big-Budget Fun Ride
Director Roland Emmerich (The Day After Tomorrow & The Patriot) became a popular name in big-budget summer movies with the successful 1996 blockbuster "Independence Day". Massive alien spaceships mysteriously enter the Earth's atmosphere and unleash a devastating assault on the world's major cities. Now, a small human resistance organizes a final stand against the powerful invaders. "Independence Day" is a 153 minutes of pure movie fun. Its simple plot and stereotypical characters are rather predictable but still quite enjoyable. Its amusing humor, intense battle sequences and outstanding special effects are this Sci-Fi film's true highlights. The all-star cast features Will Smith, Bill Pullman, Jeff Goldblum, Judd Hirsch, Randy Quaid, Vivica A. Fox and Robert Loggia.

"Independence Day" Limited Edition is a worthy bargain DVD. Both theatrical and extended cuts are presented in 2.35:1 anamorphic widescreen format. The DVD contains an amazing picture quality with rich color detail and great resolution. The clear 5.1 Dolby Digital sound delivers some well balanced surrounds and awesome bass, but a DTS audio track should have been included in this new release. Among special features, it contains two audio commentaries by filmmakers and FX crew, and a sneak peak at Emmerich's FX epic "The Day After Tomorrow". Despite the lack of supplements, "Independence Day" receives a pleasant "B-".

There's always something...
This fulfills all of the expectations of a summer blockbuster;
things flying around, stuff blowing up, flag waving, etc etc

and yes it is escapist and all good fun

all good stuff (although a little over done, as others have
pointed out, with the flag waving bits -- but then given the
title, i think people must have known that before going in)

but it does fall foul of the usual fault of having one
supremely bad plot element. i'm referring to the odd idea that
the alien shields can be taken down by injecting a computer
virus (oh so easily). in this case, it is a cop out -- a cheap
way for the screenwriter to get from point A to point C without
bothering with B

a wise man once said never let the facts get in the way of a
good story. and a writer once said he never checks the technical
aspects of a screenplay (for the same reason)

the problem with this (and many films suffer a similar problem)
is that it pulls me right out of the film. the suspension of

disbelief of an action rah-rah film can take you to a certain
point, but it is easy to step over that line. the virus did it
for me in this one

any film that uses classic dialogue such as "this is real
life -- not a film" is almost guarenteed to suffer this sort
of problem

You didn't like this film? What are you anyway, a commie?
Normally I don't use reviews as a forum for sniping at other reviewers, but it would appear that Thomas B. Clark came as close as he could to calling me un-American because I didn't care for the jingoism that saturates this film. Well by golly, I guess it is now clear that this film must be a litmus test of the patriotism of all Americans. If you hate it, you must be some sort of com-symp pinko --- it's off to the Russkies with ya.

Incidentally --- I would have refrained from socio-political commentary if only you had also --- I would gently remind you that the Indian Air Force is reported to have done very well against the USAF in exercises conducted in February this year, so maybe the USA really isn't the only one who can get the job done. I'd be willing to bet that the Israeli Air Force, to name just one, might be able to hold its own as well. Of course, maybe I am just whining again.

The argument also seems to be that critics (in addition to being part of the 5th Column) cannot endure a film that engages in make-believe. You can't be serious. Just because a film requires the viewer to suspend belief doesn't necessarily mean it has to suck. I enjoyed "Hellboy," "Men in Black," and "Alien," for example. None of these is remotely believable, but they are well-crafted films with decent performances from their respective casts. Likewise, films packed with explosions & mayhem can also have compelling storylines & characters --- "Master & Commander," for example. I guess I am guilty of expecting the makers of a movie --- even one that is "just fun," should give us more for our money than some paint-by-numbers hack job.

And that is exactly what this movie is, Thomas B. Clark. Contrary to what you claim, I hardly did any nit-picking on all the plot holes in the story, although other reviewers have gone over this movie's silly inconsistencies with a fine-toothed comb. My main complaint was that with the disengaged acting, the cardboard-cutout characters, and the painfully predictable storyline, all the movie really could rely on is lots of special effects & nifty explosions, which really on works on the big screen. The commercial success of this turkey has only encouraged Hollywood to even greater FX excess, to the point that filmmakers seem to think that if they throw enough CGI and special effects at you, they are not responsible for also giving you a decently-crafted movie with a plot & characters and stuff like that.

Hey, it's your money. I spent $1.50 at the budget theatre watching this and I guess I broke even. I pity the people who blew 7 or 8 dollars for this, but again, spend it on what you want. I learned my lesson sooner rather than later. Being the anti-American creep that I am, I just purchased a nice bottle of the 2000 Canon-la-Gaffeliere, which is the equivalent of about 10 viewings of "ID4"-type films, and I think I got the better end of the deal.

AWESOME!!!!
I absolutely love this movie because it's so much action packed fun where vicious aliens from outer space unleash destruction upon the earth's human population and now they must fight back and destroy the aliens before they destroy humanity. This is just so much fun. The special effects are top notch and the acting is great! I really loved the way the spaceships looked like as opposed to looking like flying dinner plates. Go and buy this movie 2day!

Aliens Ate Our Brains!
What else would explain the hit this banal tripe was? ... Read more

Amazon.com

Supreme silliness doesn't stop The Day After Tomorrow from being lots of fun for connoisseurs of epic-scale disaster flicks. After the blockbuster profits of Independence Day and Godzilla, you can't blame director Roland Emmerich for using global warming as a politically correct excuse for destroying most of the northern hemisphere. Like most of Emmerich's films, this one emphasizes special effects over such lesser priorities as well-drawn characters and plausible plotting, and his dialogue (cowritten by Jeffrey Nachmanoff) is so laughably trite that it could be entirely eliminated without harming the movie. It's the spectacle that's important here, not the lame, recycled plot about father and son (Dennis Quaid, Jake Gyllenhaal) who endure an end-of-the-world scenario caused by the effects of global warming. So sit back, relax, and enjoy the awesome visions of tornado-ravaged Los Angeles, blizzards in New Delhi, Japan pummeled by grapefruit-sized hailstones, and Manhattan flooded by swelling oceans and then frozen by the onset of a modern ice age. It's all wildly impressive, and Emmerich obviously doesn't care if the science is flimsy, so why should you? --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (568)

lame
There is something positive about in this movie. It managed to start some public conversations about the greenhouse-effect at least somewhere in the globe but the enviromental message in "The Day After Tommorrow" got finally buried under its stupidness. No wonder, unfortunately. This is exactly something that could have been expected from the same director who has made such rubbish as "universal soldier" and "the Indepencence day". Unlike many other foreign directors Emmerich has found his way to stay in the big budget business by adding each time some korny and sentimental patriotism in his films, often directly out from the mouth of the president himself. There`s lots of holes in the script which can`t be filled not even by the massive special effects. Maybe I`m just too old( yet still a teenager) but I just can`t get excited by stuff like some crappy animated CGI-wolfs anymore. In this context, the first pictures of the gigantic wave where quite entertaining though.

Trash
I don't really need to say much. This movie is some more multi-million dollar budget trash. This movie is horrible. You don't have to see this to know whats going to happen in the end. What happens in the end of all movies that are garbage? We all know. I wish I could murder this movie.

The movie george bush doesn't want you ro see
actually I don't want you to see it either. This movie was really bad and long. I might have given it 3 stars if the torture wasn't so prolonged. the only redeeming quality of this film are a few 3 minute bursts of cool (heh get it?) moments. I think there might be 12 minutes I enjoyed about it... and I'm being generous.

TDAT... don't do it

Pretty funny.Wait, this is not a comedy?What gives?
Yeah right.Global warming causes a modern Ice Age.Come again?Oh, well, forget the science.(After all, this movie does.)I can never get enough of watching New York City and other urban blights get destroyed and this flick has great special effects.I loved the shots of the superhurricanes from the space station.The escaped wolves prowling the streets of The Big Apple were a nice touch too.Ice Age here we come!

I cannot believe how bad the acting and dialog is in this one.Dennis Quaid is a good actor, but I guess his Yacht payment was due the month he made this film; nothing else explains why he would agree to star in a turkey like this.

This is a flimsy, politically correct end of the world flick.To the limited extent it is worth seeing, watch it for the special effects.I don't know but that this flick would be a better viewing experience with the sound turned off.The cheesy dialog is nothing but a distraction anyway.

Two stars because I was able to watch it to the end, but just barely.Just barely.By the way, the end of this one is so awful as to make one want to gag.Geez, I am a tree hugger myself, but here the politics are so in-your-face as to defy belief.Awful, just awful.

I HATE HUMANS !!!
This is the polar bear speaking against humans.

You humans are such sinners.
You are selfish, all you care about is yourself.
You are destroying the rainforest b/c you waste paper.
(No forest,no medicine)
And when the polar ice caps melt...Way Less Land!
Especially the Americans...the most polluting country on Earth.
Even China has more people than America but yet they don't create as much pollution as you lazy selfish careless Americans do. One day the Animal Kingdom and Mother Nature will get its revenge on yous. Selfish earth-destroyers! ... Read more

Reviews (168)

The okay movie that became a really great television series
It is interesting to watch the 1994 "Stargate" film from the perspective of the spin-off television series, "Stargate SG-1," which is on its way to becoming the longest running science-fiction series of all-time. As was the case with "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," we have an okay film that becomes a first-rate television series.

Once upon a time, 1928 to be exact, archeologists discovered a strange disc buried in the sand of Egypt. The next thing we know we are in the present, and Egyptologist Daniel Jackson (James Spader), is having his colleagues walk out on him as he explains his radical theory about the ancient Egyptians and their language. But then a mysterious old woman (Viveca Lindfors) gives him an invitation to travel to a secret military base buried beneath the Rocky Mountains to do translations. Jackson has nothing else to do, so he shows up, immediately corrects all the mistakes and figures out all the mysteries, and the next thing we know he is being shown the Stargate. He then joins a military group led by Colonel Jack O'Neil (Kurt Russell), who has been recalled back to active duty to find out where you go to when you step through the Stargate. The answer is you go to the other side of the known universe where you discover a desert planet where an alien who was known as Ra (Jaye Davidson) by the ancient Egyptians is lording it over the local humanoids.

This movie is mostly eye candy. Being shot on a desert planet means that it has lots of scenes shot in bright sunlight, which really is unusual for a science fiction film, where they tend to be dark and murky. "Stargate" brings back the same sort of ideological tension between scientists and the military that we enjoyed during the 1950s with films like "The Thing From Another World," as Jackson is all excited to explore a brave new world and O'Neill is looking for an excuse to blow everything up with the nuke in the big suitcase.

Truth about this movie is that it the ideas are a lot better than than the execution. The idea of the Stargate is a nice way of circumventing the laws of physics that scoff at warp drive and other narrative necessities to a good space yarn. It is not a far leap of logic to get from this one Stargate to the idea that there are others, and there is also the nice corrollary that this system explains why there are so many humans scattered throughout the galaxy where they all live on oxygen breathing planets.

Beyond that the television series picks up on the Jackson-O'Neill dyad, reducing it to the idea that one is an academic and the other is a warrior and never the twain shall meet. Of course Richard Dean Anderson's O'Neill is even quirkier than Spader's Jackson, while Michael Shanks's Jackson starts off even more humorless than Russell's O'Neill. But it all works, so why quibble? The original "Stargate" ends up being more about style than substance, which is why it is so interesting that the television series could find something substantial upon which to build a television series.

If you have yet to see "Stargate" in any version, then you are strongly urged to proceed immediately from this 1994 film to the first season of "Stargate SG-1." Even if you find this film tedious, just get through it and move on to the good stuff. You could not pass go and head directly for season one of "Stargate SG-1," but you really need to know the players and some of the rules of the game before hand.

Director's Cut Is Excellent!
I'm not sure what makes the ultimate edition much different from the special edition, as both include the director's cut and theatrical version. The ultimate edition does include a 'making of' featurette, as well as a 'Is there a stargate' featurette that isn't included on the special edition. These are both interesting, but nothing to write home about. One big difference is the audio. The ult. ed. includes DTS 6.1 audio, as well as dolby digital 5.1.

Good: Being a fan of Stargate SG-1, I wanted to own the original movie as well, and when the ult. ed. was released, knew it was time to buy. I watched the director's cut, and was amazed. There were added scenes, as well as extended existing scenes. These changes really gave me a better understanding of how things in the tv show came to be the way they are, such as the relationship between Jack O'Neill and Daniel Jackson. In the director's cut, we see more interaction between them. We also get more into the head of Jack, and better understand just how messed up he really is after the loss of his son.

Bad: The only disappointment I have with the ult. ed. is that there were no 'gag reels' or bloopers, or other deleted scenes included. I enjoy watching these on other DVDs I have, and would have loved to have seen them for Stargate.

Overall, I'm glad I added this DVD to my collection. My only wish is that the Stargate SG-1 DVDs included behind the scenes or blooper reels as well.

Just an attempt to get more bucks from fans
If you're like me, you are really - really - getting tired of producers, film compaines, whomever there is to blame re-re-re-releasing the same DVD with different packaging, and calling it the "Ultimate" or "Supreme" or "this time it really is a Limted edition" special releases. The motivation? Raking it in from fans who expect and want more. You'd be better off spending your bucks elsewhere.

There is NOTHING to make this DVD stand out from any of the numerous previous releases. Save your money! Sure the director's cut is great - but it's on what, three previous releases?

Solid Flim, This DVD Is Lacking, However...
Stargate, as a film, is really a solid example of imaginative science fiction. The characters are a little cardboard-y, and the plot is, of course, wholly unbelieavble (as is the norm for