THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW Review: written by Ricky Chu

The Day After Tomorrow is an American sci-fi film which illustrates the much worse effects of global warming. I love films that have stunning CGI visual effects and include action or the world in disaster (not a good thing but it’s fun to watch…) and this movie by Roland Emmerich is no exception SO much eye candy (Emmy Rossum). But how much of this award winning film is actually true or scientifically accurate?

The film is based on the book The Global Superstorm and the scenario that the Gulf Stream (ocean conveyor belt) is disrupted due to ice caps melting, pouring lots of fresh water into the ocean which causes the state of global warming to change drastically. Jack Hall (Dennis Quaid) is a professor studying around the field of global warming but fails to convince the Vice President of the United States of his findings and theories. In summary his theories were true and after a series of irregular natural events storms, cyclones, tsunamis, you name it – the whole northern part of the world (or in this case America…) goes in to an ice age. So the question remains can all this “abrupt” climate change really happen?

Well yes, though the film uses the theory that fresh water is less dense than salt water therefore the large quantity of fresh water from melting ice caps will not sink and inevitably stop/change the flow of the Gulf Stream thus cooling the Earth. In fact, throughout Earth’s life it has been through ice ages by this effect but “abrupt” in science usually means a span over several years to even a century…

What about the catastrophic natural disasters? The film does do justice to some of the natural disasters (mainly the smaller ones) as the storms, tornadoes and hurricanes could actually happen as they are possible products of the Gulf Stream disruption along with global warming however the 3 “killer disasters” (lol) all defy science.

The Super Cell Hurricanes froze and killed pretty much everything it hit but the flaw came in the fact that the hurricane came from separate origins and separate storm systems typically don’t fuse together…but the biggest blooper is probably the radar readings which showed the super cell hurricanes spinning counter clockwise yet they were often shown spinning clockwise when destroying stuff…

Subzero freezing temperatures was a central threat in the plot as the cast of characters all struggled finding a way to keep warm. Jack Hall said that it’s because the air in the center of the super cell hurricanes is descending too fast so fast that this low pressure freezes anything instantly (haha I’m gonna trash this) which defies the Ideal Gas Laws… =_=’ Air descending molecules warm up as they are compressed since there are more concentrated molecules closer to the Earth’s surface the molecular contact and collisions should generate heat…which is the complete opposite to the film…

And finally the crazy tsunami in Manhattan which claimed to be caused by the storms. Yeah…not possible as the way it was illustrated in the movie. A tsunami of that size would be only plausible as a result of a crazy underwater earthquake, landslide or a meteorite smashing the ocean….also a tsunami wave THAT BIG, SO MUCH WATER would just HULK SMASH everything in its path all the buildings and the Statue of Liberty =S Therefore,  there wouldn’t be anyone left trying to survive or escape… Oh and one more blooper the tsunami came from the east…but the Atlantic Ocean is south of Manhattan

The review became more of pointing out the bloopers…so I’d just stop here and say while the film is largely an exaggeration of what could happen if global warming continued it does a really good job of telling it to people without the science knowledge. Think of the worst case scenario that could possibly happen in global warming and this is probably it, it really makes one think “we should do something to prevent this from happening”. Overall I’ll give this movie an 8/10, 5/5 for the movie itself and 3/5 for the science involved. The movie was paced quite nicely and some of the scenery and visuals were just STUNNING and let’s be honest there’s no way to fit several years or decades of global warming scenes into a 2hr movie and be good to watch…

GATTACA Review: written by Adelwin Ali

GATTACA (1997) – There is no gene for the human spirit-

“They used to say that a child conceived in love is a child of happiness. They don’t say that anymore.”

Gattaca is probably one of the best science fiction films portraying the advancement of genetic engineering nowadays – which was believed to be impossible in the past. The movie shows the genetic discrimination based on DNA by using biometrics to instantly identify created as “valids” while those conceived by traditional means are more susceptible to genetic disorders and are derisively known as “in-valids”.

The movie plot follows the life of Vincent (Ethan Hawke) who is naturally born but carries the probability of heart defects and chance of early death in 30 years. It stopped his dream to become a space astronaut to go furthest moon of Saturn. He then strikes a deal with a crippled Valid, Jerome (Jude Law), and steals his genetic identity in order to realize this dream.

The question of what makes us who we are is raised by the movie. Gattaca‘s answer to this is biological, close up shots of skin flakes, eyelashes, urine, pinpricks of blood — all the substances used for DNA testing. Vincent uses the biological fragments that make up Jerome on top of his own identity, and applies for the space programme under a false disguise.

Although it was not a box office movie I think this movie is a smart science fiction film showing a determination of a normal born to fight for his dream although he has been discriminated based on his genes while Anton/Jerome and Eugene that the ones that have gene superiority but are lacking in spirit.

The movie portrayed something that was impossible at that time but could be a reality today. In 2009 Steinberg announced that he would soon give parents the option to choose their child’s skin color, hair color and eye color in addition to sex by PGD (Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis).

The film raises other issues such as whether we should prohibit genetic engineering on humans. Because we have the biological process to map out genetic information does not predict external or internal causes that provoke change. Most people feel that our future is going to be brighter because of genetic engineering. I personally think that genetic engineering will somehow harm the natural development of human race that will lead to elimination of the “in-valid” just like the Darwin theory posits that the un-favored will become extinct. There is always going to be someone to push the limits and experiment with things that were intended to be left alone. For example, an infamous example would be Adolf Hilter and his Eugenics program. It poses the questions of what if the human race became so genetically perfect? Will everyone be closely tied? Man in his own right is not a perfect creature. This has become real issue nowadays and it is not Hollywood imagination anymore.

I give this movie a solid 7/10.
4/5 for the plot and 3/5 for the way science was used.

Here’s a closing thought: Imagine if there were 10 clones of this person. What will happen to the world?

And again, with this man below?

OUTBREAK Review: written by Olivia Anne Castro

The deadliest things are the things we cannot see.

Outbreak (1995), the work of Director Wolfgang Petersen, is an example of the Hollywood depiction of the medical pandemic thriller. Like the successive films to follow in this genre, each have somewhat combined elements on the personal development of characters, conspiracy, horror and the requisite graphic portrayal of infections. The more bloody and macabre, the better. Outbreak, however, does not particularly emphasise this exaggeration. Though there are errors in the film that would conflict with facts in the fields of Epidemiology and Virology (such as the virus mutating from being spread via bodily fluids to becoming airborne and the instant application of the vaccine from the monkey to the infected in a span of less than a day – according to science, these are unlikely). Despite this, the artistic rendering of the film poses the question of what would happen if such an outbreak occurred in reality? A deadly pandemic occurring around us in our lifetime is a very real possibility to consider.

Outbreak, amongst other notable related medical pandemic films such as Contagion (2011), 12 Monkeys (1995) and 28 Days Later (2002), demonstrate the potential of such a danger occurring in society. Thus, we should thank the medium of film posing the “what-if” questions through their visual representations. A worldwide viral contagion is more plausible to happen than say, an invasion of Godzilla sized killer bees. So why dismiss the notion? Perhaps it’s the idea of the threat we can’t even see, how do we know it’s even there? Maybe it’s not even there at all? Through cinema, we’re able to consider the dangers of the microscopic to the point that we’ll now bring hand sanitizer wherever we go. How else would we learn about the real hazards of viral infections if not dramatically on the big screen? In fact, how can we easily dismiss such portrayals as mere fiction when in this increasingly Globalised world, transmission of viruses are easier to pass on around the globe undetected? You only need to look at the Bird and Swine Flu pandemics that have happened in the past decade to realize that such a threat is possible.

The Outbreak plot basically outlines the development of the Motaba Virus in the African country of Zaire. A team, led by Colonel Sam Daniels (Dustin Hoffman), travel to the nation to assess Motaba and are assured by Morgan Freeman’s character, General Billy Ford, that such a virus will not outbreak into the United States. Meanwhile, a parallel scene shows a monkey, contaminated with the virus being illegally smuggled into America, infecting the handler and thus beginning a contagion around California. The town of Cedar Creek becomes the epicenter of the virus, infecting most of the inhabitants resulting in a quarantine guarded by the military. Naturally, as one can find in a Hollywood blockbuster, the protagonist defies higher command, gets the vaccine to cure the infected, gets the girl and therefore saves the day.

What particularly impacted on me was the idea of the government withholding information on the virus and its serum in order to use it in biological warfare. It raises the possibility of looking at viruses not only as a threat in itself, but as a threat wielded by bioterrorists. We can look to history to confirm that this is not just pure Hollywood fantasy. During the aftermath of the 2001 September 11 attacks, there were several attacks of Anthrax sent through to Congressmen and Media personnel via mail. In World War II, the Japanese were engaged in research in what was known as Unit 731 – its many activities included Germ warfare, where individuals were injected with diseases guised as vaccines. Though it may seem almost conspiratorial to propose this, it still makes one consider the potential for this to happen; particularly when certain groups or individuals have had the power to use these diseases to their advantages (case in point: The terrorist/doomsday cult Aum Shinrikyo had in their possession cultures of Anthrax and the Ebola virus). The deadliest things are the things we cannot see, and thus by being so miniscule they are harder to control or eradicate. The film certainly opens up the prospect of biological warfare/terrorism and it certainly pays to bear this in mind as not being merely Hollywood embellishment after all.

The plot: 3/5

The science: 3/5

Overall: 6/10