People do not hesitate to choose to watch “The Day After Tomorrow,” when they cannot decide what to see. They naturally know the summer blockbuster with big-budget does not disappoint their expectations. But its original intention must not be ignored because you can be unconsciously brainwashed by their maliciously designed conspiracy. Without a single word my friend bought tickets of it on the day “The Day After Tomorrow” opened. He said that it was a safe decision. But it was actually an uncomfortable decision.

You may be concerned about the environment after seeing this film. Then, is it the global warming that Emmerich wants to say to you? Please do not expect anything about the warning of Nature from this flick. Actually “The Day After Tomorrow” is the film about the epic of the white family; The U.S., the climatologist, his wife, and her son. He just disguised their heroism with the ice storm. He already abandoned the old-fashioned heroic episode, in which superman would save the world as in Armageddon or Deep Impact, when he chose the disaster for his next film. He might know very well that another Independence Day does not sell in the middle of the international condemnation of U.S. War on Iraq.

Anyway the most uncomfortable moment in “The Day After Tomorrow” is the racial prejudice. It goes without saying that black people play discriminatory roles in the movie. Why does a street beggar have to be an African American all the time while a White American plays a role of Mother Teresa? It was traumatic especially when I watched a Japanese woman’s willingly participation in Jack’s “Saving Private Sam.” It is very valuable to mean the family in Asia while many American families have experienced their moral and structural collapses, which I certainly witnessed in “The Ice Storm.” How cannot she be worried about her mother country, for all that the ice storm is attacking Asia? Damn it, Dude! Where’s Your Country?

I just hoped that it would show viewers America’s haughty bearings, their belief that even a natural calamity can be overcome by power of capital and military. He should have released E-bomb or CBU-64 upon the ice storm like they have done, not killing the President of United States of America, which will not affect the rejection of Kyoto Protocol. Emmerich may be trying to conciliate angry Africans, Asians, and Europeans, offering an unacceptable and ridiculous proposal. But you have gone too far, Mr. Emmerich. I can’t accept your proposal.

“Pay It Forward,” a traditional hollywood movie, did not disappoint my expectations, even though I was disappointed a lot while watching it. I always believe that there must be some big changes in it explicitly or implicitly when the novel is adapted for the silver screen of Hollywood, especially when starring Oscar winners. Mimi Leder, the direcor of the film, would try to avoid the traditioal Hollywood style by killing Travor, a hero. However, she rather created her movie more hollywood and her hero more heroic by gathering people, even murderers, holding candles to mourn in front of Travor’s at the end of the movie. I have nothing to say if you say that at least you are so impressed by this aimless tearjerker and feel like doing something. I just want to ask you, “What do you expect for people to do for a change after they have witnessed the death of an innocent boy, Huh?”

I suggest to forget about the movie itself. I mean its plot or the director’s original intention. (Did she have something to say?) I am pretty much sure that “Pay It Forward” does not suggest any hopeful view. But I, as a future teacher, dare propose that teachers try to do something to change themselves. They do not have to make the world a better place like Mr. Simonet’s project. Teachers already recognize what is wrong in the education, and many of them know what they have to do for a change whether it’s possible or not. But a few of them try and will, even though they are finally frustrated by the obstacles, an impregnable system which cannot be overthrown by the endeavor of a few. Nevertheless, I just hope that teachers prepare themselves for a change in the system. It does not have to be a national or sensational movement like that of “Pay It Forward.” I just want it to be the first step. Please do not be discouraged!

“Pay It Forward” deceives the innocent viewers by exploiting fake tears and fake gravity, planting the impractical dreams in their mind. They may think and believe that doing good things for others may reverberate through the world and finally make the world a better place. But that is totally wrong because I know that they are too weak to do anything after watching this ridiculous film. Please do not waste your time watching this film. Instead, you had better watch “Spider Man.” At least you can see Tobey Maquire and Kirsten Dunst flying around.

Like Freud’s theory, the memory plays a very important role in a human being’s whole life. Some people can develop their abilities through good experiences and memories. However some people can ruin their lives by painful memories such as discrimination, violence, or mistreat, without knowing that sometimes these are false memories. It is very dangerous to instill some ideas or memories constrainedly, because it can cause harmful effects. In Paul Verhoeven’s “Total Recall” adapted from Philip K. Dick’s “We Can Remember It For You Wholesale,” the identity is threatened because of the collision between the implanted memory and the real memory.

Replicants of “Blade Runner” are the perfect robot ever created. They are reasonable enough to suffer from their recognition of artificial existence. Replicants as slaves have felt agony through their whole life spans, four years of slavery experiences and the fake childhood memories. They struggled to gain salvation from “God of biomechanics,” a greedy and mere human being. (They, robots, always wished to be a real human being. David in A.I. did, too) And in case of Rachel, one of the perfect replicants, she has felt so painful because she recognized that her childhood memories were a fake which had been infused into her. Then why on earth did the creator of the replicants give human-like androids emotions and memories for all that they are created to be used and served for only human being? Do they, machines, need to feel and think?

I would like to find the answers of these questions from Paul Verhoeven’s, “Robocop.” One policeman was killed and recreated into indestructible android in order to protect human security. However, he soon could regain humanity through the recollection of his oblivious experiences and memories. He is resurrected from a machine to a human being. He has the aim to attain and to live, even if it is a revenge. He can feel and think just like replicants in the world of “Blade Runner.” But his memories are totally different from these of replicants.

The motto of the Tyrell Corporation is to make androids more human than human. However, a robot that is so close to human being is finally a failure because artificial and fragmental memories cannot change androids into real human being. Nevertheless, I cannot erase the thought that replicants are much closer to human than human beings, because the existence of human being is also doubtful, supposing that Deckard is a replicant. Do not believe what you can see right now!