The day after tomorrow: Filmbesprechung korrigieren, bitte !

Forget for a minute all you have heard about an unrealistic film called “the day after tomorrow”. (why?)

The film is a disaster film so it has to be unrealistic at some point. Who would go and watch a fictional film that represents something which could really happen_ in the future? Certainly,
nobody would watch it because if people go to the cinema they do not want to hear facts about the climate change. They want to see a dramatic movie and would be disappointed if there were no special effects. Because the movie is made in 2004 _ it`s new and new films should have special effects. For those who say the director should have put less special effects in the script I ask what would be left in the film? the plot of the film would be low-key then because the plot is like that: climatologist Jack Hall played by the actor Dennis Quaid tries to warn the government of a disaster but no-one listens to him, so the disaster takes place, the Northern Hemisphere ends up frozen, Jack tries to save his son Sam, played by Jake Gyllenhaal, who’s stuck in the Manhattan Public Library with some other people. The library is also frozen and covered with ice.
The main characters of the film are Jack, who is a climatologist triing to warn the world. Because the government is not listening to his words he gets really mad and annoyed in the first half of the film and after that he is just worried about his son Sam, who is a 17 year old boy. Sam is in Manhattan because of some competition his school team joined. The (main) focus of the film lays in the dramatic events that come_ from the climate change. The moves, the Us government makes are just subplot and the watcher of the film only realizes them in some scenes like when the Mexican government only let the Americans flee[/b_] over the Mexican border [b]after the US-President cancels the Third World`s debts. But all in all the subplot is not strong enough to get watcher`s attention.

Wherever the people go, mostly to see this dramatic scene it`s exactly what they search for if they watch it so they will not be disappointed because it`s exactly what people want if they watch disaster films. [<-- ein schräger satz...]

--
(meine total-schwäche sind kommas, geb ich zu. deshalb habe ich daran wenig angemarkert.)

einige sachen sind intuitiv geändert, weil ich nicht genau weiß, was du ausdrücken möchtest...

vieles wäre mit kurzen sätzen einfacher. (ich habe nix an "geschmacks-sachen" rumgemäkelt. das würde zu tief in die einzelheiten gehen. es sind nur grobe / offensichtliche sachen markiert.)

- tipp: stell dir vor, du müsstest einem italiener diesen text auf englisch geben, der ebenfalls kein englisch-muttersprachler ist. du wirst automatisch weniger wort- satz- und inhalts-fehler machen.

--
insgesamt verstehe ich den aufbau des textes nicht ganz. zum beispiel, was der erste satz soll, und dass du die hauptfiguren samt rahmenhandlung 2mal beschreibst. die klare linie fehlt also - und das ist keine schwäche im englischen...

(eine geschmacks-sache noch: manchmal "film" durch "movie" ersetzen..)