Monday, May 25, 2015

Review: Tomorrowland

by Adam Riske
What a bummer.

Despite being technically impressive, Tomorrowland is a major disappointment from writer-director Brad Bird (The Iron Giant, The Incredibles, Ratatouille, Mission:Impossible: Ghost Protocol). This is surprising. Bird has become a household name in recent years to movie fans, an auteur whose work has become synonymous with strong characters and rich emotion. Tomorrowland is a big step backwards from his previous output. I feel fans of his movies will be majorly grumpy after seeing his latest.

Tomorrowland is not a terrible movie, but it’s the kind of movie that can leave you feeling angry, even more so than you do with a terrible movie. It’s because it’s so profoundly deflating. The problems in the film are obvious as you are watching it (they don’t sneak up on you after the viewing) and the movie gives off this vibe that something is "off" for the majority of its runtime. Ever notice how the movies we pick apart the most are the ones that let us down and not the ones that are just outright dogs?
The plot in brief: An optimistic teenager (Britt Robertson) and a former boy-genius inventor (George Clooney) embark on an adventure to unearth the secrets of “Tomorrowland,” a mysterious place somewhere in time and space.

Before I go back into what doesn’t work about Tomorrowland, let me point out some positives. The movie features a very appealing lead character named Casey (Robertson) who is smart, energetic and funny. She is at the center of all of the best sequences in the movie, including when she first uses the Tomorrowland pin, when she initially visits Tomorrowland and a sequence in an awesome-looking sci-fi nostalgia store (which is full of visual nods to other Bird properties like The Iron Giant and The Incredibles as well as Star Wars -- another Disney brand). The problem is all of these scenes are in the first 45 minutes.

The movie is thematically rich and its intentions are good. It’s creative and has tremendous production design (this is a great looking bad movie) which should be commended. It definitely has an authorial voice (in Bird and co-writer Damon Lindelof) and is audacious in its own way. Tomorrowland is sort of a commentary on popular teen/family tentpole entertainment in the same way The Cabin in the Woods was for horror movies. In short, the movie is original, trying to do something new and has something worthwhile to say. And yet it still doesn’t work. That just shows you how bad the story is in Tomorrowland. It’s kind of a miracle.
After a fun, adventurous first act, the energy is just zapped out of this thing for the next badly paced 90 minutes. Tomorrowland is so unevenly structured that the story doesn’t even kick in until nearly the third act; they’re still in set-up mode before that. It grows tedious and meandering as I just sat there waiting for the story to kick in already. Characters I was once invested in turned into nothing and I no longer cared any more what happened to them. It bugged me so much how they took a decent movie in the early going and turned it into a series of dry lectures akin to The Matrix Reloaded’s architect and Zion scenes. Watching Tomorrowland is like sitting through a boring conference in a beautiful city where the hosts won’t let you go outside. At least there was a rave in that second Matrix movie. Plus, climax of Tomorrowland is lazy and stupid and don’t get me started with the denouement. I half expected George Clooney to start singing “I believe the children are our future. Teach them well and let them lead the way.”

This is a movie much more about its themes than its narrative and that proves to be its downfall. It bends over backwards to be about how we need (as a society or entertainment industry or both) to be putting out positive messages and hope in order to “save the world” as opposed to a dystopian or doomsday point of view. The movie is anti-gritty and against the current trends prevalent in YA filmmaking (like Divergent, The Hunger Games, The Maze Runner) that are all showing worlds that are bleak and miserable. It’s an interesting point of view that I can’t agree with. Here’s why. Something dystopian like Mad Max: Fury Road can be fun and make you happy and something basking in bright colors and positivity like Tomorrowland can be suffocating and drab and make you unhappy despite it wanting to do the opposite. More importantly, they don’t present these ideas in ways that are engaging or even cinematic. It’s just people talking in an expensive room while FUCKING TOMORROWLAND is outside. The themes of this movie could work as subtext but as text they’re annoying and a bore. It’s all about the execution and not the intention.
Besides the strong work from Britt Robertson, the rest of the performances vary. Raffey Cassidy plays Athena, a character who majorly factors into the plot, and she’s good but in an over-polished child actor kind of way. Hugh Laurie is basically just playing Mr. Smith from The Matrix, and as for George Clooney, well, he’s miscast. This is the type of role a younger Harrison Ford or Sean Connery could have killed in. The actor playing the inventor needed to be more classically grumpy. Clooney is not that guy, and Tomorrowland takes little advantage of what makes him charismatic as an actor in movies like Ocean’s Eleven or Michael Clayton. There he’s the coolest guy in the room and here he’s a whiny stick in the mud that might still be in love with a 10-year old girl despite being an adult man. It’s creepy.

It seems like Bird and Lindelof were given carte-blanche to make their movie and somehow lost their feeling for telling a satisfying story along the way. I suspect it would be more satisfying to watch an interview with Bird and listen to him talk about making Tomorrowland than it would be to watch it. This is a one-time watch that completely surrenders its appeal when the mystery (which isn’t much of a mystery) is revealed. I really wanted to like this movie and I really did not. It breaks my heart to say this, but I think you’re better off skipping this movie and letting the idea of Tomorrowland live on in your head. The reality is worse than the fantasy. Better yet, just re-watch Adventureland. That movie is awesome!

21 comments:

  1. Can we stop letting Damon Lindelof write things now? Everything he touches turns into the same preachy, over philosophical muck.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I liked Tomorrowland a lot more than you, but I'll admit that it has pacing and plot problems. I've been able to reconcile some of the plot issues I had, but not the pacing problems. I think part of the issue issue is that some of the story has ended up in a prequel novel-written by the film's creators-which explores the road that led up to now and the creation of Tomorrowland itself. I believe the book takes place at the 1939 World's Fair. That really should have been in the movie, not in a novel. Still, I'm interested enough in the world of this film that I'm going to buy that book and give it a read.

    I'll probably be writing an "InDis(ney)pensable" piece on this movie when it's come out on DVD and Blu-Ray in which I can really dig into some of the stuff I liked so much about it. While everything doesn't work, it's a Disney fan's wet dream, and watching this movie is like going to Disney World--literally, because it filmed in both Disneyland in California and Disney World in Florida. It feels like something Michael Eisner would have green-lit, and it's the kind of movie I want Disney to make, not Pirates of the Caribbean part 5. It's a quintessential Disney movie in theme and tone, carrying on the themes of Walt Disney himself and working fervently to build a better future starting today. I really appreciated that, and we haven't had a live-action Disney movie quite like this in a long time. I've been following this movie for years, since it was announced as the mystery project 1952, and I can't understand how some people worked on this for over five years and still couldn't make it all leap off the screen. I'm willing to label this one an ambitious failure, but one that I champion for trying to do something important.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glad to hear you liked the movie. I so wish I did more.

      Delete
  3. I loved this movie. I feel like it was the kind of fun adventure film that Hollywood has been missing lately. I also think Avengers 2 made me like this movie more. While that was an unoriginal, and typical movie I felt I’d seen a hundred times before, Tomorrowland had the guts to be different. It was a completely original film that took me on a journey of discovery. I recognize the message is quite on the nose, but to be honest I just find it refreshing that a big blockbuster has something to say at all. I really respect this film. And I think critics should be championing it more. We desperately need more movies like Tomorrowland.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ugh. If it just stayed like it did during the first 45 minutes! Glad you liked the movie :-)

      Delete
    2. I don´t love it but to me it was a pretty entertaining movie until it fizzled in the third act. But for 3/4 of the movie it reminded me of the Amblin movies of the early 80s like Goonies or Gremlins. It was a lighthearted and optimistic movie with good performances, great camerawork and a fine score. The preachiness of the finale was a little bit too much and the finale sadly was more of a letdown than a climax but otherwise I had a good time with this one.

      Delete
  4. Great review, Adam - I'm sure it's very fair - it's interesting to see Heath and Daniel liked it so much, but I've got a feeling I'm going to be on the same page as you. I hate ham-fisted moral message movies (pamphlet movies I call them - John Q springs to mind) even (or maybe even especially) when I agree with the message, which it sounds like I would in this case. And it seems to me Lindelof's writing has crippled three recent movies that had all the other elements in place - World War Z, Star Trek Into Darkness and Prometheus - I really hope Hollywood gets over its infatuation with this guy. Not Brad Bird though - keep him!

    Damn - two bummer movie reviews in a row today.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I didn't think the moral was hamfisted. It's not hidden or anything, but I'm particularly sensitive to preachy messages, considering my upbringing, and I didn't mind this. You should see it for yourself. Unlike the other movies you've referenced (World War Z, Star Trek Into Darkness, and Prometheus) it's an original film that isn't based on a book or a t.v. show. I guess technically it is based on a section of a Disney theme park, but it's a brand new story, and it has a really uplifting message. I read something over the weekend from one of the screenwriters that made me like it even more. So..not preachy; it's earnest. Maybe too earnest...maybe naive...This is a movie that can't really be dissected until it's been seen, because the movie you THINK you're seeing is not the movie that you actually are. I say go see it and find out for yourself if you like it or not. Reward originality and new ideas with your dollars.

      Delete
    2. That's a very compelling argument, Heath - unlike with Patrick's Poltergeist review (and the buzz in general) I wasn't completely dissuaded from checking this out - in the spirit of The Lone Ranger and After Earth which I watched and enjoyed against all indications to the contrary based on RISKE's reviews, I'm gonna do this one for you, Heath! Might not be for a few days but I'll let you know!

      Delete
    3. I'm gonna recommend the shit out of the next thing Heath doesn't like. JK.

      Delete
    4. Good luck finding one - dude liked The Amazing Spider-Man 2! Waitaminute, you liked After Earth. Waitaminute, so did I! We're all bonkers 'round here!

      Delete
    5. I'm not recommending the shit out of it! Your review is right, the movie has pacing issues and story problems. But it's also not a remake, sequel, or adaptation of an '80s cartoon, so I was just saying maybe it's worth supporting because of those things. I mean, it's no Amazing Spider-Man 2, but I ask you...what is?

      Delete
    6. Sol, I like that you said you especially hate it when hamfisted movies have a message you agree with. It's like, "Yes, that's what you should be saying, but nobody's going to appreciate it if you're so blunt and unoriginal about it." I totally agree.

      Delete
    7. Yeah, it's like "You're not helping!".

      Delete
  5. I haven't seen the movie yet, and I'm going to because I'm still very interested by it despite literally every review coming back negative, but George Clooney already seems miscast just by the trailers. Clooney drips charisma just by being onscreen, so the idea that he is some recluse technological genius seems really backwards to me. Also, what is Hugh Laurie doing in your movie if he isn't either super fun and energetic, or doing something with a darker side like STREET KINGS? (Also, am I the only one who thinks STREET KINGS is a pretty good movie and should be seen by more people?)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are definitely things to like in Street Kings. I love Forest Whitaker in that movie.

      Delete
  6. I really wrestled with whether to put my two cents in here, because FThisMovie articles and comment sections are the happiest place on the internet, and I feel like a bit of a douche to start throwing vitriol around in them.

    Having said that, I can't help it. In the most measured terms I can muster, I hate this movie. It's difficult for me to remember the last time I felt like such a sucker for parting with money for a movie, or I hated the experience of watching one so much.

    I think Riske sums up a lot of what sucks about this film, but I have to strongly disagree about Britt Robertson. The character she plays is entitled, shrill and completely useless (I still don't understand what about her is meant to make her the 'special one' - is it because she occasionally does exactly what George Clooney tells her to?) Her performance was incredibly grating. Many of the very large and awkward mannerisms she has through the film - constantly playing with her hat, frowning and mugging, yelling 'yipee' each time she's shot out of a rocket / spaceship / etc that is destroying everything around her -- seem like Brad Bird notes that might have worked if she were an animated character, or at least could have been continually worked on throughout the animation process, transformed with cute little nuances, new voice work and extra movement beats worked into the performance -- but are cemented in their most awkward and unconvincing form in the unforgiving finality of a live action take. Robertson doesn't convince as a teenager, at least on an IMAX screen - again, don't want to sound like a douche. And almost all the casting is off, especially all of the child actors - which I wouldn't have expected from Brad Bird.

    The film really bums me out -- because it makes me re-evaluate Brad Bird and make me wonder, maybe he isn't the indisputable auteur I thought he was -- at least not without Pixar, Cruise Control, or a lot of other outside help. And I never thought I'd feel that about Brad Bird - whose every other movie I've unconditionally loved.

    But I think it's pretty clear the major blame for this unacceptably poor film lies with Lindelof, whose seemingly lifelong project to to fuck up great directors' filmographies claims another scalp. This script is appalling. Even more terrible dialogue than he's usually responsible for, and even more poorly thought out plotting and 'ideas' (including the overtly fascistic idea of a secret world that should only contain all of the best people in it). While writers like Kurtzman and Orci might get a lot of hate, they're generally writing sequels to established franchises about toys that are going to be directed by Michael Bay. There's nothing good you could do in that position. Lindelof, on the other hand, works with original ideas for directors like Ridley Scott and Brad Bird and manages to make films that feel just as stupid and hackneyed. And that really is unforgiveable.

    The point that Lindelof's awfulness reaches its apex appears when (SPOILER) one of the main villains meets his doom by running away from a very long, not very wide, falling object that he could have easily dodged to the left or right. Apart from ripping off one of the most farcical moments from Prometheus, how is this not an egregious bit of audience-bating from Lindelof?

    This movie made me so damn angry my wife started pleading with me on the way home to not be quite so graphic with my description of how much I hated it.

    Just a week after I left the same cinema, giddy from 'Fury Road'. Oh well. Back to earth with a bump :(

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well said brother, I couldn't agree more. Also my girlfriend felt the same way with my pissing and moaning lol

      Delete