Movie Review: "Tomorrowland"

Tomorrowland (2015)

PG

3 Stars out of 5

Director                                Brad Bird
Writer                                   Damon Lindelhof, Brad Bird
Cinematography                 Claudio Miranda
Music                                    Michael Giacchino

George Clooney                   Frank Walker
Hugh Laurie                          Governor Nix
Britt Robertson                    Casey Newton
Raffey Cassidy                      Athena

 

Brad Bird began his career at Disney as an animator studying under one of the original “nine old men”, Milt Kahl. His film career as a director (and writer) began with the remarkable “The Iron Giant” (1999). This film began a short string of critically noteworthy animated films: “The Incredibles” in 2004 and “Ratatouille” in 2007. In 2011, he turned his attention to live action films with “Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol”. Each of these four films has earned marks of 90% or higher on Rotten Tomatoes’ website. Besides the critical acclaim though, it is worth noting that there are themes throughout these four movies that come together with somewhat less success in his latest live action movie, “Tomorrowland”: who is best qualified to lead a society, great artwork, strange mixtures of peoples and/or archetypes, and the value of optimism over despair. Some of these are lofty ideas to be sure, but are poorly mixed in “Tomorrowland”, and ultimately introduced into a movie that could not quite deliver on its core philosophical message despite its good intentions.

To be sure, a movie rooted in a section of a famous theme park has a big challenge in front of the writer: how does one write a compelling story that utilizes the theme park and its inherently rosy view of the future without descending into drivel. This is clearly not an easy task, and I give full credit to Bird and Damon Lindelhof as the writers in crafting a story around that sense of wonder and optimism to found at Disneyland’s Tomorrowland, and in placing it in counterpoint to the growing sense of distress felt by so many Americans as they watch the daily news on TV. Bird and Lindelhof have written a story that describes a parallel world built by scientists and artists sometime around the end of the 19^th century. This alternate world has advanced technologically far more quickly than the grey, humdrum world we all live in. They have flying trains, gravity defying swimming pools, and rocket ships that look remarkably like Disney’s old “Voyage to the Moon” ride. That is all well and good; we are talking about a movie inspired by a theme park after all. But what is a little unnerving about the underpinnings of this alternate world is the sense of elitism that underlies this alternate world’s creation and governance. Those poor scientists (Edison, Tesla, et. al.) had to leave our world where they and their science were underappreciated.

We first meet that alternate world’s Governor Nix (Hugh Lurie) at the 1964 World’s Fair in New York. A young inventor, Frank Walker (Thomas Robinson) tries to interest the Governor in his flying machine – a backpack rocket device made from two Elextrolux vacuum cleaner canisters. The governor’s not interested, but his young assistant, Athena is. She manages to get Frank to Tomorrowland, the alternate universe world where she and the Governor come from. The story then jumps forward 50 years or so to the present where we meet the twenty-something, Casey. She is a young dreamer intent on going to space. Like Frank she is “recruited” by Athena, who is still a young girl. Thus begins an oddly violent and philosophically disconnected series of battles fought by the grown up Frank (George Clooney), Athena, and Casey against Nix and his minions. How did a story that preaches optimism in the face of despair turn into a series of scenes where homicidal robots (“audio-animatronic” robots in keeping with the Disney nomenclature) blast into non-existence first responders and anyone else that might seem to oppose the now murderous Governor Nix?

There is sci-fi artwork inspired by the Art Deco movement in some scenes, while others rely heavily on a Disney version of sleeping beauty’s castle brought into the future. This movie can be artistically clever, and while it is pointless to criticize the science, it is not pointless to decry the uneven philosophy/morality propounded overtly and covertly throughout this movie. I fully embrace any vision that argues for optimism with regards the future. Yes, let’s not give up in the face of global climate change, but fight to the end the right of those living on this planet to preserve it. To make such an argument is almost the only reason I don’t give this movie a lower score than the one I have given it. But when you have a group that seem to also have the upper moral plane in your movie such as those that live in Tomorrowland, and then have their leader to both extol the value of science in finding a way to a happier life and then to condemn those left on Earth to their fate since they are “savages” and thus deserve no less; especially when that same leader is the one manipulating events to bring about their demise. What a strange messenger for both hope in the future and disregard for others Bird and Lindelhof have created in Nix. It seems almost like an argument for not just the disregarded elites to survive but to also be the sole survivors.

The counter-argument could be made that Nix is merely the “bad guy” and Frank the “good guy”. It should surprise no reader who will win in the end. Maybe it is that simple: Frank’s vision is the one that prevails and Nix with his negative connoting name and vision get squished. Perhaps, but the sense of elite entitlement/victimhood is a theme that passes through this movie extensively and I end up with the nagging feeling that Nix was onto something in Bird’s mind but that he just needed to tweak it up a bit. The other aspect that is seriously disturbing is the relationship between Frank and Athena. Young Frank not realizing that Athena was a robot fell in love with her in a touching young love kind of way. By the time the 60 year old and now aware Frank re-meets the still nine year old appearing Athena, his love for her is hardly less dissipated. Okay, science fiction, so what are you going to do? I don’t know, but the scene where the elder Frank cradles the dying Athena is a good definition of creepy- not unrequited-love. When (spoiler alert),  he drops her into an infernal machine in order to blow herself up and the machine with it, I am left speechless at the weirdness of this whole scene. Clearly intended to be sentimental, the scene ends up being simply uniquely strange.

Whether to watch “Tomorrowland” or not, will depend on one’s interest in FX vs. story. The special effects are impressive and fun to watch. The scenes where Athena’s magical World’s Fair pin allows Casey to jump from our world to Tomorrowland in a visual sense but not in a physical sense is the FX center-point of the movie and partly what attracted me to movie in the first place. The other aspect that attracted me is George Clooney’s acting, and in this movie he is first rate. The scenes Clooney are in are believable despite the writing. However, his acting and the FX do not for me out-weigh the negative effects of a movie that so loosely grips its moral and philosophical foundations. “Tomorrowland” is a visually interesting but cinematically troubling movie that I cannot really recommend.