I agree with Magisci, looks good, well cast and acted but the story sucks. The comparisons to Prometheus are accurate. Both movies have scientific knowledge and its application as a theme yet ignore basic science for the sake of terrible script manipulations.
Thank you A.O.! Read too late to avoid this mess of a movie. Still wondering why NPR and New Yorker gave it better reviews.
Mess seems harsh. Underachieving perhaps, since the execution falls short of the ambition. But still, to amplify Scott's caveat, it is a movie with artistic ambition and delivers an experience very different from the "glib, phoned-in…franchise mediocrity" that is the standard fare for summertime "family" movies these days. It also manages to avoid ever taking the lazy shortcuts of insult humor, crass jokes about sex and bodily functions, and vulgar language, which is something of a minor miracle for Hollywood today.
On the whole, I thought it pleasant with moments of charm. True, the charm never quite comes to bloom ("misfire" might also be a fair description) but there are moments. Yes, it has inconsistencies and contradictions as Scott says, but such are only considered artistic flaws if judged through the deadening literalism of the continuity obsessed Superhero movie aesthetic that prevails these days.
On the whole, I thought it pleasant with moments of charm. True, the charm never quite comes to bloom ("misfire" might also be a fair description) but there are moments. Yes, it has inconsistencies and contradictions as Scott says, but such are only considered artistic flaws if judged through the deadening literalism of the continuity obsessed Superhero movie aesthetic that prevails these days.
1
Reminds me of the movie Prometheus; fantastic visuals coupled with an absolutely lackluster nonsensical story. Given Brad Bird's track record I can't understand how he could stumble so badly (unless he was forced to compromise given his story collaborator).
"The Incredibles" set the standard for the team superhero movie; outstanding story, superb characters and fantastic direction. "Ratatouille" is simply delightful, fun and superbly executed.
Tomorrowland is almost okay and, except for some of the visuals, relentlessly boring.
"The Incredibles" set the standard for the team superhero movie; outstanding story, superb characters and fantastic direction. "Ratatouille" is simply delightful, fun and superbly executed.
Tomorrowland is almost okay and, except for some of the visuals, relentlessly boring.
"Its idea of the future is abstract, theoretical and empty, and it can only fill in the blank space with exhortations to believe and to hope."
I thought that was the point. Not a deterministic future. As Athena says when they arrive (or Frank, can't recall whom): "There is no plan."
Loved the movie.
I thought that was the point. Not a deterministic future. As Athena says when they arrive (or Frank, can't recall whom): "There is no plan."
Loved the movie.
4
I saw it... and I give it a solid B.
Hope is a wonderful thing.
Having female protagonists is a wonderful thing.
Having VISION is a wonderful thing.
Tomorrowland isn't wonderful, but it's a close second.
Hope is a wonderful thing.
Having female protagonists is a wonderful thing.
Having VISION is a wonderful thing.
Tomorrowland isn't wonderful, but it's a close second.
4
I just saw this movie. I've always been a fan of the space program. I was one of those sixties geek-children who believed the atom was our friend. I literally asked Santa for a Bell Rocket Belt one Christmas. However, since then I've come to appreciate the complexity of the human experience. And I'm REALLY getting tired of NASA engineers telling me that the key to the future is better gadgets invented by brainy geeks. No, sorry -- the problem is that man is weak and filled with sin. Not that I'm religious. And please -- gender-neutralize that expression, it applies to all. But the point is -- nifty gadgets don't make messed up cruel people into good healthy caring ones. A hammer can be used to build a house or to tear one down. The space program is not just for dreamers. Profiteers and warmongers like to use new technology too. The advancement we most need is emotional and social. And that WAS the message of the 60s science fiction that I was reading as a little girl. Those stories posed the idea that our technological development could be outpacing our emotional and social development. I'd really like to see a movie about that.
6
I have to agree with the review. Low on the charm, high on the preach. I also got a little tired of things blowing up and throwing people across the room, Many of these things looked like they would hurt really bad, if not kill a person, so my willing suspension of disbelief was affected.
1
Dud. Lots of noise and special effects and some wonderful visuals -- the layered swimming pools come to mind -- but still a dud, and an insulting dud.
'Tomorrowland' can't decide whether it's serious or not, not about its scariness or its message. For violence, we get robots trying to kill girls, then close-ups of the robots' faces that seem designed to make them look silly, and then more robots vaporize two police officers. For the message, we get the preaching, and then the bad guy has a monologue about how we turn impending catastrophe into entertainment...which exactly describes this film!
But mainly it was annoying to have a plot so beat-over-your-head simplistic. The whole things boils down to that story of the two wolves. And lest you not notice, they keep reminding you. Ugh.
'Tomorrowland' can't decide whether it's serious or not, not about its scariness or its message. For violence, we get robots trying to kill girls, then close-ups of the robots' faces that seem designed to make them look silly, and then more robots vaporize two police officers. For the message, we get the preaching, and then the bad guy has a monologue about how we turn impending catastrophe into entertainment...which exactly describes this film!
But mainly it was annoying to have a plot so beat-over-your-head simplistic. The whole things boils down to that story of the two wolves. And lest you not notice, they keep reminding you. Ugh.
1
I am convinced that there is a code dictating that critics must praise anything George Clooney is in. The idea of Tomorrowland was meaningful, but there could have been a better story to make the point. About halfway through, I stopped caring and just wanted the movie to end.
"I am convinced that there is a code dictating that critics must praise anything George Clooney is in."
Except that this critics - one of the nation's most powerful and prominent, just did the opposite. So, I guess time to reexamine your convictions?
Except that this critics - one of the nation's most powerful and prominent, just did the opposite. So, I guess time to reexamine your convictions?
1
Was that product placement of Coca-Cola (the original recipe in the original bottle) really necessary? It just reminded me of how bad the New Coke tastes. Unconvincing symbolism too.
They should have called it Commie-land because it played like a 50s propaganda film as Mr. Scott also suggested. I fell asleep and woke up to the bad dream that is Tomorrowland. It's also the worst part of Disneyland indecently.
Everyone seems to be so stuck in the heady criticism of the meanings inferred from Mr. Bird that they miss what this film is at its base: a 21st Century reboot of "The Wizard of Oz!"
One glance of Tomorrowland surrounded by wheat fields surely conjures the image of The Emerald City surrounded by fields of poppies. Let's look at how the story goes: Casey is our Dorothy. The pin opens the portal she crosses through from the dim grays of the police station to the Technicolor wonder of Tomorrowland. Dorothy is soon paired with Athena, literally a Tin Man in search of her heart. They are off to see the Wizard. Of course, that is Frank (as in L. Frank Baum). The yellow brick road has been replaced with more conventional U.S. Interstate highways, and flying monkeys (on jetpacks?) are now Terminator-style robots.
Frank, like the Wizard, had arrived innocently at 'Oz' many years earlier, and is now the only one who can seemingly help Dorothy, er, Casey. Sure, Casey's home ultimately is in Tomorrowland and not Kansas, but like Dorothy, her two worlds live in different dimensions, and main way to get back and forth between the two is to be a Dreamer. Like Oz, we can't be sure that Tomorrowland is a real place, but only dreamers can reach it. So once one peels back the current events and commentary, it's really a reskinned version of a classic story that fits better in Fantasyland than Tomorrowland.
One glance of Tomorrowland surrounded by wheat fields surely conjures the image of The Emerald City surrounded by fields of poppies. Let's look at how the story goes: Casey is our Dorothy. The pin opens the portal she crosses through from the dim grays of the police station to the Technicolor wonder of Tomorrowland. Dorothy is soon paired with Athena, literally a Tin Man in search of her heart. They are off to see the Wizard. Of course, that is Frank (as in L. Frank Baum). The yellow brick road has been replaced with more conventional U.S. Interstate highways, and flying monkeys (on jetpacks?) are now Terminator-style robots.
Frank, like the Wizard, had arrived innocently at 'Oz' many years earlier, and is now the only one who can seemingly help Dorothy, er, Casey. Sure, Casey's home ultimately is in Tomorrowland and not Kansas, but like Dorothy, her two worlds live in different dimensions, and main way to get back and forth between the two is to be a Dreamer. Like Oz, we can't be sure that Tomorrowland is a real place, but only dreamers can reach it. So once one peels back the current events and commentary, it's really a reskinned version of a classic story that fits better in Fantasyland than Tomorrowland.
10
The movie seems to argue that we "need" more dreamers and we need to stop ignoring and discouraging the same. Wonderful message. For 1948. Pretty much all we do in 2015 USA is encourage dreamers. Particularly ludicrous was a moment where a street musician is invited to Tomorrowland. Who doesn't get 3 YouTube videos a week sent to them of some singer on a talent-competition show in Australia with 20 million plus views? The typical millenial would probably rather watch a couple Ted Talks during her lunch hour than gossip with a coworker. Has the director been to an elementary school lately? Kids are building robots AND being expected to demonstrate kindness and humanity to their society. This film reminded me of the movie Pleasantville -- an act of self-congratulation from the professional artist class on their "defiance" and audacious imaginations. this is a cherished theme from Baby Boomers who might still be boring the world with stories of how their square parents didn't get behind their kooky Visionsmall and ideals. But enough already! stop drilling you hit oil! Pretty much everyone in a town with more than one stoplight is on board with hope, creativity, innovation, inclusion and every other purportedly rare ore Tomorrowland is mining.
1
I reluctantly went to see this film with my 9 and 10 year old and my wife....and we all loved it.
If you have kids (maybe 7 and up) they WILL love it and have a good time.
If you are two 30 year somethings, well, why would you even consider going to this by yourself.
If you have kids, go see it. Otherwise, don't. Yes, there was applause at the end of it, and yes it has a great message.
If you have kids (maybe 7 and up) they WILL love it and have a good time.
If you are two 30 year somethings, well, why would you even consider going to this by yourself.
If you have kids, go see it. Otherwise, don't. Yes, there was applause at the end of it, and yes it has a great message.
4
Well for me the 60 seconds of footage on the World's Fair grounds made it worth the price of admission.
Ok.
It's hokey as heck. The dialogue, particularly Clooney's, seemed like it was sketched out and they forgot to ask a writer to replace the cliches.
The plot of course gets utterly ridiculous. The fault in the original plan for Tomorrowland and the redemption therefrom, well it's as if they didn't even try to make it credible.
But the idea of being able to inhabit the future we once dreamed about is a wonderful idea. So for those moments, really until the bad guy shows up at the end, it was a world I had extreme joy (re)inhabiting.
Ok.
It's hokey as heck. The dialogue, particularly Clooney's, seemed like it was sketched out and they forgot to ask a writer to replace the cliches.
The plot of course gets utterly ridiculous. The fault in the original plan for Tomorrowland and the redemption therefrom, well it's as if they didn't even try to make it credible.
But the idea of being able to inhabit the future we once dreamed about is a wonderful idea. So for those moments, really until the bad guy shows up at the end, it was a world I had extreme joy (re)inhabiting.
4
Although I thoroughly enjoyed this film, the film's depiction of a better future was unintentionally dystopian. The film shows a bright and shiny future that is technologically advanced and exciting, but where everyone looks like a store mannequin come to life. It's extreme futurism was both inspiring and antiseptic. More disturbing, only the "dreamers", as defined by a self selecting group, get an invitation to participate. It shows some racial and age diversity, but that's were diversity stops. It's not a future for everyone, but for the chosen few, and most of us wouldn't make the cut.
5
Good review, as usual, Mr. Scott.
This movie fails in a big way, with big themes, and big contradictions.
That makes it an interesting failure, and worth seeing for that reason!
This movie fails in a big way, with big themes, and big contradictions.
That makes it an interesting failure, and worth seeing for that reason!
5
I've seen the movie and loved it. Though it's not without flaws, its message that you, personally, can help make a better future is one worth cherishing. I sure hope a lot of younger people go to see it.
Last year about this time, a young man randomly shot some young women to get back at the women who'd rejected him in the past. It turned out that the kids's dad was one of the directors of The Hunger Games, a movie where kids kill kids for sport. And I couldn't help but notice the connection between that movie and real life.
So glad that, at least once in a while, the entertainment industry gives us a movie about a future worth having and suggests that we have it in our power to bring it about.
Last year about this time, a young man randomly shot some young women to get back at the women who'd rejected him in the past. It turned out that the kids's dad was one of the directors of The Hunger Games, a movie where kids kill kids for sport. And I couldn't help but notice the connection between that movie and real life.
So glad that, at least once in a while, the entertainment industry gives us a movie about a future worth having and suggests that we have it in our power to bring it about.
4
I never liked the idea of this movie, from the title onwards. For my money, AO Scott is the best movie reviewer on the planet. So I'll save my money for a better film.
I saw it. I nearly stood up and cheered during the bad guy's soliloquy, "we have simultaneous epidemics of starvation and obesity." I laughed out loud (it's funny because it's true!)
The movie was good in and of itself. The story was good, the concept of inter-dimensional co existences is good SF and it was fairly well handled within the time allotted and for the audience it was directed to.
The takeaways from this film include the simple question for children to ask themselves from today forward "Which wolf am I feeding?" It's "What Would Jesus Do?" for the Secular set in a way that doesn't exclude.
Secondly, "Tomorrowland, the commercial" reset the expectations of the 1964 World's Fair. Things that we take for granted today that were "Fantastical visions of a futuristic society" in '64 were as preposterous as (for example) gravity defying diving pools and rockets to where ever and the dozens of little things. And yes, JET PACKS!
These Jet Packs came packed though as Frank said "I figured I wouldn't wait for somebody to make me one." Think of that next time you want to ask "Where's my Jet pack?" (The "fun" thing is a nod to the space race's impact on the children of the '60s)
This is a movie you ought to have your child watch (like you ought to have them watch It's A Wonderful Life) and they ought to watch it often(yearly). To help them know why they should feed the right wolf.
The movie was good in and of itself. The story was good, the concept of inter-dimensional co existences is good SF and it was fairly well handled within the time allotted and for the audience it was directed to.
The takeaways from this film include the simple question for children to ask themselves from today forward "Which wolf am I feeding?" It's "What Would Jesus Do?" for the Secular set in a way that doesn't exclude.
Secondly, "Tomorrowland, the commercial" reset the expectations of the 1964 World's Fair. Things that we take for granted today that were "Fantastical visions of a futuristic society" in '64 were as preposterous as (for example) gravity defying diving pools and rockets to where ever and the dozens of little things. And yes, JET PACKS!
These Jet Packs came packed though as Frank said "I figured I wouldn't wait for somebody to make me one." Think of that next time you want to ask "Where's my Jet pack?" (The "fun" thing is a nod to the space race's impact on the children of the '60s)
This is a movie you ought to have your child watch (like you ought to have them watch It's A Wonderful Life) and they ought to watch it often(yearly). To help them know why they should feed the right wolf.
13
I was at the New York World's Fair, and I distinctly remember seeing the jet packs, and even though as child I was a big fan of astronomy, science fiction and the space program (my father helped design the Mercury capsule), I was unimpressed. The jet packs, even to a child of eight or nine, seemed highly impractical, implausible, and fairly ridiculous. The Montana exhibit and the Bordon exhibit (Elsie the cow) made a much stronger and more favorable impression on me.
1
Jake,
I don't advocate for them. I just observe the "Where's my jet pack?" mentality of those, somehow, disappointed in the state of our present. And I note the answers given to these people ( one being, "What are you waiting for? Go out and build one.")
I don't advocate for them. I just observe the "Where's my jet pack?" mentality of those, somehow, disappointed in the state of our present. And I note the answers given to these people ( one being, "What are you waiting for? Go out and build one.")
1
dredpiraterobts: Jet packs, whatever their utility, are inanimate objects; they can't hire lawyers: no one "advocates FOR them". In any case, the fewer persons urged to "go out and build" a jet pack, the better off we'll all be.
If a movie like this is not wonderful, it is instead terrible. There is no in between. Clooney is terrible. I love him in some films but he is terrible in others, like this and monument men. The cutesy narration in the beginning of the film is flip and terrible and gets the whole film off on a wrong foot. The couple kids in the theater when I saw it were even more bored, running up and down the aisles in an empty theater because their mother wanted to stay until the end.
I've never seen a movie in which I thought George Clooney was any good--at acting, anyway. All the women I know consider him very good looking, and that's pretty much it.
1
Haven't seen it, but great review. A.O. Scott, I love your film criticism. Saw Mad Max Fury Road last weekend and loved it. Action filmmaking at its best - maybe I'll go see that again. It seems more sincere than "Tomorrowland."
1
G: Good point. And actually, if we want a movie that is honest and at the same time optimistic - Mad Max Fury Road beats Tomorrowland by a long shot. And it didn't even need green screens or CGI. It's a low-technology film. The ending is hopeful, and that's even the point of Mad Max, because every film in the franchise ends with a tiny bit of hope still alive in the middle of all that violence and despair. Hope that ordinary low-tech people create out of their own courage and determination.
1
Just wanted to point out something that the review and its "comments" haven't. The science-loving, adventurous teen at the center of the movie is a girl. In fact, the only boys in the movie are Clooney's past self and Casey's kid brother. This in a genre that used to be aimed purely toward boys, and from a company that usually treats girls as "princesses".
25
OK I saw it.
BOOOring.
Scott's review is generous as well as brilliantly written.
I doubt even my high school students would find it interesting.
Maybe young middle schoolers.
YAWN.
Oh...and P.S. That "New York World's Fair 1964" looked a LOT like the Seattle World's Fair of 1964..where I worked my senior year in college.
BOOOring.
Scott's review is generous as well as brilliantly written.
I doubt even my high school students would find it interesting.
Maybe young middle schoolers.
YAWN.
Oh...and P.S. That "New York World's Fair 1964" looked a LOT like the Seattle World's Fair of 1964..where I worked my senior year in college.
5
I think you mean the Seattle World's Fair of 1962.
1
I'm a Fulbright Scholar, and I loved it - plus I'm 70 earth years!
1
I completely agree. I was fairly disappointed with this movie. If I were 9 I probably would've enjoyed it but overall I was just bored.
3
Scott deftly skirts around the core fact of this movie. It is unabashedly boring drivel. It must have been one hell of a party Disney threw for you guys. Not a single original idea. Not one genuine interaction. Grab your kids and run from the cinema.
3
Where Scott is critical of the film's vision and its message, calling "Tomorrowland" confused. I found the movie to be quite straightforward, offering a compelling vision for the hero and a terribly relevant lesson for the audience.
In this era where scientific evidence is ignored, shunned, or at worst, as our villain describes, too easily accepted by too many as hopeless destiny, the message of the film could not be more timely or relevant.
While I don't mistake "Tomorrowland" for refined cinema, I suggest that it is better than Scott describes. This fun movie follows solidly in the model of "E.T," "Close Encounters," and "Super 8."
In this era where scientific evidence is ignored, shunned, or at worst, as our villain describes, too easily accepted by too many as hopeless destiny, the message of the film could not be more timely or relevant.
While I don't mistake "Tomorrowland" for refined cinema, I suggest that it is better than Scott describes. This fun movie follows solidly in the model of "E.T," "Close Encounters," and "Super 8."
10
Very accruate and good review by A.O. Scott. Thank you.
Saw Tomorrowland today, and was very disappointed, especially after Brad Bird's prior films, and after the sheer wonderfulness of the recent Disney production of Cinderella.
It has moments of near-greatness, and certainly the art direction is fantastic.
Ms. Robertson and Ms. Cassidy are the stars of the movie, and it's great to watch such talented young women.
Unfortunately the film has such a weird cadence and such abrupt changes in tone that it is like listening to a tape machine that speeds up and slows down at random.
Also, PSA here - this picture is definitely not for small children. There is a lot of violence, some of which is quite graphic.
Saw Tomorrowland today, and was very disappointed, especially after Brad Bird's prior films, and after the sheer wonderfulness of the recent Disney production of Cinderella.
It has moments of near-greatness, and certainly the art direction is fantastic.
Ms. Robertson and Ms. Cassidy are the stars of the movie, and it's great to watch such talented young women.
Unfortunately the film has such a weird cadence and such abrupt changes in tone that it is like listening to a tape machine that speeds up and slows down at random.
Also, PSA here - this picture is definitely not for small children. There is a lot of violence, some of which is quite graphic.
5
I came home from "Tomorrowland" feeling like I'd listened to a long lesson, a lecture. The movie values dreamers and de-values those who are "do-ers". It lauds imagination and de-values knowledge. It does nothing to value each of us with our unique talents. It was not entertaining and the depressing themes and excessive violence make it unsuitable for children.
7
We just came home from the movie and i loved it. I could imagine my 13 year old self yearning to be chosen to help make the future better.
This movie is like "A Wrinkle in Time." I'm sure there must be lapses in continuity and that Madeline L'Engle gets preachy -- but preachy is mostly a jaded adult label and these works are not for us. These works are for the kids who need to hear some affirmation of hope, of solutions, of imagining cool fun things like swimming in multilevel swimming pools and flying in the sky and going on adventures with other kids who are smart and fun. A future they can look forward to, just like how we once looked forward to going to Disneyland. I believe that George Clooney feels that way and this is one way to make the world better.
This movie is not empty--it is gentleness with parents who are wanted and kids who have a life to look forward to. The end of the movie is not so different from when we sat on the floor in front of the TV and watched the Mickey Mouse Club or the Man From Uncle or John Glenn or The Scarecrow of Romney Marsh and imagined that if they came to our town someday, we'd be the first to help out!
This movie is like "A Wrinkle in Time." I'm sure there must be lapses in continuity and that Madeline L'Engle gets preachy -- but preachy is mostly a jaded adult label and these works are not for us. These works are for the kids who need to hear some affirmation of hope, of solutions, of imagining cool fun things like swimming in multilevel swimming pools and flying in the sky and going on adventures with other kids who are smart and fun. A future they can look forward to, just like how we once looked forward to going to Disneyland. I believe that George Clooney feels that way and this is one way to make the world better.
This movie is not empty--it is gentleness with parents who are wanted and kids who have a life to look forward to. The end of the movie is not so different from when we sat on the floor in front of the TV and watched the Mickey Mouse Club or the Man From Uncle or John Glenn or The Scarecrow of Romney Marsh and imagined that if they came to our town someday, we'd be the first to help out!
18
I watched the film with a child's eye and loved it. The whole theater clapped at the end. My daughter is ten years old, and this film left a valuable imprint upon her...be a dreamer.
7
"False cheer can be just as insidious as easy despair." Totally agree (incidious forced cheer in restaurants where alcohol affects decibel levels) but not found in this movie. Behind the special effects there are important references that are reality based. Like themes of human survival and optimism.
I go to the movies for both entertainment and to have my curiosity stimulated. Tommorrowland gave me both. It is AO Scott who tries too hard, not the movie. Consider dystopian themed teenage novels and their mostly numbingly stupid movie translations; "Twilight" with deliberately bad dialogue and acting and implied opiate addiction hiding behind vampire whiteface onscreen and offscreen heavy drug looks on the actors (and big box office besides) Walking Dead, the latest Mad Mad Max ("oh what a lovely lovely day"), contrived pop "hipster" fashion trends, right wing fake news majoring in theocratic Endtimes, John Hagee's "blood moons". Mr. Scott, you have to be kidding. This relatively upbeat review is pulling its punches.
I go to the movies for both entertainment and to have my curiosity stimulated. Tommorrowland gave me both. It is AO Scott who tries too hard, not the movie. Consider dystopian themed teenage novels and their mostly numbingly stupid movie translations; "Twilight" with deliberately bad dialogue and acting and implied opiate addiction hiding behind vampire whiteface onscreen and offscreen heavy drug looks on the actors (and big box office besides) Walking Dead, the latest Mad Mad Max ("oh what a lovely lovely day"), contrived pop "hipster" fashion trends, right wing fake news majoring in theocratic Endtimes, John Hagee's "blood moons". Mr. Scott, you have to be kidding. This relatively upbeat review is pulling its punches.
9
I really wanted this movie to succeed. I'm so tired of dark, dystopian tales of future horror. I like "Happy Future" and I was hoping this would be it and it wasn't.
1
Based on this review I predict I will love the movie.
2
That's not the movie I saw.
The one I saw had laughs every couple minutes and the badies were as sure to fail as "Dr. Evil."
Fun all the way !
The one I saw had laughs every couple minutes and the badies were as sure to fail as "Dr. Evil."
Fun all the way !
5
Just saw this and AO is frighteningly accurate. It's a good movie, but not a very smart one. Well directed, written and acted. But it has no center. It's an idea in search of a cinematic expression. Without a strong, well thought-out premise, the slushy, forced, pretentiously optimistic center cannot hold.
2
I haven't seen it yet; I will, but writing as a high school English/Journalism teacher, this is a beautifully written review. The art of writing at its finest!
Obviously Galatica was better movie about the future.
1
Saw this with my daughter last night. She had been counting down the days to the opening. Such a disappointment. A.O. Scott's review is spot on and, as always, beautifully written.
2
I just got back from seeing this in the local IMAX Theater. I have to tell you, I loved every minute of it. I felt like I was on one fun ride and was sad when it came to the end, stopped, and I had to get off. I wanted to stay on and ride again. I even checked my pockets for another token with a capital "T".
8
'...succumbing to the poverty of vision...'? The poverty of vision is an odd expression, as if 'poverty' is an integral characteristic of vision.
Wouldn't succumbing to a paucity of vision articulate the point?
Wouldn't succumbing to a paucity of vision articulate the point?
This movie is meant for kids, not adults. It should not be reviewed as adults think it should be to impact them, or as they think it should be for kids. Rather, ask kids how they liked it. The proof is in the pudding.
1
By your logic we should only feed kids what they want to eat and only send them to school when they feel like going, It's legitimate to ask whether you, as a parent, approve the message a movie is sending your child.
1
I still have my "I Have Seen The Future/General Motors Futurama" pin from the 1964 NY World's Fair, but my heart belongs to the 1939 World's Fair, whose dreams of the future were finally extinguished by the intrusive reality of World War II.
2
Mr. Scott, it seems that you missed the part where Frank tells Miss Newton (!) that the Tomorrowland she (and we) saw was a *commercial*.
Had you been paying attention to what was being *said*, maybe you wouldn't have been so..."disappointed".
Me? I would love to find a pin.
Had you been paying attention to what was being *said*, maybe you wouldn't have been so..."disappointed".
Me? I would love to find a pin.
7
That's where Clooney's character tells us in the movie that this movie does not make sense. Mr. Scott is closely paraphrasing Clooney's character.
1
i have always thought the pixar movies were overpraised. i like them, and think they are well done, but never understood the raves. i always had the sense that, had they been movies with people in them, the critics would have thought them interesting, or nice, or trying to hard to be cute and convincing and the stories a little too neat.
Re: " i always had the sense that, had they been movies with people in them, the critics would have thought them interesting, or nice, or trying to hard to be cute and convincing and the stories a little too neat."
You're probably right about this, and that's a good reason not to make a cartoon with "people in them". Cartoons and actor-inhabited dramas are different genres, and the critics are perfectly justified in treating them differently. I suspect the real problem here is that Brad Bird was unable to make the transition from cartoons (depending, I suppose, on how good "Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol" was, a movie I didn't see and didn't hear about).
You're probably right about this, and that's a good reason not to make a cartoon with "people in them". Cartoons and actor-inhabited dramas are different genres, and the critics are perfectly justified in treating them differently. I suspect the real problem here is that Brad Bird was unable to make the transition from cartoons (depending, I suppose, on how good "Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol" was, a movie I didn't see and didn't hear about).
Predictive of the future or not, this view is far superior to what is more likely to turn out to be as portrayed in Blade Runner.
Give me a little hope.
Give me a little hope.
1
When does the boy have to shoot "ol yeller"?
4
Nice review, from a certain point of view. Edward Bernays and his ilk notwithstanding, propaganda is a dirty word and shouldn't be applied to this picture. A couple of lines about understanding the "real world" exposes an underlying, tired cynicism. From my point of view (I'm an engineer), the world is an amazing complexity of good and not good, nature and technology, mystery and science. Hope, love, faith, curiosity - stuff that motivates us to move the world - is available, if we choose to look for it.
My wife and I enjoyed the movie, despite some issues with inconsistency that most kids won't care about. The movie reminds me that we can, and have, made things better. People who won't roll over and play dead or succumb to cynicism or despair continue to change the world, in astonishing and wonderful ways.
Do you read Pat Conroy or Mark Helprin? Bakunin and Mao or Chang Tzu and the apostle John? All are excellent writers and thinkers; all have a certain point of view. Which do you subscribe to? Or, in the language of the movie, "Which wolf will you feed?"
My wife and I enjoyed the movie, despite some issues with inconsistency that most kids won't care about. The movie reminds me that we can, and have, made things better. People who won't roll over and play dead or succumb to cynicism or despair continue to change the world, in astonishing and wonderful ways.
Do you read Pat Conroy or Mark Helprin? Bakunin and Mao or Chang Tzu and the apostle John? All are excellent writers and thinkers; all have a certain point of view. Which do you subscribe to? Or, in the language of the movie, "Which wolf will you feed?"
4
Hmm… none of Mr. Scott's favorite themes, so one can understand the back-handed praise. Not much reference to race relations, minority oppression, feminism, gay rights, bad US government.
However, it's for dreamers and about optimism, and the happiest place on earth. That's enough for me. I'm going this weekend.
However, it's for dreamers and about optimism, and the happiest place on earth. That's enough for me. I'm going this weekend.
2
As some of the readers' comments make clear this is NOT the film they would have envisioned nor made and like Richard Roeper and the reviewer for ROGER EBERT REVIEWS also intone it overreaches in its effort to be a serious comment on our much entangled and often incompetent society. No single Greek ever created the wondrous world of their mythology nor did any Roman conceive of the vast and wondrous Empire the ambition of many created. One man's vision amidst a disparate society with no core and no coherence is certain to fail. Most striking is that we hope for something substantive from a film company that can evoke the dilemmas of children but fail as do all our political leaders to fully realize a vision for a shared, equitable and secure future. Why are we expecting a Disney film to create solutions for our dysfunctional society when none of our political leaders can?
5
Perhaps because Disney is not obligated to achieve broad consensus or actually make their solutions work? There are no constraints on them,
This story is a commentary about how we're ignoring climate change, creating it ourselves, greed is rampant, etc. It's a liberal's dream until the message changes to, "Let's go out and do something about it, engineer solutions, change our minds and ways, and be hopeful that we can change our own destiny (imminent demise)." The conclusion is that we've resigned ourselves to this future and refuse to be optimistic; an extremely accurate portrayal of of societal pessimism we've grown to know and love. Liberals should be FLOCKING to this movie, but the idea of hope and change INSTEAD of bitterness and blame must be too hard to handle. It was a great movie, from the eyes and heart of a fiscal conservative who believes we can control our destiny and reign in climate change. I am 22, not old enough to have lost hope and not young enough to believe we live in some perfect world. But at least I do not lack hope and the willingness to change and help be a part of the solution. Liberalism in America has become one big machine of resentment with hope and positivity being the enemies. Let's remind ourselves that we are the ones who can fix it, starting with recycling/our own consumption habits and that sitting behind our computer screens complaining about the evil corporations is doing absolutely nothing to prevent our "demise". It's easy to whine about politicians but this belief that they are the sole creators of our destiny is a cop out - and we all know it.
1
Re: " I am 22, not old enough to have lost hope and not young enough to believe we live in some perfect world."
Young enough, apparently, to "think" (that is, fail to think) in terms of conveniently muddled and nonsensical labels like "liberal" and "conservative"
Young enough, apparently, to "think" (that is, fail to think) in terms of conveniently muddled and nonsensical labels like "liberal" and "conservative"
1
I don't agree. I consider myself quite Liberal and have spent most of my life professionally advocating what the newspapers insist to be "progressive" causes (political, social and environmental). By your schematic, I am a supervising officer of your "resentment machine." Yet I found that this film very much in tune with my values and those of my colleagues who work always on the side of hope and positive change. And I do indeed cheer the film's indictment of pessimism, resignation, and greed: the enemies we Liberals struggle with daily and, not incidentally, the touchstones of "fiscal conservatives."
I personally know of few self-described "fiscal conservatives" who actually are that. In my experience it is mostly a label adopted by anti-tax, anti-government, anti-cooperation, crusaders desperate to convince people not to try to do anything to make the world a better place on the (usually specious) grounds that it will cost money and time that might be better directed to luxury consumption. I'm glad to hear you are that fabled Unicorn: a sincere fiscal conservative who also wants to build a better future. In my circles we actually have a special word that describes such a person: a Liberal.
I personally know of few self-described "fiscal conservatives" who actually are that. In my experience it is mostly a label adopted by anti-tax, anti-government, anti-cooperation, crusaders desperate to convince people not to try to do anything to make the world a better place on the (usually specious) grounds that it will cost money and time that might be better directed to luxury consumption. I'm glad to hear you are that fabled Unicorn: a sincere fiscal conservative who also wants to build a better future. In my circles we actually have a special word that describes such a person: a Liberal.
"Pessimists are usually right and optimists are usually wrong but all the great changes have been accomplished by optimists.”
― Thomas L. Friedman
― Thomas L. Friedman
In 1996, I gave a talk to the President's Council on Sustainable Development entitled "The Power of a Vision." In it, I discussed the power of the 1939 New York World Fair to inspire an entire generation that went on to not only win WW II but create a post-war world in the image that was created in 1939. What is needed now, I said, was a similarly enthralling vision of a sustainable future for today's generation. Sadly, none has been forthcoming. Our society's lack of a vision was brought into stark reality when talking to a group of children at church. I asked them to say what they saw in their future. The answers were the same as I would have given at their age -- flying cars, personal robots and space travel. I asked one youngster where he got his ideas. He responded proudly, "From the Jetsons." In spite of (or perhaps encouraged by) this review, I intend to see this movie. Since those with a social conscience failed to give our children a positive vision of the future they will live in, perhaps Disney will.
2
I sure want to see this one, despite the notice by Mr. Scott. Even before reading this review, I had my concerns that Mr. Bird was about to slip off a middle rung of the ladder. Someone of his talent has no business messing around with middle rungs.
1
I quite enjoyed the film...definitely more optimistic than the dystopian outlook most movies have. I was taken by Raffey Cassidy wondering where I had seen her before...kept bugging me. Then it hit me, she reminds me of a young Veronica Cartwright from The Birds & The Children's Hour.
1
My initial reaction was to the name Plus Ultra (PU), which should have been Ultra Plus (UP).
1
"But belief without content, without a critical picture of the world as it is, is really just propaganda." That one line makes you wonder what your own picture of the world is, and when you start to wonder... Oh, there's hope in movies (and movie critics) yet!
1
I have not seen the movie, but I find myself being suspect of Scott's review because he uses the words didactic and preachy here. What I find adults guilty of when talking about children's movies is not understanding how didactic all movies are for children, even the ones adults think are not preachy. That is because adults accept the preachiness of those regular movies, those old stereotypical good guys versus bad guys movies because that is the way those stories have always been told. It is still didactic, preaching about how we are good and they are bad. Is this movie preachy... probably because they all are, but Scott doesn't like how this one preaches so he calls it out. I think it is weak for a reviewer of children's movies to fall back on that flimsy excuse. Tell me instead of other reasons this movie doesn't work, or else I won't take your review seriously.
10
I yet to see a hyped movie in the 21st Century that hasn't been a disappointment on some level. Disney and its associated studios are especially guilty of raising expectations and then falling short. I, unlike some commenting here, usually trust this particular reviewer. And I, like some here, will trek out to the local theater (albeit at matinee prices) to see it this weekend. When only thing on the menu is meatloaf, guess what we're having for dinner.
2
This is the second lengthy review of Tomorrowland I've read--and I STILL have no idea what the film is about. Other than Disneyland. Help, please?
4
Kids save the world, great FX, and just enough plot to make it a hoot for the adults.
Yeah, and the emotionally smartest person in the scene... well, ain't.
Yeah, and the emotionally smartest person in the scene... well, ain't.
An optimistic, highly intelligent 10-year-old boy goes to the World's Fair in 1964. An optimistic, highly intelligent teen in the present finds a pin. When she touches it, she's transported to the future; when she lets go, she returns with a thump to her own time. She tracks down the 60-something scientist (see above; still intelligent, not so optimistic anymore) who can explain it. Adventures, robots, bad guys, "It's a Small World," and Coca-Cola ensue. Does that help?
I think I've read even more lengthy reviews than you, but having sat through the trailer while attending other films many times may have helped. It feels like I've already seen it. And even when I DO see it, I too, may end up having no idea what it's about. But all the reviews I HAVE read have this strange consensus that it somehow lacks the courage of its convictions--although, (sigh), that might be the point? (It sounds like a big 'APPLAUSE' sign flashing at regular intervals over a narrative that covers multi-dimensions. Does that help?)
Tomorrowland will be understand by dreamers only.
Only optimistic people, only dreamers will jump with enthusiasm from the chair and clap like crazy !!!
Brad Bird's vision and mission is not only great, it is super incredible!
I
Only optimistic people, only dreamers will jump with enthusiasm from the chair and clap like crazy !!!
Brad Bird's vision and mission is not only great, it is super incredible!
I
6
It's a movie, folks. It's a movie.
8
What happened to our optimistic future? Those flying cars and rocket belts are carrying IT workers from overseas. Goodbye American dream.
5
The Incredibles -- one of my all time favorite movies ever - suffers from a similar ideological problem. I mean if those of us who aren't 'special' are 'forced' to be just average equal nobodies, life is not worth living. This is a deeply conservative argument that really sidesteps all of the serious moral questions and tensions of our time. Not surprised to see this thread followed in the brilliant Mr. Bird's latest film.
8
Agree with Mr. Scott or not, that is one extremely well-written review.
21
Takes me back to the master, Pauline Kael. "False cheer can be as insidious as easy despair." That's good. As PK said, "so few critics, so many poets."
1
I couldn't agree more. I especially related to it considering my admiration for Bird—The Incredibles is still my favorite animated film of all time.
While I agree with Mr. Scott only occasionally, he, like Manhola Dargis, is a gifted writer whose praises I sing to many. I haven't seen the film yet--but intend to--and what most amazes me so far, since I've read every review of it I could find, is the near unanimous consensus among all of them. I keep waiting for a lone hold out somewhere who can either dismiss it (I'd still go) or hail it as the second coming. They all seem to suggest this eerie similarity. I'm fully prepared to enjoy it--but not have a good time.
Tomorrowland's virtues and flaws notwithstanding, remember the purported purpose of making a movie such as this is to spark creativity and imagination and to rail against some perceived cruel reality of a world bent on suppressing it. The actual purpose is to interweave a bland superficial narrative into what is primarily another billboard for Disney's theme parks all over the world for which a section of the park this film is named after. It stands to reason that what follows will be some kind of makeover of the various Tomorrowlands at Disney Parks dotting our globe in anticipation of increased traffic from this film. Nothing imaginative here - just another marketing tool.
4
My response to that is that if people flock to the Disney parks in response to the movie, they will be very disappointed. What started off as a 360-degree panorama of the US has been replaced by an ad for "Monsters, Inc." Another conveyor belt ride became an ad for Delta. I don't remember what "Mission to Mars" turned into, but I'll bet it's another movie ad.
The first time I went to Epcot the musical background was a pretty expression of faith in the future. 15 years later they were playing hits from the 50s. So much for the future.
What struck me was that Nix's long oration about commercialism ruining optimism might have been directed as Disney itself.
The first time I went to Epcot the musical background was a pretty expression of faith in the future. 15 years later they were playing hits from the 50s. So much for the future.
What struck me was that Nix's long oration about commercialism ruining optimism might have been directed as Disney itself.
1
Another great review from Mr Scott. You are the man
2
A Five star fun movie. Disney can still make happy films! I toke 3 small kids to the 1964 NY Worlds Fair and many things imagined there have come true. A plot that interested me and good acting, particularly by the younger people. Some of the the adults, like a gruff George Clooney and a sour Hugh Laurie are annoying. Great for kids and adults who are young at heart.
5
Does it offer a vision of hope? Does it embrace the near certainty that humanity can achieve so vastly much more with pursuing lofty dreams rather than embracing gritty "realism"? Would it indicate that our could be remarkably different if NASA were funded with more than ~3% of our military spending?
We're at the cusp of allowing our apathetic permission of allowing deeply monied interests to shape our world into an anathema and the destiny of our species into one that where life is universally cruel, nasty, brutish and short.
We need to look upward, we need to learn again to embrace hope and optimism for the future. If any of these things are suggested by this movie, then it's worth seeing.
We're at the cusp of allowing our apathetic permission of allowing deeply monied interests to shape our world into an anathema and the destiny of our species into one that where life is universally cruel, nasty, brutish and short.
We need to look upward, we need to learn again to embrace hope and optimism for the future. If any of these things are suggested by this movie, then it's worth seeing.
9
This is a movie I hated as soon as I saw the first commercial for it. It feels like a passive - digressive universe.
1
I'm simply amazed at how many commenters have such strong opinions about A.O. Scott's review and/or the movie that they admit they haven't (yet) seen. Sheesh!
3
John Favreau's "Iron Man 2" was a pretty good tribute to the 1964 World Fair (whose site he could see from his home growing up) and Walt Disney debuting some of the Tomorrowland rides there.
It seems natural to see 1964 as the peak of the American people, having solved Jim Crow, but not yet opening the door to mass immigration the next year.
It seems natural to see 1964 as the peak of the American people, having solved Jim Crow, but not yet opening the door to mass immigration the next year.
1
Keep your optimism. I spent several days in '64 and '65 at the World's Fair and as the band of the same name noted several years later, We Were Promised Jetpacks.
Not only don't I have mine, but for the past 40-plus years, I've had to deal with the designated hitter.
Cynical? You bet!!
Not only don't I have mine, but for the past 40-plus years, I've had to deal with the designated hitter.
Cynical? You bet!!
3
Holy crow!
You do realize that this is supposed to "corrupt" the thinking of young children, right? A generation being taught that the Transformers future fight off the meanies intent on enslaving the planet (or whatever).
It HAS to be "live action" (as if "Live action" isn't a cartoon these days, you do realize that there is no Gollum, right?) in order to be believable in the vein of Avatar (another live action cartoon).
What surprises me is that you left out the animated version of this movie in your review, "Meet The Robinsons." The review echoes the story line in key areas, and differs in so many others.
Optimism is what we need. There is plenty of time to learn that the future you want is hard to achieve, but first (as they say in South Pacific) "You have to have a dream before you can have a dream come true!" We are inundated with an inevitable dystopian future and people, actual grown up people complaining "Where's my jetpack?" ignoring the facts that people can't drive cars, they do stupid things on motorcycles, a jet pack for the masses would be legalized "Stupidicide." Second, that the prediction of mobile TV and tv cameras that fit in the hand... It's called a cell phone.
Right, we don't have that sort of futurism today. We don't love the future like we did in 1964. Chicken? Egg? How can we love the future that starts with "Our best days are behind us!"?
You do realize that this is supposed to "corrupt" the thinking of young children, right? A generation being taught that the Transformers future fight off the meanies intent on enslaving the planet (or whatever).
It HAS to be "live action" (as if "Live action" isn't a cartoon these days, you do realize that there is no Gollum, right?) in order to be believable in the vein of Avatar (another live action cartoon).
What surprises me is that you left out the animated version of this movie in your review, "Meet The Robinsons." The review echoes the story line in key areas, and differs in so many others.
Optimism is what we need. There is plenty of time to learn that the future you want is hard to achieve, but first (as they say in South Pacific) "You have to have a dream before you can have a dream come true!" We are inundated with an inevitable dystopian future and people, actual grown up people complaining "Where's my jetpack?" ignoring the facts that people can't drive cars, they do stupid things on motorcycles, a jet pack for the masses would be legalized "Stupidicide." Second, that the prediction of mobile TV and tv cameras that fit in the hand... It's called a cell phone.
Right, we don't have that sort of futurism today. We don't love the future like we did in 1964. Chicken? Egg? How can we love the future that starts with "Our best days are behind us!"?
5
I like to call my cellphone "my Tricorder" (re: Star Trek). Same idea, just a lot smaller.
1
Excellent, really smart review.
4
I attended the 1964 World's Fair> There I learned about voice recognition and saw the first examples of computer technology aimed at ordinary offices. Much of the rest of the fair was, as I recall it, a mish mash of the status quo dressed up in McDonald's Ronald the Clown type colors.
Also, it proved that monorails while emblematic of the Jetsons, they are hugely expensive to build, slow to run, and come with high maintenance.
A time capsule buried at the 1964/65 fair, next to the once from the 1930s, may turn out to be unrecoverable as that part of Flush Meadow in NY will undoubted be underwater from rising seas caused by global warming long before its due date.
We need more than movies about hope to secure the future for our children.
Also, it proved that monorails while emblematic of the Jetsons, they are hugely expensive to build, slow to run, and come with high maintenance.
A time capsule buried at the 1964/65 fair, next to the once from the 1930s, may turn out to be unrecoverable as that part of Flush Meadow in NY will undoubted be underwater from rising seas caused by global warming long before its due date.
We need more than movies about hope to secure the future for our children.
2
I saw this film Wednesday night at a preview.
This review is pretty accurate.
Pedantic. Didactic. Preachy.
My advice: Give it a miss.
This review is pretty accurate.
Pedantic. Didactic. Preachy.
My advice: Give it a miss.
5
It sounds like one huge promo for Disneyland. We have the gadget of tomorrow-the cell phone. It dominates, distracts, and controls many lives. Nice to see that Mr Laurie is back. He is a wonderful actor. It is seems that Disney controls much of the creative community involved in film making. Pixar was better on its own.
3
I frequently visited the New York World Fair in both 1964 and 1965. For that adolescent, the celebration of imagination, optimism and joy of the World's Fair was crushed by a growing awareness of racism and the poverty and oppression of the African-American community and then the tragic blunder of this nation into a long and futile war in Southeast Asia.
The tragedy is that 50 years later racism and the poverty and oppression of the African-American community and another long and futile war in Southwest Asia have probably crushed the imagination, optimism and joy of another generation of America's youth.
The tragedy is that 50 years later racism and the poverty and oppression of the African-American community and another long and futile war in Southwest Asia have probably crushed the imagination, optimism and joy of another generation of America's youth.
26
I am 22 and still optimistic. The media is bombarding us with a frenzy of resentment, bitterness, and pessimism, but there are many educated youth who are not swayed and do not accept that this is what we are resigned to. Change comes from each one of us - not politicians and the political sphere. If only the populist liberalistic speech ALSO provided hope and not just chastising.
1
There was no such thing as the Hall of Invention at the 1964 World's Fair. What can filmmakers tell us about the future if they can't even get the past right?
13
The GE exhibit at the 1964 World's Fair may or may not have been call Hall of Invention" but it was there and it moved to Orlando.
And "There's a great big beautiful tomorrow shining at the end of every day" stuck with this 6 year old through his entire life. I only saw it once in the Bronx, but when I saw it in Orlando I remembered every bit of it.
And "There's a great big beautiful tomorrow shining at the end of every day" stuck with this 6 year old through his entire life. I only saw it once in the Bronx, but when I saw it in Orlando I remembered every bit of it.
I may be wrong about this but I believe works of fiction are given a just a bit of leeway in terms of creative license.
5
But there was that round building where the seats moved in unison in a circle so you would see different exhibits. I'm thinking GE maybe.
If there's one thing that annoys me, it's dogmatic optimism. Some people just can't accept that not everything turns out well or that it's always easy to get there.
Among the most annoying characters ever are the unimpeachable optimists — SpongeBob and Kimmy Schmidt come to mind.
Among the most annoying characters ever are the unimpeachable optimists — SpongeBob and Kimmy Schmidt come to mind.
12
I agree with you. But I love both of those shows.
This kind of thinking is precisely the problem that is prevalent in America today. "Dogmatic optimism" is just as bad as "dogmatic pessimism". There has to be a balance. There is a way to recognize our problems and be passionate about creating solutions. The way forward is not resignation to society's ills. That's what this movie is getting at - that is the easy way out. It's time we become optimistic again about our future. We can be the change.
2
I WAS at he World's Fair in 1964 and there was much more imagination of the future then than you will see in Tomorrowland. In general science fiction tends to disappoint because the truly futuristic inventions are seldom foreseen. There were no smartphones and no internet dreamed of in 1964. The bland "dream and have fun" message of the movie is empty of content. As I watched the movie, I first thought - well you should only see this with your kids (or grandkids) but as the movie went on, I could see my grandkids blaming me for taking them to a lecture with special effects.
17
"There were no There were no "smartphones" and no internet dreamed of in 1964
That's right, because we already had TV & Radio*
*"Smartphones/Internet = the nth iteration of same
That's right, because we already had TV & Radio*
*"Smartphones/Internet = the nth iteration of same
2
Dheep': reminds me that my grandmother, born in 1902, would shrug and tell us that "TV is just radios with pictures". Nothing really impressed or phased her, and she'd grown up in a remote Czech village without electricity and lived to see movies, electric lights, radio, TV, airplanes in her lifetime.
1
Sorry, you're wrong. Go read "A Logic Named Joe" by Murray Leinster, aka Will F. Jenkins, published in the March 1946 issue of "Astounding Stories," which predicted the Internet and search engines. But perhaps you're confusing movies with the written word. The words came first.
"... disregard for basic principles of science-fiction credibility ..."
Wow--there's a great subject for an erudite lecture on the cinema: What exactly ARE the "basic principles of science-fiction credibility"?
Wow--there's a great subject for an erudite lecture on the cinema: What exactly ARE the "basic principles of science-fiction credibility"?
19
Basic principle: the ideas of "Science Fiction" have to make scientific sense even if they are quite futuristic. For example, travel through a worm hole is a possibility, albeit unlikely.
A related genre not related to realism is "Fantasy". In Fantasy you can witches and werewolves interacting with aliens and norse gods. Science is not excluded but there's no science test.
A related genre not related to realism is "Fantasy". In Fantasy you can witches and werewolves interacting with aliens and norse gods. Science is not excluded but there's no science test.
1
It's not all negative attitude. Jet packs that can fly for miles really are impossible - or at least they'd be something you wouldn't want to actually put on your back. The fact that it takes 100 tons of rocket to put 1 ton in orbit and send 100 pounds to Mars is more than just gainsaying: it's physics. You can have - and some had - flying cars, but those things are neither good aircraft nor good cars.
We still could have had the "World of Tomorrow", if only politicians could have recognized that it cost about the same as annual liquor sales in the Northeast, but it would not have looked like the Disney version.
We still could have had the "World of Tomorrow", if only politicians could have recognized that it cost about the same as annual liquor sales in the Northeast, but it would not have looked like the Disney version.
11
I agree. Whenever someone talks about how great it would be to have flying cars, I reply "Are you kidding? We haven't even mastered driving in 2D yet."
3
I respect A.O. Scott's critical work and I'm often guided by his judgement. But in this case, nah. Tomorrow I'm going Tomorrowland. (And I rarely go to movies anymore. I much prefer to get 'em free from Mr. Internet and watch them in the comfort of my den on the TV.)
9
Thus the reason why I continuously contend that "Smartphones" & the Internet are nothing more than selling the same thing we already owned -over & Over - namely TV & Radio
2
@
Dheep'
"Thus the reason why I continuously contend that "Smartphones" & the Internet are nothing more than ... TV & Radio"
+
"We live, right now, in a golden age of creativity" some one
"THIS, is so Laughable it's not funny, it is Sad" Dheep'
I realize these were in response to someone but, you are wrong.
The goal of a special effect is for you not to realize it was a special effect. Not unlike "the good ones make it look easy." You seem to have fallen for the illusion that it's easy.
TV is the same? In content? Versus 1970? 1960? 1980? We are lightyears beyond what could be on TV in those decades. Could there have been Breaking Bad? Could there have been Community? Creativity is running high because the outlets for creativity are expanded to a point where the medium is no longer the message. We don't have to have the record company tell us that Gangham Style is "cool." Nobody needed to pirate it, and yet it was a world wide sensation. (OK it's not a great song, to me, but that doesn't diminish its reality.)
Thanks to the internet, I can go to practically any ATM in the world and withdraw funds from my local bank. 30 years ago I couldn't cash a check in my own bank across town. I don't think that has anything to do with Radio or TV. And I never remember my old TV being able to show me instant video of a grandchild 3 states over blowing out the candles.
You're just plain old wrong, Dheep'.
Dheep'
"Thus the reason why I continuously contend that "Smartphones" & the Internet are nothing more than ... TV & Radio"
+
"We live, right now, in a golden age of creativity" some one
"THIS, is so Laughable it's not funny, it is Sad" Dheep'
I realize these were in response to someone but, you are wrong.
The goal of a special effect is for you not to realize it was a special effect. Not unlike "the good ones make it look easy." You seem to have fallen for the illusion that it's easy.
TV is the same? In content? Versus 1970? 1960? 1980? We are lightyears beyond what could be on TV in those decades. Could there have been Breaking Bad? Could there have been Community? Creativity is running high because the outlets for creativity are expanded to a point where the medium is no longer the message. We don't have to have the record company tell us that Gangham Style is "cool." Nobody needed to pirate it, and yet it was a world wide sensation. (OK it's not a great song, to me, but that doesn't diminish its reality.)
Thanks to the internet, I can go to practically any ATM in the world and withdraw funds from my local bank. 30 years ago I couldn't cash a check in my own bank across town. I don't think that has anything to do with Radio or TV. And I never remember my old TV being able to show me instant video of a grandchild 3 states over blowing out the candles.
You're just plain old wrong, Dheep'.
The problem with Mr. Bird's notion of creativity being stifled by elements of society, i.e. the government, is that it's not true. We live, right now, in a golden age of creativity so it's hard to know whom he's railing against. Stop dumping on Mr. Scott, he's just being creative!
11
"We live, right now, in a golden age of creativity"
THIS, is so Laughable it's not funny, it is Sad
THIS, is so Laughable it's not funny, it is Sad
1
I always enjoy the theme of " anybody could have acted these parts ".... and usually it's spot on ...Acting is about reality....the actor has to dig down deep and find something in the writing that he or she can connect to (in an effort to bring that reality to the screen)...just because it's George Clooney doesn't guarantee he is going to find the simple/plain truth that conveys something deeper to the audience... we may simply NOT believe him....it feels dialed in or stretched.... Clooney is a box office draw who probably likes working with Mr. Bird. Perhaps he wanted to try some crazy Sci Fi futuristic film where he could sharpen and expand his chops (or maybe it was just the big bucks!)
...oh sorry he did that in Gravity...okay forget it, blame its lackluster appeal on the writing and directing.....
...oh sorry he did that in Gravity...okay forget it, blame its lackluster appeal on the writing and directing.....
1
I haven't seen the movie, so I can't comment on its qualities or shortcomings. However, I did see some type of "coming attraction" that had a cutaway identifying "geniuses" and used for its examples pictures of Einstein, and then - wait for it - Disney! Okay, he was smart and influential, but is this an instance of embarrassingly gross chutzpah, or the ultimate in product placement?
In any event, is there a fundamental obstacle to evoking the raptures of "imagination" and "creativity" inherent here? That is, Disney's perceived corporate objective presumably is to produce great quarterly ROIs by producing homogeneous, "feel good," mass-marketed, easily-digested movies appealing to the broadest swathe of under-educated tweens and teens with low emotional IQs and short attention spans; i.e., the vehicle LEAST suited to creative or imaginative artwork possible! You want movies teeming with creativity and imagination? Go with independent filmmakers (probably foreign), not multiplex-oriented studios.
In any event, is there a fundamental obstacle to evoking the raptures of "imagination" and "creativity" inherent here? That is, Disney's perceived corporate objective presumably is to produce great quarterly ROIs by producing homogeneous, "feel good," mass-marketed, easily-digested movies appealing to the broadest swathe of under-educated tweens and teens with low emotional IQs and short attention spans; i.e., the vehicle LEAST suited to creative or imaginative artwork possible! You want movies teeming with creativity and imagination? Go with independent filmmakers (probably foreign), not multiplex-oriented studios.
15
You question whether Disney was a Genius?
How many other single individuals have envisioned a World's Fair and brought that vision to reality. A reality that is still working today half a century later? Answer ZERO!
For any criticisms of Disney's abuse of stories to make them into commercial ventures, it doesn't diminish the fact that he did do it.
He was a visionary in a time when the nation was looking in the rear view mirror (the dividing line between Woody and Buzz Lightyear in Toy Story).
Unequivocally, Walt Disney was a genius.
How many other single individuals have envisioned a World's Fair and brought that vision to reality. A reality that is still working today half a century later? Answer ZERO!
For any criticisms of Disney's abuse of stories to make them into commercial ventures, it doesn't diminish the fact that he did do it.
He was a visionary in a time when the nation was looking in the rear view mirror (the dividing line between Woody and Buzz Lightyear in Toy Story).
Unequivocally, Walt Disney was a genius.
4
Re: "Unequivocally, Walt Disney was a genius."
To a six-year-old.
To a six-year-old.
1
In other words its just another 1% "be optimistic" , be gluttonous consumers of high profit margin junk marketing ploy. A mass indoctrination to not notice just how much our uber leaders of both parties are screwing us the 99%. So they can maintain the jamming of billions gained from degrading the commons into their bank accounts for a few more decades - before the biosphere crash they all know is coming, because their brain-washing to continue suicidal "growth" in population and consumption will cause this catastrophic 2008 like "adjustment".
15
So, basically, Tomrrowland is really Cloud Cuckoo Land and this is a bad remake of the Lego Movie?
12
I have yet to see the movie. And I can feel that AO Scott WANTED to like the movie, and that it pains him that he didn't. But quite frankly, it might be the very fact that he watches so many movies adds a bit of the "jaded" to his perspective. I am 62. I will walk into that movie with the eyes and heart of when I was 11 - the age I was when I walked into the 1964 World's Fair. At least that is what I want to do. I want to return to that moment when I entered the 1964 World's Fair.
54
Good way to go into it. And you WILL enjoy it !
But you are 62 and why would you want to walk in with the eyes of an 11 year old. You are 50 years older, the world is fifty years older. Why not embrace impermanence and wake up to the world that is rather than the sort of pap and easy sentiment that longs for a past that no longer exists and a present which continues to change each second? Wake up, check up, cast off duality and face what is. Disney would, like the establishment it caters to, rather we stay in the past -- a past which is and was always a dream. Frankly, though I have not seen and have no intention of seeing the film, the trailer speaks for itself and based in it I think A. O. Scott has written yet one more thoughtful review.
After watching the trailer for Tomorrowland I was very excited. I hoped that the movie would recreate a modicum of the awe, hope and wonder I originally experienced when my father took our family to Disney World (Anaheim, CA) in 1964 and the New York Worlds Fair in 1965. As a precocious 11-12 year old who had already developed a fascination for comics, science and science fiction these were revelatory life changing experiences. I was absolutely stunned by visions of the future that seemed to so perfectly comport with my imagination and made me feel so good.
Unfortunately, Tomorrowland does not even come close. In fact, at times, it's quite boring. There's insufficient synergy between the (poorly written) story, it's characters and special effects.
AO Scott's review is correct if not overly generous. I'm a huge fan of Brad Bird. Given his track record I'm at a loss as to why he stumbled so badly with the story (maybe his collaboration forced him to compromise his story telling standards). Clearly they ignored the sage advice from a 1990 memo by Jeffrey Katzenberg when he was at Disney: "Despite all the hype and promotional noise, in the end the public will search out the movies it wants to see. And these films, more often than not, will be primarily based on two basic elements -- a good story, well executed. Not stars, not special effects, not casts of thousands, not mega-budgets, not hype."
Tomorrowland: Poor story poorly executed!
Unfortunately, Tomorrowland does not even come close. In fact, at times, it's quite boring. There's insufficient synergy between the (poorly written) story, it's characters and special effects.
AO Scott's review is correct if not overly generous. I'm a huge fan of Brad Bird. Given his track record I'm at a loss as to why he stumbled so badly with the story (maybe his collaboration forced him to compromise his story telling standards). Clearly they ignored the sage advice from a 1990 memo by Jeffrey Katzenberg when he was at Disney: "Despite all the hype and promotional noise, in the end the public will search out the movies it wants to see. And these films, more often than not, will be primarily based on two basic elements -- a good story, well executed. Not stars, not special effects, not casts of thousands, not mega-budgets, not hype."
Tomorrowland: Poor story poorly executed!
1
Apparently the trillions of dollars we have "invested" into the uplift of women and minorities in this country haven't produced our real-life Tomorrowland. So what does that say about the premises behind the whole progressive project so far?
1
"Trillions?" Too bad comments can't be screened for accuracy...
20
Didn't take long for the Conservative attack, did it Mark Plus.
21
@Mark Plus - Is that what our efforts have been in pursuit of, our own "Tomorrowland?" Boy, have I been taking the wrong message from the progress of the last five decades. I foolishly believed that, while we've by no means COMPLETED the task, the efforts to improve civil rights for ALL aimed for a desired end goal of, well, improving civil rights for all. That the efforts to improve things for minorities and women have led to great progress for minorities and women, but have failed to produce utopia, so they must be a complete failure not having been worth undertaking in the first place. That the efforts to improve things for all citizens of the U.S., while having led to more awareness and sensitivity in many areas for many groups who previously were denied a voice and were often acceptable scapegoats rather than valued human beings, have not produced an irrefutable Disney theme park from International Falls, Minn. to McAllen, Tex., so let's dispense with all efforts towards improvement. Brilliant satirist Dan Perkins (aka "Tom Tomorrow") has noted that such an outlook is akin to eliminating fire departments because there are still fires. Is this your point? Absolute success by an absolute deadline or the entire effort has been a colossal waste? Unlike many, I don't claim to know for a fact what the founding fathers had in mind, but I sincerely hope that such a nihilistic mandate was nowhere close.
3
It sounds like Mr. Scott is interpreting the movie through the eyes of an adult, and a world-weary judgmental one at that. This movie is for kids, and from what I read here, it sounds like kids would love it.
The child in me is probably still alive enough to enjoy it too. At least I hope so. I'm going to give it a try. I remember being a child at the World's Fair in 1964 or 1965 and so I suspect I will identify with Tomorrowland to some degree.
The child in me is probably still alive enough to enjoy it too. At least I hope so. I'm going to give it a try. I remember being a child at the World's Fair in 1964 or 1965 and so I suspect I will identify with Tomorrowland to some degree.
33
Isn't it just possible to view a movie for it's entertainment value. I can't speak for anyone else, but I NEVER look to a movie to shape my convictions, affect my view of the world or just try to make me a better person. In fact, I go to a movie to be entertained not educated. Fantasies are just what they claim to be, fantasies. If you really need social commentary, read Ayn Rand.
21
You seem to have an extremely limited view of what movies are. Like it or not, movies, books, and other narrative works of art, have a huge part in shaping who we are as a society, and on an individual level. If you really watch movies only to "be entertained" and think that you are able to avoid learning anything from them, then, a) you are missing out, and b) you are in a very very small minority.
34
Doc, most times, I'm with you.
Soren, why the need to be preachy? Entertainment is there for the consumer to use as they please. This is why so many people are turned off by the arts ... some "artsy" person asks one what one thinks of some work - usually with the pronouncement that "all interpretations are good" - then criticizes when one doesn't come up with the "right answer".
Soren, why the need to be preachy? Entertainment is there for the consumer to use as they please. This is why so many people are turned off by the arts ... some "artsy" person asks one what one thinks of some work - usually with the pronouncement that "all interpretations are good" - then criticizes when one doesn't come up with the "right answer".
5
So basically you want no strings at all attached to your entertainment.
Wait, isn't that called dumbing down?
Wait, isn't that called dumbing down?
5
Call me lowbrow, but if Mr. Scott doesn't like it, there is a good chance I will. No reflection on him personally, but we could never go to the movies together.
16
I didn't interpret his comments as telling us Mr. Scott didn't like it. I interpreted them as critical comments on how the film might have been even better at what it was trying to do. Isn't that a critic's job?
13
I agree that can be the case, inframan, but, in this case, he didn't seem to like it much either. Take these quotes:
"the action is more frantic than thrilling and the sense of wonder rarely materializes."
"It gives me no pleasure at all to report this."
"What it isn’t is in any way convincing or enchanting."
"To some extent, that goes for the whole movie. Its enormous lapses in narrative and conceptual coherence — its blithe disregard for basic principles of science-fiction credibility — would be less irksome in the fantastical cosmos of animation. And it would look better, too. Tomorrowland looks less like a magical city of the future, or even the Disney environment it’s meant to evoke, than like an unusually clean and efficient airport, or the shopping mall beyond the multiplex where you’re seeing the movie."
So, I'm sticking with my original comment. Thanks for your reply though.
"the action is more frantic than thrilling and the sense of wonder rarely materializes."
"It gives me no pleasure at all to report this."
"What it isn’t is in any way convincing or enchanting."
"To some extent, that goes for the whole movie. Its enormous lapses in narrative and conceptual coherence — its blithe disregard for basic principles of science-fiction credibility — would be less irksome in the fantastical cosmos of animation. And it would look better, too. Tomorrowland looks less like a magical city of the future, or even the Disney environment it’s meant to evoke, than like an unusually clean and efficient airport, or the shopping mall beyond the multiplex where you’re seeing the movie."
So, I'm sticking with my original comment. Thanks for your reply though.
"Frank develops a crush on Athena (Raffey Cassidy), a girl, gray-eyed like her namesake goddess, who is (to keep the comparisons within the boundaries of the Disney universe) a perfect blend of Mary Poppins and Tinker Bell. "
Obviously not Homer's Athena, the goddess of warcraft who carries the Gorgon's head on her chest armor. The same Athena who attacks and very nearly kills an unarmed Aphrodite during the Trojan War. That was not an optimistic goddess. When you saw her, it usually meant war.
And that is the version of Athena that gave us the space program, because rockets were first invented for making war.
Oh wait, here I am, being the person this movie hates. Sorry. Blame Athena. She's the goddess of wisdom, and therefore she must be the goddess of critical thinking as well.
Obviously not Homer's Athena, the goddess of warcraft who carries the Gorgon's head on her chest armor. The same Athena who attacks and very nearly kills an unarmed Aphrodite during the Trojan War. That was not an optimistic goddess. When you saw her, it usually meant war.
And that is the version of Athena that gave us the space program, because rockets were first invented for making war.
Oh wait, here I am, being the person this movie hates. Sorry. Blame Athena. She's the goddess of wisdom, and therefore she must be the goddess of critical thinking as well.
46
Ha, if we had to interpret Greek Mythology all too literally, there would be nothing to like or learn. But if it is a journey and understood metaphorically, it is a different story.
So, maybe optimism is too sugary when the world is blowing up everyday. But "brother, can you spare a dime" is an anthem of sort when reality is at the starkest. I'd rather engage in joyful escapism instead of contributing to mayhem and destruction
So, maybe optimism is too sugary when the world is blowing up everyday. But "brother, can you spare a dime" is an anthem of sort when reality is at the starkest. I'd rather engage in joyful escapism instead of contributing to mayhem and destruction
1
I'm all for joy and I'm all for critical thinking as well, each in its own time. And metaphor-- I ADORE a wellturned metaphor!
All of which to say that I don't see life as a simple choice between escapist joy and mayhem/destruction. Happily, it seems more complicated than that, with lots of room for variation.
All of which to say that I don't see life as a simple choice between escapist joy and mayhem/destruction. Happily, it seems more complicated than that, with lots of room for variation.
1
"Oh wait, here I am, being the person this movie hates. Sorry. Blame Athena. She's the goddess of wisdom, and therefore she must be the goddess of critical thinking as well."
Have you even seen the movie? I don't know how anyone could leave with the idea that the film is opposed to critical thinking. It is opposed to fatalism, nihilism, callousness, and (more subtlety) elitism.
Perhaps you wandered into the wring screening room at the multiplex?
Have you even seen the movie? I don't know how anyone could leave with the idea that the film is opposed to critical thinking. It is opposed to fatalism, nihilism, callousness, and (more subtlety) elitism.
Perhaps you wandered into the wring screening room at the multiplex?
I love Disney Fantasy and love how Disney uses technology to bring Fantasy to us. Speaking to a older generation before Disney is always awaking how people looked at what was fantasy in their minds. This reminds me of when I talk to those older people. After living with their own ideas of fantasy interpreting somebody elses fantasy is hard to understand sometimes and sometimes needs interpretation both ways. Tomorrowland is kind of that interpretation.
1
" older generation before Disney ".... you must be talking to a lot of nonagenarians as Snow White came out in 1937. We grew up on Disney Fantasy and it is still the best place to go to today for fantasy you can take your kids to see.
6
If I want to send a message, I'll use Western Union"~~~Sam Goldwyn.
I'm sure those who green-lighted this at Disney probably know this quote--or who Goldwyn was for that matter.
I'm sure those who green-lighted this at Disney probably know this quote--or who Goldwyn was for that matter.
5
When mentioning Mr. Bird, please don't forget the wonderful "Iron Giant", another animated feature that grabs you by the heart and has a most compelling message for today's audience: Don't be a gun.
45
Ah yes, wonderful Iron Giant!
1
I loved The Incredibles too, but have to say at the close of that movie, I detected the same strain of bitter preachiness (the whole business with the son being forced to come in second in races, which he had to learn to swallow in order to fit in). And, "When everyone's super, no one will be." It struck a distasteful note in an an otherwise terrific film. Brad Bird's universe may be one where the elite (the fastest, strongest and most imaginative) should be permitted to be the elite. Which is fine, but there has to be some acknowledgement that in a world run by imagination, someone is still going to have to do the gruntwork of making visions come true, and gruntwork tends to wear down the soul.
27
In the Incredibles, Dash wasn't allowed to even try out for sports for fear of discovery. But by the end of the movie, the entire family embraces their roles as superheroes - Dash doesn't need to prove himself through sports. He can have fun with other kids without having to use superpowers to win.
As for Tomorrowland, I've come to expect so much from Brad Bird. This reviewer seems almost surprised that the film is a disappointment. I've read in other places how the Disney or Pixar method is to work on story arc and the emotional beats of the film by committee. Who missed what A. O. Scott sees as a "poverty of vision"? Were they all cheering from the sidelines?
As for Tomorrowland, I've come to expect so much from Brad Bird. This reviewer seems almost surprised that the film is a disappointment. I've read in other places how the Disney or Pixar method is to work on story arc and the emotional beats of the film by committee. Who missed what A. O. Scott sees as a "poverty of vision"? Were they all cheering from the sidelines?
6
I could have sworn the lesson imparted by The Incredibles was, 'thank whatever gods there may be that we aren't born with super powers, because babies with super powers would be an unpredictable chaotic nightmare'.
3