An uninspired, overtly motivational teen movie that feels more like a tedious, pseudo-scientific lecture aimed at stimulating yawning schoolchildren to absorb knowledge.
Casey, a young dreamer, tech enthusiast, and minor rebel, struggles to accept humanity’s passive abandonment of its space exploration program. Her attempts to shake up those around her lead to near-ostracization, but she unexpectedly receives a mysterious pin that grants access to a parallel reality ruled by inventors, scientists, and humanists. Inspired by this discovery, Casey seeks to improve her own world but finds no support from her new “otherworldly” acquaintances, as the days of our familiar Earth are numbered, and no scientist from the Earth of Tomorrow knows how to prevent humanity’s demise. However, it is the hope that a teenager can stop the world’s collapse that brought Casey to this wondrous new world, and a slim chance of salvation remains…
The project’s origins can be traced back to 1955 when a modest area called “Tomorrowland” was first designated at Disneyland. The idea for a film with this title first emerged in 1995, and the studio began its realization in 2011.
Overwhelmed by the Marvel comic universe, enchanted by the upcoming return of “Star Wars,” touched by classic and not-so-classic fairy tales, and always warmly embracing Pixar’s animated works, we somehow overlook that Disney occasionally releases original films that aren’t part of major franchises or adaptations but still aim for audience affection. These projects often don’t become box office hits, but studio bosses don’t always expect that – “Saving Mr. Banks” or “Into the Woods” are intended more to add prestige to the company than to rake in theatrical profits. However, almost every year, Disney releases a powerful, standalone blockbuster aimed at audience wallets. What unites the latest of these Disney behemoths? Correct, financial failure. Neither “John Carter,” “The Lone Ranger,” nor “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice” lived up to expectations – all these films lacked something to break into the ranks of super hits. Today, “Tomorrowland” joins them.
Shailene Woodley was long considered a contender for the lead role, but she had to decline due to scheduling conflicts and the large number of films she was involved in.
The Core Issues of “Tomorrowland”
The two main problems with Brad Bird’s new film are simple: childishness and lack of originality. The former is a long-standing ailment not only of Disney projects but of most science fiction in general. Today’s plots fall into two broad categories: the future is wonderful, so let’s forget about the present and dream, and there is no future, so let today burn with a blue flame. “Tomorrowland” surprisingly combines these two ideas – the film features a utopian parallel universe where there isn’t enough room for everyone, but those who “make it” live well. As a result, on both sides of the “membrane,” the characters don’t care about the present – some have resigned themselves, others are dreaming. With such a view of the world, it’s quite difficult to instill the idea that our planet needs to be saved by daily labor, care, and faith in oneself and loved ones, and the authors don’t even seem to try.
Lack of Originality
Speaking of “instilling ideas,” this is the second problem with “Tomorrowland” – issues with originality. Even the most casual viewer will find dozens of references to both classic science fiction and more recent films. There are hints of “Inception,” Jules Verne novels, the city of the future resembles a dozen futuristic paintings, “Tomorrowland” bows to “Hugo” to some extent, and somewhere it bows to “The Fly” or even “Futurama.” And that’s without considering the Rocket Man’s jetpack and a bunch of stuff in the “Blast from the Past” store.
However, digging into such references can sometimes be interesting, but only if they are strung like beads on a tight thread of narrative. And that’s where the trouble lies; “Tomorrowland,” outside of special effects, noisy but disposable action, and the teleportation trick that loses its charm by the third time, is frankly boring and drawn out. Moreover, it’s hard to imagine what audience it’s aimed at – adults will feel uncomfortable in this children’s kingdom, the film isn’t dynamic enough for teenagers, and younger schoolchildren are left out altogether – the film is rated “12+”. The main characters also leave a depressing impression: two girls in leading roles are too much even for modern feminist society; unfortunately, George Clooney’s character only joins them in the middle of the film.
However, all of the above can be attributed to the senile grumbling of a person “spoiled” by a childhood in the company of books by Asimov, Yefremov, Kazantsev, and now wanting to stir up modern teenagers with inspiring films like “Interstellar.” No, “Tomorrowland” is not the film that will get you or your child to sit down with physics textbooks, a drawing board, or even a construction set tomorrow. We fear it won’t even motivate you to rewatch good, albeit sometimes utopian, science fiction films of the past. It’s a fairly standard entertainment film for our times, popcorn entertainment that doesn’t require much thought. Brad Bird simply brought to the screen the world of one of the Disney empire’s theme parks, hoping that it would inspire someone to visit the “mouse lands.” Once, such a trick worked with “Pirates of the Caribbean,” which, as you know, turned from an attraction into a multi-billion dollar franchise, but times have changed. “Tomorrowland” doesn’t have a big future.