Friday, May 29, 2015

Tomorrowland (a movie review post)

It's always disappointing to me to see a movie getting panned before it's even been released. I don't mean people saying things like, "Based on the trailer, it doesn't look very good," or, "That doesn't look like something I would like to see." No, I'm talking about full on bashing before a thing has even been released. Some examples come to mind, all movies which under-performed due to extreme negative backlash prior to release: Waterworld, Daredevil, John Carter. Of course, then there's always a movie like (the most recent) The Lone Ranger to give proof to some of that pre-release backlash. [Maybe I shouldn't say that, though, since I still haven't managed to force myself to sit down and watch The Lone Ranger.]

It's rather unfortunate that it looks like Tomorrowland is going to suffer the same kind of fate, because it's quite a fun movie. The worst thing that can be said about it is that it's a movie with a message, but it's not overbearing with its message, not like Happy Feet which picks up some dead fish at the end and slaps you around a bit until you feel like you've been abused. No, Tomorrowland is a choice, a choice you get to make. And it's a fun ride to get there.

The other thing worth noting is that, all things considered, George Clooney is probably the weak link of the film. However, when you're talking about weak links, Clooney is one you'd probably want to have. The problem is that he's really only in the movie to be George Clooney but, then, he's in the movie to be George Clooney. I have to say, I don't think there's anyone better at being George Clooney than George Clooney, so that was a pretty good casting choice, all things considered.

Britt Robertson is great as Casey. She's spunky, headstrong, and equal parts amazed and freaked out by what's going on around her. I'm unfamiliar with her as an actress, though, so I don't know if this was just a role that fit her or if she did a good job in the part. Either way, she was good, and I'll be checking out more from her to see which is which.

Raffey Cassidy was also great. Great enough that you can figure out the thing about her from her acting before you're told the thing about her.

And Hugh Laurie was really good as Nix. I know (now) that he's the famed Dr. House, but I never watched that, so this was really my first experience with him, and I liked him. I'm not saying I'm going to watch House, but I am now interested.

Thomas Robinson was perfectly cast as young Frank. He's just all kid and optimism, and he was fun to watch.

There are a few logic holes in the movie (like Casey watching her future self do something in order to figure out how to do it (a thing I always hate)), but they are few and, really, not very big. Basically, you can explain them away (though you shouldn't have to explain them away, if you know what I mean).

All said, it's a solid movie and a lot of fun to watch. Actually, I think the biggest issue with the movie is not the movie at all; it's the trailer. The trailer doesn't really give you a good idea of what the movie is about, and what it's about is much better than what the trailer leads you to believe. It's certainly not a movie to pass up for no other reason than the bad hype it's getting., and it's a good theater movie.

21 comments:

  1. Thanks for the review. I have been wondering about this one. And seriously, how can a movie be that bad starring George Clooney?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JKIR,F!: I know, right! I mean, even if you hire Clooney to just be Clooney, it's still Clooney.

      Delete
  2. My review will go up Monday, but I was disappointed. No, it wasn't beat you over the head like Happy Feet, but I still felt preached to. There was so much unexplained and some cliche scenes. (Like the long, convoluted explanation by the villain at the end.) It wasn't bad, just not memorable.
    And bad Clooney films? Just try watching The Men Who Stare at Goats.
    Plus you really don't want to watch The Lone Ranger.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Alex: I liked The Men Who Stare At Goats. A lot, actually. And it's based on true stuff, which just made it even better, because the weird stuff really happened.

      Delete
  3. It doesn't appeal to me at all, although I'd probably pick it over San Andreas. And the whole stealing future ideas is one of the few time travel tropes that doesn't bother me. If in this universe you can view different time periods, why wouldn't you be able to steal something?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jeanne: I don't plan to see San Andreas, even on video. It looks like the kind of thing that makes your brain rot inside your skull.

      Delete
  4. We're thinking about this one for this weekend. It's showing at the drive-in, along with Age of Ultron. Glad to hear you liked it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm glad you liked it. I've heard some negative stuff about it and have been avoiding reviews because I wanted to see it and didn't want to hear it was bad. It looks like a fun movie.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Briane: See, I've been hearing (only) negative stuff about the movie for months, and I just don't understand that. It's like the Internet decides "this is dumb" and starts broadcasting it without any basis for the opinion.

      Delete
  6. I hadn't heard of this one, so the bashing hasn't reached me yet. However, The Lone Ranger is interminably long and twice as bad. Thanks for the review! I plan to watch Tomorrowland .... when it comes on TV! lol

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lexa: I have vague plans to watch Lone Ranger on dvd (because I grew up watching Lone Ranger), but I haven't managed to work up the courage for it.

      Delete
  7. Well if it comes my way, I will watch it and see if I agree with you or Alex.

    You just cost me a whole .99¢ today 'cos I bought the Kindle version of Don Quixote. You suggested I read it so......

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jo: If you like it half as much as I am, your dollar will have been well spent.

      I hope you got a good translation.

      Delete
    2. Oops, I never thought of that.

      Delete
  8. I'd agree with the trailer issues. The original trailer was fantastic, but then the second trailer tried to expose more of what the movie was actually about but did a horrible job of it. Either be mysterious or just tell us what it is. As it is, the second trailer was literally bad enough that it put me off a movie I originally found greatly intriguing. I'm in a period where I won't be seeing a lot of movies as it is, so for me it's a matter of not seeing it at all rather than how some people, as you suggest, simply base their opinion of the entire movie on a crappy trailer. Which even when they see the movie is what they end up doing, because other people dumped on it for no other reason than the trailer, and we really do base most of our opinions on what our peers are saying...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tony: That's true about people and, well, herd mentality, I suppose. It can be difficult to be the one who steps to the side and says "I don't agree." Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending upon your point of view), I've never had a problem doing that.

      Delete
  9. The trailer to that film was kind of strange and confusing, but I might give it a try now...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mich: The trailer is an attempt to make the audience think the movie is about what Disney thinks the audience wants it to be about, which is not actually what it's about.
      If that makes any sense.

      Delete
  10. Another movie that didn't even make it to the radar over here... looks interesting, so I hope I'll have a chance to see it over here. :) In other news, save yourself the two hours on The Lone Ranger. It's awful. By any standards.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Alex H: I know, but it's the Lone Ranger! I grew up with the Lone Ranger! At some point, I have to see it.

      Delete