Sunday, May 24, 2015

Review: Tomorrowland

      Animation is a difficult process. One must constantly draw each frame of the shot, and make sure that each picture is perfect, hence making the animation flow. So, animation and live action are two very different processes. And often the transition between one and the other can be very unstable. (I mean, take a look at any film based off a Hanna-Barbera property). One prominent example of this was Andrew Stanton. Stanton directed Finding Nemo and WALL-E, two films that I really love, and have a special place in my heart. However, he then went on to direct a live action adaptation of Edgar Rice Burrough's character John Carter, and the results were less than satisfying. (That film was actually the subject of my first film review, if anyone has a copy of Indus Interational School, Bangalore yearbook of 2011-2012.) How does one go from such classics to a mediocre offering. Well, the standards of animation are different than live-action, and sometimes, like I said, the transition is very difficult from one to the other. I mention this, because the director of today's subject Tomorrowland is Stanton's colleague in Pixar, Brad Bird. He was the director of The Iron Giant. You probably know him better as the director of the Incredibles, and Ratatouille. He also had significant involvement with the early seasons of the Simpsons. (He directed the two early Krusty the Clown centered episodes). I would like to say that I adore his work. I love The Iron Giant and The Incredibles, and Ratatouille is my favorite Pixar film (and one of my favorite films, period). However, I had trepidation when I heard he was directing this film, largely because he had a larger background in animation ( I had forgtten  he directed the fairly decent Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol). So, does Brad Bird bring the same passion to this live action offering that he does to his animated picture. Uh,.... Let's jump right in.
         Our film opens with a recording of Frank Walker (George Clooney) describing the situation. In 1964, Frank is a young kid (Thomas Robinson), who invented a jetpack, and goes to display it at the World's Fair that year. There, he places it before David Nix (Hugh Laurie), who dismisses it after Walker is forced to admit it can't fly. However, Nix's, uh, little girl, Athena (Raffey Cassidy) has a soft spot for young Frank, so she gives him a pin and a set of directions. He follows those directions in the "It's a Small World" display at the World's Fair, and finds himself in a mysterious, futuristic city. After he has a mishap, he actually manages to get his jetpack to fly. He manages to meet up with Athena. From there, the narrative shifts to the present day, and we meet prodigy Casey Newton (Britt Robertson). She is the daughter of a NASA engineer (Tim McGraw, for some reason), and she is trying to delay the closing of the NASA launch platform her father works at. However, she is caught during one of her outings, and after being released, she finds a pin with a large 'T' on it with her possessions. When she touches it, she transported to a field, where she catches a glimpse of a future city. She then runs from home to see the full extent of the pin. Within the pin, she finds herself in a strange future city, where the fantastic reigns supreme. However, the pin eventually runs out of juice, and Casey goes to find its origin. In Houston, she finds a retro sci-fi antiques shop, where she finds two odd clerks (Kathryn Hahn and Keegan-Michael Key), who explain the pin as an ad for a futuristic city called Tomorrowland. However, when she fails to disclose the origin of the pin (she merely found it in her possessions), the shop keepers become violent. However, a mysterious little girl comes to save her (in what has to be the most absurd action scenes I've ever witnessed.), revealing the store clerks to be robots. The little girl than drives with Casey. She is revealed to be Athena, and she is also a robot. After explaining that she was the one who gave Casey the pin, she drops her off at the home of the now aged and cynical Frank Walker. Walker at first is apprehensive about Casey, and her desire to go to Tomorrowland, primarily because he is bitter about his exile and the impending doom of the world, which he measures on a monitor with a clock. However, after Casey's optimism causes the probability of disaster to reduce, he agrees to help her get to Tomorrowland. However, robots disguised as Secret Service Men invade Walkers house. Luckily, they escape, and they meet up with Athena. We learn that Casey was chosen for the pin, and that she has the potential to save Tomorrowland, especially against the now Governor David Nix, who has machinations of his own.
    Good things: the mystery for the first two acts is compelling. I was invested in what was going to happen in this situation, and why it was happening. It also had a large level of intrigue, as we follow our heroes through the mysteries of Tomorrowland. The acting is very good. Britt Robertson does exude a very powerful optimism, which makes her characters importance believable. George Clooney also does well as a cranky, cynical former inventor, who still has some wonder in him. Hugh Laurie makes a very interesting villain (though his clean shaveness and British accent keep reminding me of one of his comedy characters from back when he was on the BBC). The 1964 Tomorrowland (there is a distinction) also feels very alive, and very vibrant. Finally, I felt it did a better job of promoting optimism than Interstellar did. For one thing, optimistic attitudes literally play a large role in the plot, and also plays a large role in the conflict of the story.
         Remember that mystery I described earlier? It actually builds up to a fairly mundane conclusion. Seriously, I was thinking "That's it? That's the whole mystery they were building up to?" It wasn't bad, per se. It just isn't particularly spectacular. It feels like that twist was supposed to build on a larger conclusion. I might do a spoiler review, because I feel that I would need to examine the ending to be more specific on that point. After watching what the mystery really amounted to, the film just feels a little empty, after that. I don't think this was Brad Bird's fault. I lay the blame on co-writer Damon Lindelof. I haven't seen Lost, (though I hear that it suffered from the same problem) but I have seen Cowboys & Aliens and Star Trek: Into Darkness. Thinking about it now, both of those suffered the same problem: an apparently large mystery, which gets a very disappointing solution. It's a lot of empty spectacle, which I suppose is the problem of his work. I think Brad Bird's considerable talents allow the story not be nearly as disappointing, but it still feels empty, when you get down to it. The effects don't help. Tomorrowland looks very nice, but it feels fake looking, unlike some very good CGI backgrounds. Especially modern Tomorrowland, which seems abandoned completely, safe Nix and his army. That adds to the film's hollowness. Also, there are moments of sheer absurdity, which are hard to take seriously. Once again, if I write a spoiler review, I'll go into detail.
   So, was this or the similarly themed Interstellar better? Eh, I'll go with Interstellar. Whilst Interstellar suffered from various flaws, it at least kept its large scale up consistently. The conflict seemed more urgent, and more interesting. Though, I will say that this is more optimisitc, which I personally enjoyed. So, would I recommend it? Um, personally, I liked it enough. However, I feel that some people will be disappointed. If you want to just see a movie this weekend, this will probably be good. If you want to see a science adventure, this would be good. If you want to see something of substance, than you probably won't find it with this film. It's not a must-watch, but if you're interested, I say go ahead. Thanks for reading

No comments:

Post a Comment