Pirates of the Caribbean... lightning in a bottle. I'd like to say it was going to be challenging to make a movie out of a theme park ride... but honestly, it wasn't really going to be that hard. The ride already has somewhat of a fun little narrative to it anyway. But, still... Hollywood made a movie out of a ride. Yes. Out of a ride. Actually... this isn't even the weirdest adaptation. Let's not forget--
Clue... a movie based off of a board game. A board game for ages six and up was made into a movie. And as far as I'm concerned it was pretty damn good. It was funny, it was quirky, and it had three alternate endings. It was inventive to say the least. But there's even more nonsense adapted onto screen. How about--
Transformers... a movie based off of a toy. Okay, that one failed pretty mightily, but still. It was based off of a toy. Hollywood has this strange desire to ostracize original thinkers and screenwriters and are compelled, nay, driven to make movies based off of trivial shit. Sometimes it works (The Lego Movie) and sometimes it doesn't (The Haunted Mansion). But, unfortunately, if there isn't a recognizable name attached to a film... Hollywood has this incredible fear that us moviegoers are too stupid to recognize whether or not it's going to be worthy or not.
Coming this summer... based off of your favorite kitchen appliance... it's Microwave: The Movie!
Now, we're given our newest installment-- Tomorrowland-- literally based off of a section of the park in Disneyland. It's named as such so that when you look on a map to find Star Tours, you can see that it's in the Tomorrowland section of the park, you know... as opposed to Frontierland. There's no magical mystery behind Tomorrowland... it's just a section of a theme park. So, that's obviously what makes it the perfect candidate for film adaptation. But, it's not a perfect movie.
I was excited about the possibility of Tomorrowland exceeding expectations. There is a very competent director at the helm, Brad Bird, who has really never directed a bad movie (The Incredibles, Mission: Impossible Ghost Protocol, The Simpsons), but when paired with severely hit-or-miss screenwriter Damon Lindelof (Lost, Prometheus) there is margin for error. While I respect most work Lindelof produces, more times than not, its reach far exceeds its grasp. And that's exactly what happens here. While we should've been on a journey through Tomorrowland, the film spends most of its time vaguely giving clues as to what it might be and sending our stars on random adventures trying to get IN to Tomorrowland. Of the two hour and ten minute movie, I'd say only a good twenty or thirty minutes are actually spent inside of Tomorrowland.
Essentially, you've got two stories converging into one here. First, is young Frank. A ten-year-old inventor of sorts who brings his newly invented jet pack to the 1964 World's Fair in order to win a "change the world" prize. When he's given a pin by a little girl named Athena, he's given the opportunity to go into Tomorrowland, an other dimensional world next to ours full of geniuses bent on changing our world. Flash-forward to present day, now we follow Casey (Britt Robertson) whose dad is about to be laid off by NASA. So, nightly, she breaks into NASA's launch pad, stalls the demolition of the pad in order to keep her father from losing his engineering job. She's a dreamer and highly idealistic. She's also given a pin. Then, as fate would have it, she's united with Frank, who is now in his 50s and played by George Clooney. They need to get into Tomorrowland in order to save both it, and Earth. Now, there's a hell of a lot more going on in the movie, but this is the Sparknotes of essentially what happens plot-wise.
The thing about Tomorrowland, however, is that it sets up this grand world that's supposed to be full of dreamers and geniuses and visionaries all bent on making the world a better place. But, it's in jeopardy of coming apart. Yet, because Casey is so innocent, she's able to see that destiny is what you make it. Just because it's predicted that something might be doomed, doesn't mean it necessarily is. We all have a choice. This causes some sort of positive rift in the Tomorrowland/Earth timeline. So, we're looking at some sort of message of hope and choice and individuality... but when it comes time to put these ideas into practice... the problem is solved by a bomb and an explosion. Lindelof, and Bird even, had these grandiose ideas of sending a positive message (some of which comes through), but at the end the only way they can stop destruction... is by destroying something. It's like they saw the light at the end of the tunnel, but couldn't figure out how to get past a few creative barriers, so instead of using their brains... they just blasted their way through with fire.
The characters were poorly written as well. Clooney is the disillusioned "old" man, while Casey is the idealistic young girl. Paired together they're supposed to learn from each other, but all they really end up doing is arguing for most of the movie. Clooney, in my opinion, is a very fun actor to watch. Generally, depending on the role, and the type of film, he brings a fun quality to a film, much like Denzel does in all his roles. Yes, for some reason, in a film that's as potentially fun as it could be, Clooney's character isn't that much fun. He's more or less humorless and doesn't exactly seem to give a shit that he's in the movie. Casey is the most obnoxious character in the film While she's supposed to be our lead, our role model-- she's one of the most passive characters in film history. Yes, she's trying her heart out to get into Tomorrowland... she doesn't exactly know why. Then, she spends the rest of the film literally asking questions. She has no input to give, she just asks the right questions so that we, the viewer, get just a little bit more plot description. Most of the dialogue is very explain-y and repetitive. But, Casey is the worst. She probably only has a handful of lines that don't end in question marks. Yes, you need to explain the world and provide the viewers the rules to this world... but don't make your main character a passive question asker just so she's your vessel for explaining EVERYTHING that is going on.
But, for all it's faults, the movie is very visually stimulating. It's beautiful to watch and the actual world of Tomorrowland is something to be seen. And, believe it or not, there are a lot of moments of fun in the land. And, while it's not Roberston's fault that her character is so passive, she does an alright job with what she's given. I would've liked to have seen a film that took place mostly in Tomorrowland (maybe it's the perfect place, but somehow evil has snuck in and it must be stopped... that would make for a better plot). And, at the end, there really is a very positive message to send to kids. But, beyond that, it's not a very good movie. I'd say see it in theaters just for the visuals on the big screen, but try not to focus too hard on the writing and story. It will end up frustrating you.
C
No comments:
Post a Comment