by Heinrich Domingo
Tomorrowland was supposed to be a promise of delivering the audience back to the good ‘ol days. It was meant to bring us to the world that Walt Disney created. Or so we thought.
Have you seen a movie with a good story-line but was destroyed with sloppy execution? Then, maybe, altering few scenes and adding some elements could have salvaged the supposed film masterpiece.
Add more to that of the story-line and multiply more overt acting, you are seeing Tomorrowland in its purest form. Yet, with the exceeding number of bad acts and executions, there is no way of salvaging a promising movie masterpiece. It will be included in Disney’s list of bad creations this year.
To any young and creative mind, the existence of a future world is promising. The concept of a tomorrow land can ignite even the most boring mind of film viewers. This movie is based on the journey of a teenager named Casey Newton (Brett Robertson) and her idea of saving the world). Set with a hint of the future, characters revolve in a world where apathy thrives. Humans have simply discarded their chance of survival. All accepts that it is the end (even NASA stops its missions) except the young protagonist bearing a messiah complex.
Casey then embarks to a journey with Frank Walker, a character played by George Clooney. Here begins the downfall of the film. The casting of Clooney and Robertson was simply a catastrophe. Her non-verbal was unnecessary often delivering an awkward feeling among the audience. As the camera captures her expressions, we see a girl trying too hard to earn her merit on Hollywood. And that was crass.
On the other hand, Clooney’s acting did not give justice to his years of experience. He does not resemble a scientist or genius for one. Any movie critic would say that his character was a misfit. There are endless choices as to who can get the role. And anyone who did might have lessened the film’s failure.
And then, there is the script. Out of nowhere, characters would utter lines such as: “The future can be scary”; “What if there was a secret place where nothing is impossible?”; and “Inspiring people makes the world a better place.” All of which sounded inappropriately cheesy, because they were delivered on a bad timing without prior building up of context or background.
We could have talked about the movie’s attempt to discuss environmental degradation or its critique on educational system, yet, if it is unable to deliver the simplest requisite of film-making, how could these messages matter? Beyond the -isms of a film, the audience craves for craftsmanship, for aesthetics, for its art – which Tomorrowland failed to deliver.
Do you agree with our review? Share us your thoughts through putting comments below. Cinephiles unite!