27 recensioni
- melaniealison2
- 20 mag 2015
- Permalink
Some in Hollywood seem to think the ills of the world should be laid squarely at the feet of humanity. Humanity is, by its nature, followers. Our leaders are the ones who shoulder the responsibilities that come with their fat paychecks and status in society. They lead the rabble. Like Avatar before it, this movie degenerated into being unnecessarily preachy to the masses. Who follow. They don't lead. Tell it to our leaders! I get it already and almost walked out the of theater because I don't pay good money to be preached to on this level. Tell it to the correct audience. We're not dumb, but we can only do just so much. As for the movie itself, it was fun until the end, where the overt preaching began. This is "What The Bleep Do We Know" on CGI steroids -a fine film which took complicated subjects and brought them down to a level where most common folk could comprehend. Until our leaders develop a more protective, forward-thinking and doing attitude, nothing will change.
While the movie had decent production values, the story/script was just a fragmented mess, frequently bordering on nonsensical. I found myself asking "why did that just happen?" over and over again. Suspect this is one of those projects where multiple writers were brought in re-working and re-working the story.
The preachy ending seemed like an unintentional parody of some left- wing think tank grade school recruiting video, completely consistent with George Clooney's politics.
The acting was decent, especially the kids, but their best intentions were doomed by what they had to work with.
Also, I would expect most kids would find this movie too long, and too confusing to be very entertained by it.
The preachy ending seemed like an unintentional parody of some left- wing think tank grade school recruiting video, completely consistent with George Clooney's politics.
The acting was decent, especially the kids, but their best intentions were doomed by what they had to work with.
Also, I would expect most kids would find this movie too long, and too confusing to be very entertained by it.
- daren_connor99
- 31 mag 2015
- Permalink
Same director as 'The Incredibles', one my favorite "Disney movies" after Walt left us. Previews looked interesting. Even saw the 20 min preview in Disneyland. That sealed it, I had to see it. So, having already seen the first 20 min, the movie does a complete change hard to follow seems like the script is being written as it goes and its all about a dude who's hot for an underaged kid? Moveover, the entire plot is confusing. With the exception of the Athena character and the special effects, the movie is a complete flop. Saw it with a bunch of people from work. Nobody liked it. Instead of whatever the movie was trying to accomplish, they could have figured out how to get wasted time back. A 5-yr old will get lost in the dialogue and the lengthy monologues which take up 75% of the running time of the movie. I definitely want my time back.
How could Clooney have signed on for his role in Disney's Tomorrowland? What was he thinking? When he sees himself in this stinker, what does he see, how does he react? I can't believe he'd do anything but hold his nose. Where is the guy I loved in Up in the Air and Gravity? Instead, I see a grizzled old man who looks like he'd rather be in Yesterdayland than in this land of tomorrow. I checked the response to this movie on Rotten Tomatoes and was amazed—no, dumbfounded—to see that 49% of critics and 59% of viewers were positive. What are they seeing that I and the rest of my audience members didn't see? Here's what one reviewer, Ken Hanke, had to say: "Tomorrowland—vaguely based on the Disney theme park attraction—is a mess. Structurally, it's a nightmare. Dramatically, it only occasionally comes to life. Technically, it's sometimes impressive and sometimes a thing of 1930s-level matte paintings and CGI that's so cartoonish it's hard to remember it isn't an animated film. Thematically, it's such a bizarre farrago of mismatched "philosophies" and ideas that it's hard to tell what it's supposed to be. I'd like to call it a "noble failure," but I'm not at all sure that it's noble. I am sure, on the other hand, that so far as I'm concerned, it's certainly a failure." I spoke with a number of my senior neighbors who saw it. A few walked out, a few thought about walking out, most suffered through to the end. I was one of the "thought about" walkers. I stayed to the end even though I dozed off in a few places. There were quite a few youngsters from five to ten there, not making a sound—not a chuckle of amusement, not a gasp of excitement. Just dead silence. I remember children's responses to The Wizard of Oz, my own in particular when I first saw it in 1939. It was a wonderful story with wonderful characters set in an imaginary wonderful place called Oz. When Casey (Brittany Robertson) first touches the token that zips her away from reality to this land of the future, she ends up in a yellow wheat field with a view of the futuristic spires of Tomorrowland in the distance, almost laughably similar to Dorothy's first view of the Emerald City. And now these children are seeing a confusing story with plenty of confusing flashbacks and ___location switches with far too many shootings and killings and blowups and ridiculous ninja fighting. Hugh Lawrie as David Nix made an able villain in a wicked-witch-of-the-north way. He was exactly the curmudgeon we got used to in House. Apparently the film's message was that we'd better do something about the state of the world now or we'll never realize the wonders of Tomorrowland. Casey asks the riddle: There are two wolves who are always fighting. One is darkness and despair. The other is light and hope. The question is: which wolf wins? The answer: The one you feed. There, children in the audience, what do you make of that? A confusing message for all ages. I'm an adult, an old adult, and I'm not sure what was intended. Sorry, Walt. Sorry, Brad Bird and your sorry directing and writing. Tomorrowland just doesn't cut it. And shame on you, George Clooney, for lowering yourself to this stinkbomb's level.
- The-Sarkologist
- 28 mag 2015
- Permalink
- jake_fantom
- 2 giu 2015
- Permalink
..And of my money. To begin with this movie is for kids mostly. It might bring some joy to all the younger viewers out there. I had great expectations from what i saw in the movie trailer but i was i little bit suspicious because this movie had a lot bad reviews here. I ve been some times before in the same situation where i had doubts and most of them the movie was total disaster. Like today in a way of speaking. Unfortunately i went to my local cinema and i regret every minute that i lost watching this foolness. I give 2/10 only for some great effects and a little bit for George clooney's acting. Stay away. You will thank me for that advice!
I was excited for this movie! It has a great premise and George Clooney is in it so I figured there was at least one talented actor to look forward to. Unfortunately, that's where it ends for me. The writing didn't keep me interested and the main character is written in such a way that she is completely impossible to enjoy and says and does the most irritating things for someone who's supposedly so inventive. The only lovable people in this movie are Tim McGraw and Pierce Gagnon so there's that. I would say the best part is the beginning. After that the movie is just incredible slow, one of those shows where it seems like a lot is happening but it's really not. Considering previous reviews I think it's more just an acquired taste.
There needs to be a new category of movie added just for Tomorrowland: Unscientific Fiction. We'll call it Unscifi.
It always cracks me up when a Hollywood uses the fruits of capitalism to try to expose the horrors of it. As of this writing, this movie has now lost $130,000,000 dollars. If that doesn't tell you that the enlightened public is tried of be preached at non-existent, fraudulent doomsday predictions, then I don't know what will.
These tried and embarrassing platitudes of global warming (started in 1855), over-population (1960s), and starvation (since the dawn of man) are solely attempts by scientists to fear the simpletons in DC into giving them big fat federal grant research checks.
The script wandered about like a headless chicken in a hurricane. The sets & cinematography and special affect were very nice to look at. It's truly a shame that the efforts of countless little people were wasted on such a poor movie.
The Foley and sound design (other than the ADR/voice-overs) were very good as well.
The actors were annoying, screechy, and grating. Clooney's creepy on- screen relationship with a 11 year old robot girl is gross. I think I may have finally watched a film that's worse than Johnny B Goode or even, AI.
If the studio who produced this schlock really wants to save the earth, they should burn every copy of the flaccid crap and used the stored energy provide heat for the poor.
It always cracks me up when a Hollywood uses the fruits of capitalism to try to expose the horrors of it. As of this writing, this movie has now lost $130,000,000 dollars. If that doesn't tell you that the enlightened public is tried of be preached at non-existent, fraudulent doomsday predictions, then I don't know what will.
These tried and embarrassing platitudes of global warming (started in 1855), over-population (1960s), and starvation (since the dawn of man) are solely attempts by scientists to fear the simpletons in DC into giving them big fat federal grant research checks.
The script wandered about like a headless chicken in a hurricane. The sets & cinematography and special affect were very nice to look at. It's truly a shame that the efforts of countless little people were wasted on such a poor movie.
The Foley and sound design (other than the ADR/voice-overs) were very good as well.
The actors were annoying, screechy, and grating. Clooney's creepy on- screen relationship with a 11 year old robot girl is gross. I think I may have finally watched a film that's worse than Johnny B Goode or even, AI.
If the studio who produced this schlock really wants to save the earth, they should burn every copy of the flaccid crap and used the stored energy provide heat for the poor.
- xcheck_Trump_Won
- 6 ott 2015
- Permalink
- leonblackwood
- 10 ott 2015
- Permalink
I remember when this film was coming out. It starred George Clooney, who was huge, it was directed by Brad Bird, who had two Oscars, and it cost $200 million.. It was on the heels of other adaptations of Disney attractions... And it completely tanked at the box office. It got bad reviews at the time and I didn't see it largely because I wasn't interested in it. It hasn't been on Disney+ as far as I know until recently so in the interest of completeness I checked it out. And Boy🇧🇷, it lives down to all of its bad press. Brad Bird is a better Director than this would indicate. He and the screenplay go for every possible cliché, including not just lines of dialogue but the way in which people say lines, they interact and how complications seem designed entirely to be dramatic problems rather than the ways humans actually behave. Special effects are adequate I guess, but nothing about it feels especially authentic or engaging. You can walk away for 20 minutes at a time and not lose a plot thread, because nothing about the plot makes enough sense for you to Care in the first place.
- criticalmasstx
- 9 giu 2024
- Permalink
Are you being serious, guys - this is a Disney movie? This awful mess of mish mash of nonsensical mess of a whole array of genres that do not mix, do not get along and do not make any plausible sense whatsoever. This is not a family movie due to a real plenty of terribly violence and bloody mess. This is not a sci-fi flick due to a preachy tone and candy-floss sweetly-sweetly approach. This is a real bastard of a movie with all the wrong elements thrown together to cook a very unstasty vapid brew that looks sweet but tastes sour and dated. George Clooney is OK, as well as Hugh Laurie, bit of it, but never further than plain average. Younger actors are plain generic and bland. This is a strange weird mixture of genres which do not go well together in any proportions and thus create a strangely looking fruit which only seems attractive, because the final is terribly shallow and utterly disappointing.
This movie is a mess and the story is all over the place. Don't waste your time.
- coldenlamb
- 30 gen 2019
- Permalink
The movie is bland, the acting is fine, the effects are fine. The directing is... well... white.
What strikes me about this movie is the lack of diversity. Sure the World Fair in 1964 was white, that is historically acurate.
But in the 'future' all are white (except the one diversity hire as the female astronaut, that does not count. Especially since they gave her (parents) an Indian accent while no one else has an accent).
The whole population is white. They seem to think the 'great minds' were all white.
The whole female population is slattered in make up, propped up on high heels and sqeezed into tight clothes.
Not a good day for equalism.
What strikes me about this movie is the lack of diversity. Sure the World Fair in 1964 was white, that is historically acurate.
But in the 'future' all are white (except the one diversity hire as the female astronaut, that does not count. Especially since they gave her (parents) an Indian accent while no one else has an accent).
The whole population is white. They seem to think the 'great minds' were all white.
The whole female population is slattered in make up, propped up on high heels and sqeezed into tight clothes.
Not a good day for equalism.
I watched this because the previews looked promising. I was wrong. The characters are annoying. They do not mesh to-gether. The story seemed promising but IMO it fell flat. The 2 stars are for the flashback of the 64 World's Fair. Great place!
This is the first time I have felt the need to write a review. This movie is financially underwater (production costs + advertising cost) for Disney and with good reason. The movie is political propaganda that they tried to create a story around. As usual the propaganda took priority over a good script. Movie folks would be well advised to remember two quotes...
Movie producer Samuel Goldwyn: "Just write me the comedy. Messages are for Western Union"
Playwright Moss Hart: "If you've got a message, call Western Union."
This is not the first George Clooney bomb caused by trying to disguise propaganda as a movie - you think Hollywood would learn...
Movie producer Samuel Goldwyn: "Just write me the comedy. Messages are for Western Union"
Playwright Moss Hart: "If you've got a message, call Western Union."
This is not the first George Clooney bomb caused by trying to disguise propaganda as a movie - you think Hollywood would learn...
- jeff-41910
- 1 apr 2016
- Permalink
So, for some reason life on Earth will end just because of atomic wars but no one knows why it happens and the ending doesn't make sense especially because it somehow happens as if just hoping for it will make it magically happens. Why would it even happen? Why you would ruin the world and end your life and die horribly? Yeah, in the real-world nuclear weapons exist just because of WW2 (...you know) but it's not realistic to expect the human race to end itself like that. The plot is stupid especially because the movie gives no answer for why people kill each other (they didn't give an answer because what the writer meant is society is so idiot like some rabid dog they believe they will kill each other eventually) but instead they mostly focused on romantic love between old man and kid robot girl therefore you learn the actual plot around the end of the movie just because the writer had no idea how they would make sense the plot so instead they distract you with lots of stupid stuff which I'll mention later.
Until you learn the stupid plot you watch a stupid kid first and then a stupid teen girl. They are so stupid it's not even funny even though it's supposed to be a comedy. For like an hour you watch the pure tragedy of "special" people and feel the cringe. These people don't even think and just do it like some stupid cats. They just jump there and they don't even question where they will land. And how these people suppose to be smart?
If the writer had met real scientists the writer would be aware real scientists are not like the stereotype of nerds or "genius" people in American movies at all. If real scientists were that stupid like in this movie some scientists would destroy the atmosphere and end the human race long time ago but a part of doing science is not taking an unnecessary risk but in this movie people just jump without questioning how high and how some people don't die doesn't make sense, especially the rocket kid. The funny thing is the kid is like a cockroach therefore he doesn't die but the irony is he is somehow smarter than a cockroach.
In the last part of the movie Doctor House (another stupid character) lecture you like a grandma on how Earth is dying and society killing itself but whoever wrote the script actually doesn't think how can we expect "unfortunate" ordinary people to save the world and not ruin the world more. Yeah, since the 80s climate change is being warned by scientists but they didn't offer a better and cheaper way of transportation and a way to prevent people from dying due to extreme cold. So if you warn people you also need to offer a solution. Since no solution is offered people have no choice but to ignore the warning and live in the way they can so they use old-fashioned cars that use oils and use coals to heat their houses. Most people have no other choice.
Most people hardly try to survive in this world order that naturally happened just because most people even have a hard time deciding what they should do today so they can keep the sanity they little have. And the writer clearly didn't think about what a mere citizen can do when the president and big-deal CEOs have the all power. So instead of lecturing the audience go lecture the president of the United States, Elon Musk and Bill Gates or something but this natural world order actually ensures the world functions in its best way possible but the writer blames the world for it. Blaming is easy but keeping the world a better place is not so the script is clearly written by some 6 years old kiddo (I mean mental-wise, not biological-age).
The writer also didn't think about why should I care about the future of the human race when we will die soon. Current people have no reason to care about the problems of the future and we will die anyway so no point in wasting our life trying to prevent a particular dead end. We may save the Earth, we may colonize another planet, then what humanity can do when the universe will be destroyed? Then what can we do when whatever the universe is in will be also destroyed? The life of humanity is like letting your goldfish die. Perhaps you can make the goldfish live one more day but what's the point? Does one more day or one more billion years make a difference? Like how stories have to end everything has to end. Something ends, something else begins or not.
The point is everyone will die and most people actually wish they didn't exist but our mothers happened to give birth to us so we have no choice but to work 9 to 5 and after the job to don't lose our sanity more we watch a movie and you lecture us on stuff we can do nothing and even doing something about it is pointless. Yeah we all know how bad the world is, we don't need a movie to remind us of this. We all know the solution to make the world a better place (kill useless people, enforce giving birth license, improve and change the DNA of babies before they born to make them useful for greater good, destroy countries and instead unite people in one community that use one language and one currency and make everyone work for whatever is good for the society and never allow people to drag down the society by killing and brain control people) yet people are not that inhuman therefore the plot of the movie doesn't make sense. So thanks Disney for making me depressed again for no reason. If I had watched this movie when I was a kid I would have gone insane. Surprisingly they even managed to make this movie way more depressing than Matrix 1 therefore I gave 1 point more to this movie LOL. Did you really expect to make this movie kid friendly? I'm almost 30 years old and this movie is very depressive for me so how can this movie should be okay for people under 18? What kind of rating logic is this?
Lastly I want to mention, before I watched this movie I read "Before Tomorrowland" that suppose to be prequel story of this movie but the book was not needed to for this movie at all. There are no characters from the book in this movie at all which is insult to the book LOL. Honestly book was so great it became one of my favorite book. It's an easy 10/10 therefore I wish they had released its movie. I mean Before Tomorrowland has the quality for a movie but Tomorrowland obviously not even simple short story material. Though actually Before Tomorrowland has the potential to be a tv series. No matter if you disliked this movie or not I recommend Before Tomorrowland.
Until you learn the stupid plot you watch a stupid kid first and then a stupid teen girl. They are so stupid it's not even funny even though it's supposed to be a comedy. For like an hour you watch the pure tragedy of "special" people and feel the cringe. These people don't even think and just do it like some stupid cats. They just jump there and they don't even question where they will land. And how these people suppose to be smart?
If the writer had met real scientists the writer would be aware real scientists are not like the stereotype of nerds or "genius" people in American movies at all. If real scientists were that stupid like in this movie some scientists would destroy the atmosphere and end the human race long time ago but a part of doing science is not taking an unnecessary risk but in this movie people just jump without questioning how high and how some people don't die doesn't make sense, especially the rocket kid. The funny thing is the kid is like a cockroach therefore he doesn't die but the irony is he is somehow smarter than a cockroach.
In the last part of the movie Doctor House (another stupid character) lecture you like a grandma on how Earth is dying and society killing itself but whoever wrote the script actually doesn't think how can we expect "unfortunate" ordinary people to save the world and not ruin the world more. Yeah, since the 80s climate change is being warned by scientists but they didn't offer a better and cheaper way of transportation and a way to prevent people from dying due to extreme cold. So if you warn people you also need to offer a solution. Since no solution is offered people have no choice but to ignore the warning and live in the way they can so they use old-fashioned cars that use oils and use coals to heat their houses. Most people have no other choice.
Most people hardly try to survive in this world order that naturally happened just because most people even have a hard time deciding what they should do today so they can keep the sanity they little have. And the writer clearly didn't think about what a mere citizen can do when the president and big-deal CEOs have the all power. So instead of lecturing the audience go lecture the president of the United States, Elon Musk and Bill Gates or something but this natural world order actually ensures the world functions in its best way possible but the writer blames the world for it. Blaming is easy but keeping the world a better place is not so the script is clearly written by some 6 years old kiddo (I mean mental-wise, not biological-age).
The writer also didn't think about why should I care about the future of the human race when we will die soon. Current people have no reason to care about the problems of the future and we will die anyway so no point in wasting our life trying to prevent a particular dead end. We may save the Earth, we may colonize another planet, then what humanity can do when the universe will be destroyed? Then what can we do when whatever the universe is in will be also destroyed? The life of humanity is like letting your goldfish die. Perhaps you can make the goldfish live one more day but what's the point? Does one more day or one more billion years make a difference? Like how stories have to end everything has to end. Something ends, something else begins or not.
The point is everyone will die and most people actually wish they didn't exist but our mothers happened to give birth to us so we have no choice but to work 9 to 5 and after the job to don't lose our sanity more we watch a movie and you lecture us on stuff we can do nothing and even doing something about it is pointless. Yeah we all know how bad the world is, we don't need a movie to remind us of this. We all know the solution to make the world a better place (kill useless people, enforce giving birth license, improve and change the DNA of babies before they born to make them useful for greater good, destroy countries and instead unite people in one community that use one language and one currency and make everyone work for whatever is good for the society and never allow people to drag down the society by killing and brain control people) yet people are not that inhuman therefore the plot of the movie doesn't make sense. So thanks Disney for making me depressed again for no reason. If I had watched this movie when I was a kid I would have gone insane. Surprisingly they even managed to make this movie way more depressing than Matrix 1 therefore I gave 1 point more to this movie LOL. Did you really expect to make this movie kid friendly? I'm almost 30 years old and this movie is very depressive for me so how can this movie should be okay for people under 18? What kind of rating logic is this?
Lastly I want to mention, before I watched this movie I read "Before Tomorrowland" that suppose to be prequel story of this movie but the book was not needed to for this movie at all. There are no characters from the book in this movie at all which is insult to the book LOL. Honestly book was so great it became one of my favorite book. It's an easy 10/10 therefore I wish they had released its movie. I mean Before Tomorrowland has the quality for a movie but Tomorrowland obviously not even simple short story material. Though actually Before Tomorrowland has the potential to be a tv series. No matter if you disliked this movie or not I recommend Before Tomorrowland.
Just don't waste the time...stupid kids movie if released in 1990....not acceptable in 21st century
- ankurmangla-46608
- 16 ott 2019
- Permalink
Believe the bad reviews, and don't be misled by starry-eyed and wishful reviews. This film could not possibly be any clunkier and over-the-top convoluted melodrama, and Walt Disney himself would have shuddered at the outrageously ridiculous and twisted plot. No spoilers here, simply a warning: this movie is more pretentious, contrived and far-fetched than Oliver Stone's mildly entertaining movie "JFK", to which this movie is similar in trying to wrangle as many out-there and somewhat hair-brained theories as possible of a future world, including at it's core a conspiracy theory. George Clooney cannot save this disaster of an intelligent or articulate sic-fi fantasy, but the naive and confused might be drawn into thinking this is somehow, some way a meaningful or good movie. And did I mention that it is laboriously, almost painfully to long? Or, as a Disney movie, too graphically violent for kids...even though Tomorrowland at Disneyland was always intended as, and still remains, friendly to youngsters? Yech! Which rhymes perfectly with what this movie is: Dreck.
- fullheadofsteam
- 29 set 2017
- Permalink