A Few Words About A few words about...™ Tomorrowland -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Neil Middlemiss]

My wife and I watched this in Saturday night and loved it. I honestly felt like a kid again. The level of bright optimism, particularly in the first half, was warming and I loved how the first hour unfolded. I didn't know the full plot details so I was swept up in the mystery. It was fun and funny, and the two young female leads were just wonderful. How rare that a modern picture rests so much on two young girls as the primary protagonists. Joyful!

I consider this a contender for the best movie of the year, and Brad Bird's direction was superbly adroit, and I think Bruce is spot on that this film will emerge over time as a broadly accepted favorite.

My son is three so still too young for this kind of film, but I have added this film to the mental list of movies that I am eager to experience with him.

It also made me a little guilty for loving the apocalyptic Mad Max: Fury Road (and the darkness of The Walking Dead), but then I realized that my favorite elements in that kind of bleak entertainment is the glimmers of hope and stanchions of humanity that rise above the despair

 

[Michel_Hafner]

Obviously. It's a Disney movie, after all.

 

[Patrick Donahue]

I'm curious for the parents who have seen it (as I am not one) - did you think the PG rating was enough?

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Or "Blade Runner", or "Vertigo", or "The Rossellini Bergman films" , or "Peeping Tom".

It's easy to point to movies unappreciated in their time but later viewed as classics - it's easier to point to movies unappreciated in their time that stayed unappreciated. I'm betting "Tomorrowland" remains in that category...

 

[DavidJ]

I'm curious for the parents who have seen it (as I am not one) - did you think the PG rating was enough?

I did, but I also disagree with the age rating given by places like commonsensemedia.org who say that it's appropriate for ages nine and above. It's too intense for my kid and would be a stressful experience for them.

 

[haineshisway]

It's easy to point to movies unappreciated in their time but later viewed as classics - it's easier to point to movies unappreciated in their time that stayed unappreciated. I'm betting "Tomorrowland" remains in that category...

Why? Because you don't like it? I'm betting you're wrong. I remember people betting exactly what you are about A.I. And they were wrong.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Why? Because you don't like it? I'm betting you're wrong. I remember people betting exactly what you are about A.I. And they were wrong.

Why were they wrong - because you like "AI"? It was a flawed movie in 2001 and hasn't gotten better with age. If there's been some groundswell of reappraisal for it, I've not seen it.


"Toimorrowland" was a sloppy, awkward movie without much emotional payoff. You think it'll be a classic - I don't. Guess we'll have to wait and see...

 

[Michel_Hafner]

I don't think "Tomorrowland" will ever be a big classic, but that's just my opinion. I loved "A.I." from the start, by the way. And I also think "Transcendence" is vastly underrated. Concerning "A.I." and "Tomorrowland" there is a connection. "A.I" is a Spielberg film and "Extant" is a Spielberg produced TV series inspired partially by "A.I.". If you knew "Extant" when watching "Tomorrowland" you will inevitably go: Hey! That's the kid from "Extant"!

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

The divide on this movie is amazing, but so was the divide on A.I. (and 2001 when it came out - easy in hindsight for everyone to say it's a masterpiece, but back then it was not loved by everyone.

It is quite interesting that some say "masterpiece" while others say "POS" and I suspect it really is somewhere between the two...however I have not seen it so can't actually say where I stand on it yet. I like Clooney and think he is incredibly sharp in choosing the projects he works on...so his participation to me says quite a bit. I am one of the people that was left uninterested after seeing the trailers and so just have not yet bothered with this. I will say though that your review, Bruce, has nudged me toward seeing it. There are quite a few films above it on my list though so likely will be a while before I get to doing so.


On A.I. I never thought the film was a masterpiece nor do I even think it is one of Spielberg's better films but I thought it was a good film made with a great deal of respect and effort because it was intended as a bit of a tribute to Kubrick. I thought his Minority Report was really an outstanding science fiction film and I do think that should be included as one of the great science fiction films of all time...and for what it is worth thought it also played as a tip of the hat to Kubrick.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Yes, I read that in many reviews - I simply don't agree with it. I never felt any of those things - I was engaged, happy, I laughed, I teared up a bit occasionally - for me, emphasis on the me - it worked perfectly. Believe me, I know others did not feel the same. I was a complete voice in the wilderness on A.I. and I'm happy to be one of the few on this one. It felt no preachier than any other film of its type, and its message is an important one - and the truth of that message, I fear, is exactly why people don't like the film, if you get my meaning.

Hey, I *loved* A.I. and fought more than a few battles over it; based on your review I'm adding TOMORROWLAND to the Netflix queue.

Count me as yet another "voice in the wilderness" on A.I.; I thought it was brilliant, and DVD Savant did a fantastic write up on the ways it is superior to E.T. Now I need to see Tomorrowland.

 

[haineshisway]

Why were they wrong - because you like "AI"? It was a flawed movie in 2001 and hasn't gotten better with age. If there's been some groundswell of reappraisal for it, I've not seen it.


"Toimorrowland" was a sloppy, awkward movie without much emotional payoff. You think it'll be a classic - I don't. Guess we'll have to wait and see...

Well, a little Googling will do wonders for you, Colin. Roger Ebert is one who reappraised and reversed his position on AI as I recall. And I know many people who've done the same. Guess we'll have to wait and see indeed, and as you know - horse racing. There are enough people in this thread who already love Tomorrowland to know that it achieved its goal for many, just as it did not achieve its goal for you and others.


From Mr. Ebert's reassessment of A.I. a decade later: "Watching the film again, I asked myself why I wrote that the final scenes are "problematical," go over the top, and raise questions they aren't prepared to answer. This time they worked for me, and had a greater impact. I began with the assumption that the skeletal silver figures are indeed androids, of a much advanced generation from David's. They too must be programmed to know, love, and serve Man. Let's assume such instructions would be embedded in their programming DNA. They now find themselves in a position analogous to David in his search for his Mommy. They are missing an element crucial to their function."


He now gives it four stars (out of four). He did like it originally, but really had problems with the final sequence of the film - he no longer does - that is what is called a reassessment, just as many critics didn't like 2001 and a decade after the fact reversed their opinions.


Here is what the writer who worked with Kubrick on the screen story has to say about A.I. and how it will most likely be reassessed in the future: ‘I adore Spielberg's A.I. Of course I'm a wee bit prejudiced, since so much of my story got used, and Jude Law is so wonderful as Gigolo Joe. Dr. Know didn't much appeal to me, being so much like a Disney cartoon, but nothing is perfect for everyone. A.I. seems to have polarized opinion considerably, some people deriding it and others loving it and weeping in the cinema and writing passionately about it as something very special, quite different from the usual Hollywood movie, and important—even philosophically so. There's been quite a bit of confusion among critics, especially about the final 20 minutes, which aren't Spielberg being sentimental (his main addition was the cruel, brutal Flesh Fair), but are exactly what I wrote for Stanley and exactly what Stanley wanted. And as for sentimental, well, at the end of his perfect day David is alone without his mother for ever and ever in a universe which contains no other life, only the evolved Mecha (robots, not visiting aliens!) who can only study the traces and leftovers of extinct human life. David miraculously sheds a tear, and I don't exactly blame him.


The evolved robots are marvellous—"machines of loving grace," to quote a line from a poem by Richard Brautigan. The ending is quite multilayered. A.I. is a movie that is going to need, and receive, a fair amount of reassessment, and this will probably happen sooner rather than later. I think Stanley would have been pretty pleased with what Spielberg did. I am.’


Many more instances of this kind of thing online. That isn't to say that everyone has come around to it, you being a prime example, just as everyone didn't come around to 2001. I'd enjoy seeing a list of your top ten favorite films.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Re: AI's ending, it's amazing how many people then and now make comments like "Oh, the beginning was really good, most of the movie feels very Kubrick, but the ending is clearly tacked on Spielberg mushy nonsense".

Maybe it's just because I was in the middle of a huge Kubrick phase when the movie came out, but it seemed like his kind of ending to me. And I was surprised that there was apparently confusion about there being aliens at the end, I thought it was pretty clear that they were robots.

I haven't seen AI in a while. I remembering loving it when I first saw it but also finding it emotionally exhausting, which is more or less how I feel about it now.

I enjoyed Tomorrowland more on the second viewing than first (and am glad to have it in my collection now), but it strikes me as being a little more flawed than AI. All of the pieces don't quite fit together for me, but its a movie I enjoy nonetheless. I went into the movie without having seen a single trailer or commercial so I had no idea of story going in. Something about the plot structure feels a little off, but maybe it's just me. It feels like all of the ideas are there but the assembly is a little off.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

. I'd enjoy seeing a list of your top ten favorite films.

So you can tell me how much my favorite movies suck and how much better your favorites are? No thanks...

 

[haineshisway]

So you can tell me how much my favorite movies suck and how much better your favorites are? No thanks...

My goodness, Colin, not sure if you're having a bad hair day, but really, enough. I'd be curious to see what exactly your taste in movies is, you know what kind of films you actually like. I am a curious person. If you'd asked the same question I would have been more than happy to share the list with you and others. But sure, keep on being you.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Can you guys take it offline as we need to stop this personal beef in every thread.

 

[Neil Middlemiss]

I'll also add that Michael Giacchino's score is superb, one of my favorites by him. Did anyone else catch him as the ride operator during the opening scenes?

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I agree Neil, great score!

 

[haineshisway]

I, for one, have no personal beef with anyone here. I just respond to posts, but given what has gone on I think my best course of action is to simply not respond at all to any posts made by the gentleman in question, and hopefully he will do exactly the same.

 

[CraigF]

Count me as yet another "voice in the wilderness" on A.I.; I thought it was brilliant, and DVD Savant did a fantastic write up on the ways it is superior to E.T. Now I need to see Tomorrowland.

Me too! Forgot it was "Kubrick" until just happened to read this thread...I didn't know squat about Tomorrowland but saw the BDs in the store today and was wondering. Actually, lots of people rate AI as one of Spielberg's better *films*. I don't know what that means, or who they are, where they live, or nothing.