Tomorrowland
Christian Movie Review
“Bound by a shared destiny, a teen bursting with scientific curiosity and a former boy-genius inventor embark on a mission to unearth the secrets of a place somewhere in time and space that exists in their collective memory.”
That’s the IMDB summary. Sounds cool, doesn’t it?
Unfortunately (long sigh), the actual movie doesn’t live up to the aforementioned coolness. It’s not a good sign when you walk away from a movie and the thing you remember with the most fondness is one of the trailers before the film. (In this case, it was the second teaser trailer for “Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens,” which I hadn’t seen on the big screen yet.)
Instead of calling it “Tomorrowland,” they should have called it, “Terminator 2: The Kiddie Version.”
“Tomorrowland” was quite a surprising disappointment considering all of the proven talent behind the film, particularly the director Brad Bird who has done some exceptional pop culture masterpieces (“Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol,” “The Incredibles,” “Ratatouille”). So far “Tomorrowland” is at a weak 50% on Rotten Tomatoes and sinking. Sadly, I’d say that number’s about right.
More on all that in a moment, but first…
Parental Guidance Issues at a Glance for this PG-rated film…
Sexual Content/Nudity/Themes of Sexuality: Nothing.
Violence/Gore: There are A.I. robots in the movie who are played by human actors. When they’re destroyed, however, heads get ripped off, crushed, torsos get impaled, blown up, and then you see their inner metal parts. However, the split second before the violence occurs, they are normal human beings. So it might be frightening for a young child to see what is definitely a person suddenly have their head ripped off, even though we see sparks, wires, and gears whirring afterward. And even when we see the robot carnage, the robots are made to be as human-like as possible, so the carnage might be unsettling for young children. For example, one of the heads, after the robot is blown up, does look slightly like a charred human skull but with a tongue and eyes still intact. Also, several human characters are killed instantly by the robots (vaporized). When robots invade a person’s house, that is also a bit frightening (it would be for very young ones, at least). In other words, it’s on the more mature end of the PG spectrum, as far as violence goes, and I personally wouldn’t take very young kids to see it. Even though this is a Disney production, this film is not Doc McStuffins, folks.
Language: People say “hell” quite a few times, as in “what the hell,” etc. A few uses of God’s name (i.e. God almighty!). A few d-words.
Alcohol/Drug/Smoking Content: None.
Frightening/Emotionally Intense Content: See comments about the robots in the violence section.
(Review continues below)
Please Support Our Affiliates!
Entertainment Value and Film Craft
Ernest Hemingway once gave this advice for editing: take the first 50 pages of your novel that you’ve written, get rid of it, and condense it down to the first five pages.
This movie desperately needed the Hemingway maneuver.
Actually, the beginning segment set in 1964 was fantastic. But then the entire middle section of the film — probably a good hour of it — was a weird Disney kiddie version of Terminator 2 where a good android robot is trying to save a human who is being hunted by bad android robots sent from another dimension. Although there are some nice moments: (1) the 1960s scenes, (2) the getaway scene in Frank’s (George Clooney) house, (3) the Eiffel Tower scene, and (4) the pin/jail scene which has been played in trailers for the past five months ad nauseam.
Besides a few nice moments, the script felt unfinished and bloated with an hour’s worth of screen time that could’ve been neatly summed up in five minutes. I particularly felt the way that Frank (George Clooney) and Casey (Britt Robertson) were written made the film a little irritating. They described Casey as a super genius, yet the script has her react with panicked shock at just about turn of the plot. Her intelligence would have allowed her to easily deduce many of the things that surprised her to no end throughout the film. Frank’s character, as an adult, is written to be endlessly irritated by Casey and by just about everything else. His crankiness, however, becomes excessive at a certain point.
The other issue is that, for all of its celebration of science and intelligence, the film frequently violates the rules that it establishes for its world. Quite a few glaring implausibilities and “Wait, but…” moments come and go to the point of distraction.
And then there’s the final element of this film that pushed me over the edge from hesitating ambivalence to a definite thumbs down: its heavy-handed humanistic sermonizing. It is a message movie for humanism on steroids, as I will discuss in the next section.
Worldviews, Subtext, Symbolism, Themes of Redemption, Social Commentary, Etc.
The film does have something nice to say that I wholeheartedly agree with, which can be summarized by this exchange between Casey and her father (paraphrased from memory):
Casey: There’s a wolf that is darkness and despair and another wolf that is light and hope. Which one will win?
Father: Whichever wolf you feed.
…or something like that. (Sorry, Tomorrowland filmmakers, if I just butchered your scene.) But I definitely agree with their point: if you are always focusing on the negative possibilities and on everything that can go wrong, you are feeding a beast inside of you that could eventually destroy you. That’s the primary message of this film — and, in a general sense, that is awesome, it reminds me of Philippians
4:8 (the “whatever is true, whatever is honorable…whatever is good…think on these things” verse) — but the film arrives at the following conclusions, and then screams them with all the subtlety of a rocket launching out of Eiffel Tower:
1. The coming together of scientists, artists, and dreamers is the ultimate hope for humanity and will be its ultimate salvation from its self-destructive nature.
2. The real problem is that our culture is too fixated on the Apocalypse.
Let’s focus on the first message, “The coming together of scientists, artists, and dreamers is the ultimate hope for humanity and will be its ultimate salvation from its self-destructive nature.” Hmmm…I once went to a summer camp at a school owned by Disney, and it was full of scientists, artists, and dreamers. We couldn’t even agree on what should be served in the cafeteria. And I would refer you to C.S. Lewis’s novels “That Hideous Strength” and “The Great Divorce,” which provide some scathing rebuttals to this humanistic premise that “if only all the really smart and creative people got together, humanity would be saved.” Have you ever lived in a dorm room full of artists? It’s not a pretty sight. Have you ever seen two artists try to share a studio space? I have. It was ugly. (I remember Artist A spitting on the paint brushes of Artist B when Artist B was gone because Artist B was “insufferably arrogant,” according to Artist A.)
Don’t get me wrong: I love innovation. I love start-up companies. I love new inventions and technology that improves and saves lives. I spend most of my time as a full-time freelance writer writing for start-up companies, new tech entrepreneurs, and marketing companies who help the “dreamers” build new, amazing enterprises. In fact, I’ve written many articles about Disney’s mind-blowing Start-Up Accelerator Program for start-up companies.
So I love all that stuff. And I’m an artist myself. But to say that the coming together of all the best scientists, artists, and dreamers is the only (and the ultimate) salvation of humanity, well, that comes from a naturalist’s, secular humanist’s worldview. I love science and art, but I do not agree with the secular humanist worldview about these big questions. Among many other things, it doesn’t address our most profound problem: the great divorce between humanity and its Creator. This divorce has transformed our fundamental spiritual nature in a way that goes far beyond the power of technology — a transformation that lies at the root of humanity’s self-destructive tendencies and cannot be undone without a restored, redeemed relationship with God. (And what exactly is this “transformation?” Well, that’s for another article, another day.)
Let’s look at the second message: The real problem is that our culture is too fixated on the Apocalypse. Although the film never mentions religious people, it shames them by implication with this indirect message: anyone who believes that there will be an Apocalypse is part of the problem, not the solution. Nevermind that the teachings in the Bible about the Apocalypse also point to a time immediately after the devastation when the earth is renewed, when it enters a time of unspeakable joy and recovery — and this means that many Christians (including myself) actually have an impossible-to-kill optimism and hope about the future.
Oh, and the film assumes that global warming is indeed a fact that no one should ever question.
(Sigh.)
The film strongly implies that the scientists, artists, and dreamers who become man’s salvation are the people who go out and “do something” to stop the glaciers from melting and wars from happening.
POLITICAL SIDEBAR: I’m going to get “political” for a moment and express some pent up frustration. But, seriously, whether you are a liberal, a conservative, a Ron Swanson Libertarian, or a Tory, don’t you find it at least a little concerning that there is so much data that contradicts so many models of global warming? For example: near-surface temperatures have not gone up for 17 years. So what, right? So there’s a pause in warming, who cares? Why does that matter? It matters because there are more than 70 different prominent climate models that warmists created, and none of them predicted that such a pause would happen. They predicted quite the opposite. And what about the record cold temperatures? No big deal, right? Warmists say that the record cold temps in the US are counter-intuitive examples because global warming in other parts of the globe are causing the record cold here. That makes sense, right? The whole butterfly-causes-a-hurricane chaos math, right? Well, Princeton physicist Dr. Will Happer refuted that claim: “Polar vortices [which caused the record cold] have been around forever. They have almost nothing to do with more CO2 in the atmosphere.” But the biggest problem with the record cold: none of the warmist climate models predicted there would be record cold temperatures in the US. They predicted the opposite. Here are some other questions: if man-made CO2 is the primary force in warming, why did the earth begin warming in 1850 when human CO2 emissions didn’t start to expand until 1940? Another question: Why did the earth’s temperatures go down between 1940 and 1975 when man-made CO2 emissions were soaring? These are valid questions. The whole point of the scientific method is to ask questions and never shy away from data that disproves your hypothesis. Not only do some people ignore that data, they launch an attack if you even hint at questioning the group-think consensus about global warming. Why would they do that? Some folks are starting to wonder — quite loudly — if the way Warmism produces massive amounts of money and political power to flow into certain hands has something to do with it. In an op-ed for The Australian, a government official in Australia recently wondered that very thing when he said: “the real agenda is concentrated political authority. Global warming is the hook.“
Ouch.
So, given all of that above, the fact that “Tomorrowland” lectures us about breaking free from greed and lust for political power by freely pursuing the solutions of the scientific method and always being curious and asking questions — while simultaneously stating as fact a “science” whose adherents do not like you questioning their claims and who use their claims to accumulate massive amounts of wealth and power — is, well, slightly hypocritical. I love many things that Disney makes, but I’m getting a little tired of liberal Hollywood always lecturing the “common people” about eco-rules that they violate in ways that you or I can’t even imagine. (Do you own five private jets that produce 800 tons of carbon emissions a year? No? Neither do I. But you’d be surprised how many Hollywood liberal elites — the same ones who lecture the common folk — own multiple private jets and use them in ways that redefine the word “excess.”)
Conclusion
All of the distracting worldview issues mentioned above combined with plot and character writing that misfired made “Tomorrowland” a less-than-stellar movie theater experience.
My rating for “Tomorrowland”: [usr 3]
If you are planning on seeing a movie soon, please consider purchasing your tickets online through our affiliate link above with Fandango, a high-quality vendor for online movie tickets. This will allow us to keep our site online and continue providing you with quality reviews.
I Believe overall a great movie, with some parts not mixing cohesively. This article i believe states some of the best 5 reasons to actually love this movie http://www.whatsuptrendy.com/all/celebrity-trends/best-reasons-to-fall-in-love-with-tomorrowland-movie/
Your link makes some good points, especially 1 and 3. I really did love the concept (alternate dimension) and the world they created. Was also excited about Britt Robertson playing the lead (am a fan of her acting). Just wished the writers had down more with the world and had written Britt’s character a little better. But this link does make some really good points. I actually kind of wish the whole movie took place in the ’60s, but that’s just my bias for historical pieces. Thanks for the comment!
Forgot to mention this, Allison: just to be fair (because I don’t mean any mean-spirited disrespect to anyone who truly loved the film) though I’m complaining a lot about the movie I do keep remembering moments that I liked. One thing I did like was the father-daughter relationship between Britt’s character and Tim McGraw’s character. It was refreshing to hear her say about her Dad, “He’s awesome!” It stayed away from the cliche of always making a girl character have issues with her father. I wish their relationship had perhaps been more central to the story, sort of how it was in the film Interstellar.
I am not a fan of George’s, but despite that, I wanted to see this movie. I enjoyed the first bits, it could have really went somewhere. By the time Dr. House delivered his soliloquy about the worlds evils, they lost me. Just another guise for global warming. It really made me quite sick, I was duped.
So true, Meeshell: “it could have really went somewhere.” That’s exactly how I felt. The beginning of the film was so promising, and then…(sigh)…out came the killer robots (tamer re-hash of Terminator) and long, condescending lectures. I felt manipulated too. The trailer kind of felt like false advertising.
I happen to agree with you 100%. I pretty much hated this movie. I though Clooney’s character was unwatchable. I was bored out of my mind and didn’t care about the events or circumstances of any of the characters. None of them were very likable.
However, what I really did not like was, like you said, the idea shoved into my face, that humans can get together and solve all their own problems and save themselves. Gee, I wonder who might want people to not focus on a coming apocalypse and make a decision about their eternal security? The Bible makes it clear darker days are coming but it also makes clear Who, the solution to all the problems of humanity is.
I went to this movie looking for some Disney fun and walked out insulted because of my beliefs and barely awake. What a complete waste of money and talent.
I was even more horrified to discover my 12 year old son swallowing what they were “selling” in this movie, along with other young patrons in the lobby talking about how great the film was. I had to point out the humanistic subtleties to my son before he realized what he had swallowed just because it came in a Disney CGI wrapper.
I feel Mr. Bird owes me at least $12.
Wholeheartedly agree with every word you said. It was a deep disappointment for me personally because like you I came into it really liking the general concept pitched in the trailers. I was expecting more of something like a live-action “Meet the Robinsons” (a Disney animated movie that I really liked) but, like you said, I walked out feeling insulted, lectured to, and quite sleepy. Thanks very much for the comment!
You listed 2 main objections to film the humanistic overtones and anti-apocalypse secular agenda. I’m trying to create some discussion questions for the movie, are there specific scriptures you can point me to that deflate the humanistic worldview or the anti-apocalypse issue many secular people have?
Thanks!!
Lana, I’m sorry I was slow responding and also sorry if it’s too late to add anything to your discussion questions.
I’d say 1 Corinthians 1:18-26 is one of the best examples of a verse in the Bible that directly addresses the humanistic assertion that man’s wisdom and knowledge is the highest authority and the ultimate salvation of humanity:
18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”[c]
20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.
Also, for the humanistic overtones, this article by Apologetics Press has not only some relevant verses but a very thorough survey of humanism itself. Here is an excerpt that lists some relevant Bible verses (in italics):
“…The Bible speaks often of an eternal God, man’s immortal soul, heaven, hell, a promised and planned salvation, the absolute nature of Truth, morals based on an objective standard, etc. Humanists have failed to comprehend one of the greatest of all truths—that the “fear of the Lord” is both “the beginning of knowledge” and “the beginning of wisdom” (Proverbs 1:7; 9:10).
True wisdom is in Christ (1 Corinthians 1:30).
He alone is the way, the Truth, and the life, and no one comes to the Father but by Him (John 14:6).
It is His Truth that will make us free (John 8:32) and protect us from the “philosophy and vain deceit after the tradition of men” which is able to destroy us (Colossians 2:8)…
It is the Christian system that places man in his proper place in the Universe—as a specially created being (Genesis 1:26-27) made a little lower than the angels (Psalm 8:4-5). Man is not “up from the slime” as humanism advocates, but instead is “down from heaven.”
In addition, Christianity correctly teaches that ethics is not situational, but instead always must be based on God’s Word since in that Word we find “all things that pertain unto life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3). Far from being situational, the ethical system of the Bible is governed by revelation provided by the Creator.
Prohibitions against many of the things that humanism advocates are frequent in the divinely inspired text (1 Corinthians 6:9-19; Romans 1:26-32; Matthew 5:27; Matthew 19:9; Genesis 2:24, etc.)
…The wisdom that man values so highly, God often sets at nought (1 Corinthians 3:19-21; 2:6; 1:19-21). The Bible urges us to pray often (1 Thessalonians 5:17), with the assurance that we will be heard by our God (Matthew 7:7-8). Humanism denies these things.
The Bible warns us against “friendship with the world which is enmity with God” (James 4:4) and promises us instead the “abundant life” (John 10:10) through Christ. Jesus Himself promised eternal life to those who were faithful to God (John 17:3; Matthew 10:32-33; John 14:1-3,23-24).”
The Apologist Press also has this interesting quote from Aldous Huxley from “Confessions of a Professed Atheist,” which addresses some of the underlying motivators behind one of the leading thinkers in modern humanism:
“…I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently, assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption.… The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do.… For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom (Huxley, Aldous (1966), “Confessions of a Professed Atheist,” Report: Perspective on the News, 3:19).”
I’ll post a separate reply in regards to the condemnation of Christians who believe the Bible’s prophecies about the Apocalypse — particularly refuting the claim that the Bible teaches Christians to “bury their head in the sand and not be motivated to help the world since there’s going to be an Apocalypse anyways.” The Bible actually teaches the opposite: that because we are expecting the Messiah to return again (immediately after the Apocalypse), that motivates us to live the most selfless life we can possibly live, serving and loving others and preaching the Good News. Just because some Christians refuse to obey that teaching and choose instead to live very self-absorbed, destructive lives — and these Christians are always trumpeted as being representative of the faith by Christianity’s opponents — that does not mean that Christ and the Scriptures ever taught them to do that.
Lana, here is my second response to your request. This is in regards to the condemnation of Christians who believe the Bible’s prophecies about the Apocalypse — particularly refuting the claim that the Bible teaches Christians to “bury their head in the sand” and not be motivated to help the world “since there’s going to be an Apocalypse anyways” — those kinds of accusations. 2 Peter 3:3-13 clearly shows that the Bible’s teaching about the Apocalypse motivates Christians to live better lives and treat the time they have as precious.
Here’s 2 Peter 3:3-13:
“3 Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.
8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare.[a]
11 Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12 as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming.[b] That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. 13 But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.”
This abomination wasn’t just telling us that we don’t need God. It clearly communicated what Satan has always done throughout the Bible “Kill all the prophets!” From Saul pursuing David, Jezebel murdering all the prophets except Elijah, Jeremiah throne in the pit, Mishac, Shadrach, and Abednego, Daniel thrown to the lions, John the Baptist decapitated, Jesus hung on the cross, Stephen, Peter and the list goes on and on. “Oh Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city who stones the prophets and murders those who are sent to her.”
This movie is clearly demonic and I cannot BELIEVE so many “CHRISTIANS” can’t see and mention nothing of this in their reviews! God Help US!
BTW
Thank you for being the first to even pick up on the antichrist scent in this film after reading 8 other “Christian” reviews.
Thanks, Danielle, for your comments — appreciate it. And your point about the historical precedent of the enemy always seeking to criticize and/or destroy the prophets was fascinating, especially considering, as you mentioned, how the script specifically targeted the sacred prophecies in Revelation, Daniel, the Gospels, etc. about the last days. Very interesting point.
What is exceptionally disturbing about this antichrist propaganda film is not only their rejection of scripture but the specific call to murder the prophets. They portray the man warning and calling for a change as the one who is making it all happen. He then is smashed and murdered in a very sadistic way while the camera jets over to the new utopia and we see the worthless, smiling “optimist” look square in the camera and says something like -We don’t need those kind of people at all; we need “dreamers.”
Same old devil. Nothing new here to see, carry on.
I never would have seen this abomination but my mother in law wanted to take my children to a movie. Never again. We don’t usually go to theaters. It has been at least 4 years and hopefully it was the last time.
I am so sad for all the people who are coming under this great deception.
Now I have to figure out how to explain this film to my children. It’s delusion was very strong and they were not prepared for this kind of an attack. It is soooo subtle. I’d say it is even worse than The Golden Compass.
It was very surprising, just like you said. Based on the marketing, I never would have imagined that it would go in that direction. It gave the film a very weird tone. Even many of the secular critics didn’t like it because it had such an unexpected, off-kilter tone.