I saw it on a plane last week. I liked it even though it was kind of a kids' movie. I played it around my kids, and I was surprised that my daughter was very interested. I think it was because the protagonists are girls. I don't encourage my kids to think of themselves as an identity group, but at this age (age 5) she is drawn to stories with girls.

What's great is this story is about girls doing something, not being a love interest or concerned only with girlie things. There's so much of that. Many toys/movies marketed to boys are about doing things, and stuff marketed to girls is about looking in the mirror.

Someone asked in another thread if it's like AS. There were some similarities at the end when it showed all the hard-working people in the world receiving invitations, but it's not the same story and isn't trying to be.

The film presents the optimistic engineer worldview, which is my worldview, in way children can understand.

Just watched this movie last night with my family and though they had that "feel good" feeling after finishing it, none of them really nailed down the reason why (none have read Atlas Shrugged except me)/

Anyway, while watching Tomorrowland I immediately noticed how eerily similar it was to Atlas Shrugged and so googled it and found this forum.

I liked the movie. Am I a fan of George Clooney? Not really, but I like approaching new things with a "let us see" mindset and who knows, maybe George Clooney is starting to become a fan of Rand. I know I didn't become a Rand fan until I turned 27 years old when I first read Atlas Shrugged. It's out on Redbox now so ~$2 is worth it for those sitting on the fence. I think Tomorrowland did a way better job than the released "Atlas Shrugged" movies regarding visuals. No offense, but the AS movies were real cheesy "B" movies and I believe acting/visuals really sell an idea more effectively to the mainstream audience. We are creatures with sensing organs.

Political undertones? I didn't really sense much of it. There were some things I did notice that were out of place. Tomorrowland demonizes greed, and at the end of the movie SPOILERS BELOW



The new recruits to Tomorrowland are mostly black individuals. Is this a play towards changing the AA social issue in America? It seems like it. Govenor Nix uses The Monitor (future predicting device) to put negative thoughts in the heads of people living on Earth to want to destroy themselves which is totally opposite of what John Galt would do (wanting power over people's lives). Why would Nix even want to purposely do this? If The Monitor is correct and Nix knows the human race will wipe itself out, all he has to do is play the waiting game.

Anyway, this is my first significant post and I hope to participate in some good discussions.

TLDR: I believe it's worth a watch, regardless if you like Clooney or not. There are some great actors kid actors in the movie!

I find all the comments so far very interesting to read. It took about half way down the post to express the politics of the movie. I would have thought it would have been near the top. I can definitely agree with a lot of dislike about George Clooney, I only wonder why that is. My Special Needs daughter likes scary, action, and futuristic type of movies. She took mom and dad to see this one last weekend. I don't follow movies much, in fact I can't even name any others that are playing, so as soon as I saw the sign with George Clooney on it I was sorry I went along. Somehow liberal politics popped into my mind. I went into the theater with a preconceived idea that somehow it would be a politically correct movie with some underlying theme promoting something I disagree with. That generates most of my dislike for George. I took the movie as a plot to bring more people over to the Global Warming theory, and the little pin we got as a reminder of how we're destroying the earth. To me the whole movie was to impress people that we were willing the earth to be destroyed and that we had to change our ways in order to save it.

Ok but Neil's whole post pointed out that this movie has a good message. Not the type that you might expect from a clooney movie. So you're objection seems to rest merely on the political views of one of the actors. Thus my point.

I think the point being missed here is the bully pulpit part. Clooney uses it to influence people to what in my opinion are evil ideas and concepts. Why would I in good conscience support his movies? Trust me, if my doctor was well known in town for promoting evil ideas through a political platform I 'd choose another doctor. It's the influence and use of their professional standing that is the thing -not just actors. But since their name and face recognition has alot of pull, they have unique influence over sheeple.

Nope, haven't missed the point.

I choose movies based on genre and message, not on the performance of the actors. People tend, naturally, to drift toward that which reinforces their beliefs. George Clooney has strong political leanings. The movies in which he appears usually reflect his leanings. As a result I tend to find I'm not interested in seeing or supporting the movies in which he appears.

Does the political leaning of an actor affect his performance?

Once again, you seem to miss the point. The point is that you would not choose a doctor for their politics even though the money you give that doctor might go to causes that you disagree with. Yet you are applying that same criteria to actors.

Competence is not at issue here. A doctor can be highly qualified and knowledgeable and still provide care based on reimbursement rather than patient need. It is a moral/ethical issue and has nothing to do with competence.

If you wish to discuss this further, please PM me or we can start a separate discussion on "Does the political leaning of the medical provider affect his practice?"

No worries, jns, It's just a film; we can disagree on it. I may or may not agree with you about how to change the culture,but my moniker does supply a hint.

Sorry, I meant to type emasculating.

Way to make a complete non sequiter by basically arguing about the competence of the doctor and their concern for payment - which has nothing to do with political beliefs or the topic at hand.

Did you like it? How about the message?