Skip to main content

I’m just glad Will Smith isn’t alive to see this.

The Tomorrow War
(2021)

(SPOILERS). Not so much tomorrow as yesterday. There’s a strong sense of déjà vu watching The Tomorrow War, so doggedly derivative is it of every time-travel/alien war/apocalyptic sci-fi movie of the past forty years. Not helping it stand out from the pack are doughy lead Chris Pratt, damned to look forever on the beefy side no matter how ripped he is and lacking the chops or gravitas for straight roles, and debut live-action director Chris McKay, who manages to deliver the goods in a serviceably anonymous fashion.

Which kind of figures. Many animation directors have graduated to live action, and you can usually see a similar sensibility at work to their former medium (Brad Bird with Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol, Andrew Stanton with John Carter, Travis Knight with Bumblebee). McKay is ex- of Robot Chicken and was a director on The Lego Movie and The Lego Batman Movie. Visual panache is always secondary to yucks, therefore, which means a massive spectacle like The Tomorrow War, where yucks aren’t the focus unless Sam Richardson is centre frame, gets by in a strictly functional manner. You know, the way all those MCU movies do regardless of director, thanks to honed second unit and FX teams.

Pratt’s as emptily forgettable here as he has been in anything where he wasn’t Peter Quill (so Jurassic Worlds, Passengers). As Dan Forester, he’s a devastating combination of former green beret and science teacher, convinced there’s more to life than serving as a cardigan-wearing devoted father and loving husband. That he has some untold destiny, despite being turned down for a job at a research centre. He has daddy issues too, owing to estrangement from JK Simmons’ conspiracy theory-loving Nam veteran James.

On one fateful day in 2022, kiss-ass women from the future interrupt the Qatar World Cup, protesting the working conditions that produced all the stadiums. Announcing “We are you thirty years in the future” and “We need you to fight beside us. You are our last hope”, they initiate a worldwide draft, all peoples united under the globalist masterstroke of an alien-invasion narrative (“For the first time in human history, the armed forces from every nation are united against one enemy”). And eventually, although it takes about a year, one of those drafted is Dan.

While it’s probably a safe bet that Chris will one day be the size of Brendan Fraser, it turns out that alter-ego Dan need not worry about such matters; he’s dead in the future (more on that in a moment). His daughter is alive, however. Previously seen as Ryan Kiera Armstrong, Muri is now played by Yvonne Strahovski, grown up to be a kick-ass female colonel (there’s a theme developing here; I may have it wrong, but I suspect, in the future, all women will be free to find fulfilment through being as brainlessly macho as men). And a scientist: “I guess when you’re down to less than 500,000 people on the planet, you wear a few hats”. Muri Sue is supremely capable and skilled at everything, then. Only, well… daddy issues. Yep, just like Dan and James (“You quit because you’re a coward” – yawn): “You left us”. Muri manages to cling on to the super-capableness, however, because she doesn’t need dad to find out what’s stopping the toxin they have developed from acting on the queen Whitespike; she just needs him to return it to the past.

Unfortunately, this Forward to the Future scenario has very little wit involved, and its emotional content is largely a lead weight. It’s more than a little amusing, though, that for all the very visible attempts at gender parity, The Tomorrow War finds its third act turning on a father and son overcoming their differences to destroy a fearsomely fertile female foe. Plus, dad rather emasculates and disenfranchises his daughter, denying her agency and future fulfilment (yeah, yeah, I know, Muri saves the future, but at what cost her aspirations?)

On top of such familial strife and resolution, there’s the thorny issue of how precisely time travel functions in The Tomorrow War. And the answer is, not without difficulties. Indeed, while some Gremlins 2-style gestures are made to the inscrutability of specific operations, the end result is akin to coughing audibly while giving an explanation. Which is merely symptomatic of a movie playing fast and loose with exposition and internal logic generally. While it’s explained new recruits don’t know what the Whitespikes look like because they’d be too unnerved to fight them if they did – although, given veterans groups and repeat tours, it’s inconceivable this information would not have leaked out – if Dan is anything to go by, the general public don’t even have any idea of the draft procedure, complete with painfully installed transhumanist arm clamps – enabling time travel – and punishment for draft evasion resulting in imprisonment and/or being replaced by one’s spouse or dependents.

A tour is only seven days, on the basis that, in intentionally profane manner, the Whitespikes return to their nests every seven days, on the Sabbath, “their day of rest”. To avoid paradoxes, draftees must be dead in 2051 to time jump. Likewise, the trainers sent back haven’t been born yet. Which is all very well, but what about any and every action and conversation of those returning to 2022 leading to an altered future? Of the very future intervention leading to a changed/constantly changing 2051? This isn’t clarified, but one assumes (a) they’re saying it doesn’t and (b) those returning from 2051 didn’t grow up in a world where the threat of alien invasion in 2048 was always known about, hence the scenario in which Dan left and died following a car wreck at 11.23 on October 13 2030 (just in time for Agenda 2030). The only way – as usual – for this premise to make sense would be to have infinitely variable parallel timelines branching from any choice or change. Otherwise, you get a daft scenario like Timecrimes, of characters somehow purposefully and consciously enacting their very movements to fulfil the pre-existing timeline.

The Tomorrow War throws a few sops: “Why not jump to an earlier point in the war?” asks Norah (Mary Lynn Rajskub, from 24). “The jump link doesn’t work that way” she is sagely told. You see “Time only flows in one direction”. Except, presumably when you’re jumping into the past: “The jump link placed two rafts in the river thirty years apart”. Ah but screenwriter Zach Dean has thought of an objection to his conceit; he’s way ahead of you: “So why can’t we build more rafts?” The answer is reasonably pathetic, that they only have one machine, made with “chewing gum and chicken wire” and they have to make do. In other words, because reasons (it doesn’t explain why they can’t dump a hundred scientists and engineers in 2040, say, and make all the rafts they need in time for 2051 (which, as if it needs stating, consists of standard-issue urban devastation imagery: a grey, uninteresting, sunless virtual landscape of smoking skyscrapers). I’m sure Dean has a “because reasons” for that too (probably something to do with idiosyncratic portals).

If the time-travel element is typically ill-thought out and nonsensical, it’s only matched by the consummately generic approach to the aliens. If you’ve seen Starship Troopers, Edge of Tomorrow and A Quiet Place, you’ll know the kind of CGI gubbins to expect. Except that the first two of these were devastatingly cynical and satisfyingly plotted respectively, and the third, while nonsensical in premise when inspected with more than a brief glance, succeeded on the basis of a taut little B-movie. The bugs in The Tomorrow War just make you feel weary. Fast, snappy, impervious. Except when Dan needs to engage in fisticuffs with one or his magic daughter leaps down a hole to tackle the queen (“Someone get a harpoon on that tentacle!” is a doozy of a stinker line).

Dean has other movie “inspirations” to draw on besides, though; the Whitespikes hang their victims upside down from the ceiling, pheasant – or Predator – style. Somehow too, thirty years in the future, folk are bafflingly dense. Perhaps you need seven billion rather than half a million to solve the puzzle of “One day they were just here”. Or a timeline in which Spielberg’s War of the Worlds never existed. Dan’s wife Emmy (Betty Gilpin), instantly a spouse of the sort you’d actively want to go and fight in a future war to escape, miraculously realises the reason the aliens “avoided all satellite and radar” when they arrived, and “started tearing apart Russia” is because they’ve been here all long (I couldn’t claim the significance of picking Russia as the first port of call, but I’d hazard the evidence of “volcanic ash and it’s not from Russia. It’s from China” as contributing evidence isn’t a coincidence).

What follows applies an Alien meets The Thing template, as the team visit a spaceship crash site within the largest glacier in Russia, with Whitespikes aboard as cargo “ready to breed like cattle, or weapons”. They are “planet-clearing weapons” (so a bit like the jabs in that regard). The icing on the cake is that their surfacing now is all down to dratted global warming, I mean climate change: “They didn’t wait it out. They thawed out”. GRETA!!!! Are you watching?

Particularly egregious in all this is the lumpen signposting of plot points. We have Chekov’s ancient volcanoes in almost the first scene, such that Dan’s student, obsessed with the subject, is later called on for the skinny on the Millennium Eruption of 946 AD (doubtless one of those authoritative dates). Why didn’t they ask an actual scientist? As for Charlie, Chekov’s fastest-growing geothermal energy company CEO, it’s the same deal. There’s even an Alien vs Predator moment on the glacier, although why the makers wanted to invoke that one is beyond me (and why inject the toxins into the Whitespikes and wake them up; surely it would have been less dangerous simply to blow up the ship immediately?)

Amid the blunderingly obvious on the plotting side, predictive programming is naturally rife. There’s the prerequisite apocalyptic fatalism (“We’ve seen the number projections. We lose. Period”). Those marching for “No more war!” are, of course, wrong, despite entirely validly protesting the sight-unseen threat they are told requires drastic action (now, where is a real-world correlative to sight-unseen threats…) As noted, this menace is seen to bring the world together (rather like the entire world agreeing on a plandemic, except for a few rogue states. They’ll all likely get behind the fake alien invasion too).

Dan: What are you doing?
Muri: Looking for vaccines.
Dan: Oh, did you find any?
Muri: Not really.

Most shamelessly, young Muri is a hugely precocious autodidact, given to asking her father impertinently “Do you know who Selman Waksman is?” before continuing “He discovered the vaccine for tuberculosis”. He found it “in the dirt with worms and poop”. Instead of moping about his destiny (“I know that I have some purpose”), dad should be concerned over the garbage his daughter is spouting. But you see, it’s this obsession with vaccines that will lead to Muri saving the world. Little Muri, who has a large butterfly image on her bedroom wall (MKUltra/Project Monarch programming). Sadly, little Muri is unable to find any vaccines in the dirt. By the time she is an adult, however, she has given up on them, instead focussing her efforts on their main ingredient. That’s right: toxins. It’s toxins that will do for the Whitespikes (a spike being akin to a needle, or something used for injection purposes).

As if to support this, while Dan is telling his despondent class “I know it seems pretty bad, but if there’s one thing the world needs right now, it’s scientists” (through, you know, innovating), what he actually says of his subject is “It’s magic, if you think about it”. Yes, indeed it is, Dan. While we’re on the subject of double meanings, “The way things are going, we’ll be lucky if we don’t kill each other off, long before the aliens get here” is quite telling. And suggestions to “Go tell the UN, and they can think about it until we’re all dead”, and if they get world governments involved “It could turn into a nightmare” promote the idea of benign ineptitude rather than active complicity when it comes to the depopulation agenda.

Of which, the 2050 date reminds me rather of Z/Xabnodax telling how it will be from his perch of insight, amid copious gang stalking, whereby there will be a singularity somewhere around 2045 unless the truly ensouled ones, the 144,000/169,000, win out (a few less than 500,000, but in the same ballpark of diminishment). Z may not have written the screenplay for The Tomorrow War, but it neatly covers a 2020-50 period seen by many as fundamental to an endgame process, in whichever direction it takes us, that is going on now.

The Tomorrow War is not a good movie. It might have got by if McKay were a more inventive director and Pratt a more charismatic “straight” action lead. As it is, Strahovski acts him off screen when it comes to the clichéd emotional beats, and Simmons knocks him to the floor with the funny ones (in fairness, Richardson is pretty funny too, although I could have done with his Sergeant Al Powell moment after earlier hiding like a coward). How might The Tomorrow War have fared for Paramount had it debuted unhampered in the cinemas? At a $200m budget, I’d suggest they were fortunate Amazon was there to pick up the tab (they didn’t have much cash left for the poster by the looks of things; that photoshop makes MCU efforts look like Drew Struzan). There’s nothing here audiences haven’t seen before, and as Passengers proved, Pratt isn’t really a draw when he isn’t accompanied by dinosaurs or a talking raccoon.


Popular posts from this blog

Doctors make the worst patients.

Coma (1978) (SPOILERS) Michael Crichton’s sophomore big-screen feature, and by some distance his best. Perhaps it’s simply that this a milieu known to him, or perhaps it’s that it’s very much aligned to the there-and-now and present, but Coma , despite the occasional lapse in this adaptation of colleague Robin Cook’s novel, is an effective, creepy, resonant thriller and then some. Crichton knows his subject, and it shows – the picture is confident and verisimilitudinous in a way none of his other directorial efforts are – and his low-key – some might say clinical – approach pays dividends. You might also call it prescient, but that would be to suggest its subject matter wasn’t immediately relevant then too.

The Bible never said anything about amphetamines.

The Color of Money (1986) (SPOILERS) I tend to think it’s evident when Scorsese isn’t truly exercised by material. He can still invest every ounce of the technical acumen at his fingertips, and the results can dazzle on that level, but you don’t really feel the filmmaker in the film. Which, for one of his pictures to truly carry a wallop, you need to do. We’ve seen quite a few in such deficit in recent years, most often teaming with Leo. The Color of Money , however, is the first where it was out-and-out evident the subject matter wasn’t Marty’s bag. He needed it, desperately, to come off, but in the manner a tradesman who wants to keep getting jobs. This sequel to The Hustler doesn’t linger in the mind, however good it may be, moment by moment.

Abandon selective targeting. Shoot everything.

28 Weeks Later (2007) (SPOILERS) The first five minutes of 28 Weeks Later are far and away the best part of this sequel, offering in quick succession a devastating moral quandary and a waking nightmare, immortalised on the screen. After that, while significantly more polished, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo reveals his concept to be altogether inferior to Danny Boyle and Alex Garland’s, falling back on the crutches of gore, nihilism, and disengaging and limiting shifts of focus between characters in whom one has little investment in the first place.

I said I had no family. I didn’t say I had an empty apartment.

The Apartment (1960) (SPOILERS) Billy Wilder’s romcom delivered the genre that rare Best Picture Oscar winner. Albeit, The Apartment amounts to a rather grim (now) PG-rated scenario, one rife with adultery, attempted suicide, prostitution of the soul and subjective thereof of the body. And yet, it’s also, finally, rather sweet, so salving the darker passages and evidencing the director’s expertly judged balancing act. Time Out ’s Tom Milne suggested the ending was a cop out (“ boy forgives girl and all’s well ”). But really, what other ending did the audience or central characters deserve?

Your desecration of reality will not go unpunished.

2021-22 Best-of, Worst-of and Everything Else Besides The movies might be the most visible example of attempts to cling onto cultural remnants as the previous societal template clatters down the drain. It takes something people really want – unlike a Bond movie where he kicks the can – to suggest the model of yesteryear, one where a billion-dollar grosser was like sneezing. You can argue Spider-Man: No Way Home is replete with agendas of one sort or another, and that’s undoubtedly the case (that’s Hollywood), but crowding out any such extraneous elements (and they often are) is simply a consummate crowd-pleaser that taps into tangible nostalgia through its multiverse take. Of course, nostalgia for a mere seven years ago, for something you didn’t like anyway, is a symptom of how fraught these times have become.

You just threw a donut in the hot zone!

Den of Thieves (2018) (SPOILERS) I'd heard this was a shameless  Heat  rip-off, and the presence of Gerard Butler seemed to confirm it would be passable-at-best B-heist hokum, so maybe it was just middling expectations, even having heard how enthused certain pockets of the Internet were, but  Den of Thieves  is a surprisingly very satisfying entry in the genre. I can't even fault it for attempting to Keyser Soze the whole shebang at the last moment – add a head in a box and you have three 1995 classics in one movie – even if that particular conceit doesn’t quite come together.

This guy’s armed with a hairdryer.

An Innocent Man (1989) (SPOILERS) Was it a chicken-and-egg thing with Tom Selleck and movies? Did he consistently end up in ropey pictures because other, bigger big-screen stars had first dibs on the good stuff? Or was it because he was a resolutely small-screen guy with limited range and zero good taste? Selleck had about half-a-dozen cinema outings during the 1980s, one of which, the very TV, very Touchstone Three Men and a Baby was a hit, but couldn’t be put wholly down to him. The final one was An Innocent Man , where he attempted to show some grit and mettle, as nice-guy Tom is framed and has to get tough to survive. Unfortunately, it’s another big-screen TV movie.

Listen to the goddamn qualified scientists!

Don’t Look Up (2021) (SPOILERS) It’s testament to Don’t Look Up ’s “quality” that critics who would normally lap up this kind of liberal-causes messaging couldn’t find it within themselves to grant it a free pass. Adam McKay has attempted to refashion himself as a satirist since jettisoning former collaborator Will Ferrell, but as a Hollywood player and an inevitably socio-politically partisan one, he simply falls in line with the most obvious, fatuous propagandising.

Archimedes would split himself with envy.

Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger (1977) (SPOILERS) Generally, this seems to be the Ray Harryhausen Sinbad outing that gets the short straw in the appreciation stakes. Which is rather unfair. True, Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger lacks Tom Baker and his rich brown voice personifying evil incarnate – although Margaret Whiting more than holds her own in the wickedness stakes – and the structure follows the Harryhausen template perhaps over scrupulously (Beverly Cross previously collaborated with the stop-motion auteur on Jason and the Argonauts , and would again subsequently with Clash of the Titans ). But the storytelling is swift and sprightly, and the animation itself scores, achieving a degree of interaction frequently more proficient than its more lavishly praised peer group.

Captain, he who walks in fire will burn his feet.

The Golden Voyage of Sinbad (1973) (SPOILERS) Ray Harryhausen returns to the kind of unadulterated fantasy material that made Jason and the Argonauts such a success – swords & stop motion, if you like. In between, there were a couple of less successful efforts, HG Wells adaptation First Men in the Moon and The Valley of the Gwangi (which I considered the best thing ever as a kid: dinosaur walks into a cowboy movie). Harryhausen’s special-effects supremacy – in a for-hire capacity – had also been consummately eclipsed by Raquel Welch’s fur bikini in One Million Years B.C . The Golden Voyage of Sinbad follows the expected Dynamation template – blank-slate hero, memorable creatures, McGuffin quest – but in its considerable favour, it also boasts a villainous performance by nobody-at-the-time, on-the-cusp-of-greatness Tom Baker.