Do we know if the weather can be controlled by a group of scientists, some big corporation or even some country’s government? Not really. But is it possible? And if yes, how that can even be achieved? And if that’s achieved, will that happen in our timeline or for the generations to come? All these questions have been examined in “Geostorm” by Dean Devlin. Being negatively received by the critics as well as the audience, this sci-fi thriller offers a controversial look in a very generic way. I can understand why it did not get enough recognition. However, it touched an interesting point that made me review this film in first place.
“Geostorm” follows a NASA engineer and scientist Jake Lawson (Gerard Butler) who has to make a tough decision in order to save the planet – to destroy the device he has created to control the global climate. The Dutch Boy Program is a net of satellites armed with geoengineering technologies, created to prevent natural disasters. Yet, as a global malfunction occurs in the network of the Dutch Boy, it begins to trigger a simultaneous catastrophic weather event. One such event gives a start to another similar event to happen around the world as soon as it passes its minimum threshold. One storm will cause another storm to turn into a new reaction until they emerge together, known as a geostorm. In his big fight against the clock, Jake’s younger brother Max Lawson (Jim Sturgess) attempts to help. However, they meet unforeseen challenges caused by humans.
As soon as the film begins – and to be more precise from the very first scene, the viewer is introduced to Jake Lawson’s character as a leader. In the court, he stands up for his colleagues as if they were his own children. Despite his skills, he gets fired immediately by his own brother and is sent off for three long years. Then we are taken several years forward and learn about the Dutch Boy which is meant to save the Planet by controlling the weather.
Nevertheless, as the story unfolds, predictably though (because we humans are who we are), it turns out that device, created to bring positive change to humanity, is turned into a weapon by someone, who apparently, wants the world to be destroyed. Based on what we learn about geostorm, no one will be left alive after the disastrous cycle comes to an end. Well, laughable or not, truth or false, the film more or less tries to build up the tension to be proceeded by the excitement. The director Dean Devlin, who co-wrote the screenplay with Paul Guyot, tackles an interesting point but does not give the viewer a chance to enjoy it much. And one could ask why should we be excited to see so many people dying in the film. Well, I think that’s a trend dictated by the new generation of viewers.
In conclusion, “Geostorm” is not that awful, even if at times it looks ridiculously dull. Even that does not stop the viewer from having a good time. The film has its good and bad guys – nothing new about that. It is also not a new approach that we – the people – are the ones who cause all the damage to our planet and continuously kill innocents for a so-called great cause. It’s because of that message that I truly admired and enjoyed watching “Geostorm” without paying much attention to its other side. After all, as a film critic, I do not look for a reason to kill the film, but rather try to find something that may interest you despite the negative opinions you might find online. Whether I have succeeded or not, will not matter until you make your choice – to watch it or not. Whichever is the case, your opinion is appreciated and respected.