Oblivion (Tom Cruise)

johnny_ultimate

pixelburp wrote: »

All that said, I don't agree with some in this thread who are decrying this film as dreadful, or even "worst of the year" - that's a patently ludicrous thing to say given that only a month back Movie 43 came out & destroyed our faith in humanity. Or that Scary Movie 5 opened this weekend.

Just to pedantically clarify my stance earlier on, there is a big difference between saying "this film is the worst of the year" and "this film is one of the worst I've seen this year". I would hope that most people posting here haven't seen Movie 43 and Scary Movie 5. While going by the people who have had to suffer through those films suggests that objectively they are indeed worse, I can only base my own opinion on the ones that I have seen. I have seen one or two truly deplorable films since January - Welcome to the Punch and *shudder* Struck by Lightning spring to mind, although I may have purged one or two more - Oblivion is still way down the quality spectrum.

But then again I would argue that this film is probably less than mediocre. A mediocre film can be basically functional and coherent - two modest traits Oblivion is not guilty of.

don ramo

it was a pretty decent film in and of itself, it would entertain most 15-24 years olds that watch primarily hollywood blockbusters, and noting made before before 1999, or any independent films, a lot more than someone like me who consumes about 400 odd films a year and of varying degrees of the movie spectrum,

its not a bad film, it just shows hollywood seems to have a go to formula for films like this, and its safe, it will appeal to most people, and being fair i dont feel like i was ripped off or taken advantage of by the advertising of this film, i enjoyed it, it was well done for the most part, i dont think anything was wrong with the casting, all the role could have been played by any number of actors out there, its irrelevant if tom cruise, brad pitt or joseph gordon levitt played the lead role, the film would have been directed the same way with the same story,

must say the main thing still playing on my mind was that the

drones just stopped working when the TEK was taken out, why, they are per-programmed to do tasks, and each have their own independent power source on-board, its really annoying seeing as they made such a big issue in the film about taking their power core to make the "nuke"

humanji

I watched this last night and thought it was ok. Nothing amazing. I thought the best thing about it was trying to figure out which bits had been stolen from other films and tv shows. I guess that's not a good thing for a film to strive for, but it's what kept me watching.

thegreengoblin

SimonTemplar wrote: »

This kind of bull really annoys me. I was tempted to go to that 8:30 screening in IMAX but went to screen 9 at 8:00 instead. I'm glad I made that decision. I saw two movies today in packed screens (this and A Place Beyond The Pines) and both audiences were as quite as a church with only the very occasional rustling of bags. To be honest, Cineworld isn't an ideal cinema (noisy popcorn paper bags, dodgy location, certain clientele) but as I go to the cinema about 200 movies a year, their unlimited card saves me thousands of euro a year so I've little choice. However, I do think it is a little better than its reputation would suggest. I've gone there about 200 times a year since 2007 and I've only had 3 or 4 really negative experiences. That is a healthy ratio. Having said that, I do usually try to avoid weekends.

In fairness, it was the first time I've seen that happen in Cineworld. I've never had any problems there before. I was just annoyed and surprised that this scumbag would have picked an IMAX screening to indulge in some knuckle dragging. I suspect he got a free pass or bunked in because I couldn't see him paying 16 quid to go and see a film. I usually try and go in the mornings or early afternoon to avoid this type of stuff but on this occasion I had to go to a later show. I would have liked to have seen him thrown out quicker than he was but hopefully he is now banned from the place.

helimachoptor

Yep definite parts of Independence Day but all in all it was enjoyable.

People really need to switch off a little to watch these types of films i think

unreggd

Was a mish-mash of Independence Day and The Island

As mentioned, it's enjoyable. Not great, not crap. Visuals were great though

Trine

I really enjoyed this movie, I'm a sucker for stylish sci-fi that succeeds in visually creating a futuristic world in great detail. I can forgive it for "borrowing" some well covered sci-fi mechanics, it was quite well told, slick and a visual/aural treat.

Like previous posters said I really got a HL2/Portal/Mass Effect vibe off a lot of the design, the drones in particular. I loved them. The noises they made in particular, menacing and disturbing. It felt very tense and uncomfortable when they were around. They were both hero and villain, cute and terrifying at different points in the movie. Great stuff.

For all the criticism of Tom Cruise, I thought he was fine in this film. And even if he was a little wooden, more the reason you could take your eyes off him to admire the eye candy around him. There were some absolute cheese moments in that small flying ship though, where the camera would zoom suddenly to Tom or Olga's face, which made me cringe a little...but that was surely the director and not the actor's fault.

I avoid trailers completely for films I want to see, and thankfully did for this one. However, even the damn promotional poster that had Morgan Freeman on it spoiled it for me.

Once I knew he was in it, and we are told there are only two people left on a devastated earth, it was plainly obvious there would be some kind of underground human resistance force

. That bugged me.

Speaking of bugs...I really don't get people who pick plot holes like

"why did the drones just stop when the TET was destroyed?

"...if you can suspend your perception of reality for a sci-fi film,

and accept that aliens have blown up the moon and are attacking earth with drones,

can you not also be creative and fill in the blanks for such small issues?

Can you not accept that maybe there is another link required between the mothership and the drones? Maybe some kind of fail safe? Maybe some kind of constant communications link is required? Maybe the explosion triggered something that the preprogrammed code couldn't compute? There are as many reasons why they should have deactivated as there are against them having done so. Same can be said for why the ejected ship with the sleeping crew was able to escape from the TET...maybe the tractor beam being used only locked onto the cockpit. Maybe the aliens were only interested in taking the two humans in the cockpit. Maybe the cockpit section shielded the sleep section from the gravity beam.

It's a sci-fi film! How can you let small things like this bug you yet accept massive leaps in logic?

krudler

The last act was basically

The Matrix Revolutions means Independence Day meets 2001, hero flies to oddly shaped spacecraft, which takes over his flight path, enters through a huge triangular door, flies though strange empty ship only to meet the villain which is a giant red eye with changing appearance and texture, only to ignite a bomb just after delivering a one liner

The most interesting part of the film was never even explored properly, the

multiple versions of Cruise, and their conscious self

did anyone else find it way too much of a leap that the earth looked like that after

only 50 or so years? there's no way the entirety of New York would be covered like that after that amount of time.

helimachoptor

krudler wrote: »

The last act was basically [spoiler
did anyone else find it way too much of a leap that the earth looked like that after

only 50 or so years? there's no way the entirety of New York would be covered like that after that amount of time.

It's hard to know,

the majority of human culture may have been buried due to massive tectonic shifts which mean that it only took a few years for the grass to cover stuff etc

Antar Bolaeisk

Trine wrote: »

Speaking of bugs...I really don't get people who pick plot holes like

"why did the drones just stop when the TET was destroyed?

"

Well, earlier in the film they had already established that the drones were capable of operating independently of a link back to the mothership, both when Tom Cruise was under fire in the library (he had no comms back so we can assume the drone wouldn't have any either as they'd be using a similar technology) and the rogue drone programmed to take out the mothership, clearly it had to operate without a constant comm link back to the mothership. Their base in the sky also lost communications with the Tet as it exited line of sight, did all the drones just go to sleep at night?

Trine wrote: »

It's a sci-fi film! How can you let small things like this bug you yet accept massive leaps in logic?

For that very reason, science fiction should mean more than stuff blowing up in the future.

listermint

Quite Enjoyed it, went to see it on saturday. Looked beautiful, i did enjoy some twists in it. As i was a blank canvas to the background of the film.

Worthy my cinema money.

SouthTippBass

So what happens all the other Tom Cruise clones still on Earth? Do they all just starve to death after losing connection with the Tet? Nobody explained the situation to the clones after all. Where did Morgan Freeman get that Cigar? And how did Tom close that door to the hypersleep chamber in a zero-G enviroment? Just a few things that bugged me after I got home!

Amalgam

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

A lot of the plot is similar to a Swiss scifi film called Cargo released a few years ago,its a good show.

Many thanks, I picked up on Cargo after your mention of it..

Cargo (2009 ) www.imdb.com/title/tt0381940/

Outkast_IRE

SouthTippBass wrote: »

So what happens all the other Tom Cruise clones still on Earth? Do they all just starve to death after losing connection with the Tet? Nobody explained the situation to the clones after all. Where did Morgan Freeman get that Cigar? And how did Tom close that door to the hypersleep chamber in a zero-G enviroment? Just a few things that bugged me after I got home!

Surely the group that morgan freeman was in was probably only one of many, and the other tom cruise guys will have their ships still so will have supplies in their bases. Did the situaiton with the clones need explaining? basically as morgan freeman said they used the original tom cruise and clones thousands of him to fight their war on the ground. To be honest i dont watch sci-fi and try to knitpick at small things.
However i will say some extra time spent on the story and a little less on flying action scenes would of went a long way

Kiith

I enjoyed it. Not fantastic by any means, but enjoyable with some decent performances, especially Andrea Riseborough. Yes there were plot holes, and yes some of it was ripped straight out of other films, but that didn't take away any of the enjoyment factor for me.

Enjoyed the soundtrack as well, though it was no Tron Legacy.

403 Forbidden

thegreengoblin wrote: »

Saw it last night in the IMAX and as a spectacle it was hugely impressive. The effects were as good as any I've seen. But the amount of references to other films was just taking the piss by the end. Moon, 2001, Planet of the Apes, Attack of the Clones, Alien, Silent Running...the list could go on.

I would say it's nowhere near as bad as some are making it out to be but also it could have been so much better than it was.

And by the way, to the scumbag who eventually got thrown out near the end of the 8.30 showing in Cineworld , consider yourself lucky that I was as far away from you as I was and didn't really notice you until you were being dragged out. To those who were sitting near this neanderthal, sorry that you had to put up with that kind of crap and I hope it didn't ruin your night.

I actually said to them "There's the door, get the Fook out" - I did get two free IMAX tickets out of it

They are now banned from Cineworld too, so at least they can't do that again - Can't believe they actually paid full IMAX ticket prices, and then talked the whole way through it.

McGrath5

I thought the final act when Cruise and Freeman entered the mothership with the triangular doors was just screaming of Independence Day.

I am looking forward to a second viewing, I hope it stands the test of time.

krudler

Here's a question, why on earth was

the black box flight recorder in the EJECTED part of the shuttle?, surely that'd be in the cockpit, which it obviously was as Cruise could hear his own voice, gahhh, stupid movie

indough

krudler wrote: »

Here's a question, why on earth was

the black box flight recorder in the EJECTED part of the shuttle?, surely that'd be in the cockpit, which it obviously was as Cruise could hear his own voice, gahhh, stupid movie

i dont know about that, in planes they are typically at the back anyway, rather than in the cockpit

johnny_ultimate

indough wrote: »

i dont know about that, in planes they are typically at the back anyway, rather than in the cockpit

But how did it record stuff from the cockpit long after the rear of the ship was ejected?

As I said earlier, it was one of the most gaping plot holes I've ever encountered in a film - a diegesis breaking one at that.

indough

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

But how did it record stuff from the cockpit long after the rear of the ship was ejected?

As I said earlier, it was one of the most gaping plot holes I've ever encountered in a film - a diegesis breaking one at that.

yeah i already addressed that earlier on

krudler

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

But how did it record stuff from the cockpit long after the rear of the ship was ejected?

As I said earlier, it was one of the most gaping plot holes I've ever encountered in a film - a diegesis breaking one at that.

I was enjoying it until Freeman arrived, then any ideas it had were thrown out the window, the

multiple Cruises could have been expanded more, but nope, knocks one out, leaves him there til he randomly finds the cabin at the end after a few years wandering about, and why would the other humans even follow him? the cabin was tiny where were the rest of em going to live?! it was out literally in the middle of nowhere with nothing around, and AND, the "other" Cruise didnt know any of the whole "oh by the way those aliens aren't aliens after all they're humans. he was still on his scav hunting mission before he got knocked out he would have woke up and started battering any of the ones near him.

saintsaltynuts

flowrider04 wrote: »

I actually said to them "There's the door, get the Fook out" - I did get two free IMAX tickets out of it

They are now banned from Cineworld too, so at least they can't do that again - Can't believe they actually paid full IMAX ticket prices, and then talked the whole way through it.

Only in Cineworld mate..only in Cineworld.

marienbad

I have never have any great expectations of these Hollywood blockbusters- I just expect to be entertained for two hours and this movie was more than up to the job. I probably will go again before its run is over.

Goldstein

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

But how did it record stuff from the cockpit long after the rear of the ship was ejected?

As I said earlier, it was one of the most gaping plot holes I've ever encountered in a film - a diegesis breaking one at that.

The same way we record what Voyager 1 and co. have been up to for the last 35 years. Physical contact isn't required for data communication. They're even developing real-time wireless flight recorders today. There are plenty to choose from but that particular one isn't a plothole of any description.

johnny_ultimate

Goldstein wrote: »

The same way we record what Voyager 1 and co. have been up to for the last 35 years. Physical contact isn't required for data communication. They're even developing real-time wireless flight recorders today. There are plenty to choose from but that particular one isn't a plothole of any description.

But isn't the whole point of a black box to be a physical, recoverable recording device? It just seemed an incredible stretch that the device was for the entire film shown to serve the traditional flight recorder function until it was convenient to determine otherwise. And the film had already been at pains to establish that wireless communication

was heavily restricted by the presence of the craft

.

I'm not denying wireless recording devices are very much real. I'm just saying the film seemed incredibly confused about itself - a lazy, unconvincing way to provide an altogether redundant flashback sequence.

Although admittedly these arguments are why I hate getting involved with plot hole discussions, pedantic as they are. Perhaps it is simply indicative of the fact that by that point I was just willing the film to end, and had completely lost my connection with the narrative and my brain was therefore operating on an overly critical level - being bothered by futile minor details. A shallow personal interpretation of altogether deeper foundational problems. TBH, I do think I had problems with the flashback more than anything - which added little of substance to information that had already been more naturally revealed.

Kinski

I would have thought the most striking hole in the entire plot was that

bringing Cruise's wife on board the alien ship served the alien no purpose whatsoever.

Outkast_IRE

Kinski wrote: »

I would have thought the most striking hole in the entire plot was that

bringing Cruise's wife on board the alien ship served the alien no purpose whatsoever.

maybe it wanted it for genetic material, i suppose if cruise had the wife instead of the other one the dreams might stop

johnny_ultimate

Kinski wrote: »

I would have thought the most striking hole in the entire plot was that

bringing Cruise's wife on board the alien ship served the alien no purpose whatsoever.

"I have harvested hundreds of planets, and yet I have never known love."
"What about the billions of other humans you could have taken to discover such an emotion?"
"...."
[\spoiler]

Goldstein

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I'm not denying wireless recording devices are very much real. I'm just saying the film seemed incredibly confused about itself - a lazy, unconvincing way to provide an altogether redundant flashback sequence.

Although admittedly these arguments are why I hate getting involved with plot hole discussions, pedantic as they are. Perhaps it is simply indicative of the fact that by that point I was just willing the film to end, and had completely lost my connection with the narrative and my brain was therefore operating on an overly critical level - being bothered by futile minor details. A shallow personal interpretation of altogether deeper foundational problems. TBH, I do think I had problems with the flashback more than anything - which added little of substance to information that had already been more naturally revealed.

Ya I can relate to that. I was worried from the word go with all the explanations / exposition at the start and the superbowl scene there purely for some Cruise grandstanding. Then with the mention of

converting the Earth's water "into fusion"

I resigned my hopes and hoped to enjoy the pure spectacle as much as I could. I wanted it to be good as it seemed to be set to fall on the right side of the fence (an interesting decent logical story executed well). It's very lucky it had some nice visuals and the decent sound design. Those two facets are flattering the film as a whole.

And I completely agree on the overall laziness of the general story - it took the most travelled path of least resistance at every stage. Just another example of that touched on earlier:

The water thing. Instead of techno baddies coming to steal our water which makes no sense why not have them come after another resource we possess. Maybe humans were testing a weapon/generator on a small moon in the solar system fueled by an artificial compound or rare element we've discovered how to refine. Say there was an accident or the weapon was more powerful than expected, attracting the attention of the technomind tet thing. Small change but so much more plausible and shows they had at least a cursory think about what they were writing. Imagine if an imaginative writer spent more than 5 minutes thinking about it what they might come up with.

Stupid errors like that drive me mad because they're so unnecessary and such simple mistakes to avoid. Just look at Sunshine - a bloody masterpiece partially because they brought in Brian Cox as a consultant. And it doesn't take a professor to sort out these simple things. Gah! Elysium, Gravity and Riddick aren't too far off