Edge of Tomorrow (Tom Cruise, Emily Blunt, Bill Paxton!)

Bacchus · 02-06-2014 5:00pm

Cartel Mike wrote: »

I've already said I"ve no interest in watching these movies ffs can't you read?
Tell me how any of those films you mention cant accurately be loaded onto a 30 second trailer? Why should I watch them when I know exactly what their about after 3 seconds. What is he doing in these films that Jason bloody Statham cant?
Suggest one I should watch and why should watch it.

People like you annoy me. Please quote the orther half my post that you left in so expetedly left out and give some sort of opinion in it ffs

This is for the the poster who quoted me above.
(quote button didn't work sorry)

LOL!

Where to begin.... I didn't quote the rest of your post because it's just a continuation of your little rant against Tom Cruise and his choice of movies to make. Quoting the rest of your post would not have changed the context of my reply in the slightest.

My point (which seems to have gone over your head) was that
1. You express no interest in these movies (you've even reiterated it above) yet you felt the need to come in to this thread and tell us all this
2. You said you've not watch the last half dozen or so of Cruise's movie but YOU think he needs to change it up

I called you up on both these points and your reaction is another rant.

30 second trailer!? WTF are you on about with that? Seriously. Are you just upset that Cruise isn't making movies highbrow enough for you? Is that what this is about?

Hande hoche! · 02-06-2014 5:55pm

Saw this at the weekend and found it quite entertaining and surprisingly amusing at times. As mentioned before Emily Blunt is rather fetching.

Also did they have archive footage of the Irish defence forces in the opening news montage?

Manach · 02-06-2014 6:55pm

I enjoyed as it is, an excellent summer blockbuster with good performances by the main cast. My ownly stumbling block was I kept juxapositing Ms. Blunt via her previous role in Victoria (one was amused). Overall, worth the price of admission.

ancapailldorcha · 02-06-2014 10:48pm

I really enjoyed this. Saw it this evening.

02-06-2014 10:58pm

I went to see this movie myself last night and also enjoyed it, definately worth a watch.
My only complaint was that I found the members of J-Squad to be a bit annoying.

Looper007 · 02-06-2014 10:59pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I went to see this movie myself last night and also enjoyed it, definately worth a watch.
My only complaint was that I found the members of J-Squad to be a bit annoying.

the woman is Tom Hardy's missus. She scrubs up well in real life.

freyners · 02-06-2014 11:03pm

The ending was a big let down for me, felt very poor compared to the rest of the film imo and could have been written better. But on a whole well worth the 7 euro student ticket

PirateShampoo · 02-06-2014 11:30pm

I thought it was very good, a perfect mix of comedy and action.

I would of taken a darker ending, but I left the cinema satisfied and could happily watch it again.

Cartel Mike · 03-06-2014 12:16am

kryogen wrote: »

Born. On. The. Fourth. Of. July.
A Few Good Men
Interview with The Vampire
Jerry Maguire
Magnolia
Collateral
Top Gun!
Mission: Impossible
Vanilla Sky

Some excellent performances in that pile, you can argue a few of them alright and it would just come down to personal preference, but some Oscar worthy performances in there for sure.

He is a great actor with a great range, he is making some stuff that he wants to make right now, he is 51 years of age let him at it. Fluff pieces have not tainted the reputations and legacies of guys like De Niro and Pacino, they should not take away from Cruise either

Pretty much agree even if i dont think ther are 'that' many Oscar winning performances there and top gun is prob on the list of cruise fluff that id list if I cared enough to go through his entire career.(which I'm not)
I never once attacked the man just stated that I havn't watched his recent stuff cause by in large he"s playing the old Hero with the troubled/mysterious past type role..... who's either going to A/ Save he girl B/Save his Reputation or C/ Save the planet or possibly all three. The type of disposal candyfloss I have trouble watching.
I wonderd why? His age may indeed have something to do with it as he might want to get this action/explosion stuff out of the way while he still can (even though Liam Neeson is giving it a good go into his 70's).
Alot of good actors out there are mixing 'blockbuster' with interesting or Indie or surreal or just plain powerfull. Tom is going only just one way right now imo.
The original poster who is possibly a Cruise Fanboy decided to take my post out of context and go on a blind defensive obnoxious rant while also stating that Cruise's recent stuff is actually diverse. I just don't get those posts and think they can be easily avoided.

tunguska · 03-06-2014 10:08am

Saw this at the weekend and I thought it was ok, nothing great. Kind of like an extended Star Trek episode. The Cruiser was solid, he always is but I was surprised at how good Emily Blunt was playing a military character. I went in expecting to cringe at another pretty actress trying to play tough, but she pulled it off.
6/10

pixelburp · 03-06-2014 10:25am

The surprise of the summer? I think it could well be, because while it has supposedly underperformed so far in the box office, Edge of Tomorrow showed more panache, grit and imagination than much of the blockbuster fare served up so far this season. In a window that's drowning with uninspired sequels and reboots, it's nice to watch an original IP - and original Sci-Fi IP at that - that was equal parts thrilling, clever and confidently executed. With a wicked sense of humour that underlined the action to boot - not too much to make the entire premise seem overly goofy, nor too little that the drama became overwrought. It also follows on the heels of X-Men: Days of Future Past in being another example of a PG-13 on the harder edge of that rating: there was zero (human) blood, yet every impact, death and collision could be felt.

I suspect like a lot of time-travel based plots it's best not to stare too much into the plot's abyss, otherwise the concept may start to untangle. And while the Groundhog Day comparisons are inevitable - particularly with the extended sequence of deaths that reminded me of a similar one from the Bill Murray classic - the shadow didn't loom too heavily over this film. The script also had the confidence to present the concept as if its audience were grown adults, capable of processing a complicated enough premise. And while that's refreshing to see, it's also a bit depressing that this is a notion that deserves highlighting.

As for Cruise, while I'm no fan of his work, he did well here and his part seemed to play with some perceptions of Tom Cruise the Celebrity. His character started as an empty, slick, smooth-talking PR man, a dead-eyed mouthpiece with a permanent bleached-white grin on his face as the character tried to worm his way from responsibility. What's equally nice is that his journey wasn't a completely upward trajectory; again like Groundhog Day there was a sense of the mans growing weariness and mental instability as he dealt with the constant, hellish cycle. The side characters around him possessed a vitality that kept things breezy; Bill Paxton was clearly having a ball, Brendan Gleeson had a nice snarky air about him and the members of J-Squad had personality (albeit ones that skirted a little into stereotype). There was nothing particularly original about any of them, but there was a zest and brio in the script & portrayals that something like the recent Godzilla remake was crying out for.

Arguably though it's Emily Blunts character that'll be what many viewers will take from this film; like the rest of the cast she seemed committed to the madness, but her performance struck an entertaining balance between hard-ass and human. Just about. In fact, she kicked ass and took names with such gusto I'd wonder if in the near future her agent might be receiving a few more calls from action productions - they'd be well earned. Her character should make for a compelling example of how it's entirely possible to write a strong female protagonist who can handle herself in the action stakes. My only quibble is that because this was a Hollywood production,

inevitably romance started to creep into proceedings in the third act. And while it seemed more like a foxhole romance, born from a tired resignation that both leads were fated to die, than something a little ... soppier, it was a shame as it took the edge of a hitherto badass.

Any other quibbles? Well it was a little boring that this force that finally unified Earth was so ... white, bar the token black guy. I spotted some Sikhs and soldiers with Indian flags on their shoulders marching in the background at one point, otherwise the cast was uniformly caucasian. I guess a strong female action lead was far enough for one day.

Still though, this was an entertaining, exciting, funny film that's head and shoulders above its 2014 blockbuster peers.

ancapailldorcha · 03-06-2014 10:27am

Was it ever explained why,

when he died time was reset to that particular point and, at the end, why it was reset to an earlier point?

pixelburp · 03-06-2014 10:28am

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Was it ever explained why,
when he died time was reset to that particular point and, at the end, why it was reset to an earlier point?

Because of the Law of Narrative Convenience

ancapailldorcha · 03-06-2014 10:31am

pixelburp wrote: »

Because of the Law of Narrative Convenience

I thought that. Shame, but easily forgivable.

Bacchus · 03-06-2014 4:36pm

Cartel Mike wrote: »

The original poster who is possibly a Cruise Fanboy decided to take my post out of context and go on a blind defensive obnoxious rant while also stating that Cruise's recent stuff is actually diverse. I just don't get those posts and think they can be easily avoided.

Not a fanboy. Can't stand Cruise on a personal level but he makes good movies and your first post came across as a high horse, "I wouldn't lower myself to watch this" kinda post. My response was in context. You've presented yourself somewhat better since your original post but I make no apologies for what I've said. I still don't se why you are intent on turning this thread into a "why doesn't Cruise make "good" movies anymore". The reviews for this are good. I for one an looking forward to watching it.

Tag, I'm out. This thread is being derailed enough. Truce?

johnny_ultimate · 04-06-2014 1:40am

Please note: I am going to childishly refer to the film as All You Need Is Kill, as that's so infinitely superior as a title that I am utterly baffled they didn't stick with it. I prefer to delude myself than accept the blandness of reality.

Anyway, All You Need Is Kill film that opens strong, but around the halfway mark unfortunately opts to initiate cruise control (I seriously had no intention of writing that awful pun when I started typing that sentence

).

I was trying to figure out what it was about the first forty five minutes that won me over, and I think it's the fact that every character in it is basically an asshole. Cruise's character is a spineless creep (nicely playing on his inherent smarm), Blunt plays an arrogant badass who seems to enjoy collateral damage, Paxton's Sergeant is an amusing pastiche of ridiculous army 'motivators', Gleeson chews the scenery as an emotionless bastard, while the of rookies consists of a bunch of obnoxious gits. And honestly, that's a whole lot of refreshing: a nice change of pace for blockbuster cinema which always seems so desperate for us to like its bland heroes. Mixed with the film's urgent pacing, wickedly morbid sense of humour and pleasingly silly sci-fi setting and premise, All You Need Is Kill is overblown, ridiculous blockbuster entertainment - in a good way!

Liman, sadly, cannot maintain that early promise, and before long its formulaic nature and adherence to action film norms sap the film of the hyperactive creativity and high concept madness it should have embraced. At the very least, it becomes much harder to forgive the fact that it has pinched pretty much everything from other films. It is derivative of many films - a vast range that includes everything from Saving Private Ryan to Aliens to Source Code to The Matrix - but Groundhog Day above all. The setting and genre may be seemingly completely different, but when you think about it the core concept, character arcs and even the jokes are nigh on identical to Ramis' film (although it's testament to Groundhog Day's inventive wit that there's still much opportunity for great Darwin Awards style humour here). The film's timeline tomfoolery is largely abandoned bar a few jump, and the third act climax features the mandatory level of explosions, cannon fodder and a big bad boss (this, incidentally, is probably the most video game like movie in the history of either medium, with its focus on repetition, 'lives' and alien genocide).

Worst of all though, the characters mellow, becoming the generic action heroes they resolutely and refreshingly weren't earlier on. Blunt's performance, for example, just about saves her character - she's indisputably a better actress than Andie McDowell - but

the pointless romance that develops between her and an increasingly homogenised Cruise does both the actress and the audience a massive disservice. I was hoping above all hope that they wouldn't kiss, allowing this to be an all-too-rare example of purely plutonic friendship and comradery. But of course they do, because 'they' say so ('they' being an amalgam of the studio, Robert McKee, test audiences, and the Illuminati).

The strong opening half elevates All You Need is Kill somewhere above mediocrity, but a weak and ultimately kind of nonsensical - even by the standards of a film that has happily abandoned any notion of logic by the time the opening montage has concluded - second means it falls short of greatness. But it is fun, and even when indulging its more generic impulses Liman keeps things moving along at a steady old buzz. But there's the sense it would have been even better had the filmmakers had been a bit more playful with their ideas, hurled more surprises at the audience and trusted the talented cast to stick with portraying a group of cartoonish assholes.

Cartel Mike · 04-06-2014 3:51am

Bacchus wrote: »

Not a fanboy. Can't stand Cruise on a personal level but he makes good movies and your first post came across as a high horse, "I wouldn't lower myself to watch this" kinda post. My response was in context. You've presented yourself somewhat better since your original post but I make no apologies for what I've said. I still don't se why you are intent on turning this thread into a "why doesn't Cruise make "good" movies anymore". The reviews for this are good. I for one an looking forward to watching it.

Tag, I'm out. This thread is being derailed enough. Truce?

I come in peace . The previous guy has just written about 10 paragraphs that I might read so i'll keep my explanation brief.
I"m interested in roles. I've always been interested in film roles. Why actors choose certain roles over others, how much it takes out of them, are they motivated by money or by art or do they take on certain roles out of loyalty , recommendation ,or just plain impatience.
Not only that but directors ,cause wheather it's a screen adaptation or an original screenplay they must have certain actors in mind to make a film work .

I saw this thread tiltle by the way and posted the only thing about this film I was even vaguely interested in. I didn't think it would be a problem and If it is ( which it shouldn't ), I sort of don't care.
Just to clarify ,Tom's last two films (Jack Reacher and... something else sorry forgotten name)were €3 each in Sainsburys 6 weeks ago. There was stuff like Hunger games 2 and Thor for €9.99.Didn't just make that up or say it to annoy anyone, why that would annoy anyone is beyond me anyway.

timetogo · 04-06-2014 6:57am

I didn't mind the love element.

Blunts character didn't have it. She kissed him when she was about to die. That doesn't mean she's in love. I took it to mean this is the last kiss she'll ever have.

For Cruises character you could see how he could fall in love. He's probably spent years with her by this stage.

timetogo · 04-06-2014 6:58am

Cartel Mike wrote: »

I come in peace

Grand. We get it. You don't like Tom Cruise.

Goldstein · 04-06-2014 10:12am

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Was it ever explained why,
when he died time was reset to that particular point and, at the end, why it was reset to an earlier point?

pixelburp wrote: »

Because of the Law of Narrative Convenience

The first is apparent enough. Waking up on the bags in Heathrow was his first moment of consciousness that day so when he takes control of the reset and his day resets it's logical that this is the point where his day starts.

The ending reset jumps to the day before when he wakes up in the helicopter but why seems open to interpretation.

Maximus Alexander · 04-06-2014 10:16am

I enjoyed this film, it was good fun, but it was horribly let down by the nonsensical ending.

Telecaster58 · 04-06-2014 4:59pm

I quite enjoyed it. For a change the trailer did not ruin it. In fact the trailer made it look awful.

ancapailldorcha · 04-06-2014 5:04pm

Telecaster58 wrote: »

I quite enjoyed it. For a change the trailer did not ruin it. In fact the trailer made it look awful.

I felt the same way. I only saw one of the trailers while seeing another film (A Million Ways maybe) but it put me off. I was desperate for a cinema fix on Monday and saw that it had a good IMDB rating so I went.

MagicMarker · 04-06-2014 11:43pm

Enjoyed the movie, felt the final third was poor enough though.

Also, I really, really, hate 3D/isense shíte.

Mickeroo · 04-06-2014 11:59pm

Really thought this film would have been truly brilliant if it ended 5 minutes sooner (well actually

once Cage had his blood transfusion I felt the narrative took a bit of a dive but I was willing to forgive at that stage

. Was still a thoroughly pleasant surprise though.

veXual · 05-06-2014 10:39am

One thing I noticed but my friend who went with me didn't seem to...

For the entire film the humans are being fired upon by the mimics. Yet at no point did I actually see a mimic fire anything they just tended to flail around. Any of the mimic firing seemed to come from off screen/the horizon. Anyone else notice this?

pixelburp · 05-06-2014 10:54am

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Please note: I am going to childishly refer to the film as All You Need Is Kill, as that's so infinitely superior as a title that I am utterly baffled they didn't stick with it. I prefer to delude myself than accept the blandness of reality.
[...]

I disagree & actually liked the 'Edge of Tomorrow' title. It's not that generic tbh, that's being a bit unfair: it has that nice classical sci-fi hint about it. I'd say 'pulp' rather than 'generic'

I initially laughed at the original manga version for its pure silliness - 'oh Japan' I said - but it's still a pretty awful title; the wonky grammar certainly doesn't help

veXual wrote: »

One thing I noticed but my friend who went with me didn't seem to...
For the entire film the humans are being fired upon by the mimics. Yet at no point did I actually see a mimic fire anything they just tended to flail around. Any of the mimic firing seemed to come from off screen/the horizon. Anyone else notice this?

Don't think there's a need for spoiler text, it's stuff straight from every trailer and the first few minutes of the film. You see mimics 'firing' several times; most notably during an aerial shot showing the carnage of the beach invasion. There are several mimics thrashing about in the sand, firing off shots from the tips of their tentacles

constitutionus · 05-06-2014 6:20pm

just back from this now and i though it was VERY good.

probably the best "blockbuster" cruise has done in ages. its weird though as it doesnt feel like a blockbuster and as such i cant see it doing -for sake or arguement- transformers levels of business.

which is a shame as its a damn fine bit of Sci/Fi .

it actually threw me in terms of what it did. cruises character for instance is basically

a coward

, which i didnt see coming at all from the trailers.

and his character arc to go from that to what he is at the end is done very well.

blunt actually has stuff to do so doesnt come off as a bit of fluff like alot of cruise leading ladies do lately and the combat/battle scenes are lovely to look at.

the ending makes NO sense whatsoever, but thats forgivable IMO as everything up to that was done so well and in places they use the "groundhog day" premise with such subtlety that its not too annoying.

all in all a great surprise.

8/10 from me.

catallus · 05-06-2014 11:17pm

I was very impressed with this too, great fun. Full of mad plotholes but who cares!

NyOmnishambles · 06-06-2014 9:14am

Went to see this last night

Highly enjoyable, ticks along at a decent pace for the most part, a little flat towards the end and I am still trying to figure out if I can make sense of the ending

Groundhog Day with Guns isn't an inaccurate description

Cruise and Blunt are both good in this

Edge of Tomorrow (Tom Cruise, Emily Blunt, Bill Paxton!)

Comments