Escape to the Movies: Edge of Tomorrow - Tom Cruise Is Cool Again
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
It is when they're continuing to donate millions, every single year, while documented abuses continue and the organisation not only refuses to acknowledge their culpability, but actively attempts to cover up all incidents, and blackmails any individual or organisation which reveals these problems.TheOneGuyInNebraska said:
And for that matter, yes, I do blame the individuals who donate to, say, the Catholic Church -- when they continue to donate after these incidents come to light.
I also blame individuals who donate to the Klan, should I not? Most of them are non-violent, too.
---
Oh, and let's not forget the mental and physical abuse he inflicted on his most recent wife. I guess as long as they make a good movie, spousal abuse can be ignored, eh?
Saw the movie this afternoon and really enjoyed it, though I've never exactly had the sort of anti-Cruise feelings that it seems a lot of other people do. One aspect I ended up really enjoying was the design of the enemies. There was something really intriguing with the way they moved and looked.
One of the most telling things about this movie is that the Rotten Tomatoes score far outstrips the Metacritic score. RT aggregates critics' scores on a simple up/down basis, while Metacritic averages them out. Last time I checked, the RT score was 89%, while Metacritic was 71%, meaning that while a huge majority of critics thought the movie was positive overall, most gave it only a pretty tepid nod.
I think this pretty accurately reflects my thoughts/feelings on the film. It's good, maybe even very good, but it's not great and won't be remembered as such. The core gimmick is very, very well executed. They managed to make the repetition non-repetitive for the viewer. The editing and cuts jumping around in Cage's frustrated attempts to improve the future were top-notch.
However, I felt the story lost steam and there were some very curious detours. A friend I saw it with criticized the insertion of a physical MacGuffin two-thirds of the way through. I thought it would be an interesting question to ask why did the team have to rely on the MacGuffin... but I'm not a film student and can't answer that question.
There's a little too much exposition (probably to save time while filling in essential backstory), and the ending is very questionable.
Finally, there's the Cruise Control for Cool factor. I felt he did really well in this role and that it played to his popular unlikability in the first-third. He has to earn our affection, and he does it well. But for the studio, they shouldn't be asking themselves whether Cruise did will--they should ask themselves could someone else have done equally well in the role without the movie turning away Cruise-haters (TBH, I think he's a weirdo). Is there anyone with real acting chops who can play both likable bad-ass and your-favorite-asshole-to-root-against with a shit-eating grin. Clive Owen jumps to mind (see: Shoot 'Em Up), as does Ewan McGregor or maybe Aaron Eckhart (more doubtful on the action side, there). But I'm sure they could have used someone else. Cruise didn't hurt the film, but he hurt the marketing.
Overall, I would say this is better than Oblivion (mostly because Cruise is used better), better than absolute schlock like Pacific Rim, and far more worth your wallet-vote than the endless stream of superhero action flicks and sequels. But it's not memorable like the Matrix. It's not even quite Minority Report, District 9, or Children of Men (that's a wide band of 'good', I recognize).
Sidenote: I was surprised to learn about Doug Liman's (the director) portfolio. Besides the Bourne Identity, Swingers, and Mr. and Mrs. Smith, he also did Go (1999, with Sarah Polley as the lead), which is a massively underrated young-adults-doing-stupid-things movie.
I think this pretty accurately reflects my thoughts/feelings on the film. It's good, maybe even very good, but it's not great and won't be remembered as such. The core gimmick is very, very well executed. They managed to make the repetition non-repetitive for the viewer. The editing and cuts jumping around in Cage's frustrated attempts to improve the future were top-notch.
However, I felt the story lost steam and there were some very curious detours. A friend I saw it with criticized the insertion of a physical MacGuffin two-thirds of the way through. I thought it would be an interesting question to ask why did the team have to rely on the MacGuffin... but I'm not a film student and can't answer that question.
There's a little too much exposition (probably to save time while filling in essential backstory), and the ending is very questionable.
It seemed like a no-brainer, after Cage/Cruise loses his powers, for there to be a twist where the mission fails and the audience thinks he's failed for good... whereupon Blunt regains the power after sacrificing herself with a grenade to lure off that last Alpha.
Finally, there's the Cruise Control for Cool factor. I felt he did really well in this role and that it played to his popular unlikability in the first-third. He has to earn our affection, and he does it well. But for the studio, they shouldn't be asking themselves whether Cruise did will--they should ask themselves could someone else have done equally well in the role without the movie turning away Cruise-haters (TBH, I think he's a weirdo). Is there anyone with real acting chops who can play both likable bad-ass and your-favorite-asshole-to-root-against with a shit-eating grin. Clive Owen jumps to mind (see: Shoot 'Em Up), as does Ewan McGregor or maybe Aaron Eckhart (more doubtful on the action side, there). But I'm sure they could have used someone else. Cruise didn't hurt the film, but he hurt the marketing.
Overall, I would say this is better than Oblivion (mostly because Cruise is used better), better than absolute schlock like Pacific Rim, and far more worth your wallet-vote than the endless stream of superhero action flicks and sequels. But it's not memorable like the Matrix. It's not even quite Minority Report, District 9, or Children of Men (that's a wide band of 'good', I recognize).
Sidenote: I was surprised to learn about Doug Liman's (the director) portfolio. Besides the Bourne Identity, Swingers, and Mr. and Mrs. Smith, he also did Go (1999, with Sarah Polley as the lead), which is a massively underrated young-adults-doing-stupid-things movie.
Isn't anyone going to mention the giant fridge logic plothole of the entire Battlefield los Groundhog movie? If this timetravel power comes from the aliens, who also have it, wouldn't the aliens counter everything he does because they can also rewind and do it better? Heck they might even do over the event that gave him the power, if they ever figured it out.
You can say that he's a damn good actor but a shitty human being, and that is enough for people. I mean having met Tom Cruise years ago by chance, he's every bit the asshole and I'd probably only piss on him if he were on fire because its a chance to piss on him but it doesn't diminish his acting ability. Just like I don't really much care for Orson Scott Card as a person but like his books.youji itami said:
I could see if the person in question were more than just a terribly unlikable person, but abrasive personality shouldn't invalidate their work as an actor, writer, etc.
I've never really had a problem with Tom Cruise. I go see movies for the characters and settings, not because of whos in them.
OT: I was hoping to see this today on the advance showings, but some of friends have only just crawled out from under their rock and I'm off to see Godzilla again.....not a bad thing, but I've been there and done that already.
Next week though, next week.
OT: I was hoping to see this today on the advance showings, but some of friends have only just crawled out from under their rock and I'm off to see Godzilla again.....not a bad thing, but I've been there and done that already.
Next week though, next week.
Not just the story, not just the characters, but the scenes, the beats, and the reception. Its super oscar bait that won't get an oscar but will get critical "cred" and we will watch yet another soulful "transitioning to big girl now" role moves that tend to come out about two "not traditional and spunky and indepedent teen girls" and the equally quirky and pushy but in a charming way (because he's out of Tiger Beat) with nonthreatening sexuality who is also isolated from this peers but into the girl ((but not actaully gay)) as they "make their way" One or the both of them will die.Tono Makt said:
There is My Girl 1 to 2, Bridge to Teribethia, and many
MAny
MANY
more there about two of them in the early year. They are like oscar bait for teens. And really vehicles for ladies working the Taylor Swift mojo. And so on.
This is actually the first I've heard of this flick but it seems kinda cool.
Might check it out on VOD.
Side note: Having to REPEATEDLY mute, pause, click-close-tab video ads while trying to watch your review is thoroughly annoying.
Disrespectful to the viewer and especially the content creators on this site.
Insulting.
Might check it out on VOD.
Side note: Having to REPEATEDLY mute, pause, click-close-tab video ads while trying to watch your review is thoroughly annoying.
Disrespectful to the viewer and especially the content creators on this site.
Insulting.
Which doesn't answer any of my questions. Almost EVERY movie can be predicted like this - we can reasonably be assured that Avengers: Age Of Ultron will be as predictable as TFIOS, but there is no way in hell that Bob is going to go "It's a foregone conclusion". It's going to have the "Hero's Assemble!" moments, likely more than one. It's going to have a Reveal of Antagonist (who isn't yet the antagonist). It's going to have the "Oops." moment where the Creator (Likely Tony Stark) does something to create the Antagonist. There is likely going to be a "Divide and Conquor" storyline where the heroes are divided by Ultron (though I'm expecting it to be a literal division where Hulk is teleported far away, Hawkeye is sent on a fake mission, Tony has to do something in the Real World that takes up his attention, etc., rather than what Loki tried to do in Avengers). There is going to be a moment of clarity while the Creator (Tony Stark most likely) realizes what kind of an error he has made and wonders if he can unmake it. There will be a poignant death of a beloved secondary character (possibly Jane Foster, though I wouldn't put it past Whedon to kill off Maria Hill or introduce a new secondary character for the purpose. This is Joss Whedon, after all.). There will be at least three awesome battle sequences, two victories for the Avengers and a defeat in the middle. There will be quite a bit of snappy dialogue and Bromance, hopefully this time involving Hawkeye to make him more like the cartoon. There will be two after-movie scenes, one during the credits and one after the credits, and if Thanos is not shown in the movie proper then he's going to be in the end scenes.Darmani said:
He's probably going to be shown getting his hand on at least one of the Infinity Gems or the Gauntlet. Maybe Loki will GIVE him the Gauntlet in the guise of Odin.
Avengers: Age of Ultron is a "Foregone Conclusion". I may not have predicted the exact notes it's going to hit, or the order it's going to hit them in. But I'm pretty sure that I'm accurate enough that if anyone replies to this post after A:AoU comes out it's going to be nitpicking about "You didn't predict WHEN Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch will come into the movie, and when they will turn into Avengers!" or "HA! They didn't kill off Maria Hill!" or some such. But when all is said and done, no one is going to say "Don't tell people about X, it'll spoil the entire movie!". There won't be a Spoiler moment for the movie, no "He's actually dead!" or "She's a He!". There won't be anything important that is unexpected.
I could see it be set up as the beginning of a two-part movie, where Ultron defeats the Avengers in the "Climatic" battle scene only to have Thanos come and kill him, taking an Infinity Gem from Ultron and placing it into the Infinity Gauntlet, with Loki at his side. Then the Avengers stand up and face Thanos to a jarring "To Be Continued in Avengers: Infinity Crisis (coming summer 2017)" and have that fact zealously hidden from the public until the first public showing. I don't EXPECT it but if it happened I wouldn't be surprised. That's about the only way I can see A:AoU to get out of the "Foregone Conclusion" category.
So what makes TFIOS so special that it actually warrants mention? And are you sure TFIOS hits the beats the way you claim it does - I've heard otherwise. For example, Youtube reviewer Jeremy Jahns had an interesting review of it that seems to indicate that it isn't what he expected - and he expected a movie just like what you're describing (and what one might easily assume Bob expected with his "Forgone Conclusion" tag), describing it as "Like Garden State... with Cancer". So maybe it isn't quite as easy to dismiss as it seems. I have no idea, I'm not going to go see it (I didn't see Juno, I'm not interested in those kinds of movies and thankfully neither is Mrs. Makt) but calling it a "Foregone Conclusion" without any context is just weird and makes me wonder why it was mentioned at all. It takes time and effort (maybe not much, but some) to make a still like that for a video - so why include it with such a potentially ironic comment?
Now I'm impressed! I will have to check out that story now.Nghtgnt said:
(One could also say I live that plot formula every time I play a Fire Emblem, Dark Souls, or Etrian Odyssey game?)
I thought the movie was very enjoyable and a great way to follow up the dull Maleficent. I thought writing was great and would love to see another movie like it. I found if odd that Bob brought up Tom Cruses past. Maybe he needed filler time or maybe I just do not care about who is in a movie as long as is good.