Escape to the Movies: Edge of Tomorrow - Tom Cruise Is Cool Again

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

Hoxton:
Did they even pay for the rights to the "All you need is kill" author or just outright stole everything?

They namechecked the book in the credits, so yeah, it's an actual adaptation.

The merits and pitfalls of the actual film are unfortunately completely overshadowed by Tom Cruise still being totally unlikeable and the face of a dangerous cult. The "Wacky crazy guy" image is only the most surface problem people had with him. Consciously or not movie audiences have sensed that Cruise is a pretty distasteful human being and not a person they want to spend time with anymore. Or maybe they are just tired of (as i said in the box office thread) an aging, preposterous, arrogant little man who they can't as any kind of action lead in 2014.

TheOneGuyInNebraska:

RvLeshrac:
Tom Cruise gives millions each year to an organisation known primarily for murdering people and allowing unchecked sexual assaults. But yeah, I guess he's "cool."

Is that really the only reason people seem to hate Tom Cruise so much, because of fuckin' Scientology, really?

Hell, i'm Catholic and I can admit Christianity has been responsible for some horrifying things throughout history, probably worse then whatever ever Scientology has done. Almost every damn religion out there is responsible for something bad, do you really hate all of the members though, even the ones that donate to it for the actions of others involved in the same religion?

Amen to that. I am sometimes downright puzzled but the (in)ability of critics to judge a work of art (movie/music you name it) based solely on its merits and not on the morality of it authors/creators. In Tom's case it's scientology apparently, but truly, it doesn't matter what it is. When people (read critics) in Hollywood decide they are going to hate you, they will. Just take a look at each year's Academy Award's life time achievement award and you'll see plenty of actors/directors/editors/.... that were never honored in their life times for their work, despite being the best of their craft. To put it in other words, what Hollywood today is trying to sell me, is that Wagner sucks, because he may have been a natzy or influenced them. Well that maybe true, but how does that make his music any better or worse??? Oh well......

As for the movie itself, i keep finding Elysium thrown in. How does that cut in? Ground Hog's day i can see, but Elysium? Is it the esthetics? If so, come on people, every movie in the 80's looked alike in that department, so did in the 90's.... 2000's.... Or is there some underlying theme here?

TheOneGuyInNebraska:

RvLeshrac:
Tom Cruise gives millions each year to an organisation known primarily for murdering people and allowing unchecked sexual assaults. But yeah, I guess he's "cool."

Is that really the only reason people seem to hate Tom Cruise so much, because of fuckin' Scientology, really?

Hell, i'm Catholic and I can admit Christianity has been responsible for some horrifying things throughout history, probably worse then whatever ever Scientology has done. Almost every damn religion out there is responsible for something bad, do you really hate all of the members though, even the ones that donate to it for the actions of others involved in the same religion?

Let me try to explain at least how I feel about Tom Cruise. I don't dislike the man because he is a Scientologist, but the views he expresses because of Scientology. I think it would be the same for anyone in Hollywood if they shared their views to be the same as Tom Cruise regardless of their religion people wouldn't have the same level of contempt for him if he hadn't publicly made those statements. For I don't see people labeling John Travolta the same was as Tom Cruise and they both have been Scientologists for a long time.

captain_dalan:
Amen to that. I am sometimes downright puzzled but the (in)ability of critics to judge a work of art (movie/music you name it) based solely on its merits and not on the morality of it authors/creators. In Tom's case it's scientology apparently, but truly, it doesn't matter what it is. When people (read critics) in Hollywood decide they are going to hate you, they will. Just take a look at each year's Academy Award's life time achievement award and you'll see plenty of actors/directors/editors/.... that were never honored in their life times for their work, despite being the best of their craft. To put it in other words, what Hollywood today is trying to sell me, is that Wagner sucks, because he may have been a natzy or influenced them. Well that maybe true, but how does that make his music any better or worse??? Oh well......

As for the movie itself, i keep finding Elysium thrown in. How does that cut in? Ground Hog's day i can see, but Elysium? Is it the esthetics? If so, come on people, every movie in the 80's looked alike in that department, so did in the 90's.... 2000's.... Or is there some underlying theme here?

That is just how the internet works, look at video games and the dislike that some companies gets. I know people that have questions about any EA/Ubisoft/Bethesda game that gets released and will openly say any game from those companies is bad because of their track records and not judge it based on the individual game.

was planning to give this a chance tomorrow, due top the whole respawn aspect, but had some hesitation. I feel pretty much exactly as Bob describes, about Cruise. He used to be alright during the Top Gun era, lost interest in him during/after Mission impossible, and then he just became an oddball. I haven't liked on been interested in any movie of his for quite a while until this one.
Well thanks to this review my hesitation is gone and I can now feel safe that my AMC gift card won't be wasted.

This isn't like Groundhog's Day, for those that keep making the comparison. Groundhog's Day was an exploration, with Bill Murray unsure of why he was stuck, and just sort of figuring out what to do. It's a sandbox. This is a ladder. Cruise knows why he keeps repeating, and he knows what he has to do. So each day, rather than "what can I get away with today?", becomes "how can I win this time?"

Reminds me of another Halo movie concept, there must be quite a few of them around by now.

Is interesting to see what happens with them at least considering District 9 was the last major one that was originally meant to be a Halo movie.

Starship Troopers flamed out pretty quickly (the sequels are not up to much).

Mad Max 4 has a good vibe going to it, they took a 800 person crew over to South Africa/Nambia to film. It almost had one of Australia's most famous TV hosts as a bad guy. That would have been the best thing ever if it had happened. He once tried to turn himself inside out by apologising https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWKyDGGptA4&feature=kp

Tim Chuma:
Reminds me of another Halo movie concept, there must be quite a few of them around by now.

Is interesting to see what happens with them at least considering District 9 was the last major one that was originally meant to be a Halo movie.

District 9 wasn't going to be a Halo movie; Peter Jackson gave the director a load of money to make his own project to say "Sorry" for the Halo movie not happening.

Never really had a problem with Tom Cruise's movies, though I found the man unlikeable after he went insane. Still, I am usually able to separate that from my watching experience. Looking forward to this one, esp to see Emily Blunt looking ripped (still think she'd make an awesome Wonder Woman, though Gina Carano looks the part just as well, if not better).

Jurassic World...isn't this the one where velociraptors "can use shotguns now?" What possible good can come of this?!?!

piscian:
See and you got through the whole thing without spoilers! Proud of you bob.

... are spoilers even really possible on "Groundhog day, but with power armor"? I mean, that's... pretty much all the plot that went into it to begin with, I'm pretty sure. It's not a formula that exactly runs on mind-bending plot twists that are subject to being spoiled.

I see this movie as less of a 'sci-fi shooter-esque' and more as a 'Dark Souls-esque'.
"I die five minutes after landing".
Me too, Tom...
Me too.

TheOneGuyInNebraska:

RvLeshrac:
Tom Cruise gives millions each year to an organisation known primarily for murdering people and allowing unchecked sexual assaults. But yeah, I guess he's "cool."

Is that really the only reason people seem to hate Tom Cruise so much, because of fuckin' Scientology, really?

Hell, i'm Catholic and I can admit Christianity has been responsible for some horrifying things throughout history, probably worse then whatever ever Scientology has done. Almost every damn religion out there is responsible for something bad, do you really hate all of the members though, even the ones that donate to it for the actions of others involved in the same religion?

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.

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?

The sad thing is, this is probably the best 40k movie we're ever going to get.

RvLeshrac:
Tom Cruise gives millions each year to an organisation known primarily for murdering people and allowing unchecked sexual assaults.

The U.S. army?

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.

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.

BanicRhys:
The sad thing is, this is probably the best 40k movie we're ever going to get.

Go look up Damnatus: the Enemy Within. Find a torrent, because that's the only way to see it. It's a fan project movie, which was finished when GW's lawyers stopped it. Someone eventually leaked it. There was no real release.

youji itami:

Tom Cruise is mostly the leading man in his films why would people who dislike him go to see films were he is the lead?

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.

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.

still finding it kinda hard to get past him rolling about on a couch cackling about how great it would be if everyone in the entire world not in his particular religious sect was dead.

i suppose i'm supposed to ignore what he believes because he has a nice smile and makes a decent sci-fi movies or something right ?...sorry but this particular "SP" still can't quite chow down on that.

at least mel gibson only secretly hates jews...

tom cruise ?...well i'm not surprised the man avoids mental health professionals tbth.

Tono Makt:

Thunderous Cacophony:

dalek sec:

Yeah, what does that mean exactly, the "foregone conclusion" bit?

"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings."
-Cassius
Julius Caesar (I, ii, 140-141)

The title of the book/movie is a Shakespeare quote about the inevitablity that all men must bow to fate. The book/movie is about some kids who have cancer. You can see where this is going.

While this is true... isn't it true about about a large majority of movies? Sure the two main characters in TFIOS are going to die. And Godzilla is going to "save" the city. And Tom Cruise is going to beat the Aliens. And the X-Men are going to change history to save the future. And Captain America is going to defeat Hydra (for this movie, anyway). And Thor is going to beat Loki. (For this movie, anyway) And the Avengers are going to defeat Ultron in Avengers: Age of Ultron. And Jupiter is going to become the Queen of Earth/Owner of Earth/Something Powerful Enough To Keep Earth From Being Strip Mined By Obvious Bad-Guy CEO Metaphor in Jupiter Ascending. And... so on and so on. Most movies have that going for them. That's something most of us enjoy about movies - we know what the destination is and we're there to enjoy the journey.

So for Bob to put up "It's a foregone conclusion" for TFIOS, with no context, is rather strange. I'm not sure if that's supposed to be dismissive and insulting (The "This Kind Of Movie Sucks And I'm So Glad I Can Ignore It Because I Couldn't Ignore Twilight" sort of dismissal) or if it's a simple statement (The "There is no Venn diagram that puts Escapist patrons with TFIOS fans. If we were to put them on a different type of graph, they would be these three dots waaaaaay off to the side. The Outliers, as they say in Statistics.") or if there's something else going on.

Really, I'm not even sure why he would bother putting it up at all. Have people been asking him to review it on Twitter? Have Nerdfighters made this a "thing" with Bob to the point where he needs to actually reply to them in some way? What's the backstory to it? Why did he choose to do this than to make a reference to the new Transformers Metal-Band toys (which look at once to be hilariously idiotic and so dumb they're awesome)?

The statement just sticks out like smurfs in a sore thumb.

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.

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.

Darmani:

Tono Makt:
The statement just sticks out like smurfs in a sore thumb.

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.

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.

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.

The movie will make more than $150M in its first weekend, will cross the $1B by the end of the first month (worldwide) and will go on to be the most successful movie in movie history. And there will be legions of fans who will not admit to any flaws in the movie for years after its released. (like current Avengers fans) And pretty much no one is going to dismiss the movie as a "Foregone Conclusion".

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.

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?

MovieBob:
"Eventually it's time to get to the big boss fight and the film stops appropriating video game mechanics and just becomes one, except you don't get to play it so not very interesting to watch."

Holy crap, they made a CoD movie!

Nghtgnt:

InvisibleMan:
Wait, didn't Bill Murray do this already in Groundhog Day twenty years ago??

I guess this is a good plot formula that should be used a lot more...

Better yet, it was done a century ago (1904) in The Defence of Duffer's Drift.

Now I'm impressed! I will have to check out that story now.

(One could also say I live that plot formula every time I play a Fire Emblem, Dark Souls, or Etrian Odyssey game...)

I really enjoyed this movie. I really wish people wouldn't compare it to Groundhog day. A comedy, that has only a similar tie in. I'd fully recommend this.

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.

RvLeshrac:

TheOneGuyInNebraska:

RvLeshrac:
Tom Cruise gives millions each year to an organisation known primarily for murdering people and allowing unchecked sexual assaults. But yeah, I guess he's "cool."

Is that really the only reason people seem to hate Tom Cruise so much, because of fuckin' Scientology, really?

Hell, i'm Catholic and I can admit Christianity has been responsible for some horrifying things throughout history, probably worse then whatever ever Scientology has done. Almost every damn religion out there is responsible for something bad, do you really hate all of the members though, even the ones that donate to it for the actions of others involved in the same religion?

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.

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?

Roman Polanski made The Pianist and Rosemary's Baby, Woody Allen made Annie Hall. Some people make great works and do terrible things. It does not necessarily detract from the work itself. You can choose to let it and that's perfectly valid, but it's equally valid to view the work as separate from the creator. You can acknowledge that a thing made by a terrible person is good or even that terrible person is extremely talented.

I enjoyed this movie but the ending was terrible.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.