Oblivion
- 2013
- Tous publics
- 2h 4min
Un ancien combattant chargé d'extraire les ressources restantes de la Terre commence à remettre en question ce qu'il sait de sa mission et de lui-même.Un ancien combattant chargé d'extraire les ressources restantes de la Terre commence à remettre en question ce qu'il sait de sa mission et de lui-même.Un ancien combattant chargé d'extraire les ressources restantes de la Terre commence à remettre en question ce qu'il sait de sa mission et de lui-même.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompenses
- 1 victoire et 17 nominations au total
David Benyena
- Grow Hall Survivor
- (as David Madison)
John L. Armijo
- NASA Ground Control
- (non crédité)
Fileena Bahris
- Survivor
- (non crédité)
Joanne Bahris
- Tourist
- (non crédité)
Andrew Breland
- Survivor
- (non crédité)
Suri Cruise
- Jack's Daughter
- (non crédité)
Z. Dieterich
- Survivor
- (non crédité)
Paul Gunawan
- Survivor
- (non crédité)
Julie Hardin
- Librarian
- (non crédité)
Avis à la une
This movie is - without a doubt - one of the most visually spectacular that I have ever seen, standing shoulder-to-shoulder in that department with the likes of Watchmen, Prometheus, Sunshine and Kosinski's preceding effort - TRON: Legacy. Also (like TRON) the soundtrack is excellent and very well used throughout, enhancing the action and adding depth to some - at times - distinctly average acting performances.
Tom Cruise plays Tom Cruise but that's not a bad thing in this case, in fact his natural charisma carries the movie through some of its slower sections. Morgan Freeman plays Morgan Freeman though he's really not on screen for long enough to influence the movie one way or another. Olga Kurylenko's statuesque profile is unfortunately not matched by her acting ability and I often found it difficult to believe in her character's actions and emotions. Andrea Riseborough turns in maybe the best performance, convincing as the sad and confused Victoria, unwilling - or perhaps unable - to confront the disturbing truth.
At over 2 hours I think that it's too long by about 20 minutes. A shorter cut would tighten up the story and eliminate some of the slower sections which I think hurt the movie's overall rhythm and flow.
Overall, I would definitely recommend going to see this movie in the cinema, on the biggest screen that you can find. It just won't be the same on TV. The visual appeal alone is reason enough, but combined with a clever (if not entirely original) script, a thumping soundtrack and some exciting action, you should be entertained.
Tom Cruise plays Tom Cruise but that's not a bad thing in this case, in fact his natural charisma carries the movie through some of its slower sections. Morgan Freeman plays Morgan Freeman though he's really not on screen for long enough to influence the movie one way or another. Olga Kurylenko's statuesque profile is unfortunately not matched by her acting ability and I often found it difficult to believe in her character's actions and emotions. Andrea Riseborough turns in maybe the best performance, convincing as the sad and confused Victoria, unwilling - or perhaps unable - to confront the disturbing truth.
At over 2 hours I think that it's too long by about 20 minutes. A shorter cut would tighten up the story and eliminate some of the slower sections which I think hurt the movie's overall rhythm and flow.
Overall, I would definitely recommend going to see this movie in the cinema, on the biggest screen that you can find. It just won't be the same on TV. The visual appeal alone is reason enough, but combined with a clever (if not entirely original) script, a thumping soundtrack and some exciting action, you should be entertained.
I never gave this a chance when it was released. It received mediocre reviews and it just kinda fell off my radar.
I have to agree with others and say it's definitely underrated. Great plot (minus a few plot holes), amazing acting, cgi looks awesome (it's just as good as modern movies or better even though this is a decade old).
I've noticed a lot lately that if I go back to the mid 2010's or earlier I find a lot of good movies. It just shows you how far Hollywood has fallen off. Weirdly CGI seems to peak around that time and then studios just got lazy or something and cheaper out with bad graphics and bad writing.
I have to agree with others and say it's definitely underrated. Great plot (minus a few plot holes), amazing acting, cgi looks awesome (it's just as good as modern movies or better even though this is a decade old).
I've noticed a lot lately that if I go back to the mid 2010's or earlier I find a lot of good movies. It just shows you how far Hollywood has fallen off. Weirdly CGI seems to peak around that time and then studios just got lazy or something and cheaper out with bad graphics and bad writing.
Oblivion is nine years old as I write this, and in perusing the reviews written when it opened, they have aged far less well than the movie.
Those reviews are mostly concerned about whatever the hell Tom Cruise was going through at the time, or obsessed with obscure symbolism in the production design.
For whatever reason, it appears the reviewers couldn't get over themselves enough to just watch the movie and evaluate it on its merits.
On the off chance this film has escaped your attention, it is well worth two hours of your time. It is solidly acted and produced, has first class effects, and a spectacular location. The story combines some emotional heft with a clever and satisfying twist at the end.
I watched it again, but this time with my SciFi hating wife. She protested initially, watched the entire thing, and then thanked me for getting her to watch it afterwards.
That's as good as it gets.
Those reviews are mostly concerned about whatever the hell Tom Cruise was going through at the time, or obsessed with obscure symbolism in the production design.
For whatever reason, it appears the reviewers couldn't get over themselves enough to just watch the movie and evaluate it on its merits.
On the off chance this film has escaped your attention, it is well worth two hours of your time. It is solidly acted and produced, has first class effects, and a spectacular location. The story combines some emotional heft with a clever and satisfying twist at the end.
I watched it again, but this time with my SciFi hating wife. She protested initially, watched the entire thing, and then thanked me for getting her to watch it afterwards.
That's as good as it gets.
Reading through the previous reviews, I find myself agreeing with the negative reviews in one sense, but still disagreeing overall. I walked away quite liking this movie.
Most of the complaints are around technical/realism stupidities, or else being a rip-off of previous movies.
Re stupidities: there are plenty, most of the negative reviews are correct, but they miss the point, which is given a more or less silly premise, do the characters fulfill their struggle properly.
For me the answer is strong yes, I tend to respond to the emotions a movie is trying to convey, ultimately this is a story of loss and love, a nice universal theme that always resonates.
Given that theme, the movie's style, effects, music all worked really well to reinforce that. I liked all the performances.
Be careful about critiquing modern SF movies about technical stupidities too much. Most of these have a fatal flaw that would destroy most of them. How about the likelihood of star travel? OK, you have to grant that otherwise most SF movies pretty much fall flat.
But still, the basic premise is not realistic: a star faring race, searching for energy, is not going to bother going to earth for its water, that is so much more easily available anywhere else, energy itself is much more easily accessible without playing with water for fusion, just stay with your own star, mine your own asteroid belt or gas giants.
Sure, it makes no sense for the Tet to make and use human clones, but given that, do we have a good story? I think so.
To me, valid criticisms are when characters, immersed in their realities such as they are, do not act true to their nature. And thus a movie like Prometheus failed since there the highly trained biology experts acted like complete morons.
But that is not the case here. In this movie we have passion, loss, and love, the struggle to persevere.
Plus the drones looked really really cool.
Re copying other movies: get over it. This movie is distinct enough to feel its own. I saw and loved Moon (which granted is the better movie), but I enjoyed this one for what it was.
I think it helped for me to not see any trailers, and to come in with low expectations after hearing about bad reviews.
Most of the complaints are around technical/realism stupidities, or else being a rip-off of previous movies.
Re stupidities: there are plenty, most of the negative reviews are correct, but they miss the point, which is given a more or less silly premise, do the characters fulfill their struggle properly.
For me the answer is strong yes, I tend to respond to the emotions a movie is trying to convey, ultimately this is a story of loss and love, a nice universal theme that always resonates.
Given that theme, the movie's style, effects, music all worked really well to reinforce that. I liked all the performances.
Be careful about critiquing modern SF movies about technical stupidities too much. Most of these have a fatal flaw that would destroy most of them. How about the likelihood of star travel? OK, you have to grant that otherwise most SF movies pretty much fall flat.
But still, the basic premise is not realistic: a star faring race, searching for energy, is not going to bother going to earth for its water, that is so much more easily available anywhere else, energy itself is much more easily accessible without playing with water for fusion, just stay with your own star, mine your own asteroid belt or gas giants.
Sure, it makes no sense for the Tet to make and use human clones, but given that, do we have a good story? I think so.
To me, valid criticisms are when characters, immersed in their realities such as they are, do not act true to their nature. And thus a movie like Prometheus failed since there the highly trained biology experts acted like complete morons.
But that is not the case here. In this movie we have passion, loss, and love, the struggle to persevere.
Plus the drones looked really really cool.
Re copying other movies: get over it. This movie is distinct enough to feel its own. I saw and loved Moon (which granted is the better movie), but I enjoyed this one for what it was.
I think it helped for me to not see any trailers, and to come in with low expectations after hearing about bad reviews.
If there is a soul, it is made from the love we share.
There are many ways to describe Oblivion, but the softly spoken afterword by Tom Cruise's character really makes you feel the human heartbeat of this sci-fi epic.
As always, the trailer is full of explosions and set pieces. Oblivion the movie is an entirely different beast that values a human story and characters that are driven by common purpose. While the cast is tiny, I found much to enjoy from Cruise, Riseborough, Freeman and that Nordic guy from Headhunters who is showing up more frequently in Hollywood blockbusters. Aside from unusually limited screen-time, Morgan and other supporting cast are effective and memorable.
The threads of the plot are well-woven and I won't give anything away, so what I will tell you is to prepare for a powerful journey into the unknown where nothing is what it seems. Explosive set pieces take a backseat for sci-fi philosophy with twists to spare.
Oblivion ticks all the boxes for correct use of literary devices and establishes enough original cannon to stick in your mind long after the credits start rolling. It is a distinct success among the largely abysmal offerings of 2013 so far, don't miss it.
There are many ways to describe Oblivion, but the softly spoken afterword by Tom Cruise's character really makes you feel the human heartbeat of this sci-fi epic.
As always, the trailer is full of explosions and set pieces. Oblivion the movie is an entirely different beast that values a human story and characters that are driven by common purpose. While the cast is tiny, I found much to enjoy from Cruise, Riseborough, Freeman and that Nordic guy from Headhunters who is showing up more frequently in Hollywood blockbusters. Aside from unusually limited screen-time, Morgan and other supporting cast are effective and memorable.
The threads of the plot are well-woven and I won't give anything away, so what I will tell you is to prepare for a powerful journey into the unknown where nothing is what it seems. Explosive set pieces take a backseat for sci-fi philosophy with twists to spare.
Oblivion ticks all the boxes for correct use of literary devices and establishes enough original cannon to stick in your mind long after the credits start rolling. It is a distinct success among the largely abysmal offerings of 2013 so far, don't miss it.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesThere were ten days of location shooting in Iceland, where daylight lasted virtually 24 hours. Joseph Kosinski wanted to make a film that was very much based in daylight, considering that a lot of classic sci-fi movies like Alien, le 8ème passager (1979) and Blade Runner (1982) were shot in near darkness.
- GaffesShortly before the end of the film, Jack listens to the contents of the black box which he found in the crashed crew module with the hibernating "Odyssey" crew members. The recorded cockpit conversation between Victoria and Jack goes on after sealing off the module with other crew members and even continues after jettison of the module. At first glance it seems the cockpit conversation could no longer be on the black box, but the system could have been transmitting the recorded conversation to the crew module with the black box.
- Citations
Jack Harper: If we have souls, they are made of the love we share... undimmed by time and bound by death.
- Crédits fousThe Universal logo features the Earth in its ruined state in 2077 in the film, with the logo's letters rusted.
The Tet space station is seen orbiting the world.
- Versions alternativesThe film's IMAX release presented the film open-matte, at an aspect ratio of 1.90:1, meaning there was more picture information visible in the top and bottom of the frame than in normal theaters and on home video.
- ConnexionsFeatured in Projector: Oblivion (2013)
- Bandes originalesRamble On
Written by Robert Plant, Jimmy Page
Performed by Led Zeppelin
Courtesy of Atlantic Recording Corp.
By arrangement with Warner Music Group Film & TV Licensing
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Sites officiels
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Oblivion: El tiempo del olvido
- Lieux de tournage
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 120 000 000 $US (estimé)
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 89 107 235 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 37 054 485 $US
- 21 avr. 2013
- Montant brut mondial
- 286 168 572 $US
- Durée
- 2h 4min(124 min)
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 2.39 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant