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
For decades it has been an accepted fact of life in Hollywood that, no matter how good the movie, endings are a write-off.
Hollywood has learned the hard way that, no matter how good the film (or the book on which it is based) it is impossible to do an ending which satisfies the writer, the director, the producers, the critics, the audience and (duh!) reviewers like this one.
That is why, for literally as long as there have been movies, endings are changed at the last minute; and often even multiple endings are shot so that survey groups can be brought in to make the final choice.
The reason I gave this brief lecture on the importance of endings is simple -- going into the last 20 minutes, this was a rock solid film with a rock solid script and rock solid performances.
But the ending was ... perfect.
And perfect endings are so rare these days that I needed to write a review for posterity that does nothing except note this for future readers and future viewers.
Are we still an effective team???????????
Hollywood has learned the hard way that, no matter how good the film (or the book on which it is based) it is impossible to do an ending which satisfies the writer, the director, the producers, the critics, the audience and (duh!) reviewers like this one.
That is why, for literally as long as there have been movies, endings are changed at the last minute; and often even multiple endings are shot so that survey groups can be brought in to make the final choice.
The reason I gave this brief lecture on the importance of endings is simple -- going into the last 20 minutes, this was a rock solid film with a rock solid script and rock solid performances.
But the ending was ... perfect.
And perfect endings are so rare these days that I needed to write a review for posterity that does nothing except note this for future readers and future viewers.
Are we still an effective team???????????
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.
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.
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.
Primarily a tale of disinformation, "Oblivion" tackles myriad issues that are relevant to our time: Do you know who you are? Who do you trust to inform you? What is true intimacy? And will Artificial Intelligence rule over mankind? To be frank, the true great villain in "Oblivion" is the human race itself: We are enslaving our own people, destroying our own planet and exterminating each other. But, to be even more precise, the true villains are the people in wealth and power (as portrayed here by sentient artificial intelligence). The millionaires and politicians are the ones who pay to keep us in the dark and on our hamster wheels, feeding them resources at the cost of all life on the surface of the Earth. In our reality, just like in the movie, mankind is engaged in repetitive tasks, staying alive and oblivious to its truth; living in superficial relationships with no real love and allowing the planet to be consumed. As such, you and I ARE the protagonist in this movie: A puppet on strings, fighting against itself and serving an evil, selfish and vampiric power that is corrupting the planet. We are living in the clouds and need to touch grass.
To get the plastic point across, Director Joseph Kosinski employs wonderful vistas of our planet. The photography and prop design in this movie is truly something special (thank you, Claudio Miranda). The color palette also gets the plot across by driving in the difference between conscious and unconscious, earthly and artificial thru black, brown and green versus cream and grey. Thru an exaggerated script, (one which can be frustrating, especially during the first minutes of the film), we see that the ideal life our repairman leads is both luxurious and supposedly meaningful... but something is afoot; it doesn't feel natural! Our protagonist has been fed false information, the same way we are told whatever suits the agenda of today's media outlets. We notice in the movie that those who cannot accept the truth, refuse to engage with the planet; they live in the sky and are not "down to Earth". These people exist in real life, and can usually be found in wealthy circles who are far removed from any struggle, conflict or life difficulty. Because of this, they perceive others as inhuman or below them, when the truth is the exact opposite.
In conclusion, whether it was Joseph Kosinski's intention or not, "Oblivion" asks you to wake up and realize: You are overseeing the destruction of your human soul and are participating in the looting of planet Earth. But what do you do now? The film offers no other solution to this issue of the machine, other than to join a Jihad and bomb the system to kingdom come. As such, "Oblivion" may strike some users into consideration, but mostly passes off as a good time and is quickly forgotten in a sea of other consumables.
To get the plastic point across, Director Joseph Kosinski employs wonderful vistas of our planet. The photography and prop design in this movie is truly something special (thank you, Claudio Miranda). The color palette also gets the plot across by driving in the difference between conscious and unconscious, earthly and artificial thru black, brown and green versus cream and grey. Thru an exaggerated script, (one which can be frustrating, especially during the first minutes of the film), we see that the ideal life our repairman leads is both luxurious and supposedly meaningful... but something is afoot; it doesn't feel natural! Our protagonist has been fed false information, the same way we are told whatever suits the agenda of today's media outlets. We notice in the movie that those who cannot accept the truth, refuse to engage with the planet; they live in the sky and are not "down to Earth". These people exist in real life, and can usually be found in wealthy circles who are far removed from any struggle, conflict or life difficulty. Because of this, they perceive others as inhuman or below them, when the truth is the exact opposite.
In conclusion, whether it was Joseph Kosinski's intention or not, "Oblivion" asks you to wake up and realize: You are overseeing the destruction of your human soul and are participating in the looting of planet Earth. But what do you do now? The film offers no other solution to this issue of the machine, other than to join a Jihad and bomb the system to kingdom come. As such, "Oblivion" may strike some users into consideration, but mostly passes off as a good time and is quickly forgotten in a sea of other consumables.
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
- How long is Oblivion?Alimenté par Alexa
- What is the purpose of all those random noises that the drones make? Is it a form of communication?
- Is Oblivion based on a book?
- Why did the Tet need Earth's seawater?
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
- Durée2 heures 4 minutes
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 2.39 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant