पृथ्वी के बाकी संसाधनों को निकालने के लिए भेजा गया एक पुराना सिपाही इस सवाल में उलझ जाता है कि वह अपने मिशन के बारे में और अपने बारे में क्या जानता है.पृथ्वी के बाकी संसाधनों को निकालने के लिए भेजा गया एक पुराना सिपाही इस सवाल में उलझ जाता है कि वह अपने मिशन के बारे में और अपने बारे में क्या जानता है.पृथ्वी के बाकी संसाधनों को निकालने के लिए भेजा गया एक पुराना सिपाही इस सवाल में उलझ जाता है कि वह अपने मिशन के बारे में और अपने बारे में क्या जानता है.
- निर्देशक
- लेखक
- स्टार
- पुरस्कार
- 1 जीत और कुल 17 नामांकन
David Benyena
- Grow Hall Survivor
- (as David Madison)
John L. Armijo
- NASA Ground Control
- (बिना क्रेडिट के)
Fileena Bahris
- Survivor
- (बिना क्रेडिट के)
Joanne Bahris
- Tourist
- (बिना क्रेडिट के)
Andrew Breland
- Survivor
- (बिना क्रेडिट के)
Suri Cruise
- Jack's Daughter
- (बिना क्रेडिट के)
Z. Dieterich
- Survivor
- (बिना क्रेडिट के)
Paul Gunawan
- Survivor
- (बिना क्रेडिट के)
Julie Hardin
- Librarian
- (बिना क्रेडिट के)
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
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.
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.
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???????????
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.
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाThere 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 एलियन (1979) and ब्लेड रनर (1982) were shot in near darkness.
- गूफ़Shortly 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.
- भाव
Jack Harper: If we have souls, they are made of the love we share... undimmed by time and bound by death.
- क्रेज़ी क्रेडिटThe 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.
- इसके अलावा अन्य वर्जनThe 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.
- कनेक्शनFeatured in Projector: Oblivion (2013)
- साउंडट्रैकRamble 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
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
Everything New on Prime Video in June
Everything New on Prime Video in June
Your guide to all the new movies and shows streaming on Prime Video in the US this month.
विवरण
बॉक्स ऑफ़िस
- बजट
- $12,00,00,000(अनुमानित)
- US और कनाडा में सकल
- $8,91,07,235
- US और कनाडा में पहले सप्ताह में कुल कमाई
- $3,70,54,485
- 21 अप्रैल 2013
- दुनिया भर में सकल
- $28,61,68,572
- चलने की अवधि2 घंटे 4 मिनट
- रंग
- ध्वनि मिश्रण
- पक्ष अनुपात
- 2.39 : 1
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें