Oblivion

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.

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.

An engrossing film, with a well-developed post-apocalyptic premise, along with an unpredictable plot, visually stunning cinematography, paired with thrilling action sequences and great performances, although the plot got a bit convoluted at times and there were some plot holes.

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.

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.