Oblivion

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.

The trivia tells us that this is based on a comic book that director joseph kosinski wrote in 2005 but was never published. The story takes place in 2077, just after the "memory wipe" that jack (cruise) describes for us. And the invasion by space travelers, which destroyed most of the cities and made living on the surface mostly impossible. Some great special effets. The control panels, the copter, even the wrecked surface of the planet. Jack is tasked with protecting the structures that support the floating living quarters for the remaining population. I LOVE the mini moto that jack rides around on... kind of like a george jetson briefcase that folds and unfolds. Google it. Some beautiful scenery of iceland, and various film locs in the united states. When another human from the past crash lands, we're not sure what her mission is, or who's side she is on. Some really good suspense, while we wait for answers. Especially when morgan freeman is involved. Really good sci-fi stuff!

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???????????

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.

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.