Review of "Oblivion", SF movie with Tom Cruise and Morgan Freeman

[Vort]

This was our date movie on Friday. I like Tom Cruise (as an actor) and am sort of unimpressed with Morgan Freeman. My wife loves Morgan Freeman (as an actor) and is severely unimpressed with Tom Cruise. So it was a good compromise.

The critics generally savaged this movie. I can't see why, unless it's that they like hearing themselves sound clever through criticism. The movie is not "hard" SF, of course, but I'm not sure a "hard" SF movie has been made for general theatrical release since 2001 (the movie, which I realize it's debatable how "hard" that is, but whatever). For myself, I enjoyed this film.

I think Cruise is an above-average actor, and I think he did an excellent job in this movie. Furthermore, the script, which I expected to be a mess, wasn't. They could have done a better job with plot point clarity, though here I must admit that my wife seemed to understand it as it flowed much better than I did. The core plot was not overly convoluted, or for that matter overly clever, and you could pretty much guess most of the major points before they occurred. But the enjoyment of a story is in its telling as much as in its twists, and this movie told the story pretty well. I do wish I could have watched it a second time; I think I would have gotten a lot more out of a subsequent viewing.

Warning: This is a definite PG-13 movie. No frontal nudity, but plenty of rear nudity (Sister Vort insists that no butt-cheeks were ever actually visible, but I seem to remember back-end cleavage). No visible sex, but it was certainly implied -- though between people who considered themselves effectively "married" in a sense, if that makes a difference. And Tom Cruise's character utters a vile (yet mildly cathartic and, in context, appropriate) two-word profanity at the movie's climax, the second word being "you".

• Acting: B overall, A- for the principles (umm...I'd give Freeman no better than a B+)
• Script: B+. I thought the writers did a very solid job on the whole. They might have made the initial exposition clearer, though it was already a bit heavy-handed. Maybe if they were clever enough, they could have figured out a more graceful way to present the necessary backstory information. My main problem was that I tended to lose track of why things were happening. Sister Vort mostly didn't, though, so I assume that was my own problem and not a difficulty with how the scenes were written (or directed).
• Directing: B. Could have been better, but it could have been a great deal worse. Sad though it may be, the "could have been worse" judgment is often the best we can hope for from directors. I swear, there are at best a half-dozen really good directors in Hollywood, and a bunch of hacks that people rave about. (E.g. see J. J. Abrams and the utter disaster he made of the two recent Star Trek films -- why they got him to do the next Star Wars, I'm sure I will never know. He must have embarrassing naked photographs of key people.)
• Special effects: A, I guess. They were fine. I don't know exactly how to grade this. They were adequate but unobtrusive. The guns were a bit hokey, but that's sort of a stupid thing to nitpick.
• Emotional impact: A-. The movie worked well for me. I actually cared about most of the characters, especially the principles.

Overall, I give the movie a solid B+. There are so darned few good SF films that I can't see savaging this one for its relatively minor problems.

[Bini]

We rented it from Rexbox and wasn't expecting much, especially since it got major thumbs down from a lot of critics but we did enjoy it. I'm with you, I prefer Tom Cruise over Morgan Freeman, I just think Freeman ends up doing a lot of the same roles.. He's good at narrating though documentaries though, if you can stay awake for two hours watching the march of the penguins.

[Vort]

Yes, we Redboxed it, too, which is why I couldn't hold onto it for a few days and rewatch it.

[Lakumi]

did it ride the highway to the danger zone?

[prisonchaplain]

I'm generous towards sci fi, because it's one of my favorite genres. It was a bit plodding, but I'd give it a B+ overall.

[Vort]

did it ride the highway to the danger zone?

No, but speaking of music, it featured the best Led Zeppelin song (and one of the best pop/rock songs) ever, Ramble On. That alone made it worth the price of admission. Plus, he had a bunch of good '70s and '80s albums there, such as Asia and Some Enchanted Evening by Blue Öyster Cult.

[Dravin]

They could have done a better job with plot point clarity, though here I must admit that my wife seemed to understand it as it flowed much better than I did.

I think that's one of the things most movies with a twist fight with. I don't think it has to be so, but I think in a fair amount of movies the plot twist up is handled such that they can lose people trying to follow things. Foreshadowing can also muddling things a little if they don't handle it well because it's so subtle it didn't prime you or you don't remember it when it becomes relevant. Or did you mean plot points not related to the twist?

[Vort]

I meant just following the movie dialogue generally and figuring out how what was just said ties in with the larger plot. However, I blame this partially on Walkmans, aka "Why does everyone keep mumbling?"

[pam]

Good to see you posting again Vort. :)

[Leah]

I'm with Sister Vort....severely unimpressed with Tom Cruise (as an actor and in other ways), so will not see this movie.

But it's good to see you're still alive and kickin'.

Even if you do like Tom Cruise......

[Anddenex]

I think this movie was better than the critics review, however as a SF buff, I would probably rate the movie between a C+ and B.

I differ, I am both fond of Tom Cruise and Morgan Freeman as actors and think both of them typically do a great job.

I personally feel Morgan Freeman is a more natural actor than Tom Cruise.

[mnn727]

Yeah, not impressed with Tom Cruise at all, his acting is usually just ok but as a person he is a nut case IMHO, but Morgan Freeman is one of my favorite actors.

The previews did not make me want to see it, so I'll wait til its on TV.

But thanks for the review and welcome back

[pam]

I won't pay to watch a Tom Cruise movie ever since his whole tirade regarding Brooke Shields. Morgan Freeman has always been one of my favorite actors.

[Misshalfway]

I must confess. I'm done with Tom Cruise. He was cute for 10 min, but that's over now. And this might be blasphemy, but I might be done with Morgan Freeman too. He got his teeth done, and its just not the same.

[prisonchaplain]

Two points of contention.

#1. A movie should be judged on its own merits--not on my irritation with the politics or social views of the actors/actresses in it. Otherewise, I'd be stuck watching Kirk Cameron movies for the rest of my existence.

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4884366807992264&w=138&h=180&c=7&rs=1&pid=1.7

#2. This may be blasphemy too, but I don't believe Tom Cruise should be condemned for his foolishness towards Brook Shields. He was motivated largely by religious conviction. That Psychiatry is hopelessly flawed is doctrine for Scientologists. I may find the belief to be foolish, but I'm not going to boycott his movies over it. http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4924421634132335&w=262&h=187&c=7&rs=1&pid=1.7

Edited September 18, 2013 by prisonchaplain

[Guest]

Two points of contention.

#1. A movie should be judged on its own merits--not on my irritation with the politics or social views of the actors/actresses in it. Otherewise, I'd be stuck watching Kirk Cameron movies for the rest of my existence.

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4884366807992264&w=138&h=180&c=7&rs=1&pid=1.7

#2. This may be blasphemy too, but I don't believe Tom Cruise should be condemned for his foolishness towards Brook Shields. He was motivated largely by religious conviction. That Psychiatry is hopelessly flawed is doctrine for Scientologists. I may find the belief to be foolish, but I'm not going to boycott his movies over it. http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4924421634132335&w=262&h=187&c=7&rs=1&pid=1.7

I actually agree with Tom Cruise on the over-medication of psychological problems in the US. He made a stupid mistake of making it personal by naming names without knowing the complete details of that personal event. I went through something similar to what Brooke Shields went through and I decided to go through it drug free. The identification of the problem is half the battle. The support of my husband and family helped me through the rest. Tom Cruise would have been proud of me. But, it is a very hard road just like deciding to treat pneumonia with natural remedies. There are those who can handle it, and there are those who would die because they just can't handle it. So Tom Cruise shouldn't have named names because he doesn't know the details of Brooke Shields' struggle and how much of a risk she and her baby went through.

Okay enough of Tom Cruise. I did not like Oblivion. Mostly because, my expectations were too high as it has Tom Cruise and Morgan Freeman in it. Two actors of top billing which makes you expect a top billing movie.

[pam]

Two points of contention.

#1. A movie should be judged on its own merits--not on my irritation with the politics or social views of the actors/actresses in it. Otherewise, I'd be stuck watching Kirk Cameron movies for the rest of my existence.

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4884366807992264&w=138&h=180&c=7&rs=1&pid=1.7

#2. This may be blasphemy too, but I don't believe Tom Cruise should be condemned for his foolishness towards Brook Shields. He was motivated largely by religious conviction. That Psychiatry is hopelessly flawed is doctrine for Scientologists. I may find the belief to be foolish, but I'm not going to boycott his movies over it. http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4924421634132335&w=262&h=187&c=7&rs=1&pid=1.7

I never said I was boycotting his movies. I said I wouldn't "pay" to go see one of his movies. I chose my words carefully. :)

Just like I won't pay to see a Jamie Foxx movie either.

Edited September 18, 2013 by pam

[Misshalfway]

Amen. I won't pay to see Jamie Fox either.

[Bini]

While I prefer Tom Cruise over Morgan Freeman, neither are on my top ten list. Saying that, I will always always have a special place in my heart for Far And Away..

[Roseslipper]

I thought it was a pretty good movie myself. I normally wouldnt see a movie like this but I was on a date. and again I did enjoy the movie.

[Roseslipper]

hi vort nice 2 c u.

[Guest]

I never said I was boycotting his movies. I said I wouldn't "pay" to go see one of his movies. I chose my words carefully. :)

Just like I won't pay to see a Jamie Foxx movie either.

It's Nicholas Cage and that girl from Twilight for me. Although, a lot of times, I end up watching those movies in the theater because my family just really want to and I can't just stay home. But then, my husband is paying for it, so that doesn't count, right?

I still don't understand how those two can get cast in movies like Sorcerer's Apprentice and Snow White and the Huntsman. They have a way of ruining really good movies.

[Misshalfway]

It's Nicholas Cage and that girl from Twilight for me. Although, a lot of times, I end up watching those movies in the theater because my family just really want to and I can't just stay home. But then, my husband is paying for it, so that doesn't count, right?

I still don't understand how those two can get cast in movies like Sorcerer's Apprentice and Snow White and the Huntsman. They have a way of ruining really good movies.

Hey! Twilight changed a generation!!

[Lakumi]

Hey! Twilight changed a generation!!

no Twilight Sparkle changed a generation

Twilight ruined a generation