|
Just saw it and if you want to see a good action movie, go see it.
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 06:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 18:35 |
|
|
Here's a thought about the end of the movie: Cage woke up two days ago this time instead of one day ago, right? Well, the general states that "yesterday" there was a powerful energy surge, and then all of the mimics lost their combat ability. In terms of the timeline of the movie, why did the Omega die, chronologically, before Cage was ever a part of the battle?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
Really dug it. Also I can understand why people are confused about the way Cage gets "demoted" and sent into combat. It happens at the very beginning of the movie and it's hard to believe that any soldier who wants to win would accept being on a squad with a guy who is clearly batshit insane and a liability. There's also the fact that SOMEONE at the base probably joined BECAUSE of the propaganda Cage was filming. It's weird for the movie to show us like ten clips of Cage on tv, and NO ONE at the base recognizes who he is. It essentially happens super fast and requires a lot of suspension of disbelief to get past. I wonder if any of the character writing was influenced by the desire to have a big name actor. I would think it's a lot easier to get someone on board if he's the main character and starts at a high rank, gets hosed over, then get's his. If you start out as a no name grunt, I feel like the part is harder to sell. The movie would have worked just as well if it was just some random guy, or if Cage had just said "Yeah" and agreed to it under the impression there wouldn't be a lot of fighting where he's at and of course the army doesn't know poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 07:22
|
|
|
Javaman98 posted:I wonder if any of the character writing was influenced by the desire to have a big name actor. I would think it's a lot easier to get someone on board if he's the main character and starts at a high rank, gets hosed over, then get's his. If you start out as a no name grunt, I feel like the part is harder to sell. The movie would have worked just as well if it was just some random guy, or if Cage had just said "Yeah" and agreed to it under the impression there wouldn't be a lot of fighting where he's at and of course the army doesn't know poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 07:28
|
|
|
Eh, the film's problems start at the ending. Cruise has his job as a propagandist and public-relations flack re-instated. The war is, from the standpoint of the rest of the world, miraculously over. The troops are going to sweep through France and the rest of Europe completely unopposed. That's to say that everything he advertised came true. The last shot of the film is Cruise staring directly into the camera and cracking his trademark grin. Recall that General Gleeson's whole plan was to send Cruise down to the frontlines to record victory - which is precisely what he does, albeit with his memories rather than with a camera. Find explanation there for the weird bit where he wheels out Emily Blunt for her celebrity status. Those grunts he's convinced will then die for him, and he'll walk on past. He is an 'alpha', and the drones are, after all, just his claws. What happens to the dude who impersonated his friend to support his family back home? With an enemy referred to as "the Alpha and the Omega", and Cruise sharing his magic blood, this is pretty transparent Christ imagery. But is Cruise the real deal, or is it just borrowed imagery? What would Jesus do?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 08:09
|
|
|
Well Jesu was a pacifist, yet the movie shows that just sitting aside (drinking a beer on another island) still gets you killed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 08:11
|
|
|
effectual posted:Well Jesu was a pacifist, yet the movie shows that just sitting aside (drinking a beer on another island) still gets you killed. Jesus did not come to bring peace, but a sword. However, that fact obviously cannot be used to justify just any violence. Pacific Rim, for example, misused Christ imagery in the service of a fascist narrative of obliterating the spreading disease-enemy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 08:21
|
|
|
This was a really, really fun movie. Tom Cruise kills some aliens, dies, and hangs out with Emily Blunt. How the gently caress can you possibly have issues with it?(This is in general, not really toward anyone specific) CelticPredator fucked around with this message at 09:03 on Jun 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 08:23
|
|
|
Cruise is Judas, betraying the 'Alpha and the Omega' by stealing its power. In the end, Judas gets to win, and the world stays the same.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 08:39
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:This was a really, really fun movie. Tom Cruise kills some aliens, dies, and hangs out with Emily Blunt. It's actually pretty bad - especially when compared against any number of better recent films (like Elysium, Godzilla, Battle: Los Angeles, etc.). Also the post-converted 3D was rear end.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 09:04
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:It's actually pretty bad - especially when compared against any number of better recent films (like Elysium, Godzilla, Battle: Los Angeles, etc.).
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 09:17
|
|
|
Mars4523 posted:Elysium sucked (and had stupidly simplistic politics), Godzilla sucked, and Battle: Los Angeles sucked. If that is your opinion, you are likely the perfect audience for 'Edge Of Tomorrow'. It is good that you found your match.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 09:19
|
|
|
Edge of Tomorrow wasn't as good as Battle: LA? Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha, good one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 09:20
|
|
|
Rageaholic Monkey posted:Edge of Tomorrow wasn't as good as Battle: LA? Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha, good one. Yes - dealing with the same existentialist themes, homaging Aliens and addressing drone warfare. At the end of Battle: LA, the marines grab handfuls of ammo and head back to fend off the invaders, modelled after experimental US drone weaponry - even though victory is uncertain. In this film, Tom Cruise kills spooky tentacle monsters to become a successful marketeer/propagandist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 09:29
|
|
|
A) I think you're literally the only person that still continues to think about/talk about Battle: LA after this long. B) Uhh, no. Being a successful marketeer/propagandist is his job at the very beginning of the film, yeah, but that's not why he's killing aliens. He does it to escape the vicious cycle he becomes personally trapped in that will not end until he does so. And victory was uncertain here, too. Once he gets the blood transfusion and loses his power, that was it for him. If he was unable to destroy the Omega, and that was definitely a possibility, he'd be dead and there wouldn't be another chance or him to try it again. The movie could have been really cynical and taken that route, but it didn't.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 09:37
|
|
|
Rageaholic Monkey posted:Being a successful marketeer/propagandist is his job at the very beginning of the film, yeah, but that's not why he's killing aliens. He does it to escape the vicious cycle he becomes personally trapped in that will not end until he does so. And victory was uncertain here, too. Once he gets the blood transfusion and loses his power, that was it for him. If he was unable to destroy the Omega, and that was definitely a possibility, he'd be dead and there wouldn't be another chance or him to try it again. The movie could have been really cynical and taken that route, but it didn't. Godot shows up. Godot should not show up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 09:48
|
|
|
It's SMG, man. He doesn't watch films like most people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 09:58
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Eh, the film's problems start at the ending. When Cruise sheds the machinery of indoctrination(literally shedding his war suit and liberal democratic ideals), he is free from the sins of the father. This is already starting to show early in the nihilistic phase of the movie, when opting out of using the battle visor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 10:01
|
|
|
ParanoidInc posted:It's SMG, man. He doesn't watch films like most people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 10:02
|
|
|
This si the third Hollywood movie I've seen this year wherein suicide bombing brings one closer to God.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 10:08
|
|
|
This movie loving owned. As batshit as Tom Cruise is, the guy manages to entertain then hell out of me with each of his films. I'm now hoping Emily Blunt takes on more action roles in the future. She looked amazing 
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 10:31
|
|
|
This was a really good movie! Loved it!
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 10:50
|
|
|
SEX HAVER 40000 posted:This si the third Hollywood movie I've seen this year wherein suicide bombing brings one closer to God. I'm guessing Noah is one of them. What's the other?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 11:15
|
|
|
Mars4523 posted:Elysium sucked (and had stupidly simplistic politics), Godzilla sucked, and Battle: Los Angeles sucked. Godzilla and B:LA really did suck, but Elysium was fairly enjoyable. The action was good at least and Sharlto Copley was great, chewing scenery all over the place. If the film had any problem, it was that there was no win scenario. If the Elysium government won, earth is still hosed. If Damon and co won, then earth still had a HUGE overpopulation problem. I also still have no idea why they wouldnt send a robot into the huge dangerous machine that caused his illness but I dont mind that, its just a way to jumpstart the plot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 13:10
|
|
|
FiftySeven posted:Godzilla and B:LA really did suck, but Elysium was fairly enjoyable. The action was good at least and Sharlto Copley was great, chewing scenery all over the place. If the film had any problem, it was that there was no win scenario. If the Elysium government won, earth is still hosed. If Damon and co won, then earth still had a HUGE overpopulation problem. I also still have no idea why they wouldnt send a robot into the huge dangerous machine that caused his illness but I dont mind that, its just a way to jumpstart the plot. ...But this isn't the Elysium thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 14:47
|
|
|
Mars4523 posted:The problem is that Elysium went out of its way to incorporate very topical themes such as wealth disparity, allocation of resources, and universal health care distribution only to wave all of these real world problems away with "The oppressors are gone, magical robots will save everybody!" Now that was a copout. That's actually a movie where a pessimistic "poo poo, we're hosed" ending would have worked, where Matt Damon takes over Elysium and realizes that they can't actually solve anything for the masses back on Earth without ruining everything for everyone. Don't forgot the main characters name was Marx.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 14:52
|
|
|
I think Godzilla was a really unique blockbuster. Not the best, but I applaud it for a nice slow buildup as opposed to ACTION ACTION ACTION BOOM PEW poo poo we always get. That being said, Edge of Tomorrow was an absolutely perfect summer film. And one of the best Alien invasion flicks made in a long, long time. It was what Battle LA should've been. You know...good. Battle LA was just boring. It was kinda like Call of Duty, but in the way of watching someone play Call of Duty. Where's this felt more intimate thanks to you getting to know your main character pretty well, and watching him change and adapt to every new level. It's the best video game movie ever made. And it was funny! I miss funny blockbusters! That whole montage sequence is really well edited. I want to see this again in 2D because the 3D was dull. But that was the only showing playing after 10. My only complaint, and this is minor, is while Tom Cruise was great, I wish it was Nicolas Cage. And his name in the movie was still Cage. Basicly, I want Nicolas Cage Vs. Aliens. But in a This is The End kind of way. CelticPredator fucked around with this message at 14:58 on Jun 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 14:53
|
|
|
The problem is SMG is a massive troll or a ultra autist about movies and his posts derail every thread with pedantic arguments about poo poo that nobody sees except him. I liked this movie. Whole theatre laughed at basically every death of cruise it's a good summer action movie and its fun.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
What kind of Scifi movie is Edge of Tomorrow? It's not a time travel movie... what is it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 15:02
|
|
|
the walkin dude posted:What kind of Scifi movie is Edge of Tomorrow? It's not a time travel movie... what is it? Alien invasion I reckon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 15:04
|
|
|
what I meant was, is there a specificially-Scifi category name for this sort of Groundhog Day, recurring reality type movie?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 15:08
|
|
|
It was good but the thing which really struck me as stupid was, after getting the device and figuring out where the Omega was why the gently caress would you not just suicide and reset immediately. It made the whole 'we have 3 hours to get to the lourve' feel like clumsily forced tension.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
the walkin dude posted:what I meant was, is there a specificially-Scifi category name for this sort of Groundhog Day, recurring reality type movie?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
It's not enormously complicated. The film employs Christ imagery deceptively to forward an anti-Christian narrative. It is like Pacific Rim or World War Z: mass graves.Monteunicorn posted:When Cruise sheds the machinery of indoctrination(literally shedding his war suit and liberal democratic ideals), he is free from the sins of the father. This is already starting to show early in the nihilistic phase of the movie, when opting out of using the battle visor. The suit is first shed (onscreen) when Cruise brings Blunt to the house, to try and eke out something like a domestic existence. Of course, the swarm of apocalyptic trauma-aliens that serve as the fiery hand of Kronos are already there - ready to disintegrate Tom's symbolic universe as in Wrath Of The Titans (another better film than this) and Cabin In The Woods (unfortunately, same). Everyday objects just explode into life, and it becomes clear that it's a Transformers reference. The aliens represent the underlying ideology, inside everything from the RV to London's skyline. They pop out of the sand exactly like the scorpion in Transformers 1. The ideological fantasy in this film is that you can simply kill the bad guys - the Decepticons - and thus purify the system (literally, the system is reset to be exactly the same sans aliens). It's also a vision of decaffeinated war, without casualties. All that domestic life, with none of the cost. The gradual tearing-off of the power armor is the same imagery as Zod at the end of Man Of Steel - but consider that it's Zod who is doing it. So we can again make a straightforward comparison: is Tom Cruise's character more Superman or Zod? What is he actually fighting for? The only proper ending is for Cruise to come back disgusted at the society that threw countless good people into the meatgrinder for a too-small paycheque. The aliens are obliterated, sure, but they were never the real enemy; they are simply our own essence. This doesn't happen. When I say the movie is bad, I do not say that it is unenjoyable. It is a perfectly mediocre film where, if you pay to see aliens being punched with robots, the company will fulfill their side of the transaction. That doesn't interest me. Of course, on top of the fascist ideology, the film is baldly derivative of countless other films - beyond what I've mentioned already, even. Terminator Salvation's entire John Connor plotline concerns his anxiety when his ability to prophesize the future reaches its limit, and he must set out on his own and become a proper leader. It's the exact same story, but done smarter. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 16:50 on Jun 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:When I say the movie is bad, I do not say that it is unenjoyable. It is a perfectly mediocre film where, if you pay to see aliens being punched with robots, the company will fulfill their side of the transaction. That doesn't interest me. You're begrudging a candy bar for lacking depth and complexity, and there's nothing mediocre about something intended to be merely consumed and enjoyed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
Candy can taste bad and is bad for you, Movie Food analogies are silly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
One thing I liked about Rita's sword was that it looked extremely heavy - And the impacts on the aliens reflected that too. It's not a magical wonder sword like Gipsy Danger's sword in Pacific Rim. Instead of slicing clean through, Rita often brings the full weight of the sword down on the mimics. I thought that was pretty cool, and a nice departure from FFVII (Which comes to mind when you first see the sword!)
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:You're begrudging a candy bar for lacking depth and complexity, and there's nothing mediocre about something intended to be merely consumed and enjoyed. Edge of Tomorrow is actually far more 'deep and complex' than, say, the Robocop remake. When Cruise becomes semi-omniscient later in the film - when they just skip the whole learning process and have him already know everything - this is the same was when Robo hooks his brain directly into the police database to become a terrifying avatar of justice. Edge just takes a longass time to get to that point, where Robocop gets it across in a brief few scenes. Roboremake is consequently the better film. "One should thus invert the usual opposition within which true art is “deep” and commercial kitsch superficial: the problem with kitsch is that it is all too “profound,” manipulating deep libidinal and ideological forces, while genuine art knows how to remain at the surface, how to subtract its subject from the “deeper” context of historical reality." SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 17:43 on Jun 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
I have to ask, do you ever have fun or enjoy yourself at the movies? I'm not trying to be a dick or condescending here, but I rarely ever see you say you actually enjoyed a film because you were really entertained. Or perhaps I missed it. In which case, my bad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 18:35 |
|
|
CelticPredator posted:I have to ask, do you ever have fun or enjoy yourself at the movies? I'm not trying to be a dick or condescending here, but I rarely ever see you say you actually enjoyed a film because you were really entertained. Or perhaps I missed it. In which case, my bad. I'm kaiju.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 17:41
|
|