Best SciFi in decades!
This is the best Sci-Fi I've seen in decades. I don't often hand out praise. This movie was enjoyable to watch a dozen times when I received it and is highly recommended. An excellent cast although there was no chemistry with the actress who played Julia. Olga was not right for the part. She lacked the on screen presence and appeal and simply did not mesh with Cruise on screen. It wasn't any lack of acting. They simply lacked the chemistry needed for the role she played. They needed someone who stands out in a crowd and has sincerity in their eyes. I also think once the background story was known... it should have emphasized the fact that their marriage was kept secret from their crew and aerospace command center at the time which is why she wore the ring around her neck. It also should have included the fact that Vika had interests in him at the beginning and did not know about his marriage. Those two issues were not made clear. I was delighted that there was no blood and gore for a change other than a stain on a shirt. So thank you to the director, writer and producers for not subjecting the audience to violent gore. This was clearly the best set design I have ever seen when it came to the sky house. I found their front projection quite effective and visually stunning for both the audience and cast. The story had some wonderful new ideas... and it might have been nice to have seen some scenes of the thousands who came to attack 50 years earlier. This movie did have a unique story. A wonderful clean, futuristic design of architecture and high-tech devices. The intent to bring Sci-Fi back out into the sunlight is a concept I agree with. Over the years it had become dark and dirty and violent which is a turn off and most of us are sick and tired of those other grungy sci-fi's. While this did have some drone battle scenes (which were a bit long for my taste... but that's what fast forward is for) but some of the most important scenes were cut in favor of useless, prolonged drone battles inside a power plant and unnecessary CGI expense. Battle scenes are boring and monotonous & the audience is quite tired of them. Hasn't anyone noticed that the blockbuster hit movies all had good personal stories, limited battle scenes and no dark, dank or grungy... hit movies like Independence Day. This movie is also one of the best movies in recent years. In general it is the depth of the story, the characters & interaction, the cast and visual technologies which are important. Movies need the audience to invest their emotions. This movie aced the technology and clean futuristic architecture. The relationship with Vika was quite unique. She did a superb job of acting and nearly stole the entire film. The cast was excellent. The designs were beautiful as was the concept. I thought the writers approach to selling the story was a refreshing change from their usual antiquated script formats. I'm amazed it worked. I think more should have been done with Tet and we are more interested in seeing additional scenes of the condition of the cities and survivors survival attempts (like the grain crop concept in The Host) than barraging us with battles. This movie was very sparing about that so it was appreciated. Only 2 significant battle scenes which were fast forwarded through. The 3 most glaring errors were the deleting of the archives scene where Morgan showed him the book of his career. In fact, there should have been more scenes of the archives and more on what they had salvaged. The second was a simple blunder in the script dialogue. Vika told Sally that she needed a drone to scout grid 17 and Sally responds that she is sending a drone to grid 22. Clearly... Sally should have sent the drone to grid 17. Grid 22 wasn't even mentioned in the conversation. Someone should have caught that either on editing or at least when prescreening the movie without talking through it... and someone might have heard the mistake. It was pretty glaring. And finally, to hear Morgan talking about waves and bedrock in Chicago was a bit ridiculous. While New York and San Francisco are on bedrock and next to an ocean for tidal waves... Chicago is not on bedrock as far as I know... I've drilled in all three areas... and certainly would not be subject to Tsunami's from the great lakes. Some wave action perhaps... but would not bury Chicago... so that was the third glaring error. It was also obvious that Sally wasn't quite right in the first few minutes with the constant asking about being an "effective team". Her Texas accent was also waaay overdone. Plus, I would have waited a few minutes and established the future before doing the dream sequence rather than opening the movie with it. There also should have been more lighting in the lower level workshop. Most workshops are brightly lit. His should have been no different in that respect. But the set for their house was fabulous. I'd like to see all Sci-Fi's use projection screens like that. Unlike some people who judge actors on their personal lives, those issues are of no interest and should not be an issue in regard to the success of a movie. I only care how they do on screen and I must say they were all terrific with the chemistry exception I noted. However... we could have done without the cigar and the goggles on Morgan Freeman. It was not only ridiculous that he would still have access to Cigars after 50 years considering the planet was a wasteland... but it is about time to stop pushing tobacco products on our films. It is a gross affront to the audience especially when it has been banned in practically every building in the country... so what makes these filmmakers think we want to see some nasty cigar... especially Sci-Fi fans who usually have backgrounds in science, technology or engineering. Most of us know better than to smoke and don't enjoy watching it either. Prometheus did the same thing. It was offensive both times. Find a technology company to finance your sci-fi films. Microsoft or Sony or Toshiba, Apple or Verizon. Not tobacco companies. They should know that watching someone smoke only repulses people these days. It doesn't work like it did in the 40's. It does not make anyone want to smoke unless they are already addicted. We probably could have done without the scene of the 3 drones in that dark, dripping, dingy power plant. I hope the Director and producers realize you exposed your crew and cast to dangerous PCB's and lead and sulfuric acid left behind in that abandoned plant you chose to film in. It can't be cleaned from the concrete floors. It seeps into the concrete floors and then rained down all over the cast and crew during filming. That particular dark, grungy site also contradicted your intention to bring Sci-Fi back in to the sunlight. I find it disturbing when the directors expose the cast and crew to hazardous and unpleasant conditions. What purpose did it serve to place that poor girl in a tank top in Iceland where she was freezing? It certainly didn't add to her appeal. And why would you allow your high dollar star to become injured? That knee or neck injury could affect him for the rest of his life. It was clear he was having great pain and difficulty walking on it during the library scene. The audience does not require nor appreciate the actors being injured or subjected to miserable conditions. I think any directors who do this should be banned for life from working on any more films, regardless of how well the movie may have done. Injuring an actor is inexcusable and unnecessary. Their contracts should spell out that they are prohibited from engaging in precarious behavior which may result in injuries. In addition to the damage to the actor, it could bankrupt a studio and infuriate an audience over the gross inconsideration shown to the cast. NO movie is important enough to cause harm or discomfort to a cast... such as filming in 100 degree weather as Star Trek Generations did to 3 star actors who could have died from heat related heart attacks as did Clark Gable and John Candy under similar conditions... or like this movie... putting their actors on top of a mountain Cliff in Iceland. Cruise is over 51 and shouldn't be running up cliffs and high sand dunes if he doesn't want to end up like Ritter, Gable and Candy... despite how energetic he feels. Guys who go overboard to overdo everything to prove their youth are prime candidates for fatal heart attacks. If you want Iceland... then green-screen it. We won't know the difference. Many of us have a long memory about damage to actors and stunt crews... Harry Potter's stunt double who is paralyzed. Vic Morrow and 2 children dead from a helicopter crash on set. Elizabeth Taylor in National Velvet age 12 caused a life long back injury. William Shatner with Tinnitus. Ida Lupino, Wayne and crew from cancers after filming in fallout Nevada. I didn't look up any of these incidents. We do remember these incidents and it definitely needs to stop. I'm willing to bet Cruise will require arthroscopic surgery on that knee in 5 years and will end up with stenosis from the neck hyperextension in less than 10 years just from that one library scene in this movie. Frankly, I don't think any movie is worth it. Read more
