Movie Reviews 2.0
- Thread starter Dresden
- Start date
Ike Turner
Veteran
So I've seen Oblivion today...
Let's get the bad stuff out first: story wise it's basically a mix of three other movies:
and the script somehow manages to make it sure that you can predict most of the plot twists and such.Moon, The Matrix, Independence Day
It's also a bit theatrical, and some of the lines are maybe a bit corny.
Now for the good stuff...
It looks incredibly good. And it's not just the production design, or the CG, or all the stuff they've built. Much of the outdoor stuff is shot in Iceland, so there are some gorgeous vistas and such. And it's been using the newest generation of digital cameras, so the picture quality is also insane. There are some super close ups of the lead actors' faces with super shallow depth of field and there's no noise or loss of detail at all. I think it has some 8K sensors or so and the resulting material is 4K, processed down to 2K for the CGI and the final edit. Gorgeous, gorgeous stuff.
Music is amazing too, and the sound design, and the action coreography. And all the dramatic stuff more or less works well enough in the end, too.
So it's worth the price IMHO, despite all its faults.
Let's all hope we'll get a fully satisfying SF movie in the near dozen releases this year, though
Actually it's all shot at 4K with Sony F65 CineAlta cams and 5K (w/ REDEpic ) for the cloud shots which were projected on stage.
Ike Turner
Veteran
Already did and planning on watching it again...
I'd give Oblivion around a 7.
It is a fun film, well executed but the plot is both very formulaic (thus predictable) and also doesn't make a lot of sense when you think about it. For instance :-
Also while they did a good job tech wise, and I am being particularly niggly here, the Odyssey doesn't fit well for a 2017 craft. Bit too advanced.
Worth seeing in the theatre though.
It is a fun film, well executed but the plot is both very formulaic (thus predictable) and also doesn't make a lot of sense when you think about it. For instance :-
-How did the Odyssey survive sixty years in the now asteroid rich orbital environment of Earth?
-What were the resistance doing calling the Odyssey down? (The implication is that they knew he would react to the people on board it but were unaware of his wife being present.)
-Why does the Tet need humans at all, it certainly has enough drones to not need human repairmen.
-Why can the Tet copy a person so precisely that memories are preserved, then wipe those memories (implying sophisticated control) but still not be able to wipe all the impulses out?
-Why hasn't the Tet heard of relay stations to provide continuous communication coverage? (And thus the drones not having weaker behavior during the night)
-If the Tet just was after fusion fuel in the form of tritium and deuterium from the sea water, why didn't it mine that from the gas giants? Less locals to get in the way and way higher concentrations of hydrogen to work with.
-What is Julia going to do once the other fifty Jack's turn up?
-Why can the Odyssey main body break away without the command module (a small section) but not with it? (Although you can argue the Tet was only interested in the command module so there is wiggle room.)
-What were the resistance doing calling the Odyssey down? (The implication is that they knew he would react to the people on board it but were unaware of his wife being present.)
-Why does the Tet need humans at all, it certainly has enough drones to not need human repairmen.
-Why can the Tet copy a person so precisely that memories are preserved, then wipe those memories (implying sophisticated control) but still not be able to wipe all the impulses out?
-Why hasn't the Tet heard of relay stations to provide continuous communication coverage? (And thus the drones not having weaker behavior during the night)
-If the Tet just was after fusion fuel in the form of tritium and deuterium from the sea water, why didn't it mine that from the gas giants? Less locals to get in the way and way higher concentrations of hydrogen to work with.
-What is Julia going to do once the other fifty Jack's turn up?
-Why can the Odyssey main body break away without the command module (a small section) but not with it? (Although you can argue the Tet was only interested in the command module so there is wiggle room.)
Also while they did a good job tech wise, and I am being particularly niggly here, the Odyssey doesn't fit well for a 2017 craft. Bit too advanced.
Worth seeing in the theatre though.
::What were the resistance doing calling the Odyssey down? (The implication is that they knew he would react to the people on board it but were unaware of his wife being present.)
If I recall correctly, they called it down because they needed the dinky plutonium reactor to help set off the fuel cells to destroy the tet. This was explicitly stated by God, I mean Morgan Freeman.
::Why does the Tet need humans at all, it certainly has enough drones to not need human repairmen.
Perhaps human repairmen are less resource intensive than the drones? It would make some sense to use something evolved on the Earth to function here and the idea that thousands of 'Jacks' carried out the original invasion and war does make some sense if you assume the drones are 'expensive' for the tet. Not too bad an issue this one.
::Why can the Tet copy a person so precisely that memories are preserved, then wipe those memories (implying sophisticated control) but still not be able to wipe all the impulses out?
For me, it suggests sophisticated but imperfect control. Something you might expect from an advanced alien intelligence which could certainly break down the human physiology into component parts easily but wouldn't have an in-depth knowledge of human psychology. Hell, we don't understand this at all yet after decades of research so no reason why the tet should understand it as well.
All the other points you mention obviously don't quite make sense but, in the world of nonsensical plot points in most SF films, they really aren't too bad!
If I recall correctly, they called it down because they needed the dinky plutonium reactor to help set off the fuel cells to destroy the tet. This was explicitly stated by God, I mean Morgan Freeman.
::Why does the Tet need humans at all, it certainly has enough drones to not need human repairmen.
Perhaps human repairmen are less resource intensive than the drones? It would make some sense to use something evolved on the Earth to function here and the idea that thousands of 'Jacks' carried out the original invasion and war does make some sense if you assume the drones are 'expensive' for the tet. Not too bad an issue this one.
::Why can the Tet copy a person so precisely that memories are preserved, then wipe those memories (implying sophisticated control) but still not be able to wipe all the impulses out?
For me, it suggests sophisticated but imperfect control. Something you might expect from an advanced alien intelligence which could certainly break down the human physiology into component parts easily but wouldn't have an in-depth knowledge of human psychology. Hell, we don't understand this at all yet after decades of research so no reason why the tet should understand it as well.
All the other points you mention obviously don't quite make sense but, in the world of nonsensical plot points in most SF films, they really aren't too bad!
Also,
the Odyssey capsule was not ejected in Earth's orbit, but near Titan and thus near Saturn. It's perfectly reasonable to take 60 years to travel to Earth, Voyager needed nearly as much with a preplanned trajectory taking as much advantage of planetary slingshots as possible.
I am replying to Mariner about oblivion here, spoilers abound!
Ah yes, sorry I am wrong there. I do remember then stating that and had forgotten it.
In which case, if resources are the issue, why not use bipedal robots as repairmen (less resource intensive as a flying drone and don't require clothing, frequent food drops etc...). Or if you know you need to invade why not take chunks of the newly chunkified moon and just bombard any signs of life. Just dropping rocks from orbit would have been cheap to do energy wise (especially compared to landing plus cloning an invasion army).
It was able to preserve language skills, implant technical skills it wanted (namely drone maintenance), realise it needed to present a fictional framework to keep the workers compliant (the whole evac to Titan thing) and it still can't wipe memory properly? Possibly the thing that irks the most is that it subscribes to the whole 'love will conquer anything' trope without really justifying it all that much. Makes me a little grumpy but most audiences will just accept it.
Oh agreed, that is why I still rate it as a 7. It is a fun film and I enjoyed watching it, just unlike the very best sci-fi films it falls apart a bit when you examine the plot closely.
Ah yes, sorry I am wrong there. I do remember then stating that and had forgotten it.
In which case, if resources are the issue, why not use bipedal robots as repairmen (less resource intensive as a flying drone and don't require clothing, frequent food drops etc...). Or if you know you need to invade why not take chunks of the newly chunkified moon and just bombard any signs of life. Just dropping rocks from orbit would have been cheap to do energy wise (especially compared to landing plus cloning an invasion army).
It was able to preserve language skills, implant technical skills it wanted (namely drone maintenance), realise it needed to present a fictional framework to keep the workers compliant (the whole evac to Titan thing) and it still can't wipe memory properly? Possibly the thing that irks the most is that it subscribes to the whole 'love will conquer anything' trope without really justifying it all that much. Makes me a little grumpy but most audiences will just accept it.
Oh agreed, that is why I still rate it as a 7. It is a fun film and I enjoyed watching it, just unlike the very best sci-fi films it falls apart a bit when you examine the plot closely.
And now replying to Laa-Yosh.
Actually they never state where in the solar system they rendezvous with the Tet. Just that the mission was originally intended for Titan but was reconfigured when the Tet was observed entering the system. For all we know they may have met out about Mars orbital range.
Voyager 1 took about three years to reach Saturn, Voyager 2 was four. Sixty years for the return time is just too long not to mention it isn't the flight time that bugs me. It is the fact that Earth's orbital space has become a massive debris field thanks to the Tet shredding the moon. You might finagle this by saying Odyssey made it into low Earth orbit before the moon was pulled apart and the Tet kept lower orbital paths clear but then you get into interesting discussion about how long it would have stayed up given that atmospheric drag would be an issue.
They definitely goof on the comms with Mission control - no signal lag is shown at all. If they were out Titan way then it is at least 8 AU away so lag time should be a minimum of 64 minutes each way. Even geostationary orbit or higher has a lag time of around half a second.
Actually they never state where in the solar system they rendezvous with the Tet. Just that the mission was originally intended for Titan but was reconfigured when the Tet was observed entering the system. For all we know they may have met out about Mars orbital range.
Voyager 1 took about three years to reach Saturn, Voyager 2 was four. Sixty years for the return time is just too long not to mention it isn't the flight time that bugs me. It is the fact that Earth's orbital space has become a massive debris field thanks to the Tet shredding the moon. You might finagle this by saying Odyssey made it into low Earth orbit before the moon was pulled apart and the Tet kept lower orbital paths clear but then you get into interesting discussion about how long it would have stayed up given that atmospheric drag would be an issue.
They definitely goof on the comms with Mission control - no signal lag is shown at all. If they were out Titan way then it is at least 8 AU away so lag time should be a minimum of 64 minutes each way. Even geostationary orbit or higher has a lag time of around half a second.
All of you talking oblivion I'm jumped in happiness. Then when I Google it, ouch, it another oblivion. Not elder scrolls oblivion the game :/
Leave Tom alone!!
I'm actually rather bemused that some of the mainstream media reviews of Oblivion have been so harsh (in the UK at least). The Times gave it just 2 out of 5!
This is in direct comparison to many much less intelligent SF films which seem to get 4/5 or even 5/5 from the same reviewers as a matter of course!
That said, I think it may say more about The Times reviewers than anything else.
The main criticism was that it was taking plot points from a selection of movies whilst ignoring the fact that these films were themselves highly derivative. How the same reviewer could give Avatar 5/5, I'll never know.
This is in direct comparison to many much less intelligent SF films which seem to get 4/5 or even 5/5 from the same reviewers as a matter of course!
That said, I think it may say more about The Times reviewers than anything else.
The main criticism was that it was taking plot points from a selection of movies whilst ignoring the fact that these films were themselves highly derivative. How the same reviewer could give Avatar 5/5, I'll never know.
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
Legend
I'll give Oblivion 8 out of 10. Normally it would be 7, but it's gets a +1 for watching it on an IMAX screen (it looks terrific) and for Andrea Riseborough and the eye drops she used to dilate her pupils (she steals every scene).
While you can say the movie is a little derivative here and there, it derives from older style "serious" sci-fi rather than other movies that have also pinched their ideas from Philip K Dick and others. To make out it's a mish-mash of other movies does it a serious disservice and really isn't true.
All in all, it's a good solid SF movie, with a few predictable twists, great visuals and acting, and some good action scenes. Even the story isn't too bad, and the plot loopholes are not too bad or too glaring.
While you can say the movie is a little derivative here and there, it derives from older style "serious" sci-fi rather than other movies that have also pinched their ideas from Philip K Dick and others. To make out it's a mish-mash of other movies does it a serious disservice and really isn't true.
All in all, it's a good solid SF movie, with a few predictable twists, great visuals and acting, and some good action scenes. Even the story isn't too bad, and the plot loopholes are not too bad or too glaring.
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
Legend
There are eye drop to make your pupils dilate. My wife occasionally needs to use them, and eye hospitals often use them when they want to get a good look inside your eyeballs. They are just a muscle relaxant that makes the muscles that control your pupils relax and open out. Put a drop in your eyes and after about twenty minutes your eyes look like that cat in Shrek for a couple of hours.
What's interesting, is it's not relevant to the story or Victoria's character. It's done purely for the look on screen. I saw the movie in IMAX, and wow, does Andrea Riseborough look fantastic. Maybe it's some kind of sub-conscious thing the director is attempting, because people do inherently recognise open pupils as a sign of interest and attraction.
Yeah, that's what I thought about the pupils, my father had to use some many years ago because of a New Year's Eve accident.
As for borrowing from other movies or novels,
Not that I don't like the movie, but they really should have tried a little harder...
As for borrowing from other movies or novels,
the approach to the Tet was even visually just far too similar to Independence day, not to mention the bomb and the sudden ID check by the defenses...
Not that I don't like the movie, but they really should have tried a little harder...
Similar threads
