Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Sunday June 15 2014, @03:42PM   Printer-friendly [Skip to comment(s)]
from the Where's-the-Uwe-Boll-option? dept.

Carter Glace writes that there have been some decent video game movies, like 'Prince of Persia' or one of the 'Resident Evil' films but plenty of bad ones too just remember 'Super Mario Bros'. But Doug Liman's 'Edge of Tomorrow' shows how to take one of video games' most tried and true mechanics and use it to make an excellent and utterly creative film. In the film Tom Cruise plays a PR officer named Cage who, blessed with the power of infinite lives, has to continually progress through the day while figuring out how to win the battle and the war kind of a cross between 'Groundhog Day' and 'Starship Troopers.'

"The use of the words "infinite lives" is no accident," writes Glace. The premise of the film comes from a Japanese graphic novel titled 'All You Need Is Kill', but it is steeped in the classic video game lore: restarting the game over and over until you are prepared for every conceivable threat. This is a fact director Liman openly celebrates and it works here on countless levels. Cruise's efforts to train are all chronicled through an efficient, fun and fluid montage that serves as an excellent progression through the "levels," while cutting out the more mundane, frustrating repetition it "stands as an incredibly creative, intelligent piece of sci-fi filmmaking." "Taking inspiration from an underutilized resource, Cruise has made an incredible return to form," concludes Glace. "Unfortunately, 'Edge of Tomorrow' is already a box-office dud, but I implore you to support this excellent film."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 15 2014, @04:49PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 15 2014, @04:49PM (#55622)

    And I implore the editors to find some commas because they really help the flow of the sentence and make things easier to read especially when the sentences are very long and should contain commas and other punctuation sometimes.

  • (Score: 2) by Appalbarry on Sunday June 15 2014, @05:05PM

    by Appalbarry (66) on Sunday June 15 2014, @05:05PM (#55623) Journal

    You lost me at "Tom Cruise."

    Although nothing could be quite so absurd as this midget trying to represent Lee Childs' character "Jack Reacher." [wikipedia.org]

    No amount of heel lifts can make a 5'4" dwarf look or feel like a six and half foot, 250 pound strong man. Hell, not even CGI could make Cruise believable in that role.

    • (Score: 4, Funny) by ArhcAngel on Sunday June 15 2014, @06:17PM

      by ArhcAngel (654) on Sunday June 15 2014, @06:17PM (#55638)

      No amount of heel lifts can make a 5'4" dwarf look or feel like a six and half foot, 250 pound strong man.

      How about a 6.5 foot metal exoskeleton?
      TBH I thoroughly enjoyed the movie and Cruise didn't detract from the film at least for me. Highly recommend. I mean...come on! You don't want to see Tom Cruise get murdered hundreds of times in one sitting?

      • (Score: 2) by davester666 on Sunday June 15 2014, @06:46PM

        by davester666 (155) on Sunday June 15 2014, @06:46PM (#55643)

        Well, he spared no expense surrounding himself with similarly short people, and had the director always shoot him with the camera so the camera was generally pointing slightly upwards, so he seems taller.

      • (Score: 2) by Appalbarry on Sunday June 15 2014, @06:59PM

        by Appalbarry (66) on Sunday June 15 2014, @06:59PM (#55648) Journal

        You don't want to see Tom Cruise get murdered hundreds of times in one sitting?

        Reminds me of one person's comment about the movie "Cotton Club."

        "Great movie except that you spend the whole film wishing that one of the gangsters would just kill off Richard Gere."

      • (Score: 2) by Rivenaleem on Tuesday June 17 2014, @01:00PM

        by Rivenaleem (3400) on Tuesday June 17 2014, @01:00PM (#56341)

        The squeek/scream he makes when he dies had me in stitches after the 'push-ups' death.

        And the look on his face when he goes back for revenge at the farm really reminded me of myself after passing a particularly hard level in a computer game. Sometimes when you play a game and there's a boss that's just unfairly hard, you don't feel joyous when you beat it, you just feel glad it's over.

        Again, there are times when playing a game that you think "I wonder if I can jump that gap" and you do a quicksave, knowing that if you don't make it you can just respawn. There were many points in the movie that reminded me of that. Knowing you had infinite lives, you could try things you never would in a roguelike. It reminds me of moments in WoW, where you wonder what jumping off that huge ledge would be like, so you just remove any gear that takes durability damage and go fly.

        The only thing I don't like about the movie is the ending, there's not a "Time-Paradox" per sé, however there is a continuity error that I can't figure out. It's far too blatant to be an oversight, so I'm guessing we are just expected to let it pass to allow a form of deus ex to do its thing.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 15 2014, @07:33PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 15 2014, @07:33PM (#55653)

      Yes, they lost me at "Tom Cruise" also because fuck Scientology.

      • (Score: 2) by tibman on Sunday June 15 2014, @07:58PM

        by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 15 2014, @07:58PM (#55661)

        You might be one of those people who would stab Jack Gleeson because King Jofrey was a dick.

        I imagine you might not like any music, book, or film if you truly knew the people who made them. Tom Cruise is just famous enough that you know his personal life and beliefs.

        --
        SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
        • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 15 2014, @08:29PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 15 2014, @08:29PM (#55668)

          Tom Cruise has two parts he plays. Tom Cruise in mega jerk makes good but is still a jerk... and Tom Cruise playing bad ass covert type.

          The first type I find boring. The second one I usually enjoy but tend to forget. This movie seems to be of the second type and when it is quickly shuffled to dvd I will buy it. His acting range is fairly narrow. But he is very good at those two roles.

          As for what he believes? I dont care aside from being entertained by people getting twisted up over it on the internet.

        • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Sunday June 15 2014, @10:48PM

          by Grishnakh (2831) on Sunday June 15 2014, @10:48PM (#55697)

          You might be one of those people who would stab Jack Gleeson because King Jofrey was a dick.

          It doesn't work that way. I don't know anything about Jack Gleeson other than the fact that he played Joffrey, and he did a pretty good job of that. That's his job as an actor: to act like someone else, and to convince me he really is that character while he's on screen. Gleeson did just fine at that. The fact that I don't know anything substantial about his personal life helps with that. If I also knew that he was a murderer or some insane nut who tried to push his wacky beliefs on everyone, then that would ruin the suspension of disbelief for me, and make it so that I could no longer watch his performance as an actor and be entertained.

          With Tom, he's made such a name for himself as a promoter of Scientology that I just can't watch a movie with him anymore without thinking of that, and how he runs around telling everyone who'll listen about how psychiatry is a fraud and how psychiatrists were in league with Xenu of the Galactic Confederation on Teegeeack and all that nonsense. With all that nutjobbery tainting him, it's no longer possible to just watch his performance as an actor.

          Tom Cruise is just famous enough that you know his personal life and beliefs.

          Wrong. I'd bet good money that Gleeson does not spend a lot of time and money pursuing some wacky alien sci-fi religion, or anything so abnormal. Furthermore, and more importantly, he obviously doesn't use his fame as a platform to spread his religious views. Tom does. That's the whole reason Scientology recruits famous actors.

          • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday June 15 2014, @11:36PM

            by Gaaark (41) on Sunday June 15 2014, @11:36PM (#55706) Journal

            That's the whole reason Scientology recruits famous actors.

            I thought it was because Scientology was supposed to help them find their way out of the fudge packing factory.

            --
            --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
          • (Score: 2) by tibman on Monday June 16 2014, @12:58AM

            by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 16 2014, @12:58AM (#55717)

            I can sum it up a little bit, Tom Cruise is crazy. If that prevents you from enjoying films that he is in, that's all you. But you are attacking the product and not the person. I have no desire to get sucked into a side conversation about the particulars of Tom Cruises personal life, i simply do not care : )

            Also, Jack Gleeson played an awesome "bad guy"! I think he'll be known as King Joffrey for a long time. Sort of like when you saw Elrond in LOTR and thought "It's agent Smith!".

            --
            SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
            • (Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday June 16 2014, @09:39AM

              by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Monday June 16 2014, @09:39AM (#55831) Journal
              > Also, Jack Gleeson played an awesome "bad guy"! I think he'll be known as King Joffrey for a long time. Sort of like when you saw Elrond in LOTR and thought "It's agent Smith!".

              Think I read somewhere that he's not planning to do any more acting. Wikipedia confirms [wikipedia.org]. Shame, because he was great, but like you say it would be hard to escape a character like Joffrey. Probably a wise move, perhaps he took advice from Wil Wheaton.
              • (Score: 2) by Rivenaleem on Tuesday June 17 2014, @12:51PM

                by Rivenaleem (3400) on Tuesday June 17 2014, @12:51PM (#56335)

                There is a youtube interview with him where he confirmed it. The reason he is quitting is because acting became a job, and not a hobby. When it became a job, it no longer was enjoyable. But he's still young so there's no reason why he can't find a way yo return to it on his terms.

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by dpp on Sunday June 15 2014, @08:42PM

      by dpp (3579) on Sunday June 15 2014, @08:42PM (#55674)

      Dwarf?!
      Wikipedia shows Mr. Cruise' height at 1.7m (5.57743ft) or 5 feet 6 59â„64 inches.
      So @ ~5' 7", I don't see him qualifying as a "Dwarf".

      Human Height (Males) in U.S., while taller averages than in years gone by, shows:
          average height of a male over 20+ = 176.3 cm (5 ft 9 1â„2 in)
          average height of a female 20 + = 162.2 cm (5 ft 4 in)

      Reference:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height [wikipedia.org]

      Fun trivia - not "above average" Hollywood male actors
      http://www.nextmovie.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/HHC-Hi-res.jpg [nextmovie.com]
      So by your standards, would you call some action stars, such as:
          Al Pacino, Javier Bardem, Robert Downey Jr, Mark Wahlberg, Jason Stratham
      Dwarves?

      Perhaps it was a mistake to cast Peter Dinklage as Tyrion in Game of Thrones when Tom Cruise is such a Dwarf and could've handled the action scenes better?

      • (Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday June 16 2014, @09:34AM

        by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Monday June 16 2014, @09:34AM (#55830) Journal
        > Perhaps it was a mistake to cast Peter Dinklage as Tyrion in Game of Thrones when Tom Cruise is such a Dwarf and could've handled the action scenes better?

        I thought the whole point of Tyrion's action scenes was that Tyrion is not a warrior, due to his stature and the prejudice he has grown up with. Although he does conduct himself bravely when he is faced with an unavoidable battle, he simply isn't a fighter- he wields power in other ways. The role does not call for an action hero.

        Unless of course you were talking about Tyrion's, you know, action scenes, which (if the rumours are true) I think Mr Cruise would have had some difficulty with.

        All told, Peter Dinklage is a fantastic Tyrion.* I know I'm not alone in thinking that he is probably the best bit in an awesome TV series. *disclaimer - haven't read the books yet. Not quite up to date on the series either, so please flag any spoilers, especially ones regarding Tyrion.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 16 2014, @02:55PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 16 2014, @02:55PM (#55916)
        You sound short.
    • (Score: 1) by arslan on Monday June 16 2014, @01:51AM

      by arslan (3462) on Monday June 16 2014, @01:51AM (#55734)

      Those stats sounds like a good fit for Chris Hemsworth (aka Thor)...

  • (Score: 2) by tibman on Sunday June 15 2014, @05:52PM

    by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 15 2014, @05:52PM (#55631)

    I really enjoyed it, saw it twice (so far). Obviously it is an action flick but i found it part comical, serious, and romance as well. Ultimately i consider the movie a sad love story but i think you can get out of it what you want. Emily Blunt (the Fully Metal Bitch) was very fun to watch.

    I think it ended up as a box office dud because it was competing with X-Men, The fault in our stars, and other "popular" movies. The fault in our stars was a sold out movie the night that Edge of Tomorrow opened. I read the book (TFIOS) years ago, no thanks you to the movie. I'd rather not sit in a theater and cry for an hour with strangers.

    --
    SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
    • (Score: 2) by zeigerpuppy on Monday June 16 2014, @04:32AM

      by zeigerpuppy (1298) on Monday June 16 2014, @04:32AM (#55780)

      I enjoyed it too. To be honest I liked Oblivion too. I'm not really a Tom Cruise fan (Scientology is just too creepy) but both movies had good themes and execution.

    • (Score: 2) by RaffArundel on Monday June 16 2014, @12:44PM

      by RaffArundel (3108) on Monday June 16 2014, @12:44PM (#55870) Homepage

      I have no desire to see it because it came off in the previews as Groundhog Day with less talent, personality, character development, etc. and MOAR CGI! When we saw the preview, I turned to my SO and said "is this Michael Bay's Groundhog Day?" and she said, "uh, looks like it". The other issue is that it feels like the studios are pumping out a bunch of Sci Fi movies right now, and that is never a good sign.

      I try to avoid the actor hate - case in point, Russel Crowe is apparently a bastard, but I rather enjoy his films more often than not. Minus one painfully bad script moment - I liked Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher. I haven't read the books, since they aren't my normal genre, but I enjoyed the movie.

  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday June 16 2014, @04:50AM

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 16 2014, @04:50AM (#55787) Journal
    Wikipedia says: $178 million production [wikipedia.org], $100 millions marketing [wikipedia.org] (and I haven't heard of it 'til now) and $237.6 million worldwide [wikipedia.org] after its second week (probably some more weeks to come + disk editions).
    What am I missing or... what does make a movie a dud?
    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
    • (Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday June 16 2014, @09:48AM

      by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Monday June 16 2014, @09:48AM (#55833) Journal

      >Wikipedia says: $178 million production, $100 millions marketing (and I haven't heard of it 'til now) and $237.6 million worldwide after its second week (probably some more weeks to come + disk editions).
      What am I missing or... what does make a movie a dud?

      Hollywood accounting: Hollywood movies exist in a strange superposition of being both a massive hit and a complete failure at the same time: Basically when the taxman comes knocking, the film was a complete flop and everyone is making sad faces and pulling their empty pockets inside out. When they want some new legislation against filesharing, then all movies are total losses and the industry is just churning out multi-million dollar titles out of their own savings just for the love of it. When the people and businesses who worked hard on the film ask for their cut of the profits then, what a surprise, turns out there were no profits to share.

      However, when they want to impress people with how awesome and successful the studios are, suddenly every film is a box office smash taking in millions of profit.

      If you want the truth, just take a look at the lifestyles these Hollywood folks leave. If they were as poor as the pretended to be, I doubt they'd be driving Lamborghinis.

    • (Score: 2) by Darth Turbogeek on Monday June 16 2014, @10:47AM

      by Darth Turbogeek (1073) on Monday June 16 2014, @10:47AM (#55847)

      Generally to be considered "not a dud", a movie needs to be profitable on it's US box office run. Which reading from boxofficemojo.com, Edge of Tomorrow really isnt doing anything better than "Maybe make 100 million" and that's unlikely. 28 million for a major movie on the opening weekend (again, this is USA domestic market only) isnt good, you need to be closer to 50 million. So it will be well short of the production budget - even if the International box office is pretty good, that's not the one that gets examined by bad journalists. I'd guess 350-400million Intl, then DVD sales etc...... really, it'll make back a few good bucks (Hollywood accounting aside) but that doesnt make for a good headline and it's not something someone typing words for their employer will care to explain.

      It's not right and it's definantly not accurate but that's how too many idiots in the media choose to write shit.

      From what I've read, Edge of Tomorrow does seem like a very good movie and would suit the Soylent crowd. But.... yeah the star is Tom Cruise and there's the whole Scientolgy cheerleader crap about him. I think if it was say Chris Hemsworth as the leading man, it'll do much better.