Oblivion (2013)

[mattmav45]

So fishnet's irrational hate of another actress has led to the hijacking of a review thread for a film in which, unsurprisingly, she hasn't seen and is likely just talking out of her ass based on reviews and other WOM?

 

Par for the course, IMO.

Edited April 11, 2013 by mattmav45

[fishstick]

All Internet is saying that chemistry between TC and OK is laughably bad and many think OK was miscast. AR is definitely winning the people`s choice here.

[Gazz]

So fishnet's irrational hate of another actress has led to the hijacking of a review thread for a film in which, unsurprisingly, she hasn't seen and is likely just talking out of her ass based on reviews and other WOM?

 

 

Pretty much, although I'm not hearing many bad words on the WOM front so far (most seem to agree it's good but not great). I imagine we'll see some moving of the goal posts on this one. 

[Ozymandias]

So fishnet's irrational hate of another actress has led to the hijacking of a review thread for a film in which, unsurprisingly, she hasn't seen and is likely just talking out of her ass based on reviews and other WOM?

 

Par for the course, IMO.

 

fishnets hating movies for reasons only she can come up with is the reason why I've never put her on ignore. Shes not trolling.  She actually believes what she says which makes it very entertaining.

[Hiccup]

Fishnets have you seen the movie?

[fishstick]

Fishnets have you seen the movie?

 

No hon, it`s starring Olga and she`s on my "avoid at all costs" list. Plus Internet doesn`t like her in this either and movie has one of pet peeve cliches so there`s no way I`m gonna support its boxoffice. It`s currently sitting at 67% RT and paltry 5.8/10 averige and even imdb.com`s 7.4 despite inflation by geeks isn`t something to brag about.

[Hiccup]

No hon, it`s starring Olga and she`s on my "avoid at all costs" list. Plus Internet doesn`t like her in this either and movie has one of pet peeve cliches so there`s no way I`m gonna support its boxoffice. It`s currently sitting at 67% RT and paltry 5.8/10 averige and even imdb.com`s 7.4 despite inflation by geeks isn`t something to brag about.

 

THEN STOP JUDGING A FILM JUST BASED ON YOUR FREAK'N BIAS AND ACTING LIKE YOU HAVE SEEN THIS!!!!! GO DISCUSS YOUR HATRED OF THIS FILM IN THE BOX OFFICE SECTION NOT THE REVIEW SECTION!!!!!!! 

[DeeCee]

One minor thing that did bug me was the Odyssey mission being set in 2017. Couldn't they have had the common sense to make it 2027 or 2037? NASA isn't going to launch a ship like that within 4 years.

[A Marvel Fanboy]

Well, we saw more unreasonable settings in other sci-fi movies.

[lab276]

I rather liked the film. The clones thing bothered me until the end, where I think it was payed off nicely. The score was great as were the visuals. My main problem was with the terrible narration in the opening, it's made unnecessary by the arrival of Olga Kurylenko's character. When she needed Earth's situation to be explained to her, we could've learned at the same time. Instead it's basically an audience as-you-know scene where we are being told what we already know for the benefit of a character. Olga Kurylenko was also pretty ordinary, mostly wearing a vacant expression on her face. Someone else would've been better.I hope it's successful because for the most part it's very nice and engaging.Overall, B+

Edited April 12, 2013 by lab276

[Ozymandias]

I rather liked the film. The clones thing bothered me until the end, where I think it was payed off nicely. The score was great as were the visuals. My main problem was with the terrible narration in the opening, it's made unnecessary by the arrival of Olga Kurylenko's character. When she needed Earth's situation to be explained to her, we could've learned at the same time. Instead it's basically an audience as-you-know scene where we are being told what we already know for the benefit of a character. Olga Kurylenko was also pretty ordinary, mostly wearing a vacant expression on her face. Someone else would've been better.I hope it's successful because for the most part it's very nice and engaging.Overall, B+

 

Apparently besides Olga... Jessica Chastain, Olivia Wilde, Brit Marling(who?), and Noomi Rapace were all considered for the role.  The part was originally given to Chastain, but due to scheduling conflicts with Zero Dark Thirty, she dropped out and the role was offered to Olga Kurylenko. 

 

I haven't seen the movie yet but I've only really seen Olga Kurylenko in Magic City, and damn she was great in that.

[lab276]

Yeah, I'd prefer Rapace or Chastain.

[fishstick]

THEN STOP JUDGING A FILM JUST BASED ON YOUR FREAK'N BIAS AND ACTING LIKE YOU HAVE SEEN THIS!!!!! GO DISCUSS YOUR HATRED OF THIS FILM IN THE BOX OFFICE SECTION NOT THE REVIEW SECTION!!!!!!! 

 

But here I can discuss spoilers and you should stop yelling because it`ll give you a sore throat.

Edited April 12, 2013 by fishnets

[DoctorWho]

When the credits start showing up, at Screenplay by there are only 2 guys, Kosinski and Gajdusek. On IMDb there's also Michael Arndt, is this a mistake on the website?

[CJohn]

Best movie of the year so far.

[shayhiri]

One minor thing that did bug me was the Odyssey mission being set in 2017. Couldn't they have had the common sense to make it 2027 or 2037? NASA isn't going to launch a ship like that within 4 years.

 

Considering NASA never launched anything more than orbital shuttles, I'd say the setting should be AT LEAST 2200 AD to be any bit believable.

Edited April 14, 2013 by shayhiri

[shayhiri]

Apparently besides Olga... Jessica Chastain, Olivia Wilde, Brit Marling(who?), and Noomi Rapace were all considered for the role.  The part was originally given to Chastain, but due to scheduling conflicts with Zero Dark Thirty, she dropped out and the role was offered to Olga Kurylenko.

 

Chastain is the best new actress now, but considering she's 10 times less beautiful than Olga and 5 times less beautiful than Andrea, it would be highly unbelievable for Cruise to do what he did for her.

 

So yeah, I'm not sure which is better here: talent or beauty. And we can't have both, sadly.

[Gazz]

Why does everyone here place so much focus on the beauty of the characters in determining who should end up with who? Characters should be more than a pretty faces, especially when dealing with attraction. It shouldn't matter if the object of desire is not as conventionally beautiful as someone else. Character and chemistry should matter most.

[shayhiri]

Well, neither life, nor movies work this way, sorry.

[Gazz]

I completely disagree with that incredibly simplistic point of view. 

 

The attraction between characters has to work on paper long before it works on screen, which means it has to work regardless of beauty. For example, some may consider Victoria to be far more attractive than Julia (many here appear to) but the film makes a point of saying that Victoria isn't compatible with Jack on a deeper level. On a character level. It doesn't matter how beautiful she is because she simply isn't a fit for Jack. 

Edited April 14, 2013 by Gazz