• 108 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#1 Edited by Fredchuckdave (5492 posts) -

Yeah, you guys should probably go see it. It has a higher Rotten Tomatoes rating than Inception did; and this is one of the few cases where that might be right. Video Game fans especially will like the corollary to your standard FPS experience, and the film is very reminiscent of Resistance: Fall of Man (as well as Groundhog Day and Starship Troopers); though admittedly the plot is rather magnificent. Evidently the Bourne Identity director + the ageless Tom Cruise + crazy Japanese Sci Fi = damn good movie. Review and another Review and another (Batman Forever, we hardly knew ye)

Hate Tom Cruise? You'll love this movie too, he dies like 80 times.

#2 Posted by Dallas_Raines (2161 posts) -

I'm seeing it in the morning, can't wait,

#3 Posted by TheHT (11299 posts) -

Does Emily Blunt kick substantial ass?

Online
#4 Edited by Fredchuckdave (5492 posts) -

@theht: Her name's Full Metal Bitch, so of course. On that note I have no idea how this movie got a PG-13 rating.

#5 Posted by probablytuna (3667 posts) -

I stopped paying attention to Rotten Tomatoes scores a while ago but I agree, Edge of Tomorrow is worth seeing. It's still a really crappy name though.

#6 Edited by Fredchuckdave (5492 posts) -

@probablytuna: Above 85 is good; between 60-80 is nebulous, 35-50 is usually good, and below that is pretty bad. So it's like video game scores. IMDB usually has a more accurate rating after a year or so, but RT doesn't have the recency bias issue as much; it's a fine site and tool when used wisely. Edge of Tomorrow is a much better film than Captain America and X Men, but the other two are still good movies; works categorically if not comparatively.

#7 Posted by Seppli (10251 posts) -

Going to watch it tonight. Hearing great things from everyone. Hope I'll enjoy it as much as everybody else seems to.

#8 Posted by caska (119 posts) -

I went in expecting your typical pulp action movie but man this movie was great! Totally unexpected, especially since I think Tom Cruise is kind of a douche.

#9 Posted by Danteveli (1186 posts) -

Thats cool. Now I have to go see it.

#10 Posted by Stete (738 posts) -

Ye everyone says so, but the fact that the movie is PG-13 kinda puts me off it, especially if you take the book that it's based on into consideration.

#11 Posted by TheManWithNoPlan (5519 posts) -

Wow, I guess I need to see it then.

#12 Posted by obcdexter (602 posts) -

I was pleasantly surprised by that movie. It's basically a sci-fi comedy - which I appreciate.

#13 Edited by purspike (37 posts) -

Imagine how much more awesome this movie would have been if it went an R-rating. The gore and action would have been glorious!

#14 Posted by Karkarov (3109 posts) -

Yeah, you guys should probably go see it. It has a higher Rotten Tomatoes rating than Inception did; and this is one of the few cases where that might be right. Video Game fans especially will like the corollary to your standard FPS experience, and the film is very reminiscent of Resistance: Fall of Man (as well as Groundhog Day and Starship Troopers); though admittedly the plot is rather magnificent. Evidently the Bourne Identity director + the ageless Tom Cruise + crazy Japanese Sci Fi = damn good movie. Review and another Review and another (Batman Forever, we hardly knew ye)

Hate Tom Cruise? You'll love this movie too, he dies like 80 times.

Yeah everyone I know is hating on it yet has not seen it, I am going to check it out on my next day off hopefully.

#15 Posted by pinner458 (788 posts) -

I thought this was another dumb Tom Cruise sci-fi movie in the vein of Oblivion or something but I'm surprised to see it actually got good reviews and I'm excited now.

I'm a big fan of Tom Cruise btw, I just didn't like any of his recent sci-fi stints...

#16 Edited by Fredchuckdave (5492 posts) -

@pinner458: As someone who liked Oblivion quite a lot this movie is better in every way imaginable.

For all the PG-13 complaints: This movie has some absolutely horrifying deaths. It certainly doesn't feel PG-13. Admittedly naive to complain about that anymore, almost every movie that's PG-13 now would have been rated R 10 years ago, this one for sure.

#17 Posted by bugbarbecue (52 posts) -

I saw it last weekend, I heartily recommend Saving Groundhog Troopers.

I found the best thing about it is the leaps in the time lines it makes, it subverts the idea of groundhog day by letting you see that the day is lived thousands or millions of times.

#18 Posted by Abendlaender (2807 posts) -

Eh, it was alright. A fun two hours or so but nothing I'll remember in a week.

#19 Edited by nasp (313 posts) -

i was somewhat interested before the reviews because i like tom cruise,and the movie looked ok.the reviews surprised me and now im for sure seeing this movie.i usually give every movie a chance anyway.

#20 Posted by TurboMan (7548 posts) -

Really? The commercials for it look awful.

#21 Posted by stryker1121 (1452 posts) -

Very pleasantly surprised by the positive reviews this is getting..trailers made it look like a fairly standard sci-fi action flick. The comedy hardly comes off at all...gonna have to see it for myself, but will go in with an open mind.

#22 Posted by NotSoSneakyGuy (71 posts) -

I've read the novel, it's not bad. It's a short read too if you were thinking about checking it out. Though I would say that it feels a bit anime, and some changes would definitely be made from japanese novel to hollywood. I'm a bit curious to see what they did.

I stopped paying attention to Rotten Tomatoes scores a while ago but I agree, Edge of Tomorrow is worth seeing. It's still a really crappy name though.

I find All You Need Is Kill as a title is a little bit cheesy, though I still agree with you and that Edge of Tomorrow is the kind of the innocuous title you would expect on a hollywood movie.

#23 Posted by thomasnash (557 posts) -

I've read the novel, it's not bad. It's a short read too if you were thinking about checking it out. Though I would say that it feels a bit anime, and some changes would definitely be made from japanese novel to hollywood. I'm a bit curious to see what they did.

@probablytuna said:

I stopped paying attention to Rotten Tomatoes scores a while ago but I agree, Edge of Tomorrow is worth seeing. It's still a really crappy name though.

I find All You Need Is Kill as a title is a little bit cheesy, though I still agree with you and that Edge of Tomorrow is the kind of the innocuous title you would expect on a hollywood movie.

I read the book the other day and definitely agree about some stuff feeling quite "anime cliche." I think the biggest one for me was the clumsy-but-smart engineer character, who felt quite incongruous. I think I read that her character has been changed in the movie?

I thought the trailers looked like trash, but having read the book I'm a lot more interested in seeing it I think.

#24 Posted by csl316 (8693 posts) -

Well, seems like I'm catching the matinee in an hour.

#25 Posted by CaLe (3988 posts) -

I love Tom Cruise and I quite enjoyed the novel, never expected it would have been made into a movie but I'm glad it seems to have turned out so well.

#26 Posted by Fredchuckdave (5492 posts) -

@turboman: The commercials are okay, tells you the premise and nothing else. There's plenty of movies that are good that have had terrible trailers though, and vice versa.

#27 Posted by Humanity (9279 posts) -

I went to see it today.

First of all - fuck 3D. The early showing was only in 3D and not only were those glasses uncomfortable but the picture was constantly phasing in between blurry and just barely ok. I wish 3D movies went away but I know they make too much money.

I actually read the book this was based on and to be honest I can't really remember how the end of that story played out in the book but it was definitely a bit different than the movie. They certainly changed a few things around - in the book Tom Cruises character was just another grunt and there was no intricate setup for how he gets to be in the spearhead of the invasion.

Overall I enjoyed the movie. If not for this shitty 3D I would have probably enjoyed it a lot more which is a lesson to just never go see 3D movies again. It's not as amazing as I hoped and the book explores the origin of the aliens that adds a bit more flavor which was left largely untouched in the movie, but all in all this was a good movie with solid performances all around from the cast. Say what you will about Cruise and his personal life but the man is a really good actor.

#28 Posted by Tennmuerti (8108 posts) -

What if I felt Oblivion was kinda meh?

#29 Posted by BoFooQ (674 posts) -

I'm surprised to hear this, everything I"ve seen so far makes this movie look stupid. That being said I'll still probably see it at some point probably on DVD at some point.

#30 Edited by BoOzak (923 posts) -

I saw it a few days ago and enjoyed it, although I am getting a bit sick of the source code / ground hog day story mechanic. And it's cool to see Tom Cruise not playing an arrogant know it all action hero. (at least when the movie starts he seems like a real person)

#31 Posted by Humanity (9279 posts) -

What if I felt Oblivion was kinda meh?

Then I dunno this is a bit more involved than Oblivion. I appreciated Oblivion in terms of pure aesthetics.

#32 Posted by GunslingerPanda (4757 posts) -

I do love Tom Cruise, but I always prefer to read the book and I can't really do that with my beefy backlog.

#33 Posted by Flacracker (1674 posts) -

What if I felt Oblivion was kinda meh?

Then the reviews would agree with you. Edge of Tomorrow is much more highly rated.

#34 Edited by Tennmuerti (8108 posts) -
#35 Posted by MooseyMcMan (11039 posts) -

I wouldn't say it was fantastic, but it was good. I enjoyed it.

Moderator
#36 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

Just came home from the movies. Yeah, it's pretty good. Not enough nudity and romance. Emily Blunt is in spectacular shape. They should have done some Kama-Sutra or something. Nah, I'm serious, they're hinting at some comedic romance, and I'd have enjoyed if there was like 5 minutes more of that. With some nudity for pay-off.

Other than that, I'm not a great fan of the photography. Too grey and bleak. No matter how grey and bleak the outlook for humanity is, the sun will fill the world with color all the same regardless.

#37 Edited by Fredchuckdave (5492 posts) -

@seppli: Uh, right that's actually something that makes the movie quite a lot better than it could have been (i.e. if it had a cheesy romance subplot). So, good for you being a silly person. There's quite a lot of visual variety in the film, the tones are cooler but it never really feels bleak except for one outstanding brief sequence. The movie is hilarious; how could it be bleak?

#38 Posted by Fredchuckdave (5492 posts) -

@seppli: Still can't edit, apologies for my unnecessary language. Seriously though your comment is on the beloved @darji's level, pure unadulterated creepiness. Whatever happened to that guy?

#39 Posted by jakob187 (21675 posts) -

@theht: Her name's Full Metal Bitch, so of course. On that note I have no idea how this movie got a PG-13 rating.

While you're trying to figure that out, I'm still trying to figure out how Wolf of Wall Street didn't get NC-17. There was a lot of drugs, fucking, orgies, nudity, blowjobs, and Jonah Hill's dick in that movie.

#40 Posted by afabs515 (1086 posts) -

I was on the fence about this movie. Thanks for the recommendation. Definitely gonna go see it after E3.

#41 Posted by Fredchuckdave (5492 posts) -

@jakob187: Scorcese gets the James Cameron clause. Midget tossing is an art form, much like full frontal nudity in Titanic.

#42 Posted by OneKillWonder_ (1749 posts) -

I thought it was damn good. Definitely smarter than your average summer sci-fi blockbuster, but still totally accessible and straightforward, and a hell of a lot of fun. Good performances from Cruise and Blunt, and quite a bit of solid action. They struck a good balance of CGI and practical effects, and everything felt very cohesive and had a good look to it. The alien designs were pretty interesting, far from your standard fare when it comes to movies like these.

I wasn't surprised at the PG-13 rating, though. It's definitely intense but not really that violent. Cruise's first death was probably the most graphic thing in the film.

#43 Posted by fisk0 (4129 posts) -

Went to see it yesterday. Yeah, it's good. Probably the best sci-fi movie since District 9 at the very least. Fantastic might be pushing it a little, it had some issues, but, yeah, it was good. Even doing a kinda overused trope like the repeating day, it's take on that whole thing felt pretty unique. Over all pretty refreshing after most sci-fi movies of the past few years could be summed up as "that classic story IN SPACE" or just a rehash of a previous movie in the series (Star Trek Into Darkness).

#44 Posted by GTCknight (695 posts) -

As someone who read "All You Need Is Kill" and really liked it I will go to see just how much they fucked it up. Every trailer I've seen made me pissed off though.

I must admit that if the Full Metal Bitch doesn't wield a battle axe from start to finish I might just walk out of the theater. A poster I saw at a theater showed goddamned sword, which would be a death-nail for me if there is a sword in the film.

#45 Posted by The_Hiro_Abides (1263 posts) -

I saw it yesterday and I think it's great. It was a lot of fun watching the endless grind of trying again. It was kind of like the immediate retry in Super Meat Boy or Super Time Force. For example in one scene he gets hit by a truck and then you see him try it again.

I'm going to talk about the ending a bit.

Although I'm not sure if the ending's event really line up correct. He wakes up, but the news says the explosion of the omega happened the day before. So with the explosion in the day after, with him getting the "time blood" he makes the omega explode retroactively? I suppose with him stealing it's power, the aliens couldn't stop some event beforehand that leads to their destruction.

Also for those that say the repeating day structure is overused, can you name more movies. Off the top of my head I can only think of Groundhog Day and Source Code. I suppose a lot of time travel movies could count, like Primer, Time Crimes, and maybe that one scene in Back to the Future 2?

#46 Posted by Bollard (5560 posts) -

Although I'm not sure if the ending's event really line up correct. He wakes up, but the news says the explosion of the omega happened the day before. So with the explosion in the day after, with him getting the "time blood" he makes the omega explode retroactively? I suppose with him stealing it's power, the aliens couldn't stop some event beforehand that leads to their destruction.

The Omega is a being that controls time, I assume that its state in the future is the same as in the past - so when he kills it and takes its blood to rewind time, the fact that it is dead still remains. You could say it probably exists outside time itself. But I really just wonder what taking the Omega's blood gives him as a power - if taking an Alpha's blood means every time he dies the day resets (just like for an Alpha), then does he now have the full ability to control time as he wishes?

#47 Edited by GTCknight (695 posts) -

So, after having read up on it, I refuse to go see this film right now.

Every change they did fucked the core concept so much, also like I said no battle axe no show and they chose to use a fucking sword.

My feelings (the I'm willing to show on here right now) in a nutshell

#48 Posted by fisk0 (4129 posts) -

Also for those that say the repeating day structure is overused, can you name more movies. Off the top of my head I can only think of Groundhog Day and Source Code. I suppose a lot of time travel movies could count, like Primer, Time Crimes, and maybe that one scene in Back to the Future 2?

Not only movies (though there was 12 Monkeys, Repeaters, Triangle, Run Lola Run, two adaptions of 12:01, Butterfly Effect and Blind Chance, and there were at least two really bad Swedish comedies on that theme in the late 90's), but pretty much every third episode of every Star Trek series

#49 Posted by MooseyMcMan (11039 posts) -

@gtcknight: I didn't even realize the movie was based on a book! Does the book explain why they're called Mimics? The movie doesn't, and that name doesn't make any sense at all (in the movie).

Moderator
#50 Posted by Humanity (9279 posts) -

@gtcknight: I dunno man the core is still very much there. From reading the book I always envisioned her "battle axe" as basically a big hunk of metal with a handle, which it is in the movie. The biggest change I didn't enjoy was how in the book the lead protagonist hones his own skills, realizes that bullets are not enough and begins using the piledrivers instead which are not even mentioned in the film although they do use them.

They took some pieces and re-arranged them, made it more like an actual movie, but the core is basically there. Not seeing it because she doesn't have an axe is a little silly.