Oblivion (Joseph Kosinski, 2013)

Read CK's last comment, posted this evening.

That White should refer to the film this way does not surprise me since the protagonist is AA. I would expect him to see everything from his perspective both as a critic and being black. White seldom agrees with other critics; otherwise, how would he gain the reputation of being "the contrarian." While I respect White as an intellect and someone devoted to film and film criticism, I do not agree with his choices nor his opinion when it comes to many movies - especially Steven Spielberg's "A.I." which Chris, Johann, Oscar and I got into an endless argument over about three or four years ago on this site that went for page after page (I don't remember if you were in on that Tab or not).

I deplore children being depicted as victims as Spielberg did and I won't go into that film and be goaded into an endless debate all over again. It's one of the few movies I walked out of and it would not be the first time that a critic on the level of White is wrong about a movie, not that I'm piling on because, as Chris point out, NONE Of US has seen this film and we all seem to be taking sides!!!!

So we either see it or we should move on. Speaking of movies... Ethan Hawk was on Jimmy Fallon talking about "Before Midnight" and its gotten such rave reviews (except from you Chris) that I thought I'd like to see it. Oscar said it was one of his favorite films of the year. It's set to debut in theaters next week after doing the film festival run since January. I see it was at SSFF (if I got the initials right) and Sundance. Lots of 9 out of 10 on IMDB, too.

No more "reviews" of reviews. Chris is right. We need to discuss films we've seen and not rely on what others are saying... including White who is Black and feels this is all about race, which it isn't because it's a M. Night Shyamalan film, or isn't it? I don't know... because I have seen it, nor has anyone else who writes on this site!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What does listing White's top films mean especially having two lists from different decades? Is this to inform us that he's changed his way of evaluating, judging films? How? That AFTER EARTH doesn't nearly compare with these films? What do these films have in common anyway? That White has some common theme prejudice and filters how he views AFTER EARTH?

It's strange in looking over my notes, that I never wrote down my thoughts about A.I. when I saw the movie, and even more shocked that I never rated the movie on IMDb. But 2001 a turbulent year for me I recall. I do know that I really was intrigued and very connected with the movie on a personal level because I imagined myself having to go through this journey myself in many ways and I still am.

AI is a topic best relegated to its old thread, which I think is here: http://www.filmleaf.net/showthread.p...-Spielberg-etc

Thanks Oscar and cinembon, for the positive focus on Armond White. He is a critic I always like to consult. He can not only be wrong but jaw-droppingly wrong, and even vicious. But the intelligence and fresh point of view, seriousness, and passion for French cinema make up for all that.

I HAVE now seen AFTER EARTH and I'm working on a review.

By the way, Shyamalan is non-white.

I think we knew that Shyalaman was Indian

Of course you know Shyamalans Indian but I was suggesting that he would therefore, as non-white, have a kiinship with African-Americans. This thread is talking about too many things at once!

I have posted my review of AFTER EARTH, which I guess you also know.

I have finally seen Oblivion, and there are elements that I enjoyed and others that were just beyond me.
I feel it's a solid sci-fi film, with very cinematic images- really tremendous CGI.
The story just didn't grab me hard enough. I wish I could call it a masterpiece as some reviews have dared to call it, because it has the foundation for it. It was just too maudlin and un-involving for me. The visuals are pretty fantastic, but I'm not sure if the story lives up to striking a new mould for sci-fi films. We've seen the same quality of CGI in the Star Wars prequels, so nobody was slacking off on the LOOK of the film. It's just that story....could anybody watch it over and over and be wowed? Maybe a 15-year-old kid would. Kids might Marvel at it. I certainly would have in my youth. We've come a long way from Ed Wood's pie plates as flying saucers...

At first I thought I might have to see it again to grasp the whole concept, but by the time Morgan Freeman arrived I realized that I didn't need to see it again. It would be a great silent screen saver for my computer, to be honest. Beautiful eyeball Joseph Kozinski has, and this is only his second film, so he should do some mind-blowing stuff in the future.

The attacks of the battle droid-type "balls" that pivot and fire at will was very well done and eye-catching, and yes, Kubrick can be mentioned in reference to this movie because that "eye of Hal 9000" was everywhere. That red eye was dropped into many scenes, and cinephiles may feel satiated by it. I knew the reference and I didn't jump for joy. There is no Star Child "wonder" here, just an interesting vision of what this planet may encounter in 2077. Like I say, this could be a masterpiece if it was worked on a lot more. If Kozinski took a few more years and REALLY perfected it, he'd have an AVATAR on his hands. No joke. It aims that high.

I guess my only real complaint is with the maudlin tone.
If being maudlin is the only way to put distance between you and other blockbuster sci-fi films, then Man we're hurting over here.


There are lots of (aerial) scenes with fast pace, with great professional production design, but for the most part, those action scenes merely give the viewer a jolt, not deliver any feeling that a viewer desperately needed to see them. They seemed to me to just break up the maudlin delivery of the story.
I thought that bubble (sperm) ship was pretty neat actually- the way it could flip and reverse on a dime was cool!
And the Elvis bobblehead on the dash was just enough humour and humanity for a film with this tone.
The Led Zeppelin song was nice, and so was Procol Harum's "Whiter Shade of Pale"- Jack Harper's favorite song, apparently.
I think that was only the second time Zep has been used in a movie (the first was Linklater's School of Rock).

Joseph Kozinski can meld humanity, the future and technology pretty good, but that maudlin tone....it makes me feel that seeing Oblivion multiple times would be a chore.




I'm seeing MAN OF STEEL tonight. Got a ticket to see it early in 3-D.
Will post about it tomorrow.