The Sandman Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 Believe it - it's legit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bono Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 (edited) I don't know anything with Tom Cruise in it can be considered a "surprise hit" but I thought the trailers looked amazing. I'm looking forward to seeing it. It will be a shit ton better than Godzilla (the only other summer blockbuster I've seen so far) that's for sureIn 2014? It's not really a given that his movies are going to be hits. His draw is a looong way from what it used to be, but I do get what you're saying.I'm sure this movie will be good, but I'm pretty wary of the sudden wave of hype surrounding it. His movies are always hits even if not like the massive hits in the old days. Oblivion, Jack Reacher, Mission Impossible movies and even Rock of Ages were all liked by people for the most part and did well. It's not like he's putting out duds and flops. I think he's still probably the biggest single draw as far as a name goes anyways. Maybe Leonardo is up there but.... not sure who else is bigger than Tom Cruise. Edited June 5, 2014 by Bono Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
appetite4illusions Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 Honestly, I'll see any movie that Christopher McQuarrie had a hand in. He's just about my favorite screenwriter and the idea of him doing a sci-fi gives me a geekgasam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Estranged Reality Posted June 7, 2014 Author Share Posted June 7, 2014 I meant 'surprise hit' in terms of quality, not box office. The movie has been tracking poorly for weeks and is only estimated to earn about $28 mil this weekend - versus $53 mil for Fault in Our Stars, which cost a fraction of Edge of Tomorrow to produce.But no one was really expecting this to earn great reviews (before the start of the summer who was even talking about this movie?) but then it ended up with like 90% on RT. It's impressive in that regard.But yeah, I saw this last night and loved it. As always with these kinds of 'gimmick' premise movies (I'd include Groundhog Day), the first hour or so is always the best, when they can get away with some pretty clever editing, funny gags and visual ideas in regards to the concept. The last hour is really solid as well but the bulk of the movie's fun definitely lies in those early scenes where Cruise's character is adjusting to his new predicament.Also loved Bill Paxton in this. Hilarious as always. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Estranged Reality Posted June 7, 2014 Author Share Posted June 7, 2014 Oblivion, Jack Reacher, Mission Impossible movies and even Rock of Ages were all liked by people for the most part and did well.MI:3 did underwhelming business which was well documented upon its release. Couch-jumping and Scientology rambling he did a lot of damage to his domestic branding. Jack Reacher and Oblivion both failed to reach $100m in the U.S., and the latter basically just barely broke even (studios only retain half the intake from movies, theaters retain the other half, so a movie has to double its production budget in order to 'break even' - this also doesn't often include marketing/advertising costs. Oblivion had a $120 mil budget and only made a little more than double that worldwide).Rock of Ages was a critical and commercial flop. It had a $75mil price tag and didn't even break $60mil worldwide.The only 100% bonafide hit film he's had in the past few years was Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol. He remains a big draw in overseas markets (where Oblivion, Reacher and MI4 did the bulk of their business) but less-so in North America. Paramount waited to see the international intake of Jack Reacher before tentatively greenlighting a sequel - the movie's intake in the U.S. wasn't enough to warrant a sequel for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bono Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 My point is people have liked the movies he's put out. Everyone I know liked Jack Reacher(I thought it was just ok) and made over 200 million. Everyone I know who saw Oblivion thought it was pretty good(I thought it was awesome) and grossed over 200 million. Can't really call those flops. MI movies aren't my cup of tea typically but the most recent one was a success and pretty good. Rock of Ages was a cheesy musical and I know I didn't expect that to make money anyways but everyone I know who saw it, including myself said it was actually pretty good. Not sure what defines a flop but his movies haven't been flops because people are seeing them still. No he's not drawing like he did in the early mid 90s but neither is Brad Pit or Harrison Ford. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downzy Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 (edited) Oblivion, Jack Reacher, Mission Impossible movies and even Rock of Ages were all liked by people for the most part and did well.MI:3 did underwhelming business which was well documented upon its release. Couch-jumping and Scientology rambling he did a lot of damage to his domestic branding. Jack Reacher and Oblivion both failed to reach $100m in the U.S., and the latter basically just barely broke even (studios only retain half the intake from movies, theaters retain the other half, so a movie has to double its production budget in order to 'break even' - this also doesn't often include marketing/advertising costs. Oblivion had a $120 mil budget and only made a little more than double that worldwide).Rock of Ages was a critical and commercial flop. It had a $75mil price tag and didn't even break $60mil worldwide.The only 100% bonafide hit film he's had in the past few years was Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol. He remains a big draw in overseas markets (where Oblivion, Reacher and MI4 did the bulk of their business) but less-so in North America. Paramount waited to see the international intake of Jack Reacher before tentatively greenlighting a sequel - the movie's intake in the U.S. wasn't enough to warrant a sequel for them.Well, the term "flop" is rather arbitrary. If you want to call something a box office flop simply because it did not make back its budget from the theatrical release that's fine. But a film's revenue intake from its theatrical release has historically accounted for only 20 - 25 percent of all revenues (though this is changing with the contraction of the traditional home rental market). Granted, a film that does poorly in theatres is going to see less return down the revenue stream, but it can still make a lot of money after it's been taken out of theatres. Most big budget movies eventually break even or return a profit. Waterworld has long been considered a flop, but I'm fairly certain that when all was said and done it actually did make money for the studio (though not much). Though there are other movies, like John Carter, that do lose a lot of money for studios due to astronomical production and marketing budgets. I think it's fair to say that movies that don't make back their budgets at the box office can be considered a box office failure, but I wouldn't go so far to suggest that they're all money losers for their respective studios. Edited June 8, 2014 by downzy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Estranged Reality Posted June 8, 2014 Author Share Posted June 8, 2014 Most big budget movies eventually break even or return a profit. Not to be argumentative, but this is actually false, and so is the 'movies tend to make more down the line' bit, especially nowadays with fading physical sales. Since the dawn of cinema, the majority of movies that come out have lost money. They're investments and for every hit there's more misses.One thing that's changing about the marketplace, however, is the international audience. In the old days, a film's domestic performance made it or broke it. Today, that's changing -- you can have a movie like the RoboCop remake pretty much show up DOA in North America but recoup most of its production costs with the international market. There have been a handful of notable films over the last few years that made no impact in the U.S. but were pretty much big hits overseas, for whatever reason. Pacific Rim is a good example. And Tom Cruise is still a big draw overseas, so if Edge of Tomorrow ends up doing well, it'll probably be due to the international territories.You're right about Waterworld, though. It was never as huge a flop as people made it out to be - it just got that stigma attached. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amir Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 I enjoyed Rock of Ages, went to see it with my family, something for everyone; me and my dad enjoying the classic rock hits, young lovers romance subplot for my sis, and shirtless Tom Cruise for my mum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angelica Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 Yeah, it's fucking fantastic. And perfectly cast across the board. Nice to see Doug Liman can still deliver on occaison, too. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bono Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 The movie was awesome. Oddly funny too. I did not expect that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sandman Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Told ya - glad you loved it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bono Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Told ya - glad you loved it!Yeah it was fantastic. I loved Oblivion too so for me between Oblivion and Edge of Tomorrow, Tom Cruise is on a role as far as I'm concerned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Estranged Reality Posted June 10, 2014 Author Share Posted June 10, 2014 I admired Oblivion's aesthetic/visuals but felt the story was a bit flat and derivative (basically a remake of Moon with more action). I liked it, but didn't feel it was exceptional.Edge of Tomorrow, however, is fantastic. One of the best summer blockbusters in recent memory, and it's a shame people seem to be ignoring it domestically (it's doing OK overseas).Only bad thing is the title. All You Need is Kill was the original title and I'm not sure I like that much better either. It just seems like such an odd, lazy title that doesn't give much indication of what the film is about, you know? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
highvoltage Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Fantastic? Seriously?I just saw this movie, and while I enjoyed it, I definitely didn't think that "Groundhog meets Independence Day" felt as original as everyone kept making it out to be.I enjoyed the comic moments, Cruise acted well (I liked his transition), but the ending was a bit of a dud for me.I'd give it a 7, but I was expecting a 9. Maybe I should have seen it in 3D... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bono Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Fantastic? Seriously?I just saw this movie, and while I enjoyed it, I definitely didn't think that "Groundhog meets Independence Day" felt as original as everyone kept making it out to be.I enjoyed the comic moments, Cruise acted well (I liked his transition), but the ending was a bit of a dud for me.I'd give it a 7, but I was expecting a 9. Maybe I should have seen it in 3D...I gave it a 7.5 and thought it was awesome. I don't throw out 9's left and right. if I give a movie a 9 it's one of the best I've ever seen EVER. And seeing it in 3D won't change your opinion on the movie or at least it shouldn't. It looks good in 3D but it won't change your enjoyment of it I don't think. Also I don't think anyone is saying it's original. It IS basically a sci fi groundhog day. I think people are pretty up front about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stiff Competition Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 loved this movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
highvoltage Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Fantastic? Seriously?I just saw this movie, and while I enjoyed it, I definitely didn't think that "Groundhog meets Independence Day" felt as original as everyone kept making it out to be.I enjoyed the comic moments, Cruise acted well (I liked his transition), but the ending was a bit of a dud for me.I'd give it a 7, but I was expecting a 9. Maybe I should have seen it in 3D...I gave it a 7.5 and thought it was awesome. I don't throw out 9's left and right. if I give a movie a 9 it's one of the best I've ever seen EVER. And seeing it in 3D won't change your opinion on the movie or at least it shouldn't. It looks good in 3D but it won't change your enjoyment of it I don't think. Also I don't think anyone is saying it's original. It IS basically a sci fi groundhog day. I think people are pretty up front about that.Well I normally don't enjoy 3D all that much so I didn't bother with it. Sometimes it really does enhance the experience though... doesn't sound like it here.I read someone here (ER?) say "best summer blockbuster in years", but I thought Into Darkness was much better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Estranged Reality Posted June 12, 2014 Author Share Posted June 12, 2014 i said one of the best in recent memory, but that's not to say it's like the best movie ever or anything. but it's up there with some of the better ones to have come out in the last few summers, imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sandman Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Only bad thing is the title. All You Need is Kill was the original title and I'm not sure I like that much better either. It just seems like such an odd, lazy title that doesn't give much indication of what the film is about, you know?Both are pretty terrible - although I can get EoT in someways, because of the nature of the plot. Could be worse. Guess that since Groundhog Day was taken... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 How can a movie with Tom Cruise and a 180 million dollar budget be considered a "surprise" hit?Cruise is usually solid and the trailer looks decent. I'll def go see it when it comes to my theatre. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Estranged Reality Posted June 13, 2014 Author Share Posted June 13, 2014 How can a movie with Tom Cruise and a 180 million dollar budget be considered a "surprise" hit?Cruise is usually solid and the trailer looks decent. I'll def go see it when it comes to my theatre.i answered this two pages ago - i was referring to quality, not budget. this movie wasn't getting much hype at all and then it suddenly came swinging out of the gate with 90% on RT and like an 8/10 average rating - not bad for a sci-fi flick. 'surprise hit' may have been a poor choice of words but I just meant it was a movie nobody was really focusing on in the lead up to the summer blockbuster season and then it gained all this good press. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Sabbath Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 I really liked it. Will definitely be buying it when it comes out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zint Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 I still haven't seen this movie. I'm hearing mixed things about it.I think I'll just wait for blu-ray. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IndiannaRose Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 It was fuckin' awesome. I went in with no real expectations....was pleasantly surprised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.