My first thought upon seeing Morgan Freeman in Oblivion: HOLY SHIT, IT’S GOD.
And though that was undoubtedly not true, the thought was quickly replaced by another one: maybe it is God? (It wasn’t but for the abundance of twists in this, it just as well could have been).
The narrative was great. A bit old, yes, but it worked well and the setting was hard to understand anyway – it would’ve felt empty without, I suppose. It was rushed, though – though most of my most hated scenes in film history are the scenes where a story from the setting’s history is told visually with a voiceover (the opening of Eragon, for example – though the entire thing sucked, so that’s not the best example, I suppose) and I enjoyed this much more.
I kept looking for faults in this film until the end and I found so few – by the last few minutes I realised it was a waste of time. I kind of feel like I should watch films very critically ever since I’ve been reviewing but… that’s not me. If I like a film, I like it. I don’t watch bad films intentionally merely to point out all the bad bits. The things I didn’t like I noticed anyway, so there was really no point. Just a quip.
There were two things that annoyed me: firstly, the flashbacks, which felt random, especially for the first part1, and secondly, the part where Jack talks about Super Bowl 2017. It was cliché and felt out of place where it may have worked later in the film when Jack had crept his way into the people’s hearts’ – which he, perhaps, didn’t, for most people. I blame Tom Cruise2 and platitudes for this. For me, the worst crime against originality was Jack – because hey, no, I won’t buy that a person whose memory was wiped five years ago knows about the Super Bowl six decades ago and is that fascinated by it. The love story felt far-fetched, especially at first. And the list goes on.
Visual aspects here were something that made Oblivion remarkable. It wasn’t overdone like it tends to be, it was rather unpretentious but convincing – Jack’s hideaway is the kind of nuance I loathe in films but here it didn’t bother me much – it had exactly the right amount of contrast. The scenery is scenic and striking throughout the film and while these enormousflying balls were familiar, as were many other elements, they were still engaging. Plus I liked the camera angles and the aesthetical part – for example, the colouring was marvelous.
An impeccable addition were the twists. Thinking back now, it didn’t have that many – but all were more or less groundbreaking. Every time I thought I had it figured out, there was a twist and the entire direction of the film changed. It was lovely, really.3
Oblivion was consuming. It was complete. I think one thing that made me love it that much was the sense of completeness. Not many films (or books) do it nowadays, relying on postmodernism and thought provoking – but there’s a lot of thrill to seeing something complete, where all the pieces tie together. It proved a world. I find good dystopia irresistible and this was one4 and combined with the visuals along with the turns in the tale, it made me love it a great deal.
1 didn’t like the colouring too much either, to be honest.
2 though I was surprised by how much I did like him and his acting – I think his name on the poster was one of the few things that made me doubt seeing Oblivion.
3 and is also the reason I don’t get the people who say it was boring. Really. What.
4 I just read a review that bluntly said that Oblivion sucks. I’m a bit put off by this. It didn’t suck. It was majestic. Really. Okay, I’m kind of pissed now. I liked it a lot and (nearly) everyone says it blows chunks. I’ll come back to this tomorrow. (PS: Alright. It’s tomorrow.)