Tom Crusie Edge of Tomorrow

[dragon]

edit why can't I see the video, I've noticed that on any youtube videos posted

[Sea Skimmer]

This is the sci fi Defense of Duffer's Drift right?

[Mr Bean]

This is the sci fi Defense of Duffer's Drift right?

Yes and no, it's based on the Book All you need is Kill
Which gives me high and low hopes for the movie since the manga adaptation of the book at least has been great reading. Spoiler

One soldier living the same day over and over again the day the Mimics attack. The main lead writing down the number of loops he's been on the back of his hand each time he's woken up. We see it jump from 4 to 5 to 30 to 40 to 97 to 156, at some point he starts growing attached to all the soldiers and stops trying to simply survive the battle by becoming a better soldier and starts trying to essentially ace the war and save everyone.

The best comparison I've heard is Ground Hog/D Day, shame they changed the name however, who can't love a movie called All you need is Kill?

[Grumman]

Needs less Tom Cruise.

[Lord Relvenous]

Needs less Tom Cruise.

Why? Say what you will about his personal life, but he puts 100% into every role.

[Grumman]

Needs less Tom Cruise.

Why? Say what you will about his personal life, but he puts 100% into every role.

For starters, because he's fifty years old. This is a story about a green recruit, so it should be really obvious that it's not a suitable role for someone who looks about ready to retire.

[Iroscato]

Needs less Tom Cruise.

Why? Say what you will about his personal life, but he puts 100% into every role.

For starters, because he's fifty years old. This is a story about a green recruit, so it should be really obvious that it's not a suitable role for someone who looks about ready to retire.

True, but Cruise, thanks in part to his satanic pact, looks in his thirties. Also, the impression I got from the trailer is that his character is being drafted into the war against his will - he appears to be handcuffed every time he wakes up, suggesting to me he's being taken to be dropped into the middle of the battle along with others en masse. I could have that totally wrong, but in all honesty it makes little difference to me, the trailer looks highly impressive, as does the idea behind it.

[Sea Skimmer]

The best comparison I've heard is Ground Hog/D Day, shame they changed the name however, who can't love a movie called All you need is Kill?

Okay, so its totally The Defense of Duffers Drift given a more evolved main character, unless someone can point me to an even older book using this concept. Nothing wrong with that though. I suspect All You Need is Kill was rejected because it'd deter some audiences who aren't big action movie fans, but wouldn't actually object to a psychological focused movie.

[Lord Relvenous]

Needs less Tom Cruise.

Why? Say what you will about his personal life, but he puts 100% into every role.

For starters, because he's fifty years old. This is a story about a green recruit, so it should be really obvious that it's not a suitable role for someone who looks about ready to retire.

He's not a "green recruit". Spoiler

He's a conscript in the later days of a losing war. Humanity is scraping the bottom of the barrel to try and stop the aliens.

His age is perfectly appropriate.

[Grumman]

True, but Cruise, thanks in part to his satanic pact, looks in his thirties.

He does?

Honestly, if you had to have Tom Cruise in there, it would make more sense to swap the characters. Let Cruise be an old veteran who knows what he's doing, but really isn't cut out to fight a one man war any more. So when he finds a younger soldier who's also doing the Groundhog Day thing, he decides to train her so that she can surpass him.

He's not a "green recruit". Spoiler

He's a conscript in the later days of a losing war. Humanity is scraping the bottom of the barrel to try and stop the aliens.

His age is perfectly appropriate.

One, that's just something they made up to justify using Tom Cruise - the original character was a new recruit and looks much younger. Two, once you're down to conscripting fifty year olds you're already as good as extinct.

[Simon_Jester]

The main difference is that The Defence of Duffer's Drift turns out to all just be a dream afterwards, Skimmer. I think that's significant, though a movie about the Defence of Duffer's Drift would still be a fun movie to watch and I would pay money for it.

[TheHammer]

Needs less Tom Cruise.

Why? Say what you will about his personal life, but he puts 100% into every role.

For starters, because he's fifty years old. This is a story about a green recruit, so it should be really obvious that it's not a suitable role for someone who looks about ready to retire.

From the synopsis I found it looks like they're painting him as a career desk jockey (rank of Lt. Col.) pressed into combat. Hence the "green recruit/poor soldier" angle. Perhaps he was demoted? Either way, I think that explanation works. Trailer looks interesting.

Lt. Col. Bill Cage is an officer who has never seen a day of combat when he is unceremoniously dropped into what amounts to a suicide mission. Killed within minutes, Cage now finds himself inexplicably thrown into a time loop...

[Patroklos]

Needs less Tom Cruise.

Why? Say what you will about his personal life, but he puts 100% into every role.

What role, playing Tom Cruise? Its a common problem with many leading men these days (I am looking at you George Clooney) in that they are not acting but rather just being themselves in whatever setting they were paid to be in. It works sometimes it the role is tailor made for the actor in mind, not so much otherwise.

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

What role, playing Tom Cruise? Its a common problem with many leading men these days (I am looking at you George Clooney) in that they are not acting but rather just being themselves in whatever setting they were paid to be in. It works sometimes it the role is tailor made for the actor in mind, not so much otherwise.

[TheHammer]

Needs less Tom Cruise.

Why? Say what you will about his personal life, but he puts 100% into every role.

What role, playing Tom Cruise? Its a common problem with many leading men these days (I am looking at you George Clooney) in that they are not acting but rather just being themselves in whatever setting they were paid to be in. It works sometimes it the role is tailor made for the actor in mind, not so much otherwise.

But he's damned good at playing Tom Cruise.

But then again, couldn't you say that about most actors/actresses throughout time? Not many folks have the acting versatility of say a Leonardo Dicaprio, Marlon Brando, Johnny Depp et al.

[Havok]

Brad Pitt is pretty good at not being Brad Pitt. I'm not quite sure how you even have that list without Tom Hanks on it. Damon is pretty good as well. Robert Downey Jr seems to get to finally play himself after years of being an amazing actor.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Also, it's fairly amazing you put Johnny Depp on that list, considering he hasn't actually acted in a decade. He has just been a parody of himself for years.

[TheFeniX]

Topic Thunder and Rock of Ages really make it hard to believe Tom Cruise is just being Tom Cruise. He got stuck in a "rut" for several years being Mr. Badass, but I think he's an actor really hard to ascribe that label to because that's what the studios wanted. It's like trying to call out Michelle Rodriguez for being the "tough Latina chick that always dies:" that's what they cast her for and money is money.

Let the man do his own thing and you'll get your money's worth.

Brad Pitt is pretty good at not being Brad Pitt. I'm not quite sure how you even have that list without Tom Hanks on it. Damon is pretty good as well. Robert Downey Jr seems to get to finally play himself after years of being an amazing actor.

Brad Pitt has these things he does in every movie and whereas I'm a pretty big fan, there's a lot of Brad Pitt on screen during them. I don't think I've ever seen him deliver dialog in a style and tempo that's all that different. He seems to be as distinctive as Christopher Walken in that regard. He leans against things, eats a lot, does the same hand gestures when making a point, and has a distinctive cut in his dialog. The sad part is, a lot of this came after Fight Club. He seemed to have a lot more range before that. Now, unless it's a voice-acting role where he can just go wild, the Brad Pitt movie will star Brad Pitt.

Tom Hanks can do about anything lately though. As much as I love his older comedy works such as Splash, Money Pit, and Volunteers, his later career makes it easy to forget Tom Hanks in on screen. Probably had a lot to do with Forrest Gump.

[ray245]

I think we should act Leonardo Di Caprio to the list as well. When was the last time he acted in a role where he did not have to portray himself?

[Tandrax218]

what about Jim Carrey ?? If your looking for an actor who can do all kinds of roles....

[Borgholio]

I think we should act Leonardo Di Caprio to the list as well. When was the last time he acted in a role where he did not have to portray himself?

I think he did a pretty good job portraying the eccentricity of Howard Hughes in The Aviator.

[Elheru Aran]

I agree that the issue with the whole actors doing themselves thing is as much being cast in that kind of role as it is their own acting ability (or lack thereof).

Take Will Ferrell-- most of his roles are "dumb but funny twit" bits such as Ron Burgundy, the Old School frat guy, the brother in Stepbrothers, etc. But in movies like Stranger than Fiction and Everything Must Go, he's surprisingly deeper than usual in his other films. John C Reilly can do serious pretty well, although it's admittedly very hard for me to separate him from his comic persona whenever I see him in a serious movie; maybe it's just the way his face looks...

Both of them tend to keep getting cast in comedies, in specific roles. They have more depth than that, but they make more money in comic roles. Guess what the studios prefer for them to do?

[Sea Skimmer]

I think we should act Leonardo Di Caprio to the list as well. When was the last time he acted in a role where he did not have to portray himself?

I think he did a pretty good job portraying the eccentricity of Howard Hughes in The Aviator.

Yeah he did, but then that movie was released in 2004, which is more then half his big budget career ago. Since then the roles are pretty much play yourself with a different spin each time. I think Blood Diamond really started that, but then the problem is when you become a big enough star people start writing or heavily adapting roles for you as a specific actor, often making it very hard to avoid playing yourself.

[Elheru Aran]

For Cruise's part he's been stuck in the "serious action guy" mold for a while now. Rock of Ages and his bit in Tropic Thunder were departures, but honestly since the 00's I really cannot recall anything that he's been playing that wasn't him looking serious, running around, and blowing up stuff. Well, there's War of the Worlds, but still. I got the impression watching his bit in Tropic Thunder that he was just happy to be doing something different, so he really applied himself to that role.

Mission Impossible (all fucking 4 or is it 5 of them now), Minority Report, Oblivion, Last Samurai, Valkyrie... OK, Vanilla Sky was 2001. You get the point though; he doesn't seem to have really gone for anything that would've gone out of his range since the 80s.

Hate to say it but perhaps the day when you had actors covering multiple genres is pretty much gone? Perhaps not a discussion for this venue though...

[Sea Skimmer]

It might as well be discussed here, since this thread isn't doing much else. The fact is Hollywood has become highly risk adverse, perhaps linked to the fact that even the lower end of the budget spectrum for major movies is in the 120 million dollar range, and 200 million is now standard for a big budget flick. Taking risks on a main actor commanding a ~20 million dollar class salary just isn't in the cards.

Modern big name actors also seem to be in fewer movies then those of several decades ago, perhaps because they are paid so much, perhaps because they are being cast less out of hand, and no doubt in some part because movies are now usually 2.5 hours and should involve more filming then classic 90 minute features, probably all three together on some level. Since fewer but longer movies are still less work then doing more movies I doubt anyone is complaining at the top of the field. Though on the other hand more animated films seem to have big budgets now thanks to the success of computer graphics, and that's opened up a new field for high paying voice acting.