The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (2013)

Based loosely on the short story by James Ferber, The Secret Life of Walter Mitty is the story of a man who finds courage and adventure in the strangest of ways.  

Ben Stiller acts the timid Walter Mitty who we are introduced to, a man who fantasizes about performing brave and fantastic feats while routinely zoning out and missing trains and conversations with actual people.  When his new boss relentlessly mocks him for his slow responses, Mitty slips into a day dream in which brass knuckles are exchanged between them.  

Arguably most well known for his role as Greg Focker in Meet The Parents, Ben Stiller once again unleashes his sweet side, but Mitty is a far more endearing character than Greg Focker was.  As Mitty struggles to update his eHarmony profile, leaving the "experiences" section empty, we are drawn into his quiet and lonely life.  

Mitty watches his co-worker Cheryl from afar and fails with his attempts to strike up conversations with her.  His job as a "negative assets" man means he spends his work days in the basement with one co-worker scanning through photograph negatives that old school *and famous* photographer Sean O'Connell refuses to give up on using.  Despite the fact that other magazines and photographers have switched to digital photography, O'Connell remains staunchly supportive of negatives and keeping his whereabouts unknown.

Two pieces of important news are broken:  Life Magazine is being shut down and O'Connell has sent a negative to Mitty that photographs the "quintessence of life".  The new big shot heads of the magazine decide to have one last paper issue with O'Connell's promising photo gracing the cover.

One problem:  the negative is missing...and thus Mitty embarks on what will be an eye-opening journey.  Having never left the U.S.A., he finds himself travelling to foreign countries and being placed in crazy situations that he could only have fantasized. In the mean time, he keeps receiving calls on his cell phone from eHarmony customer service (voiced by Patton Oswalt) who becomes amazed (and somewhat disbelieving) of the crazy adventures Mitty keeps finding himself in.

This is a wonderful novel about the resilience of the human spirit and how much we can change if we open ourselves up to it.  As Walter Mitty explores the world and finds himself in dangerous albeit somewhat humorous situations, he begins to open up and experiences life more fully.  His character is sweet and easy to root for:  you want the underdog to triumph!

Perhaps I was emotional over the holiday season, but there was glorious moments in this movie and I found myself leaking a little (tear tear) from witnessing Mitty's transformation from timidity to strength and bravery.

When Mitty does find O'Connell (and eventually the negative), it's not quite what one would expect, but that becomes another life lesson.  The message of the movie is simple and sweet: it's all too easy and comfortable to become stagnant in life.  The world is far too beautiful to not be experienced to its fullest.  In short, in the movie, the motto of Life Magazine and perhaps of life itself and it's purpose:

“To see the world, things dangerous to come to, to see behind walls, draw closer,to find each other and to feel. That is the purpose of life.” 

This was easily my favourite late 2013 movie and perhaps one of the best ones I have seen through 2013.  I highly recommend watching it.  (Another plus was the amazing soundtrack spearheaded by the wonderful Jose Gonzalez.) Watch it and let yourself be wooed by the amazing cinematography, the sweet romance, and the growth of courage and love.  The message is positive and I found myself laughing, smiling and crying while watching it.  

9/10 even if some critics disagree.

PRISONERS (2013)

"Pray for the best, prepare for the worst."

"Our Father who are in heaven..."
And so Prisoners opens with Ralph Dover (Dylan Minnette) training his gun sights on a grazing and blissfully unaware doe, his father Keller Dover (Hugh Jackman) accompanying and guiding him for what may be Ralph's first kill, and reciting the Lord's Prayer.

Keller is the quintessential family man and protective father.  He believes in always being prepared so he teaches his son how to hunt in the event that somehow in the remote future if food becomes scarce they will be able to survive.  The family's basement, which doubles as Keller's workshop, is stocked full of bulk items as if preparing for a second Y2K.

Little time is spent defining the his relationship with his wife Grace (Maria Bello) although it later becomes clear that Keller is the strong family leader.  He is also a devout man, cross around his neck, reciting prayers, tuning his radio in to sermons and eventually wrestling with a very dark side of himself.

The Dover family walk up the street to their close friends the Birches for a shared Thanksgiving dinner; the Dover's are bringing the meat: venison.  

Anna and Joy, the two young daughters (6 and 7), go outside to play while watched over by Ralph and the Birches older daughter Eliza.  A strange RV is parked on the street and Ralph seems to posses his dad's instinctual nature, urging the young girls not to play near or on it, bringing them back to the house.  The parents socialize, Franklin Birch (Terrence Howard in hipster glasses) pulling out a trumpet to play a very rusty "Star of Spangled Banner", holiday cheer abounding, until the unthinkable happens--the girls disappear.

It's every parents nightmare: losing a child to the unknown.  Have they been taken?  Did they run away?  Are they hurt somewhere, unable to get help?  The Pennsylvania forest closes in as evening falls and a beautiful aerial shot shows family, friends and police officers fanning out through the trees with flashlights, searching desperately to find the girls within the first 24 hours, before the odds begin decreasing.

Detective Loki (enter Jake Gyllenhaal) is eating his Thanksgiving dinner at a local Chinese restaurant when he receives a call:  an RV matching the description of the one idling outside the Birches has been spotted at a nearby gas station/truck stop.

Arriving at the site he find the driver non-compliant and a skirmish ensues which makes the viewer all too aware of the tense and potentially dangerous situations law enforcers frequently find themselves in.  The driver Alex Jones (Paul Dano) is a creepy looking man who is treated as a suspect and Keller becomes convinced that Alex is somehow implicated in the disappearance of his daughter, even though the police clear and release him.  This is where things begins to quickly spiral out of control.

Loki tries to persuade Keller to calm down and wait to see what happens.  It's a tricky game that the director plays with the viewer, because as much as I strongly empathized with Keller's fears and loss, Loki's attempt to keep everyone from breaking a law during the investigation is also commendable.   It doesn't take long for Keller to get his hands on Alex though and the casting of Dano is superb.  He DOES seem like a very legitimate and creepy weirdo. 

(I can't help but keep reverting to the quote from Hoodwinked:  We don't arrest people for being creepy.)

Grace Dover begins (quite understandably) medicating herself and remains in a perpetual stupor.  The Birches, however, aren't so withdrawn.  They find themselves implicated with Keller's plan to make Alex talk, despite Franklin's insistence that what they're doing is wrong.  It's not too surprising that Nancy Birch (Viola Davis) supports Keller's plan with a quiet resolve to get her daughter back no matter the cost.

Detective Loki insists that Alex has the IQ of a ten-year-old to which Keller sarcastically responds, "Then how is he allowed to drive?".  (Gyllenhaal's response "It's a Pennsylvanian license" isn't exactly enlightening.  What gives, America?  Am I missing out on an inside joke???)

Prisoners offers up the viewer some very serious and thought provoking material.  The interaction between  agitated and overwrought Keller (Jackman in TOP form) and calm yet twitchy Loki gives the viewer a good look at the dynamics between disconsolate emotional parents and cool collected police officers.  The officer's attempt to remain unruffled and logical presents itself (at times) as placid passivity.  Keller's dogged demands for action ("Arrest him, he's guilty!) are met with Loki's obnoxiously stoic and repetitive go-to phrases: "Listen, listen, listen, listen" and "Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey".  To emotionally fraught and suffering family members, staff who reiterate the same word and message over and over and OVER again like a robot are extremely infuriating. 

What came to mind was:  maybe family members should just be allowed ot vent all their thoughts, hopes, fears and fury to a paid staff member who can just sit and LISTEN. 

There are so many lessons to be learned--
1.  No matter how hard or thoroughly you prepare, you will not be ready for some things life throws at you.
2. There is an untapped aspect of every single person which surfaces when under pressure.
3.  Don't jump to conclusions.  The age old adage "Don't judge a book by it's cover" isn't to be taken lightly.
4.  Telling people how to do their job is as annoying as constantly being ignored or talked over.
I could examine the several moral lessons that this movie is attempting to convey, but not without spoiling it for possible future viewers.

Technically, Prisoners does not disappoint.  This is the first "big American" movie for Canadian-born director Denis Villeneuve (pictured above on the right) and what a brilliant piece it is.  The gloomy music heightens nerves, the silence between scenes even more so  The cinematography isn't stunning, because the scenery isn't too exciting--it's Pennsylvania, not the Alps.  Small scenes though, such as a candle light vigil outside the Birches house, is framed in intimate close ups.  Villeneuve does a beautiful job of capturing the private moments.

However quiet some shots are, scenes of Loki scouting from room to room alone in an abandoned house leave you on the edge of your seat--the tension is so palpable in a variety of different moments.  

Hugh Jackman soars in his role as Keller Dover.   He fervently swears, prays, perspires, cries and crackles with intensity without becoming kitschy or overly dramatic.  As much as I loved his performance in Les Miserables, it felt exactly like that:  a performance.  (OMG look at how SKINNY Jackman is!!!).  Contrastingly in Prisoners I felt that Jackman tapped deeper into his essence, being A) a father and B) having been raised with a devout parent.

(You can read about Hugh Jackman's relationship with his father in an interview with Good Housekeeping). 

During punching and screaming scenes there was no "Look at that Hugh being all cray-cray!", but rather "Look at that father, look at that man at the end of his rope".  I cannot praise his performance enough.  He is a BAMF and he carries this movie.

Terrence Howard is solid, but Viola Davis as his wife and mother to Joy is tacitly piercing as she begs for her little girl back.  Maria Bello has a relatively smaller role due to her being practically comatose half the movie.  

As Detective Loki (and the light to Jackman's dark), Gyllenhaal offers a very honest image of an officer's work.  Stuck with no leads?  Strike out randomly and hope you hit lucky.  As the plot moves toward a climax, Loki becomes more erratic due to the pressure, his eyes blinking in an irrepressible stress twitch.  He has family members screaming at him that he is inept, while expecting him to find their babies. 

Gyllenhaal does an amazing job.  He has great on screen chemistry with Jackman and the frustration that he feels over running into dead ends is very palpable.  I found myself rooting for him...he has solved every case so far!  He HAS to solve this one!

Pieces fall together and the movie morphs from drama into drama-mystery.  Universal "aha's!" and light bulbs flicker on almost at the every end, the screen abruptly fading to black. 

Rated 14A, there are quite a few much deserved "fucks" along with some violent scenes.  Considering that the nature of the movie is vigilante justice, the "torturing" was not as gruesome as I anticipated.

Stellar acting, an intricate and finely woven plot, mood music, likable characters, strong acting performances...the only question I had at the end was:  How on earth do they find and cast people as the "creepy guys"?   Thoughts?  

9/10 for this impassioned, disturbing, thought provoking and incredibly intense movie.  Taste Hugh Jackman's sad.  (HINT:  It tastes like his happy.)

BROADCHURCH

My sister lives in a different country but we stay in touch fairly consistently via email and this useful phone program called WhatsApp.  Anyway, we were texting briefly and she mentioned something about a show called Broadchurch, a mini-series (at least, that was what I thought, although it might have more seasons?) that she had seen which she very much enjoyed.

Her:  ERMAGERD it has DAVID TENNANT!!!

Me:  Who?

She rarely steers me wrong though, so I decided to give it a shot.  Standing at eight episodes, I didn't feel like it would be much of a commitment, unlike embarking on something such as Dr. Who.  Ain't nobody got time for dat.

Quickly I realised that David Tennant was Barty Crouch Jr.--not exactly an endearing character...

(SIDE NOTE:  I found some mildly disturbing home-made wallpapers worshipping Barty Crouch Jr., tagline:  I'll show you mine if you show me yours.  Eek.)

Apparently Tennant also acted as Dr. Who.  I wouldn't know.  Like I said...no time for that. Am I getting way off topic here?  I feel like I am.  TO THE SUBJECT AT HAND:  I started watching Broadchurch and was immediately sucked in.  

The premise is this:  there is a murder of a child (Danny Latimer) in a small town and the head detectice Alec Hardy (Tennant) is forced to delve deep into the lives of community members in an attempt to uncover the truth.  There is also some side stuff happening that jumbles in with the main murder plot, including Hardy's previous case which was bungled by one of his sergeants.   As well, he has who appears to be an estranged daughter, although that is never really explored.

First off, I think the strongest part of this show was the acting.  I cannot praise it enough.  The moment when the mother discovers her son is dead astounded me.  I have never been able to truly comprehend those moments on shows or movies because I have never had a child, but the acting was so incredible I came to this...place...where I sat on the couch and thought, 'dear God, the pain she must be feeling'.   I was so impressed that she was able to convey a mother's loss so strongly.

As the town slowly unravels, there are more sad characters that are introduced with back stories that make you weep.  No, literally, I wept.  In at least two, probably three, episodes I couldn't stop the tears leaking out.

The music is unlike any tv show I have seen.  It was very moody with a lot of cellos and dark overtones.  I mean, look at the heavy subject matter... They did a fantastic job of incorporating it into the script and the plot.  I would say that many of the of the highly emotional moments were carried along in tone by the music.  I hope they release some type of OST.  (Nerdgasm.)

So the acting was good, especially from supporting characters.  There was one side plot in particular (not going to say what happens, only this one name:  JACK MARSHALL) that was sooo tragic, it made me want to watch comedy movies for the next few months.  

In the first part of the series I didn't much care for Tennant's acting and the character he was building.  Alec Hardy is this out-of-town detective who is leading the investigation, working primarily with Ellie Miller, who is also a close family friend of the Latimers (murdered child family).  He takes over the case and everyone in the police department has to get used to his odd-duck ways.  Tennant grew on me though;  I especially was amused by his many dramatic faces.

The deep sighing...

The disgusted face...

The heavy lidded eye roll...

The eventual unavoidable emotional breakdown...

The threatening...

The actors/actresses of the Latimer family perform solidly together as broken yet persistent family unit.  Beth, mother, carries the weight of Danny's death the most heavily and the series strongly focuses on the effect her child's death has on her life.  We have all seen news clips when children have been murdered, but what does a parent suffer through?  How far will they go to find the killer?  And what will they do if they manage to find them?  How do you carry on and have a meaningful life when you have lost someone forever?

While the Latimer family grapples with this death, the rest of the town goes into shock as well, and then commence to immediately begin hiding secrets, any and all secrets no matter how relevant or unimportant they are, much to the frustration of Hardy.  In a murder case, who cares about an unrelated sordid love affair?  As Hardy and Miller fight to see through all this confusion, they also seek to bring peace and trust back into the small community any way that they can.  

But the whole time as a viewer you are nervous and wondering...who did kill Danny Latimer?  Who can we trust in this story?  Alibis are questioned and I felt jumpy as I tried not to get attached to certain people.  The writing is very clever in this series and the dialogue is NEVER stilted.  Broadchurch poses this question:  in our day and age, who can we rely on?  Are our neighbours safe?  Are we really looking out for each other?  

Some of the criticisms I read on IMDb were that Ellie Miller should not have been allowed on the case if she had known the family members.  However, realistically speaking, in a small town there isn't much that can be done in such a situation as you work with what you have. 

Here was another criticism I repeatedly saw:  why was it is so easy to guess who murdered Danny?  I guessed right away.  The motive was stupid.  This is poor writing.  I hate this show!!!111!!!

Okay, first off, it's not poor writing if the motive chosen doesn't line up with your best interests.  Secondly, and pay attention because this is important, the focus of the show is not the murder.  Even though it is what the season hinges on, the greater second half of it is about how the family is affected by their loss and what the town is doing to help (or hinder) the investigation.  

This is much deeper than a stand-alone NCIS or Criminal Minds episode.  You have to look at the season as giant arc of emotions, turmoil, change, growth, regression, sadness, relationships, etc, etc.  There isn't a quick solving of murder and that's it.  What happens goes past the murder into the lives of the people who are one way or another affected by Danny's death.

I give Broadchurch a 9/10 and say, GO WATCH IT.  You will be moved.  The ending will make you a bit uncomfortable and it may be months before you feel the urge to watch it again, but it is worth watching. The acting alone is superb. 

A warning:  sometimes, okay a lot of the time, I was unable to understand what the characters were saying because of their English accents and speed of speech.  Prepare thyself for this.  Not everyone drawls. 

This is one of the best shows I have seen for a long time.  Do take the time to watch it and you will not regret it!

P.S.  I wrote my sister back and said, "OMG Broadchurch was SOO GOOD! Thanks for the recommendation!!!", to which she replied, "Erm, I only watched the first episode".  *facepalm*

The Great Gatsby

Frailty thy name is...women.

It seems impossible to review The Great Gatsby (2013, Baz Luhrmann) without doing two things:

1. Reviewing the book in tandem with the movie 

2. Taking Luhrmann's directing style strongly into consideration.


When I heard they were making this movie, I decided that I needed to read the book prior to seeing the movie;  for whatever reason, in high school I somehow missed reading this book.  It's a very quick read at only around 120 pages and I finished it in less than two hours.

In summation, the novel details a summer that Nick Carraway, our protagonist, spends in New York and the surrounding area.  Set in the Roaring Twenties just after prohibition is lifted, we are given a glimpse into what life was like for the rich and entitled, with their mistresses, their parties and their political connections.

Even though the novel is narrated through Nick, it focuses on the mysterious and elusive Jay Gatsby, who throws massive soirees, yet never appears for them.  Rumours swirl around that he is related to the Kaiser, that he smuggled liquor, that he was from a well-to-do family... No one seemed to know the essential Gatsby, the man behind the mask.

Leo DiCaprio does a fantastic job of playing Gatsby.  He smiles and repeatedly calls everyone "old sport", until it almost becomes obnoxious.

In some ways, DiCaprio fleshes out Gatsby much more than the book does, which honestly isn't saying much.  We quickly learn that Gatsby has a past with Nick's cousin Daisy and he wishes to win back Daisy's heart.

This is where things get idiotic.

Throughout the novel AND movie, we are shown the open and carefree life style and manners the characters display.  Neighbours drop in on each other for visits and to have a spot of tea and a chat.  Why on EARTH did Gatsby have to pursue such a round about way of contacting Daisy...through Nick?  He could have marched over to her house, knocked on her door and have been profoundly welcomes as the great Gatsby.

So that point always irritated me.  He would stand longingly at the end of his dock and stare at the green ocean buoy that blinked in front of her mansion.

It's all very strange and ridiculous.  Obviously it's supposed to be haunting and sad, but I was struck by how pathetic the situation was.  

I won't go into details about the book's plot, but I will say that generally it is very depressing. 

Luhrmann does a wonderful job with his typically heavy-handed, over-the-top, fancy flowery touch.  The sets are incredible and the costumes are beautiful.  We truly get a glimpse into what life was like for the rich in those days, such a below--Daisy's mansion, with her husband playing polo on the front lawn:

But not only do we get a look into the lives of the rich...we also see what life is like for the poor labourers who ultimately built the city of New York.  Notice the juxtaposition between Gatsby's exorbitantly detailed (and clearly expensive) car and the run down auto shop and mines around it.

It is a truly dismal life for the underprivileged at that time.

From the dusty dirty Valley of Ashes...to Gatsby's massive parties, we are treated to such diverse sights and sounds.

One of the stranger things about the movie was Luhrmann's choice to use modern music as a soundtrack to the era.  From what I've read online, opinions differ on his choice; some think it was a bold move that went well with the movie, while others thought it was distasteful and should have featured period music.  Personally, I surprisingly found myself enjoying the soundtrack! (My wonderful BF ordered the deluxe edition off of Amazon for me last night!)

When you peel away the pomp and swag around Gatsby though, what you're left with is a man in love with a woman, desperately seeking to make contact and be with her.

As you watch the two stars collide, you realize that their stories will not end well for them.

And this is where the phrase I used "frailty thy name is women" comes in. 

Did Fitzgerald hate women or was he portraying the 20s woman truthfully?  Of course, it's only a fictional story, but one has to wonder at the characters he spun.  You have the dirty mistress of Daisy's husband Tom, Myrtle, who plans on leaving her husband for a married man.  

Then you have Daisy herself, the strongest female character, who agrees to leave her husband Tom for Gatsby, the "love of her life".  However, in one afternoon, in a matter of literally two or three hours, she changes her mind and accepts her life bound to a cheating adulterer. 

It's absurd and sad that the only strong and morally sound character is Jordan Baker, and she plays a minute role compared to the other women.

In no way am I die-hard feminist, but this movie *story. really* did not sit right with me.  Gatsby is this amazing man who makes his way from being poor and unknown, to someone who has a claim in life, but his eyes and heart are completely taken over by a wishy-washy woman who considers social status to be more important than love.

As Gatsby spins his web, his intricate plans, you can't help but have pity for him.  Even though he has everything materially speaking that he could want, you feel that sense of loneliness and longing.  Here is a man who will never be happy, regardless of what possessions he has or whomever he woos.

I suppose, in the end, what I felt was that Daisy did not deserve Gatsby's undying love, but then again...so few of us do deserve that.  As the credits rolled, I felt a sense of sadness and loss, which means it most certainly was a Baz Luhrmann movie. 

"You cannot repeat the past" is the mantra of this movie.  What Gatsby may represent is actually our occasional desire to re-play something great that once happened in our lives.  The truth remains though:  what's done is done.  The words we have said, the people we have met and loved, the moments we have shared with each other... The strongest message from The Great Gatsby is that we only have one life and one chance to live it! Seize it and live it!  Don't be like Gatsby, waiting his whole life for it to truly start.

I gave the movie 7.5/10.  Even though it was wonderfully filmed and poignant, the entire tone and message was lacking.  This wasn't Luhrmann's fault though... As one of our surgeons expressed so strongly and succinctly:  "THAT BOOK IS CRAP!" 

Oblivion

Tom Cruise does it again in yet another science fiction movie!  I was excited to go see Oblivion, mainly because Minority Report is one of my most favourite movies.  (If you haven't seen it, shame on you and go buy it!)

Look at him! Look how bad ass Tom Cruise looks.

The trailers and teasers for Oblivion was fantastic so I was convinced that it would be a solid movie.  Well...keep reading.

It's the year 2077 and we are introduced to Jack Harper (Tech 49) and a very different Earth than what we are now living in.  According to Jack, aliens (known as "Scavs") came down to Earth from the moon and destroyed the world we now see.  Life, greenery, the water...everything is wasted, buildings crumbled, civilizations gone forever.

Above the Earth sits a space station called "Tet" where humans go before being sent on to the new home of Titan, one of Saturn's moons.  Three giant machines hover over the oceans of Earth and are eternally sucking water upward and off the planet, bleeding Earth dry; the water is needed in Titan for the humans surviving there.

The water generators:

Jack spends his time trying to hunt down and destroy Scavs, while his work (and romantic) partner Victoria mans their home.  They check in with Sally, their mission commander on the Tet every day, confirming that they are protecting the water pumps and that all is copacetic on planet Earth.

It's all very high tech and cool.

There are some INCREDIBLE sweeping cinematic scenes in this movie.  It is definitely eye candy if  you love panoramic post-apocalyptic shots.

The Empire State Building

A stadium

Jack and Victoria's home is a type of pod, way high up in the sky.  There is a particularly beautiful scene of them swimming that I was unable to find a picture of...but these give you a good idea:

Absolutely stunning imagery.

While sleeping in this gorgeous sky house, Jack keeps having strange dreams that he comes to believe are more than dreams...they are memories.  It doesn't make sense though.  Victoria and Jack had their memories wiped five years prior in order to be a more effective team.  Yet somehow...this woman keeps haunting Jack's dreams.  Who is she?

As the story unfolds, Jack ends up meeting BAMF Morgan Freeman, who tells him that his life is a lie.  The Tet (and Sally) are not what they seem.  He encourages Jack to look around Earth and explore, uncover the lies.

So far it all sounds and looks great, doesn't it?
The cinematography is beautiful, the script decent, the music powerful, the concepts intriguing...
What were the major flaws with this movie?  Why did I only give it a 7.5, maybe an 8, out of 10?
Well, my four biggest issues with this movie are:

1. Tom Cruise is too Tom Cruise.
2. General confusion with regards to the plot and characters.
3. Morgan Freeman is over the top.
4. The ending.

Even though it doesn't seem like much to gripe about, it was enough to irritate and niggle at me throughout the movie.

I've never hated Tom Cruise as many people seem to do;  I consider him to be a decent if somewhat method actor, propped up by crazy stunts and action scenes.  He is the essence of what I consider an action star to be.  This became very apparent in several scenes of Oblivion.  I almost laughed out loud when he snapped on his ultra-cool goggles, vaulted onto his motorcycle (of course) and zoomed away across the screen.

And a lot of dramatic falling from him

And just generally a lot of posing happened--usually with guns.

In Oblivion, I felt that Tom Cruise was too aware of Tom Cruise.

The second complaint I had was about how confusing the plot was.  Now, reading about it as I laid it out above, it doesn't seem that strange, right?  No, you would think that the director would have found a way to explain what was going on without leaving me turning to Matt and saying, "What are they talking about?"

In tandem with that issue was the fact that there was a lot of random mumbling about things.  Characters said things to each other as an aside which let me very confused.  Of course in the end it all becomes MORE clear, but it's still rather conflicting.  

Now with regards to Morgan Freeman:  I have nothing against the actor.  I have always thought that he does a fantastic job with the roles he chooses.  However, in this movie he was definitely lacking.  Perhaps this is due to the limitation of his character and lack of dimension.  There is very little exploration of who his character is and how he came to be.  He does look cool in his sunglasses though.  Still...I wish they had spent less time on sweeping landscapes and fantastic CGI shots and had chosen to flesh out the secondary characters a tad more.

Isn't it a bad sign that I don't even know his character's name?  (Or his sidekick's name?) 

Finally:  the ending.

Usually with sci-fi movies, you expect some sort of big pay off at the end.  All the technology that these aliens have presented to us, all the efforts to suck the world dry and use the water to fuel themselves, everything that seems so grandiose...is reduced to something very insignificant in the final scene.  In a way, I appreciate that they didn't lag or spend a lot of time with a long drawn out battle at the end, but wow, it was WAY too rushed and far too easy of an ending. 

I have to stop myself here in case I start spoiling any possible viewer.  I would give Oblivion a 7.5/10, or maybe even an 8 when I'm feeling generous, because even though there were some big flaws with it, it was still a decent movie and I am glad I chose to watch it on the big screen.

During and after the movie, I had this sense that in a way the cast & crew were attempting to emulate the feel of Minority Report, with it's whimsical and fleeting romance and touching reunion, bittersweet endings...  MR has goose-bump inducing moments, things that you can't necessarily put your finger on or explain, but it is there lingering at the back of your mind after you finish watching it.

Go watch Minority Report, then watch Oblivion and then let me know what you think about those two movies in comparison.

Cheers!