Runtime: 1 hour, 53 minutes
Rating: PG-13
Director: Doug Liman
Quick Impressions:
I have a long, tortured, clandestine relationship with Tom Cruise. (I say clandestine because he doesn’t know about it at all—unless, of course, he reads my movie reviews, which I highly doubt.)
Back in the late 80s and 90s when all of my friends found Cruise jaw-droppingly wonderful, I just flat out didn’t get it. (I had the same non-reaction to New Kids on the Block, so if you are reading, Tom Cruise, don’t feel bad. Clearly it’s not you, it’s me.)
Of course, back then, Tom Cruise seemed like such a hero off screen. I swear a new story about him saving the lives of random, unimportant strangers seemed to come on the news at least once a month. Cruise was like a Hollywood super hero. Every time a yacht capsized, Tom Cruise was there. In theory, he sounded like such a good guy. Everybody I knew loved him, so I tried to love him, too. I tried so hard. (And to his credit, he did give a good performance in Interview with the Vampire.)
Cruise and I just weren’t meant to be, though. All the goodwill he’d won by playing Lestat vanished in the five minutes it took him to kill off his entire, fascinating supporting cast at the beginning of Mission Impossible. How can you love someone who toys with the audience like that?
So finally I gave up and just embraced my apathetic non-feeling for Cruise, and eventually it blossomed into a weird, obsessive hatred. I still tried to like him. I still went to his movies. But as he tried harder and harder to win an Oscar, his film projects kept getting longer and stranger and artsier and more torturous to sit through. So of course I hated him! Of course I did! And I loved hating him. I went out of my way to read up on him and watch his films because I actually enjoyed hating him.
But then a strange thing happened. In his post-Kidman period, Cruise’s personal life started generating a lot of bizarre and highly undesirable publicity. After a while, even fans turned on him, and suddenly the whole world seemed to hate him. For a brief moment, I felt vindicated, like I had discovered the truth about Cruise before most of the world.
That didn’t last, though. Do you have any idea how hard it is to hate someone reviled by all the world? Kicking someone when he’s down just doesn’t work for me. So then I started feeling sorry for Cruise, and this feeling intensified when I began to notice that many bad reviews of his films were based not on his performance in the movie but his unorthodox life and belief system.
So now I just don’t know how to feel about him. In recent years, I’ve seen him do some very good work, and basically I’ve come to the conclusion that although Cruise has limited range and probably is not capable of giving the caliber of performance he desires (i.e. the reason he never wins an Oscar is because he’s not a great actor), he does have charisma, screen presence, and industry experience, so in the right part, he is perfectly capable of anchoring a solid, entertaining movie.
That said, I’ll add that Cage in Edge of Tomorrow is pretty much the ideal leading role for Tom Cruise. It’s the most perfect fit, the best starring role that he’s had in a long time, in fact. Tonally, Edge of Tomorrow actually reminds me very much of Top Gun, so Cruise knows just what to do when he’s on screen. He knows what the audience wants, and in this movie, the audience conveniently wants something that Cruise can easily supply.
As sci-fi movies go, Edge of Tomorrow is actually a much stronger film than last year’s Oblivion. Though Cruise also did a good job in Oblivion, Edge of Tomorrow has sharper writing, more engaging action scenes, light years better pacing, and honestly, a more sympathetic character for Cruise to play. Edge also benefits from the presence of Cruise’s lovely and talented co-star Emily Blunt, an actress I’ve loved since The Devil Wears Prada. (In fact, despite my complicated, semi-ambivalent antipathy for Cruise, I’ve been excited to see Edge of Tomorrow because of Blunt’s involvement. Ever since contractual obligations forced her to step down as the Black Widow, I’ve been watching her career with interest, hoping that she will eventually find a star-making role.)
Though not a perfect movie, Edge of Tomorrow is definitely none of the things I’ve come to dread from a Tom Cruise project. It is not overly pretentious, bloated, shallow, self-important, or dull. Refreshingly, it benefits from a healthy sense of humor. (Cruise often plays really hilarious characters, like Stacee Jaxx or Les Grossman, but while he’s great in those supporting roles, you get the idea that he’s basically making fun of people he doesn’t like. In this film, however, the humor is not mean-spirited or over-the-top satirical. Most of the comedy, actually, arises from the absurdity of the situation and the frustration of lead character Cage, who despite his flaws always remains a sympathetic and reasonably realistic guy.)
If you like sci-fi, I can’t imagine why you wouldn’t find Edge of Tomorrow worth your time.
The Good:
Fairly early in the film, my husband leaned over and whispered to me, “This is like Groundhog Day in Hell!”
“It’s like a nightmare,” I replied. Then after thinking about it for a second, I added, “It’s like Tom Cruise’s personal, specific nightmare. He runs around everywhere telling people what he knows is the truth, and everybody in the world responds by thinking that he’s completely insane.”
I mean, come on. There are a lot of “crazy” A-list (or former A-list) celebrities out there, but surely Tom Cruise would make most people’s short-list. I actually spent a fairly large chunk of the movie reflecting on how being dismissed (or sometimes reviled) as “crazy” must make Cruise feel.
It’s definitely easy to see why this project would appeal to him. Cage is gripped with the urgent desire to tell people the truth about the aliens for their own good. Meanwhile, however, if he tells too many people, he’ll be locked up in a psych ward and drugged and experimented on (by the evil psychiatric/pharmaceutical industry). So only a very select few can be told the secret.
I’ll bet Cruise looked at Cage’s predicament and thought, “Gosh, that is a horrible fix! It’s such a nightmare that everyone thinks I’m crazy when I know the truth.” It’s like Brad Pitt being chased by crowds (of Zombies) everywhere he goes in World War Z. Pitt well knows what it’s like to be mobbed by unreasonable crowds everywhere he goes, just like Cruise knows all about keeping your mouth shut so they’ll stop saying you’re crazy. It’s quite interesting to think about the particular nightmare scenarios that attract various celebrities.
The premise of Edge of Tomorrow is pretty good. I don’t know that you’d call it exactly original since it’s eerily similar to Groundhog Day and that recent Jake Gyllenhaal movie Source Code. The premise itself basically draws from a number of existing sci-fi plots and just kind of tweaks them a bit.
Fortunately, the originality of the premise becomes a moot point because the film never stumbles in execution. Director Doug Liman, (probably best known for his work on the Bourne series and for the sleeper hit Jumper) gives every impression of knowing exactly what he’s doing. If this impression is mistaken, then he must be the luckiest guy on earth. The film has quick, even pacing and never really gets bogged down or falters.
In a story like this—in which the same day is relived again and again—there’s a huge danger of boring the audience with endless repetition. But Edge of Tomorrow neatly avoids this by finding novel and invigorating ways of presenting the narrative events to the audience. A movie like this has to be well and thoughtfully staged. We simply can’t see all the action. We’d die of boredom (or, more likely, we’d zone out and stop paying attention).
Perhaps the greatest strength of Edge of Tomorrow is its ability to show us the same time span again and again in novel ways. This clever technique also forces us to think about the artificiality of the narrative process. When we tell a story, we don’t simply, transparently recount every single event that happened in real time. It would be entirely possible to tell a complete story, then tell a distinct second story that took place during the exact same time period.
The nature of the story in Edge of Tomorrow forces the screenwriters and director always to be conscious of scope and of narrative technique, and the movie succeeds at entertaining the audience because it keeps moving forward in surprising and novel ways even though within the film, Cage lives out the same day over and over again.
The movie also has a terrific cast. At first, I wondered if it would be an all-star cast since we see so many heavy hitting actors in the first couple of scenes. I mean, we open with Tom Cruise and Brendan Gleeson, and then, the next thing you know, we’re meeting Bill Paxton. This is a bit misleading, though, since Cruise, Gleeson, Paxton, and Blunt are by far the biggest stars in the movie, noticeably more famous than the rest of the cast.
Still the acting is quite good, for the most part, even from Cruise. Gleeson only has a couple of scenes, but he does some fine work in them. For me, seeing Paxton play a military man making fun of squeamish soldiers for being cowards was completely hilarious. All I could think of was his memorable turn as the constantly freaking out soldier in Aliens. (I know he’s had a long and storied career, but I just couldn’t get that part out of my head. And actually, in James Cameron’s documentary Ghosts of the Abyss, Paxton seems plenty panicky and freaked out just playing himself—although to be fair to him, James Cameron is a very reckless companion.)
Most of the other soldiers are quite good in their parts, too, though none particularly stands out more than the others. I spent most of the movie trying (and failing) to recognize Noah Taylor. (I think I’m remembering him from his role in Tomb Raider, which is odd because he’s also in Game of Thrones, and I’ve seen that much more recently.) He makes a fairly convincing scientist/sidekick, though he doesn’t have much to do when all is said and done.
Emily Blunt is just fantastic. She’s a very good actress (much more talented than Cruise, for sure), and since her part actually calls for some nuanced acting, this all works out to the movie’s advantage. Plus her character is fairly cool. She’s not reduced to a mere love interest or sidekick. Rita is actually just as vital to saving the world as Cage. She’s an interesting character in her own right (and the fact that they call her The Angel of Verdun kept making me think of Joan of Arc which I always enjoy). (I also love Blunt’s English accent and am delighted when she’s allowed to keep it.)
I’m curious now to read All You Need is Kill, the novel on which the movie is based. For one thing, I have a lot of questions about logistics which I hope the book can answer. But I also just find the world of the story compelling. The whole idea of the English and the Americans coming together to invade Normandy beach as the last chance to save what’s human in the world definitely needs a second look. Late in the movie, characters in a pub compare their situation to World War II. I’m very curious about why the story is set up to make such a comparison so obvious. I really would like to read the book.
Best Action Sequence:
Edge of Tomorrow offers a number of pleasant surprises, but by far the most surprising to me was how much I enjoyed the action scenes.
No doubt partially because of my own sensory processing issues, I am usually not a huge fan of action. Usually, I find CGI laden explosion fests hard to follow. I’ve been known to zone out during action scenes that go on too long. In fact, I’m pretty sure that I spent at least the last hour of the third Transformers movie in a state of suspended animation. (Seriously, if I’m ever in a life-threatening accident, doctors could put me in an induced coma just by showing me the movie Battleship.)
So imagine how surprised I was to find the first de-planing scene over Normandy Beach thoroughly engaging, viscerally thrilling, and in a word, riveting. I won’t spoil the movie by telling you exactly what happens as they jump out of the plane to join their fellow troops in combat on the beach, but my God was it thrilling to watch!
Not only did I enjoy the experience of watching, but I was also able to follow what was going on. And the most surprising thing is, I liked it so much that when I realized Cage’s day was about to repeat, my first thought was, Oh awesome! Maybe we’ll get to see that exhilarating jumping-out-of-the-plane scene again!
Why did I enjoy this scene so much?
I’ve given it a lot of thought, and I’m wondering if part of it wasn’t good, precise use of sound. Often in big action scenes, we get tons of explosions, and noises of gunfire and chaos that aren’t tied to a particular cause, a specific thing making the sound. But in this scene, you see the guns that are firing the bullets, and you hear the very specific noise the aliens make when they slither around. You see what you hear. You hear what you see. And you hear things at an appropriate volume based on their size and placement on the screen. So it’s easier to orient yourself.
I must confess, though, that part of the reason I liked the scene of jumping down to the beach was that it was a bit disorienting. It gave me the dizzying feeling that I was jumping out of the plane myself. And I liked that rush.
Actually, all of the action in the film felt intensely personal. There’s a scene closer to the end when Tom Cruise goes sliding under some pipes. It’s just so easy to imagine doing that myself because that’s where a human body would fit. There’s a very pragmatic logic underlying all the action that I greatly appreciated. Every action taken is calculated and precise, and that makes it all much more of a pleasure to watch.
Funniest Scene:
I’m not surprised that the movie is based on a book called All You Need is Kill because there is certainly a lot of intentional killing in this movie, and honestly most of the humor arises from various situations in which a particular character is killed.
These deaths wouldn’t be funny except for the way they’re timed. So this is mostly the result of good directing and good editing choices, though Cruise and Blunt definitely do their part to make the situation entertaining for an audience.
My personal favorite moment comes when Cruise “cleverly” rolls underneath a passing truck and proves to be just a little bit too clever (or not clever enough) for his own good.
Of course, probably the best line in the movie is a joke delivered by another soldier on the plane that becomes far funnier (and more profound) the second time we hear it.
Best Scene Visually:
I have to say that I think the true hiding place of the Omega is pretty inspired. From a plot-oriented point of view, of course, it’s hard not to suspect that the Omega is very dumb. Think of all the indistinguishable caves and crevices and trenches and hidey holes on this vast, crazy earth. And then look where that crazy Omega is hiding! Where was his second choice—inside the head of the statue of liberty? Or maybe he originally planned to hide behind one of the lions in Trafalgar Square or in the Parthenon or the Coliseum?
Clearly this alien makes terrible choices and probably always loses at hide-and-seek.
But regardless of its lack of craftiness, this hiding place makes for a pretty visually arresting final showdown.
Best Scene:
One thing I liked about this movie was that the story never stagnates. Just because the same day is happening over and over again, nothing gets boring. In fact, several times, Cruise’s character deliberately alters the routine because he’s tired of getting the same results.
I particularly like the scene in which Cage visits a tavern simply because it feels so important. It’s not so much what happens during this scene. It’s what doesn’t happen. Clearly, the character has reached a turning point, and from now on, nothing will be the same.
The Negatives:
I’ve admitted (at length) that I have never been a fan of Cruise’s acting. He’s more than capable of anchoring this film, and for the most part, his Cage is likable and easy to root for. But on more than one occasion, I found myself consciously thinking, This scene could be so much more powerful if only Tom Cruise were a better actor.
Now don’t get me wrong. He’s a perfectly competent actor. He gives us enough to keep the scene going. But a great actor could give us more, and quite honestly, I believe that Cruise simply can’t do that. (I’m not actually trying to insult him. I couldn’t do it, either. I’m not a great actor myself.)
One of the main complaints that I always have about Cruise’s acting is that I don’t sense anything behind his face. (I’m not saying he’s just a pretty face, although he has aged remarkably gracefully.) What I mean is, he doesn’t seem to emote, at least not as much as a real person would. He’s great at playing cocky or scared or amused or even mad. But he’s not so good at more subtle or more powerful emotions. I feel like his eyes don’t show us a window into anything, and he’s got a great face, but there’s nothing behind it, no energy, no authenticity, no longing, no complexity.
I know that sounds like a weird complaint, but if you compare Cruise’s acting to the work done by Emily Blunt (and even Brendan Gleeseon) in the same movie, Cruise just obviously doesn’t have the natural talent for acting that some of his co-stars possess.
Blunt has some wonderful moments in which she effortlessly transitions from an action hero to a vulnerable, tormented person. She does this so quickly and completely and fluidly that it doesn’t even look like a transition. It just looks natural. But Cruise just can’t do that. He just can’t. (I say “can’t” because I know that if he could do it, he would. He’s clearly dedicated to his craft and obviously would like to have an Oscar.) The best thing that he can do instead is simply to get kind of quiet and emit no trace of anything whatsoever. He just stops being cocky or scared or mad and pulls into himself quietly. And when he does this, we know there must be more going on beneath the surface, though maddeningly we have no actual evidence of that.
For some people, this acting style may work. But it just feels false and awkward and inadequate to me. I can’t help it. Believe me I try. Because I’m always aware of my antipathy for Cruise, I consciously try to give him as much credit as I can. But though some may find him a great actor, I do not.
The other thing that bothered me about the movie is actually a much bigger deal than Cruise’s lack of acting greatness. (To be clear, he has acting “goodness.” It’s not like he’s horrible. His performance is just fine. It’s just that there are moments that would clearly be much more powerful if played by a more talented actor, one better at conveying complex emotion in a way that feels authentic and natural.)
But what really bothered me about the film is that there’s so much we don’t know about how Cage’s “power” works. The story is presented in a very effective way, so we are shown things on screen that work as a movie. I do not fault the structure, the scope, or the execution of this story at all. But after the movie, I realized I had a lot of questions.
Here’s the biggest one (without spoilers). Every time something happens to Cage, the world changes dramatically for him. (That’s vague, but it doesn’t spoil anything, and when you see the movie, you can figure out for yourself what I mean.)
My question is, what happens to the other people?
We are only shown the story from Cage’s point of view. This limits scope in a smart way, but it leaves a lot of lingering questions, questions that nobody could adequately address in a two-hour movie. Does the book answer the questions?
What do the other people experience as Cage undergoes this change? How does the science in this movie actually work? Is it kind of like Source Code, or is it more mystical like Groundhog Day. The thing is, in Groundhog Day, the world resets when Phil goes to sleep, but everybody else is going to sleep around that time, too. Cage’s situation is somewhat different. What does Rita experience when she alters Cage’s path? Several times, she seems to take steps to alter his path quickly to save time. But would doing this save any time for her? Is she part of her own timeline or does time simply rewind leaving everyone in the world disoriented?
That’s one of the biggest limitations of the story. To work effectively, it must be told inside the consciousness of one individual. It’s probably not an accident that during the last big action scene of the movie, I found myself thinking about the limits of empiricism. The thing is, no matter how limited (and therefore misleading and unsatisfying) an Aristotelian approach to interpreting reality may seem, that type of approach remains pretty dominant because if you choose instead to embrace a philosophy entirely beyond the limits of your senses, how in the world are you going to discover that truth and make other people understand it? Every time Cruise’s character talks to Blunt and her doctor friend, the subject of the psych ward comes up. Cage wants to tell people the truth at first. But the problem is, this truth is completely unverifiable by most people’s sensory experiences. So how in the world will he convince them to believe him instead of to believe (the far more widely palatable explanation) that the world is as most people understand it to be and Cage’s reality testing is just off because something’s wrong with his brain?
The movie works as is because as we’re watching the action, there’s no time to wonder about what’s happening to the people who aren’t the protagonist. We’re much too caught up in trying to follow what’s happening to the protagonist. And the movie is only 113 minutes long.
But after the movie, you do start to wonder what reality is like for the other people. When you think along these lines, you realize that the ending is incredibly problematic. Has Cage’s final accident completely altered the way life will proceed for the entire human race. What happens at the end of his life? (There are a number of other questions, but I won’t name them specifically in interest of limiting spoilers.) Another problem is that the ending seems a little too convenient. Still, it’s true that we’re expecting this type of ending, and if we hadn’t gotten it, I’m sure most of the audience would have been disappointed and annoyed.
Of course, the movie does provide a brilliant metaphorical meditation on both the nature of war and what it means to be a human. So maybe I should just love it for what it is instead of wishing it were also a science lecture explaining the nature of everyone’s reality. We get a very satisfying story knowing only Cage’s reality, and maybe that ought to be enough. Still, it’s hard not to ask yourself a bunch of tough questions at the end (like, Is Emily Blunt well on her way to a career full of problematic time travel movies that have key scenes in a creepy old farmhouse in the middle of a corn field?)
Overall:
Despite my tortured ambivalence when it comes to Tom Cruise, both my husband and I really enjoyed Edge of Tomorrow. I love Emily Blunt, and even though I normally don’t like action scenes, I found the action in this film viscerally thrilling, a surprising treat.
Given the premise’s propensity for monotony, Edge of Tomorrow impressed me most by avoiding falling into narrative ruts and keeping the story engaging and fresh for the audience, even when the protagonist had seen and done it all before.
My husband had this movie’s number when early-on, he called it, “Groundhog Day in Hell.” But you have to admit that’s a pretty compelling pitch. Plus the aliens look cool, Emily Blunt is gorgeous, and the movie raises lots of provocative, compelling questions like, “How does Tom Cruise prevent himself from aging?” Clean living, expensive injections, alien DNA? We may never know for sure, but whatever he’s doing, it’s working, and for the most part, Edge of Tomorrow works, too.