Summary: Today we have another guest post by film critic Locke Peterseim, reviewing Edge of Tomorrow. He shows how it provides a mirror into which we can see ourselves, in effect a riveting documentary about modern warfare (as we see it from the homeland). Battle scenes crammed full to the frames with CGI armament and hyper-gritty destruction splayed out against a backdrop of overblown escapist realism. It embodies everything and signifies nothing. It’s almost the opposite in nature of films made during WW2. Post your comments about the film — and this review!
“Battle is the Great Redeemer. It is the fiery crucible in which true heroes are forged. The one place where all men truly share the same rank, regardless of what kind of parasitic scum they were going in.”
— Words we find inspiring on the screen, showing our lack of self-confidence and fears of inauthenticity. It’s a common attitude held before wars (e.g., before WWI).
Edge of Tomorrow: Cruise, Again and Again
By Locke Peterseim.
From the film blog of Open Letters Monthly, 25 June 2014.
Reposted here with his generous permission.
I once reveled in mocking and deriding Tom Cruise for the obvious reasons: the shallow All-American Super-Jock swagger; the intense self-deprecatingly positivity; the mish-mash of film choices from soggily pretentious Oscar-lickers (Born on the Fourth of July, Rain Man, The Last Samurai) to cloying, image polishers (A Few Good Men, Jerry McGuire) to silly popcorn pandering (The Firm, Mission Impossible, and of course Interview with the Vampire).
Even when the actor took otherwise admirable steps to try something relatively daring with Eyes Wide Shut and Vanilla Sky, it still felt like the ridiculously handsome and charismatic quarterback slumming it in the theater department’s avant-garde spring production. (Like Glee’s Finn, without all the overdosing.) (To be fair, Kubrick reduced Cruise to a prop, but Kubrick reduced nearly all his actors to props.)
In the midst of this came the one truly brilliant Tom Cruise performance—the only post-Risky Business role that shows actual acting ability, as opposed to the usual wind-up charm masquerading in dress-up costumes as “Serious Acting!”
That was in P.T. Anderson’s Magnolia, and of course the irony there is that Cruise is so genuinely good in it because he appears to show us a glimpse of what I suspect is the Real Thomas Cruise Mapother IV: A vicious, insecure huckster constantly attacking at full speed to hide the dark emptiness within. In other words, his best came from simply letting slip the carefully constructed mask for a moment.
(The Runner Up would be his hilarious – and once again, I suspect self-revealing – Tropic Thunder cameo as a profane mad-dog studio exec.)
And of course there was the whole Scientology thing that frankly became so entwined with Cruise’s career and persona that it was impossible to tell if he was an actor who benefited from a made-up, sci-fi, long-con “religion” or a made-up, sci-fi, long-con “religion” spokesman posing as an actor to boost his sales of L. Ron’s starter kits.
But then a decade ago came The Loopy Melt Down on Oprah’s couch, a moment that in hindsight now feels utterly created. (As well as working in tandem with the advent of YouTube to usher in the rise of the Internet’s Celebrity Fuck-Up Meme Machine.) There soon followed the Katie Holmes contractual marriage and the firing of his PR team so Cruise could freely spread the Scientology gospel. (At the time it wasn’t unthinkable that the actor saw himself as Hubbard’s heir apparent to eventually run the Cash-Register Church.)
And yet lost in the gossip shallows was the fact that the film Cruise was supposed to be promoting from Oprah’s couch that summer turned out to be mostly pretty great (at least for the first two acts): Spielberg’s War of the Worlds.
While Cruise had done his usual decent job in the previous summer’s highly underrated Collateral (one of the rare times the actor’s played an outright villain), there was something almost baptismal about the Oprah debacle and the summer of Cruise live-mic nuttery that followed. The All-American Boy stood up and showed everyone that he was, in fact, an even more beloved trope: The All-American Nutjob.
That turned out to be freeing — both for Cruise and us, the audience. We didn’t have to pretend anymore that he was a Great Actor (he never was) or that he made Important Films (they never were). It allowed Cruise to simply be what he had always really been: a crazy Hollywood Creation. (Albeit still a dauntingly charismatic and devastatingly handsome one.) After decades of calling Cruise a bat-shit fraud from the wilderness, once he revealed himself as exactly that, suddenly I could truly appreciate the ridiculous amount of admirably incandescent Star Power he brings to the silliest of roles and truly enjoy his Big Hollywood Movies.
Sure, Knight and Day and Oblivion are soggy misfires, but most every Cruise film since War of the Worlds has crackled thanks to the Cruise Effect (as well as some solid director and writer pairings): The last two Mission Impossible films were genuine shallow fun; Valkyrie is another underrated crackerjack thriller; and while Lee Child fan’s would be loathe to admit it, Jack Reacher was a solid flick.
(Yes, Rock of Ages is a celluloid horror that doesn’t even work as High Camp, but bad as it and he are, Cruise’s Axl-Jagger rock-god ridiculousness is an absolute riot for all the right and wrong reasons at once.)
These post-Oprah movies all have one thing in common: Whether he’s playing a blue-collar father, an aristocratic German saboteur, an international super spy, or futuristic hero, he’s still Tom Cruise, Movie Star. And that works so much better for me on-screen than Tom Cruise, Serious Actor.
This summer’s latest entry in the Cruise Constellation, the sci-fi action orgy Edge of Tomorrow, certainly fits into that same disposable bucket of high-gloss, star-powered entertainment.
The only significant difference is that with a writing polish from Cruise’s latest go-to screenwriter Christopher McQuarrie (the sharper-than-average writer of Valkyrie and writer-director of Jack Reacher and the next Mission Impossible flick) and some ace direction chops from obsessive-artiste-craftsman Doug Liman (The Bourne Identity, Mr. and Mrs. Smith), Edge of Tomorrow fires and hits on more cylinders than most of the other products off the Cruise assembly line.
The fact that Edge of Tomorrow is the first action film in a while that manages to paradoxically look both like it has something to say (it doesn’t) and knows how to say it (it does), has led video-game armchair warriors, geek-hyped fan-boys, and desperately needy critics to proclaim the flick quite a bit more (“an action masterpiece!”) than it is, which is a suitably fast-paced and sure-handed enough popcorner to shine out from among the usual incompetent, slap-dash, action dreck.
Based (much more closely than PR-cruising Cruise seems willing to cotton to) on the Japanese “light” (young adult) novella All You Need is Kill by Hiroshi Sakurazaka, Edge of Tomorrow gives us Cruise as Cage, an unctuous military propagandist who, in a near future where Europe has been overrun by unstoppable alien invaders, suddenly finds himself strapped into a cumbersome battle-mech suit and air-dropped into the front line of a massive D-Day-like landing at Normandy.
Cage, whose PR talent lies in convincing young people to sign up as cannon fodder in an unwinnable war, is a useless soldier himself—frozen with fear as he tumbles onto the beachhead, he barely finds his gun’s safety before he’s ignominiously KIA.
The novel idea of a Tom Cruise character who’s innately inept at doing the sort of bang-bang action stuff we’ve come to expect from him is a mildly amusing one, but quickly Cage undergoes a more typical Cruisian sci-fi gimmick: Thanks and alien goo infection, post-battlefield-death, he pops back up a day earlier in the time stream, reliving out the same events, only this time armed with a bit of painfully earned foreknowledge (including how to turn the safety off) that helps him get a little further up the beach before he’s killed again and resurrects once again a day earlier.
Eventually Cage hooks up with a super-soldier named Rita (Emily Blunt, having a grim cast-against-type ball) whose past victorious alien-smashing efforts had not only made her one of Cage’s PR poster soldiers in the propaganda war, but were once (but no more) aided by the same repetitive time-looping accident Cage himself is now experiencing.
And so it goes over and over for Cage, trapped by an alien time-loop into a sped-up and butt-kicking version of Nietzsche’s Eternal Circle – better known to present-day pop-culturists as the Groundhog Day Thing or that “time is a flat circle” business Rust Cohle was going on about over a cut-up beer can in True Detective.
On the other hand, video gamers will instantly recognize the narrative as a cinematic manifestation of how first-person shooters are played: by dying over and over ad nauseum, each time coming back with a few more learned repetitive patterns tucked under your weapons belt to help you make it a little deeper into the gameplay. The film itself looks and feels like a futuristic shooter; battle scenes crammed full to the frames with CGI armament and hyper-gritty destruction splayed out against a backdrop of overblown escapist realism.
Drenched as much in dark humor as visually stimulating battle mayhem, it’s all very clever and quite a bit of guilty fun for the first hour or so — the sight of Tom Cruise dying over and over again is worth the price of Milk Duds.
Naturally, there are some storytelling cheats along the way. Though the plot makes it clear that only Cage remembers each “reset” time loop and therefore is the sole character who can truly “grow” emotionally throughout the course of the film, the audience (and filmmakers) can’t help but ascribe artificial layers of personal depth to Rita— our perceptions are skewed by our familiarity with this type of movie’s tropes, so at each reset time frame, we don’t feel her as a blank-slate cipher she would be. Neither the script nor Blunt make us believe Rita truly doesn’t already know Cage each new day.
Though certainly no masterpiece itself, Sakurazaka’s book at least toys with that theme of artificial interpersonal connection and delves much deeper into thorny existential questions not just about living the same brutal day over and over, but the nature of war itself and why gung-ho young men are so anxious to fight and die in it.
We’ve no time for that sort of mamby pamby stuff here. Expertly stuffed full of the sort of adrenaline-pumping, testosterone-goosing blood-free battle chaos “entertainment” that actually breeds such gung-ho waste, Edge of Tomorrow perfectly captures the sort of war-porn fantasies brought on by endless video games where the hero’s death has no consequences, no cost.
Edge of Tomorrow is a clever-smart film for its kind, but it’s still a PG-13 summer Hollywood blockbuster. Nietzschean flat time circles and examinations of the causes and casualties of propagandized war lust don’t put over-sized butts in theater seats.
Instead, Cruise, Liman, and McQuarrie (along with co-writers Jez and John-Henry Butterworth) keep the focus on the enjoyable novelty of the crackerjack time-loop gimmick, at least right up until they unwisely abandon the conceit for a third-act finish that forgoes the film’s initial unpredictable innovation for a very typical, very formulaic, and very dull war-action “Men on a Mission” finish, complete with the usual predictable beats.
Infamous for his eccentric cinematic perfectionism, Liman’s more a middling mad-genius craftsman than deep thinker, and for the most part the director doesn’t have much to say about war and death. (Though at least the more jaded Edge of Tomorrow isn’t soaked in reprehensible rah-rah heroic horseshit like the recent “true story” Lone Survivor.) However, as a sure-footed and self-aware film maker, Liman does sneak in a sly-for-the-genre deconstruction of action films and action heroes.
Rather than somehow instinctively knowing how to run, jump, shoot, and blow up things with confident, superhuman invincibility thanks to the Action Movie Gods, Cruise’ Cage has to learn all that stuff the hard way — his cosmic battlefield “luck” is carefully cultivated through repetition; every hoary action cliché attained is first shown as a miserable failure usually ending in an ignoble (albeit gore-free) splatter death. We’re reminded that 99% of what we see in most action films could never happen in real life … unless you had an alien time reset to perfect every move. Or a stunt, and CGI crew behind you.
(And where Groundhog Day’s time loop turned Bill Murray’s jaded misanthrope into the perfect rom-com hero, Edge of Tomorrow only teaches Cruise’s oily coward how to be the perfect summer action-hero soldier. One must imagine Sisyphus armed to the teeth.)
Seen through that interpretive veil, it’s also fun to picture Edge of Tomorrow as an allegory for the creation of Tom Cruise, Movie Star. It’s not hard to imagine this was how Tom Cruise built himself into “Tom Cruise”: with relentless pursuit and practice; building performances and then a career from running headlong into mistakes and then backing up and running masochistically at them again; through tireless repetition of core beliefs and dedicated adherence to patterns and self-delusional dogma until all that obsessive effort became invisible and Everything Worked Beautifully.
In that sense, Edge of Tomorrow is almost a riveting documentary about the price of hard-fought perfection. It’s about how we arrived with this, the Tom Cruise of today, the Ultimate Hollywood Star who entertainingly embodies everything and signifies nothing. Forever and ever.
About the author
Locke Peterseim writes the Hammer and Thump film blog at Open Letters Monthly, an online arts and literature magazine. A film critic whose work has appeared on Redbox, WGN Radio, and in the Magill’s Cinema Annual, he also serves on the board of the Chicago Film Critics Association.
These days he still enjoys films on their artistic and entertainment merits, but also finds himself as much if not more interested in them as cultural mirrors; artifacts of how we want to see ourselves–and how mainstream studios want to sell those desires back to us.
Some of his other reviews:
- The Hunger Games: How a Real Film Emerged from the Deadly Arena of Young-Adult Movie Franchises
- The Hunger Games: Catching Fire – You Say You Want a Revolution?
- Transformers 4 is the Greatest Film Ever Made About 21st Century America
- 300: Rise of an Empire: The Half-Truths and Bloody Fog of Cartoon War
- The Wolf of Wall Street: What’s So Funny About Greed, Ludes, and Unchecked Capitalism?
For More Information
(a) For more about the evolution of modern film see this powerful article: “How YouTube and Internet Journalism Destroyed Tom Cruise, Our Last Real Movie Star“, Amy Nicholson, LA Weekly, 20 May 2014
(b) See all posts about:
(c) Posts about films:
- Does the Tea Party movement remind you of the movie “Meet John Doe”? , 27 January 2010
- About the movie “Fight Club”, 28 March 2010
- Robocop is not a good role model for the youth of Detroit, 12 March 2011
- We want heroes, not leaders. When that changes it will become possible to reform America., 11 January 2013
- Loki helps us to see our true selves, 15 May 2013
- My movie recommendation for 2010: Vitual JFK (the book is also great), 30 June 2013
- Hollywood’s dream machine gives us the Leader we yearn for, 30 June 2013
- Rollerball shows us one aspect of America, and a possible future, 13 August 2013
- In “Network”, Howard Beale asks us to get mad and do something. He’s still waiting., 19 October 2013
- Are our film heroes leading us to the future, or signaling despair?, 28 October 2013
- “Ender’s Game” is a horror movie, showing us our dark side. No worries; we’ll forget faster than we eat the popcorn., 2 November 2013
13 thoughts on ““Edge of Tomorrow”: Cruise, Again and Again”
Edge was a good movie. It portrays the General in charge of military operations as clueless and hopelessly pedestrian in his prosecution of the war. It portrays the soldiers as hapless cannon fodder fatalists and indeed they are based on the portrait of their leadership. The arc of the hero’s transformation describes Cruise’s consciousness raising through events that reveal these underlying dis functionalities. The hero’s struggle requires his acknowledgement that he is on his own. That there is no hope of working within this disfunctional system. That success will require a truely creative act by grass roots players.
I know you believe this approach in our real world is ludicrous FM. I certainly agree it smacks of desperation. And magical thinking. This is a perfect allegory for our times. Interesting the story comes out of Japan. They are further down the desperate men doing desperate things magical thinking road than we are.
“I know you believe this approach in our real world is ludicrous”
Is this in doubt? How many times has profound social change happened without collective organization — groups, leaders, followers?
“Interesting the story comes out of Japan. They are further down the desperate men doing desperate things magical thinking road than we are.”
That’s an important point. The only person I know of who predicted Japans decline was Karel van Wolferen’s The Enigma of Japanese Power (1989) — where he identified their core problem as dysfunctional governance. After 25 years of decline they’ve burned through most of their options.
When you do see it, I would submit that his reaction at the end to the heroine’s question ” What do you want?” Is the best example of natural acting talent I have seen. Profoundly clever screen writing too.
Did you completely miss his performance in Collateral? If that’s not “serious” acting, I don’t know what is.
When you use half the review to describe what a Cruise hater you are, the the rest is hardly worth reading. Not even a tiny bit of objectivity here. Most of those movies you refer to in the beginning of your review were pretty good. I certainly don’t have any idea what kind of a person Tom Cruise is, but that really doesn’t mean a thing. I can’t think of any movie star/actor that i would follow or really find to be a wonderful person in real life. You watch a movie to see a story visually unfold before you. Like him as a real person or not, he is good at what he does. I haven’t seen this movie yet, but it is definitely on my list of movies to watch.
Thank you for posting your thoughts on this! Unfortunately Locke Peterseim – the pro who writes these reviews — does not reply to comments here. You can click through to his website and comment there.
We post these reviews for their insights about America society and politics. I have done a few (links in the post at the end), but not very well. As for the artistic aspects, that’s out of my wheelhouse.
Speaking as a lay movie-goer, I have enjoyed his movies that I have seen: Top Gun, Minority Report, the MI movies, and Oblivion.
“When you use half the review to describe what a Cruise hater you are, the the rest is hardly worth reading.”
But Bob (and Koji), the second half of the review was about how much I’ve come to really ENJOY Cruise’s performances (and action-hero persona) in his films of the past decade (including, Koji, Collateral, a film and a performance I like very much).
My point was that Cruise is doing more interesting and better work these days, even in what were once kinda rote action flicks. I still don’t think he’s a “great” actor in most cases, but these days I genuinely like what he brings to genre films like this.
See, we all agree!
Thank you for joining us!
“Whether he’s playing a blue-collar father, an aristocratic German saboteur, an international super spy, or futuristic hero, he’s still Tom Cruise, Movie Star. And that works so much better for me on-screen than Tom Cruise, Serious Actor.”
It’s not just “Tom Cruise, Movie Star”, but “Tom Cruise, Scientologist”. I would even say ‘Tom Cruise’.
The thing is that with Cruise, since his immersion into the Church of Scientology, many of his roles are elaborations and exaggerations of his persona as the third in command of Scientology (after Hubbard and Miscavige). The character template is not only the action hero, who appears in many guises, but an action hero who sees more than ordinary people and exists in a higher realm. Primary examples are the Ethan Hunt (MI) and Jack Reacher characters. Like most action heroes, the characters are heroic and really good at fighting, but what distinguishes them further is that they appear to have a hyper-awareness in comparison to other characters; other characters are like card board cut-outs in comparison.
This is in keeping with Cruise’s messianic role in Scientology as expressed in the leaked video wherein he proclaims that Scientologists can “change conditions”, etc. So that if I were writing an academic treatise on Cruise films, I would argue that he is a truly hyper-real actor as his characters tend to be simulations of Cruise’s own identity. Bad actors frequently play different variations of the same role, but with Cruise these roles are bound up with his role within the Church of Scientology, itself perhaps a simulation of ‘the real Tom Cruise’.
To stretch this pseudo-Baudrillardian analysis a little further, these copies of ‘Tom Cruise’ filtered through Hollywood are fascinating to watch (according to Baudrillard, fascination is the nihilistic passion par excellence), whether one really takes the movies seriously or enjoys them is a separate question from their function as cultural mirror.
Thanks for the analysis! Our entertainment provides a mirror into which we can look to better understand ourselves. Constructing the mirror is over my pay grade. Your comment helps!
dereck what the crap are you going on with 3rd in charge!!! whos scrpit are you reading?!! his immersion with scientology is more than 20 years and helped him be able to read properly and sorted out his dsyexia which they wanted to give him ADHD drugs for and his mother refused.
I am sure if they drugged him up he would not have accopmlished what he has.
he set up a detox for the 9/11 fire fighters , helps other kids read and write,I would say that is changing conditions with those fire fighters who can now work again and kids able to read and leaving their gangs.
dereck hello these are movies what about iron man etc etc etc etc
A movie is a movie Cruise along with many others are proffesional actors. So you either like the movie or not don’t have to craop on with your views of Scientology stuff and that his films are an extension of that, lets get real here.
if you can’t do a genuine review don’t communicate here.
Fact; Rotton tomotoes gave it 90 percent none these profeesionals crapped on with what you are crapping on about.
Whoa. Not sure if I should even reply to this. Now I have a sense of how FM feels when dumbfounded by comments.
Your comments strike me as so bizarre that a point by point debate would take a long time and probably not be worth the effort. And would probably only be of interest to me.
It’s pretty clear to me that you have an emotional attachment with Tom Cruise, Scientologist and/or Scientology itself. I didn’t explicitly denigrate or attack Scientology so I think you’re being a bit defensive.
What’s wrong with “crapping on” about Tom Cruise’s movie roles? If none of the professional reviewers went on about the same things as I did, then I feel that’s more of a reason to express my ideas.
“if you can’t do a genuine review don’t communicate here.”
I would be very surprised if you are involved with administering this site. And where’s your review?