It’s a black satire alejandro inarritu film, that happens to star tom cruise, id never call this a tom cruise film. Never. Inarritu has an amazing ability to elevate his lead actors to career best performances. Keaten in Birdman, Pitt and Blanchette in Babel, Bardem in Biutiful. That guy in Bardo. Revenant, AKA the only movie I felt DiCaprio ever put real acting effort into.
And it’s another film that Inarritu gives a giant middle finger to Hollywood California critics. He is unapologetically heavy handed in his message in recent films and I expect this to be even more, if only to piss off the critics.
That being said, audiences looking to movies to escape the the daily news and it’s reminders of an encroaching dystopic future are probably not going to find it in this film.
Production costs seem way high, for this type of film, but Hollywood accounting is part black magic anyway.
I know that Cruise is a much bigger household name to sensationalize the headline, but it’s really doing a disservice to the film
It’s an arthouse movie with a major Hollywood franchise budget. There’s pretty much no way this would actually make financial sense. But you have to give them credit for taking a creative risk. That’s far too rare these days.
Matt Damon on Hot Ones discusses a reason why these movies don’t make the money they use too, which is sad because those are what I really enjoy most.
I’m getting to the point where I won’t see a movie because it has big name stars in it. I am so fucking tired of seeing the same faces on movie posters for fucking 30 years.
The Wile E. Coyote film gets held for a year then finally releases to tons of money. This gets blasted all over social media and bombs, it’s almost like studio execs don’t have a fucking clue.
I think this one was Cruise trying to prove he is still a thespian, and not just the last relic of the monoculture movie star system. Also, this:
It marked the first film in a new pact with Cruise — the biggest movie star in the world — to make original and franchise films with Warner Bros. Pairing him with Iñárritu, one of only three directors to win back-to-back Best Director Oscars, seemed like a no-brainer.
They definitely over-committed financially on this Temu Kubrick movie (though from what I understand it’s still half-decent), but I think what they’re really banking on is whatever franchise or action fodder they extract from his aging bones and veneers.
My Spidey sense is tingling. A movie that talks shit about the oil industry and I keep hearing about how really bad it is. Hmmmm.
Looking at the cast, with the exception of Cruise, this would be a movie I’d check out once it went to streaming (Jesse Plemons is awesome). But in 2026, I have zero interest in watching a film about a wealthy white guy that unleashed some bullshit on the world and is now trying to prove he’s “humanity’s savior.” The US is a dystopian hellscape and I’m not about to subject myself to more of that, even if it’s some sort of dark comedy. I watched the trailer and it made no goddamn sense to me. All I saw was Cruise, an actor I dislike, bathing a weird fucking Muppet cat, while looking like one of the multitude of old white dumb fucks running the US into the ground. There’s a metric fuckload of other stuff I’d rather be watching and I’m over needlessly subjecting myself to more dystopia.
The trailer does the movie no justice. For good reason, it’s trying very hard not to reveal too much. It all makes sense in a way you wouldn’t expect; Even the werid cat. You should see it sometime
I read the synopsis and it was confusing and convoluted as fuck. I might check it out one day, but chances are higher that I will forget and watch other less dystopian things lol.
Tbh I do want to see it, but I kinda have to agree that the trailers made it seem very tone deaf (though I believe that’s what they were going for as well).
I was slightly disappointed in Mickey 17 because of the weird government people on the ship, which give me the same vibes.
I can’t tell what this movie is about and was interested because Tom Cruise puts in effort when he takes a role. But then I read the synopsis and don’t want to spend 2 hours with a joke based on the very issue frustrating me about the future. Definitely a miss on the topic for the world. The movie makers lack self reflection.
LOL, 100mill marketing budget and Lemmy is where I am reading about it first. I guess I am not the target audience.
Congratulations you run an ad blocker.
First I’m hearing of it as well
Anecdotally, we (lemmings) seem fairly well inoculated from ads.
Well for 100mill I hope you could afford a Lemmy post or two.
I avoid advertising to the point that I’m always a bit surprised if I know what is in theaters.
I want to say that Deadpool was the last one to get me, but I think there have been a few others that I just can’t remember.
I just checked Wikipedia and this sound like another rich person “washing their hands” over the environment on a private jet. Seems tom cruisey.
I have seen the trailer many times in cinemas. And there have been constant news about it
And there have been constant news about it
Because it bombed so hard… not sure that was part of marketing budget
I mean, even before that
Oh I see, also agree… I only knew of this movie because the trailer was shown when we saw The Odyssey… I remember thinking it looked odd but interesting and I thought of checking it out later but completely forgot until I read the news about it bombing
I didn’t know either. I guess this proves the value/horror of algorithmic feeds.
In the days of yore, this would become a cult classic a year after release and the only people to lose out would be the investors so who cares. But now who knows. It’ll go to streaming and who knows how many people will look at it on Netflix and think how bad could it be? when it’s sitting next to Avengers: The Fortieth One?
In general cult classics are still good movies (obviously there are some so bad they are good exceptions), from what I hear this movie just sucks.
Most reviews for this movie are fairly positive, and some reviews are very positive. That’s true of established critics and audience scores. That’s the kind of polarizing review distribution is exactly the type of distribution that applies to cult classics.
Fair enough then, I just haven’t seen any of those reviews I guess.
There are comments in this thread who take the position that it’s a good, interesting, innovative movie but that the trailer can’t do it justice and the core of what makes the movie good can’t even be discussed without spoiling the movie itself. That’s consistent with what I’ve heard from friends.
And the professional reviews seem to track the cult classic formula: mixed reviews but a handful of good ones, including those that point out that this movie isn’t for everyone. Which is unusual for its budget, but isn’t that unusual for an Iñárritu film.
Saw a trailer which was quite literally just a compilation of Tom Cruise clips from his other movies.
No info on plot, setting or story just “y’all love him” and… no, no I do not. Incredibly off-putting.
So many people complain that trailers give too much away about a movie. Here’s a trailer trying real hard not to do that, and people complain it’s just a bunch of disjointed clips with no info on the plot.
I’m telling you that’s for a reason. It’s avoiding spoilers. The trailer is not half as good as the movie. The movie is unique and compelling. The trailer is only confusing. And I don’t know how to make the trailer better without messing up the first viewing experience.
Can you describe the genre? I don’t have any particular love for Tom Cruise, but he’s been in several movies that I have liked, of the ‘dystopian sci-fi mindfuck’ style, for want of a better description. Oblivion, Edge of Tomorrow, Vanilla Sky and to a lesser degree Minority Report.
Never heard of this movie until yesterday.
The genre would be part drama, part farcical dark comedy.
They probably aren’t the same people
Sounds like an ambitious, timely film that made some questionable decisions, starting with making it big-budget and hiring Cruise. It’s probably the wrong audience for him, though.
I like the premise and message, but it also sounds pretty self-important. Audiences rarely go for that, it seems.
I agree. This probably would have done much better if budgeted and marketed like an early A24 film. I’m planning to see the Nathan fielder movie, so the timing might not be helping. I don’t go to the movies often so I’m pretty picky about which one I see if several come out close together.
The Holmes film is definitely on my radar, altho I worry that sitting through 3hrs of a narcissistic psychopath babbling endlessly feels like it could break me, somehow. 😅
I am concerned the the cringe factor will be unbearable. That’s actually why I’m seeing it with people in theaters because if I was watching this alone on streaming I’m sure I’d have to go outside and live in the woods for a week before I would be ready to see another human being. The trailer made me so uncomfortable I had to look away. I imagine the theater experience will be brutal and am a bit surprised they thought people would be willing to subject themselves to it. Good luck if you end up going to see it. I know I’ll definitely need it.
LOL…
TBH I’m pretty well disabled at this point, so when I do watch movies (usually via either YT or yarr, matey), I’m always taking ~15-20min breaks so I can collect my energy, plus think about what I just saw. This lets me wade through a lot of stuff which would otherwise be just too much for me, glued to my seat.I think the last actual theatre film I saw was “Lion,” about an Indian boy who got separated from his family, was later adopted by a Canadian couple, and eventually tracked down his birth family back in India. It was a bit stressful and emotional, but not remotely as grueling as the Fielder film, it seems.
At the same time, I feel like in a world dominated by
modern supervillainsbillionaires, it will be an important film to watch for many people who seek to understand malignant narcissism and all that stuff.
I’m actually kind of interested after I heard a synopsis. I just don’t really go to movies these days, and I think a lot of other folks don’t go as much either.
Exactly. Cinema is for big and bright and loud and social. Anything else can wait, because apart from offering spectacle and community, cinemas are fucking awful if you have a decent TV and a soundbar. Just like we stopped doing lowest-common-denominator melodrama in live theaters once the moving pictures came long, cinemas in the era of bigscreens and streaming will settle into the niches where they provide unique advantages.
Is this “Cruise’s film”? His old age pet project? Or just some film that happened to cast Tom Cruise in a (presumably) main role?
(edit: ok, definitely the latter)
I’ve seen this film mentioned several times on the fediverse now, is there anything more to it?
Here is a decent review of this movie. Apparently, its so bad that it is funny for all the wrong reasons. https://youtu.be/9Dz_uVgh7wI
Not saying it’s a bad review at all, but he shows about half a dozen stills during the 15m he talks in his car.
From that it sounds like a bastardized, maybe Americanized, version of Du Levande which is amazing btw. IDK, maybe it’s just the old men and pastel colors that evoked this comparison.
Now that you mention it, I could totally see this being an American version of a different foreign film. It just has that kind of weird/eccentric “Wes Anderson” vibe in the trailers
Interestingly the director of Du Levande is named Andersson.
I feel like they made a huge mistake with the marketing. I understand why the trailers were the way they were but the bare bones poster design was foolish.
Good. He’s long overdue for a reality check.
