Tom Cruise's EDGE OF TOMORROW is Underrated, Smart, and Foolish at the Same Time

I don't understand the hate that EDGE OF TOMORROW gets. Among the many movies in Tom Cruise's catalogue, it's certainly not his worst entry.

It has everything you could ask for. It checks all the boxes, doesn't it?

• A strong female co-lead
• Humor
• Interesting sci-fi concept
• Symbolic plot of WWII

Positive criticism aside, most film buffs never discuss this movie. It's a forgotten gem. 

Edge of Tomorrow 2014

But why, then?

Well, in my opinion, it's the lack of risk.

If a character can't die, like the protagonist, William Cage, then viewers know he'll eventually solve his problem. It isn't until the third act that Cage loses his ability to relive each day to save the day. Up until that point, there's no risk there. 

The story rewards Cage with the ability to relive each day and discover how to kill the alien species wreaking havoc on the world. And once the story decides that Cage has had enough information to go the rest of the way without plot armor, he'll be on his own. 

Only then do the stakes come into play. If Cage dies this time, he's dead for sure, which means everyone involved in his adventure will stay dead, and everyone on Earth is dead because the Mimic aliens will have won. 

Movie lovers and non-movie lovers see right through that nonsense. 

They might not be able to put it into words sometimes, but they know when a story is bullshit. They know when a story doesn't take itself seriously. So, why should the audience?

In addition to all of that, its comparison to GROUNDHOG DAY with Bill Murray from the early 90s was everywhere during the film's release in 2014. That's all anyone talked about for months. Although EDGE OF TOMORROW is its own film, it, and any other movie that has a time loop like that, can never escape the GROUNDHOG DAY conversation. 

It's sad but true. 

And I'm not even a fan of GROUNDHOG DAY. But they did do it first, so any movie like that will always be compared to it.

Both characters, Cage and Phil Connors (Murray's character), must undergo character arcs before the story allows them to return to their normal universe. That doesn't exactly break the mold in time loop storytelling, but it is what it is. 

And I think everyone saw that coming when EDGE OF TOMORROW was released. Audiences didn't need to be told about the specifics of the story, other than that it was an alien invasion movie. They knew it was going to be a movie where the hero finds himself by the end, like THE WIZARD OF OZ, or helps others to find themselves, a la BACK TO THE FUTURE. 

Still, that being said, EDGE OF TOMORROW is a decent flick. I dig the look of the aliens, although their presence on Earth could have been more fleshed out. 

Maybe we'll get a sequel, but I doubt it.

How much did Jim Morrison influence THE LOST BOYS?

 A lot, apparently.

You can't miss the massive photo of him in the vampire's lair. The photo is even merged with Michael at one point, so the viewer can notice the resemblance between the two. 

Jim Morrison

But I can't help but think that possibly it was Anne Rice's gothic/horror novel The Vampire Lestat that also influenced the music theme of THE LOST BOYS, too.

After surviving the events of Interview with the Vampire, Lestat awakens in the 1980s from a long slumber and becomes the lead singer of a rock band. 

This element was actually used in the 2001 film THE QUEEN OF THE DAMNED.

Much of Lestat's character was adopted from Jim Morrison.

"It was Morrison's voice I heard when I wrote the songs for Lestat. Here's the closest thing in the wide world to my hero," Rice said.

Being that THE LOST BOYS was released just two years after Rice's novel, its influence on the film is undeniable.

But I want to discuss the two fearless vampire slayers — Edgar and Alan Frog. 

Of course, their first names are obviously nods to the legendary writer Edgar Allan Poe. But their last names always bugged me.

Frog?

Really? That's their last name?

Weird.

I never heard anyone with a last name like that. 

But when I was doing my research, I stumbled upon THE DOORS song PEACE FROG from their 1970 hard rock album MORRISON HOTEL. The lyrics to PEACE FROG often reference blood in the streets in various cities and scenes, many times implying several political moments of the time. (This was during the Vietnam War, after all.)

Given that Jim Morrison and the counterculture influence of his era are so prevalent in the film, the song's lyrics likely resonate with the Frog brothers because of their devotion to killing vampires.

Both brothers have no problem killing vampires, as Edgar says, for "Truth, justice, and the American way." 

It's almost comical how he says it because it comes out of nowhere, as if he and his brother are on some type of political vengeance, eradicating the putrid vampires from society.

Is HALLOWEEN just a BLACK CHRISTMAS rip off?

Yes. 

As much as I love John Carpenter's HALLOWEEN, I must admit, it does copy, practically beat for beat, BLACK CHRISTMAS. Such as:

• Similar title
• Opening scene POV
• Obscene phone calls
• Final girl trope
• The villain escapes at the end

Halloween 1978

Carpenter and his team likely saw the success BLACK CHRISTMAS had by using a title that exploits a popular holiday, so they did the same. Except, they were smarter and used a holiday that already evoked horror elements. 

The opening scene of Billy climbing up the house and making his way inside the attic is improved in HALLOWEEN. It's basically the same point of view style, but Michael's intentions are different. He goes inside the house to kill his sister. Writers Deborah Hill and Carpenter took BLACK CHRISTMAS' opening and tweaked it just a little to make the opening message more exciting.

BLACK CHRISTMAS is known for its weird phone calls. In fact, the whole movie uses phones as a plot point. The big reveal of the story is when the police discover the calls are coming from inside the house. HALLOWEEN uses phones, but not to such a big degree. 

The final girl trope, as we know it, was really created by THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE. A screaming, completely hysterical female lead who narrowly escapes the male killer is something the slasher genre is known for. Laurie Strode, perhaps the most famous final girl ever, played by the legendary Jamie Lee Curtis, is exemplary of this trope.

Famously, in BLACK CHRISTMAS, Billy gets away with his crimes, still hiding in the attic with two dead corpses. HALLOWEEN uses the same trope. Michael Myers eats multiple shots from Dr. Loomis and falls off the balcony to his presumed death. It's left ambiguous. 

Now, all this being said, what makes HALLOWEEN more enjoyable is the characters. In BLACK CHRISTMAS, for the most part, each character is forgettable. There are too many sorority sisters, and they all act the same. HALLOWEEN learns from this and reduces its characters to just a few. By doing so, it allows Laurie, Lynda, and Annie more time to shine in their characters. The dialogue in HALLOWEEN is very good, too. 

But perhaps the biggest and best upgrade comes from the villain himself. Whereas Billy is never seen, just an eye here or a hand there, Michael is unmasked in the opening. From there, we see him as a masked killer in full-frame shots. The viewer understands that Michael is there. He is present. He's not just hiding behind a door. He has no problem venturing after his victims. 

So yes, HALLOWEEN does copy BLACK CHRISTMAS to some degree, but it improves on it at the same time. 

THE THING Shouldn't be as Good as it is

Every time I watch John Carpenter's THE THING, I can't help but always wonder why it's so good. You can check out the film analysis video I made for THE THING here.

It's a great horror movie and Carpenter's masterpiece--maybe even better than HALLOWEEN, although that's a debate for another time. But the THE THING does something very uncommon in storytelling...

It doesn't tell us anything about the characters. 

The Thing 1982

I mean, sure, we know MacReady likes to chill by himself and drink. Nauls travels by roller skates. Palmer is a pothead. And the other characters can be summed up in a few words each. And that's exactly the point. 

They're cardboard cutouts. They're not "real." They lack any depth.

That is such a huge departure from storytelling. In most movies, it is paramount that the story gives us at least a little backstory about the main protagonist. But we don't know anything about Mac. Am I the only one who finds that strange?

But what's even more strange is that it totally works. 

If it were any other movie, the fact that nothing important is told to the viewer about a few characters would make the story fail. Nobody would waste their time with it. The stakes are never thought about to such a degree that if one of the characters, for example, doesn't get saved, then they won't reunite with their family. THE THING is devoid, in that respect, of character depth. 

But it's okay for some reason...why?

Well, the only thing that could save a story lacking any character depth is a really good plot.  Usually, the best stories are a proper mixture of plot and character. It's the successful merge of both elements that keeps the audience intrigued. But THE THING, unapologetically, resists character for plot. 

The Thing 1982

The plot is so tightly woven that it doesn't allow for a moment of fluff or boredom. Once that dog kennel scene gets going and they realize that something crazy is happening, the story doesn't stop. The notion of contacting outside help is, at first, thought of as a good idea, but then it is quickly realized that the alien among them is already too strong to be stopped. 

The story, at that point, becomes a hopeless one, with the characters likely realizing that they're never leaving Antarctica alive. Somewhere in that horrible scenario, the monster appears now and then to highlight some of the best practical effects ever put to film, while the growing suspicion that someone there is infected and is looking to recruit more of them.

THE THING works because it doesn't just trade character for plot, but because it resists backstory and any amount of serious character depth for an engaging plot.