My Review of "Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation"

Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation

Score: 8/10 (I wrote this back when I was fonder of giving numerical scores)

            For a while this was my favorite movie of 2015 and if the villain had been more memorable, cut back on the adoration of Tom Cruise, get rid of the 10 words of romantic crap, and have the ending be a little different and it would have been.  None of these items are individually bad enough to sink the movie, no one of them “needs” to be fixed, but each could be fixed to elevate the movie.

            The action in “MI5” is fantastic, chases are tense and fast; the hand to hand combat feels impactful; and the buddy comedy between Simon Pegg and Tom Cruise is great (they should work together more).  I liked the female lead, she is charismatic and projects competence in what she is doing.  I liked the gadgets and jet setting around the world.  I liked nearly everything.  So now that I have pointed out the positive highlights let me flesh out my previously mentioned complaints.

The practical effects and stunts are also super fun.

            The villain is just a growling skinny guy in a suit.  His motivations for why he is doing what he is doing are never explained (yes I know WHAT he was doing, but the WHY is unclear).  He tends to kill underlings too frequently in some instances and not at other times which seems more prudent.  His first appearance shows his willingness to get his hands dirty in the field, but for most of the movie he sits in front of a laptop.  What I am saying is that he comes off inconsistent.  It doesn’t help that his actor (who I am sure is quite talented) was in “Prometheus” and that might have tainted my opinion of him.

I'm a geologist.
Sure you are sport.

           The adoration of Tom Cruise needs to be mellowed.  There is a scene in which Alec Baldwin talks for two whole paragraphs about how awesome and dangerous Ethan Hunt (Cruise) is.  It feels like something Cruise says to himself in the mirror at the end of the day as a personal pep-talk of how awesome he is.  In the movie it sounds awkward at best and it is too long.  You know what it could be shortened to?  “Ethan Hunt is a dangerous disavowed field operative who is after you, he has killed better protected people than you and infiltrated more secure locations than this.  Be afraid.”  Boom.  Done.  Less is more.

            The 10 words of romantic crap needs to be shed.  Tom Cruise is 50+, it is weird for women in their late 20's and early 30's to ask him to run away with them.  It only happens once in this movie in a scene that leaves it kind of ambiguous as to whether the offer is romantic, but it still comes off as odd.  Otherwise the female lead and Cruise have zero romantic chemistry and display zero attraction to one another.  It felt out of place.

The guns built to look like flutes and tonfas are quintessential spy gadgets.
And women wearing clothing that shows off their legs is quintessential sex appeal.
Also, the character's name is Faust.  DO YOU GET IT?

            And the ending, SPOILERS obviously.  Since the bad guys are planning to use the millions and millions of dollars in the hidden accounts to fund their own terrorist criminal activities and the US government wants to defund the IMF.  I was expecting the end of the movie to be Ethan and company using the money in the hidden accounts to fund a rogue IMF hunting down and eliminating the terrorists who had signed on to be a part of the bad guy organization.  Instead they just get reinstated by the government.

Considering how many times the IMF has been dissolved or had traitors in it, having it officially dissolved makes more sense.  And it works as a set up for the sequels.  “Mission Impossible: Freelance” sounds like a perfectly hokey title that explains exactly what they need it to.  What is more, my idea makes sense in the world.  Ethan shouldn’t want to work with the USA anymore, he has his own handpicked team, resources, an enemy, and too many reasons to resent and distrust his previous supervisors in the US.  He should want to be a white hat rather than a government triggerman.

            END SPOILERS.

Movies 2014, Science Fiction

            There were only 4 science fiction movies that I wanted to see but failed to make it to the theater for.  "The Signal", it looks ominous and I imagine has some horror elements to it, I was intrigued but did not see it playing anywhere; "Hunger Games, Mockingjay pt1" I was disappointed in the first movie, I loved the second movie, and... I think it was silly to break this into two movies I will eventually get around to seeing it; "The Zero Theorem" I cannot say that I like Terry Gilliam's presentation of material (having only really enjoyed "12 Monkeys") but I like that he is a creative force in the industry and this is probably an interesting film that looks amazing; and then there is "Lucy" which I mostly avoided because of the "we only use 10% of our brains" myth that is the core of the movie, that falsehood needs to die and I am sure that I am being a dick about something... I will just have to mentally edit the movie to "her mind is mutating to use 10x the energy of a typical human"... Not much better but whatever.

Godzilla (Lies of a Trailer)                                                         

            I already wrote a lengthy review of this that was rather rambling and mostly complained about how derivative it was of "Man of Steel" of all things.  I disliked it immensely.  You can be boring but smart, or dumb but exciting, but you can't be boring and dumb.

Overall: 3/10

 

Marketed with Legendary skill.

Robocop

            The biggest problem this movie has is that it is called "Robocop" inviting comparison to a classic science fiction movie from the 80's which holds up today from both a scripting and social commentary angle.  This movie in many ways is a microcosm of modern Hollywood, let's take a concept from years ago that because of its uniqueness is fondly remembered, then we will sand off and paint over that uniqueness, making things all black, soulless, and designed by corporate committee.  If I thought that was the intentional subtext of the movie I would call this movie a work of meta-textual genius... I have no faith in the creators to assume that was their goal.

            What did I like?  I really liked the scene in which they show him how little of his body remains, it is sad and strange.  I like aspects of the corporate design process (again meta-textual commentary).  I like a good portion of the investigative technology, in which he becomes a walking talking crime database that can hunt down and crush crime quickly and with results.

            What did I dislike, the stupid ending of "love conquers all", I dislike the general stupidity of Michael Keaton's character toward the end as thru most of the movie he is seen as a crass businessman, but you can see where he is coming from and how his actions make a lot of sense in the world, but then for no reason he turns into Norman Osborne, taunting the hero and threatening innocent people, stupid ending that taints the character.  There is a lack of world building, everything is very bland, there is no violent gang war, no new super drug ("Dredd" had Slow-Mo, which was amazing), there is no formidable bad guy aside from the nameless ED-209 (which in the original movie were a joke, and in this movie they are played straight).

            Honestly if you have the inclination just watch the 80's movie it is quite good.  So I will give this one two ratings, 5/10 if you like the original, and a 6/10 if you just want a generic soulless hack science fiction film.

Overall: 5/10 (6/10)

 

I find this poster poorly made because of the poorly rendered image of his mouth, like they edited it on in photoshop.  That and it is a really boring picture, most of them are like this.

Edge of Tomorrow                                        

            I liked this movie so much I went out and read the book.  And I want everyone to know beyond a shadow of a doubt: THE MOVIE IS BETTER.  All the book has going for it is the premise of space invasion and time loop, great premise, but the characters are dull, and due to translation issues I am certain all the humor and wit has been sucked out.  To show how translation errors are probably at work, the original title of the book directly translated to English from Japanese is, "All you need is Kill", and if that is not ENGRISH then I do not know what is.  Though the "Edge of Tomorrow" title is pretty meaningless too, and it should have been called "Live, Die, Repeat" like it is now on DVD... I am wasting time on this comparison.

            Once again I find Tom Cruise to be a great actor surrounded by great actors who make a premise that should be bonkers seem down to earth and accessible.  Emily Blunt is properly tough, Bill Paxton is salty, and Cruise is funny.  That all being said this is another science fiction movie (the other being "Oblivion") in which Cruise is miscast in the role and too much of the script exists just to justify his age, compelling a 50 year old borderline civilian press monkey into being on the front lines during an invasion is stupid, and symptomatic of other stupid decisions made down the line, as apparently all the competent military leaders in the world are all dead and we are left with General Brigham, played by Brendan Gleeson; who when confronted with proof of time travel being used by the aliens to gain an advantage in the war he ignores the implications and pushes forward with a suicidal plan.  I do not know, the movie has bad leadership so that the can do spirit of the troops can be shown as the true key to victory... Maybe.

            Something notable I did not like: The design of the aliens.  What were they thinking?  A chaotic mass of tentacles and claws that is in constant movement, I have no idea what I am looking at half the time, they move so fast and are so confusing that I find them annoying rather than threatening or cool.  Maybe I was spoiled by the Tripods in "War of the Worlds", those things are menacing, mysterious, and I know what the hell I am looking at.  Or the Xenomorph in "Alien".  Of the Bugs from "Starship Troopers".  This movie tried too hard on the designs and it is just a mess.  By contrast the battle armor used is strangely awesome, and seems to resemble current proto-types in real life, but with less polish.

            So overall the cast is great, the premise intriguing, the plot is a little contrived (there is a full blown plot hole at a key moment in the movie), and the monsters are stupid looking.  The goods outweigh the bad.

Overall: 7/10

 

I am strangely okay with this poster.

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes                                   

            My issues with this movie begin and end with one character, some nearly nameless jerk who is prejudiced against the Apes because the plague that caused the fall of humanity was dubbed "The Ape Flu".  That is the stupidest reason I have ever heard of for disliking something, that is like being racist against black people because a member of your family was attacked by Africanized bees, or disliking Egyptians because you know someone who caught West Nile Virus.  The character's transparent stupidity is so out of place compared to the logical and well thought out motivations of the main villain and the heroes that he actually harms the movie with his presence.

This guy.  I don't blame the actor, the character's reasoning is the issue, it makes no sense.

            Aside from that one major failing the movie is fantastic.  Fantastic characters with political dynamics, character interactions, a unique sci-fi premise extended logically so as to create a world that feels real because of how it looks and how the characters live within it.  If the shitty character had not been in there, or just had a logical reason for his hostility then I would have ranked this movie even higher.  As is it is a fun movie with a lot of daring plot developments.  Maybe the last confrontation is a little trite?  Maybe some characters become too tunnel visioned?  Maybe.  But the movie works.

Overall: 8/10

 

This is an awesome poster.

Snowpiercer

            This is the sort of instant classic that flew under most people's radars and should be receiving more attention and praise.  As an action movie it is gorgeous, with dynamic action in a cool environment.  As political satire it is laser focused.  Dialogue is clear, concise, and does not explain too much or leave out important context, allowing the full picture of what is happening to become clear as the movie progresses.

            The movie I most want to compare this to is "Elysium" which I felt had more problems.  And these two movies are similar in a lot of ways.  Mostly in that "Elysium" has the same message of the unwashed masses being cruelly neglected by some powerful overseers.  I thought that "Elysium" had poorer villains, the environment was not as cool, the cast seemed weaker, and the dialogue is weaker.  I also prefer the bleaker and more unpleasant ending of "Snowpiercer" to the very pat to the point of naive ending of "Elysium".  While the two are both have similar messages and even similar plot points, "Snowpiecer" is just a higher quality film that does the subject matter more justice.

Overall: 8/10

This link, is an article mostly about the changing economics of film distribution and is flat wrong about most of it, using concepts such as the cost of printing reels (which with digital projectors and networked computers is an issue that no longer exists) as justification for why theater releases are not as viable anymore.  Though the irony of a movie about a populist uprising on a vehicle that exists to break thru the frozen waste being the breakout of the old economic model would be ironic.

Movies of 2013, Apocalypses, pt2

Apocalypse Films (or "What is the Dumbest Thing I have seen all Year?")

            Aliens came down and made everything into shit.  I guess the only way to save it is through heroic self sacrifice, or friendship... or being incredibly selfish.

Oblivion, or "What a Twist in that at least it looks Pretty."

Overall: 5/10

It's look is as pretty as the plot is preposterous.

            I called every single thing that happens in this thing from the trailer.  It is cliché sci-fi mystery whose twist is that it was in fact, a different cliché all along.

            It is visually engaging, the sound and light and whole aesthetic work really well.  Though I cannot really figure out why Tom Cruise's uniform would be the impossible to keep clean and impossible to hide in bright white, rather than digital camouflage or just plain black, he is going into a hostile wasteland filled with monsters to try and repair killer robots.  Also, it is really odd that Tom Cruise is the lead in this movie.  He is 50 years old, and while I am sure that the main character's sense of humor and quirks were his invention as he is a good actor, he is 20 years older than the women playing his love interests, and when you take into account the twist of his existence his physical age becomes even more of an issue.

            Spoiler time discussion: Tom Cruise is a clone.  Who clones a guy and then ages him to 50?  Wouldn't a 30 year old Cruise be more of a physical asset?  This is not a shot against Cruise's body, which for a 50 year old is in really good shape, I could only hope to look as good when I am his age, but the point is that makes no sense.  Channing Tatum, Liam Hemsworth, Ryan Gosling are all in their physical prime and would be more convincing for what this role demands... But even the role itself makes no sense.

Why would its number decal be only on the front?  And why is it also really bright white?

            This giant alien robot clones astronauts to use as shock troops to defeat earth?  Why does it have the ability to do that?  Biological systems are hard to replicate, has it done this before on other populated worlds throughout the galaxy?  Why?  It has killer, flying, robots.  Let me explain in no uncertain terms, robots feel no pain, no fear, they require no sleep, no food, and no comfort.  Robots will follow orders without fail, they never get stressed out and never require any sort of pep-talk or status report... Humans require all of those things.  So why use clones?  Robots are clearly superior, the US military thinks Drones are the best thing for killing enemies since Cain killed Able.  Humans are squishy, whiney, and demanding, the alien drones are fast and powerful.  There is no reason to have Cruise clones at all.  And that is the real core as to why this movie is incredibly stupid.

            Additional problems: most actors are not developed, causing their actions to be questionable or just pensive and obnoxious for no reason.

            Additional blessings: the look of the movie is top notch, especially the armor of the human resistance being made out of stealth material but still having feathers or other adornments gives them a lot of visual personality.

The World's End, or "I am kind of siding with the bad guys on this one."

Overall: 8/10

I have given all of Edgar Wright's other movies a 10/10, so this one may warm on me.

            If you like humor based on goofy action or quick dialogue then this movie should really work for you.  A strong ensemble cast, a fun premise (pub crawl during an alien invasion), and a very cool twist on the whole thing which gives the characters arcs and growth.  It should be watched, and while it is not the strongest of Edgar Wrights movies it is still one of the best movies out this year.

            Spoiler time discussion: strictly speaking the end of this movie almost killed it for me.  The aliens are confronted, and are so frustrated with humanity's inability to just sit down and have a polite discussion that they nuke the planet into an endless dark age.  Apparently the aliens gave us the internet and were offering a sort of immortality in the form of becoming robots... I am kind of on their side.  Bland, but just as peaceful and fun as one could imagine.  Instead all of humanity has to live in the Fallout universe... that sucks.

Movies of 2012, Action Awards

            For some reason modern action movies have decided to imitate 2 other movie franchises, the first is "The Bourne Identity" (Trailer) and the other is Christopher Nolan's "The Dark Knight" (Trailer) franchise.  Those are good movies to borrow from, I have no issue with that, but an interesting side effect of this imitation is you end up with movies that could all conceivably be happening in the same universe.  All of the martial arts and gun violence have roughly the same effect, all of the technology is on the same level (with some stupid exceptions), and nearly all of the villains could work for the James Bond bad guys, Quantum from "Quantum of Solace".

The Award for best Vanity Project: "Jack Reacher" (Trailer)

            I actually really liked this movie, but if the title had been "Tom Cruise" I don't think it would have experienced an appreciable drop in ticket sales.  The dialogue is smart, the concept is very modern and cuts to the core a very troubling issue, mass shootings.  Each character is shown to be competent, and while they may make rash or stupid decisions it is not poorly handled, you can see why they would make the decisions that they do, they act like real people and that is a good thing.  It also has the best car chase in a crowded urban metropolis since "The Town" (Trailer) had bank robbers fleeing police in creepy nun costumes.

            The only real issue is that this movie ruins its own mystery right from the start.  To explain, the movie begins with a guy in latex gloves shooting 5 seemingly random people, you see the guy's face, so you know who the shooter is.  The person the police arrest moments later is not the shooter, and they use a fingerprint to lock him up.  So you know it was a frame up, which means you do not get to see the mystery unravel the same time the characters do... That is a weird choice for the narrative, and easily fixable with maybe 3 camera angles getting changed.  I have no idea why they did that because it causes a lot of the discovery and who/why done it element for the audience to be lost.

            There is another issue too that is a lot less substantive because it is just one poorly done scene.  There is a tonal shift that happens at the start of the second act (roughly) for all of two minutes and it hurts the movie, like a speck of something floating on the surface of a drink.   What happens is: Tom is looking over a scene and figuring out that a guy was murdered, he is then ambushed by two thugs, that sounds like a tense scene because Tom has no weapon, the guys have the drop on him, and they have baseball bats... what follows is retarded.  The fight happens in a really small room and like the freaking 3 Stooges these guys keep pulling back to hit Tom and knock each other in the head or miss because their swings are so wide that they catch on the walls of the tiny room.  Tom Cruise is borderline unconscious for the first 30 seconds of the fight in which the two goons beat up the room and each other in what can only be described as a scene from another movie.

8/10

The movie could almost be summed up with this image.

The Award for being the best Batman Movie released this Year: "Skyfall" (Trailer)

            I really cannot fault this movie for being anything other than what it is, James Bond being Batman.  For fuck's sake, the phrase "Skyfall" means "Dark Night Rising".  The whole third act takes place at Stately Bond (Wayne) Manor.  There is an Alfred.  There is a Batcave.  The main bad guy has a scene in which he is in a holding cell and practically utters the phrase, "Wanna know how I got these scars?"  The whole movie has these sorts of Batman echoes.  It is easy to see why, both are dark wish fulfillment characters, rich playboys who are impossibly good at everything, and covered in good fashion and pricey gadgets.  It isn't really something to be lamented, Bond and Batman are both potentially good characters, and this movie shows how good Bond is by actually exploring who he is and why he does what he does.

            There are some stupid things in it though, like the palm reader handgun in the trailer, think about that from a logical standpoint, what are the odds that a bad guy (who probably has their own weapon) using Bond's gun against him and being foiled by the device (yes it happens, but how it happens is so unlikely that using that as an example makes you sound dumber for the effort).  Then look at it another way, how long does it take the gun to read his palm and unlock?  Cause if it takes longer than 3/10's of a second, that is longer than it takes a person to draw and ready a weapon, which means the gun could potentially keep Bond from successfully drawing and firing his weapon at an optimum speed.  It is the most modern bit of sci-fi in the movie, and by far the most impractical.

            If I were to say this movie had a symbolic turn, it would have to be this: Bond is dead, and this is his personal hell.... stay with me on this.  Spoiler: at the beginning of the movie Bond is shot in the chest and declared KIA, he flees off to a tropical paradise to recover and then returns when a terrorist attack in London demands his attention.  For the rest of the movie Bond tours a lot of the old spy movie tropes.  He journeys to exotic locals, is nearly fed to some strange animal in a pit, fights of a team of goons, one of which looks a lot like Odd Job from "Goldfinger" (Trailer).  He goes to a deserted island fortress hideout.  There are repeated images of descent, in the subway, MI-6 in the underground bunker, falling through ice, the escape route out of Skyfall later in the movie; the only image of ascent, when he holds onto the bottom of an elevator to keep up with an assassin is treated as extremely difficult and he nearly falls to his death.  There are all of these elements from previous movies that get brought up, used, and destroyed, (the old car being the best example) it's like they are the sins of Bond's past getting burned away by hellfire.  The main bad guy is a fallen MI-6 agent, like a fallen angel who has come to rule his own underworld kingdom.  M is treated very much like a divine mother figure.  And the final confrontation takes place in a freaking church.  Bond died at the start of the movie, and came back from heaven to fight the devil, and his reward for success is that he gets to be reincarnated down the line by a new actor who will continue the fight.

            Hell, read this bit of dialogue from the trailer:

            Bond: "Everyone needs a hobby."

            Someone Else: "What's yours?"

            Bond: "Resurrection."

8/10

Though, I suppose if you wanted someone to play Satan in a James Bond movie, Javier Bardem is a good pick

Most Unnecessary Voice Over Award: "Premium Rush" (Trailer)

            Okay, this movie is very style heavy, they chop up the timeline, they have a lot of graphics displaying the New York geography, they have a weird effect to show how the main character can quickly plot out the options for where to go and how to avoid being crushed to death in stressful fast moving traffic, if I cared about any of the characters or thought the dialogue or narrative was any good I might appreciate these things... I do not.

            This movie is insultingly dumb and has the audacity to start off with voice over explaining what a bike messenger is... I know what a fucking bike messenger is.  Voice over is used to explain complex premises to stories, premises that just require too much back story otherwise and the movie would be too long.  For instance, the movie "Looper" (Trailer) also stars Joseph Gordon Levitt and begins with him explaining what a Looper is, it is an assassin that works to kill time travelers, it is a hard thing to swallow unless it is explained... Guys delivering shit via bike is not complicated, and explaining it is insulting to the audience.

            The action is actually boring, goes on far too long, and since they are on bikes it is actually kind of slow paced even with the style and shifting obstacle course that is New York City traffic.  Also, there is a massive plot problem: the villain is looking for a lotto ticket with a distinct symbol on it, the villain has not seen the ticket, Levitt has, so why doesn't Levitt just buy a lotto ticket from a quick stop, draw the symbol on it and hand it over to the bad guy, then deliver the correct ticket to where it needs to go?  That is a huge out for the protagonist.  It is a plot hole.

            Also, the acting in this, with the exception of Joseph Gordon Levitt and Michael Shannon, is just awful.  Everyone has bad lines to read, poor motivation, bad scenes in general, it is a waste to watch.  And what is funny, the criminal organization in this, which is basically a Chinese Mafia, would still fit into the James Bond shared universe I described earlier.

3/10

            A word about "Alex Cross" (Trailer) and "Taken 2" (Trailer) who could also be in this category, and probably could also take place in the same universe.  I didn't see these movies.  "Alex Cross" stars Tyler Perry and is considered by many to be one of the worst movies of the year, it looks like a mess and I have no desire to see it, if I hear good things about its sequel (as I imagine there will be one) then I might go back and watch this one, but for now...

            "Taken" (Trailer) was a well structured action movie with a tight script that had only a few plot holes and structure issues, it is a good movie about a guy doing violent and asshole things to save his child.  However, "Taken" is a jingoistic and stupid movie, it is somewhat disgusting in its own way.  So I will not watch "Taken 2" which exists it seems to give old guys who are scared of foreign countries a sense of, "I could totally do that", rather than do anything interesting with the narrative or comment on anything going on in the world.  It seems like an offensive movie to my somewhat cosmopolitan look on the world, and I don't want to watch it.