Atlas Shrugged: Part II.

Review #2480: Atlas Shrugged: Part II.

Cast: 

Samantha Mathis (Dagny Taggart), Jason Beghe (Henry Rearden), Esai Morales (Francisco d'Anconia), Patrick Fabian (James Taggart), Kim Rhodes (Lillian Rearden), Richard T. Jones (Eddie Willers), D. B. Sweeney (John Galt), Paul McCrane (Wesley Mouch), John Rubinstein (Dr. Floyd Ferris), Robert Picardo (Dr. Robert Stadler), Ray Wise (Head of State Thompson), Diedrich Bader (Quentin Daniels), Bug Hall (Leonard Small), Arye Gross (Ken Danagger), Michael Gross (Ted 'Buzz' Killman), Rex Linn (Kip Chalmers), Larisa Oleynik (Cherryl Brooks), with Thomas F. Wilson (Robert Collins), and Teller (Laughlin) Directed by John Putch.

Review: 

Okay, maybe it seems silly to cover another Ayn Rand movie for Turkey Week. But if you had the displeasure of watching Atlas Shrugged: Part I. The 2011 movie barely made it to any theaters to begin with, so guess how they raised money for the sequel. Apparently, $16 million was raised by a company based in New Jersey in a private debt sale. Filming apparently was then announced to start in April 2012 to be released in October 2012 that totally would be in line with the U.S. presidential election. One of the writers of the film was Duncan Scott, who apparently did a re-edit of We the Living (1942) with English subtitles. He is credited with the screenplay alongside Duke Sandefur and Brian Patrick O'Toole. Everything is different, right down to the director. John Putch has mostly directed for television and a few projects for video. Even the cast is different, as apparently it wasn't easy to negotiate options with actors in such a short time. Producer John Aglialoro went on the interview circuit a bit in stating his hopes for the film to hit with certain audiences, once stating that leftists dismiss Rand as a "cartoon....that she was for selfishness". Perhaps not surprisingly, the movie was not screened for critics, accusing them as having their integrity going off a cliff while also deciding, yes, these think-tanks called The Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute are going to be fair and balanced towards this movie*. Atlas Shrugged Part II did get to screen on over a thousand screens on opening day....and a month later, the producers decided to not release numbers for it by the time it made a whole $3 million. The market rejected the films in theaters, but Aglialoro decided to finish the job with a third film in 2014 (you know damn well we'll be back to see that film in 2026).

The movie is termed as "sci-fi drama, and I hesitate to nof chuckle. If this was meant to be a challenge of the meme that rolls with the word "libertarian" in "we demand to be taken seriously!", it would be a bonafide swing-and-a-miss. It somehow is technically better than the previous film but is just as insanely boring, with its attempts at celebrating the defiant businessman and its incessant asking of who is John Galt (I'm Spartacus!) making me giggle again and again. The most fun you may get from the film is in the name game of spotting people you might recognize from better things: hey hey, its Ray Wise (and accompanying evil sneer) from RoboCop/Twin Peaks! A collection of TV guys in Teller (who speaks!), Picardo, Gross, Bader and Linn. A lead from Pump up the Volume*. Could you imagine if this film actually did influence someone in how they voted in an election? What, vote for conservatives or they'll keep trying to make movies to break into the mainstream? If you go up to a mirror three times and say "taxation is theft", will a Libertarian appear out of thin air to scold me for believing in a driver's license? It probably goes without saying that the dialogue is as stilted as ever for a movie that would probably serve as the real test for if something designed to preach to a specific choir is actually slop. Then again, how many movies actually show TV pundits play themselves? It is funny that this is the middle film of a series that certainly was just itching to get to John Galt and his big speech for the conclusion (70 pages for a book, probably less for a film) that basically dances like a soap opera with further people leaving society because, hey, who is John Galt? Mathis and Beghe can only do so much under the strain of it all, which means they sometimes sound vulnerable like actual human beings, even if two movies have managed to do little in making the audience realize why they matter as characters. The unending desire to nail oneself on the cross of Rand means an inevitable speech is looming around the corner or the soap opera-tier characters pop in and out, which is sad because good god you need a really over-the-top villain (Wise could've easily swallowed the film, so naturally they give him a few lines) to up the tension.. It basically resembles a religious movie but with the morals of holding the one true power together: capitalism rules guys, we just have to trust these elite and not the evil government red tape to do their job! The fact that the apparent depression that is supposed to be in the film basically shows just a few people at random times does put the proper trim of amusement to it all. They manage to make plane maneuvering and a train-crash the equivalent of one guy trying to start a "wave" and getting crickets. As a whole, Atlas Shrugged: Part II continues to get stuck in the mud of wooden dialogue with actors that cannot possibly hold it together when its foundation is a self-serving mash of meandering goofiness. 

 

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Later: War of the Worlds (2025)

*Hey, I try to have a balance. I try to not share visible irritation for the following: annoying pretentious filmmakers, hippies, annoying conservatives, annoying liberals, and people who believe that movies/video games influence people to do violence. If you ever want to say what grinds your gears: leave a note.

*Perhaps ironically, Samantha Mathis was elected to serve in a trade union position with Vice President, Actors/Performers of SAG-AFTRA from 2015 to 2019. Ayn Rand wasn't big on "altruism" and unions (as selected here: Ayn Rand's Defense of an Anti-Union Massacre — History News Network) but sure loved the government-run Social Security and Medicare in later years.

Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning.

Review #2384: Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning.

Cast: 

Tom Cruise (Ethan Hunt), Hayley Atwell (Grace), Ving Rhames (Luther Stickell), Simon Pegg (Benji Dunn), Esai Morales (Gabriel), Pom Klementieff (Paris), Henry Czerny (Eugene Kittridge), Angela Bassett (Erika Sloane), Holt McCallany (Serling Bernstein), Janet McTeer (Walters), Nick Offerman (General Sidney), Hannah Waddingham (Rear Admiral Neely), Tramell Tillman (Captain Bledsoe), Shea Whigham (Jasper Briggs/Jim Phelps Jr), Greg Tarzan Davis (Theo Degas), Charles Parnell (Richards), Mark Gatiss (Angstrom), Rolf Saxon (William Donloe), Lucy Tulugarjuk (Tapeesa), and Katy O'Brian (Kodiak) Directed by Christopher McQuarrie (#1117 - Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation, #1119 - Mission: Impossible – Fallout, #2040 - Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One)

Review: 

Once upon a time, there was just a movie that loosely adapted elements of an old television series. Sure, the original television series (as created by Bruce Geller in 1966) might have been thought of as a "mind game", and sure, some people may have thought the movie was too different from the source material (cough cough, Martin Landau), but let's be real for a second. The first film, released on May 22, 1996 (as directed by Brian De Palma and scripted through a variety of people in David Koepp, Steven Zaillian, and Robert Towne for a production that didn't have a finished script at the start), was merely cutting out the fat that came around with trying to make totally legit ideas of espionage that ranged from "making a dude remember his wife was killed by Hitler" to "cats being used as part of a detailed robbery"* and instead focus on some interesting action with dazzling execution. Sure, the movies hemmed and hawed in quality (if I rewatched the movies, perhaps one of them might have challenged Fallout is terms of being the best in that measure), going through cast members like a deck of cards (remember Jeremy Renner? Oh...), but I suppose it is nice to see a film that reckons to use the word "final" (as opposed to just calling itself Part Two to follow the original plan) for the eighth and presumably last one of these movies, at least with Tom Cruise as star. As was the case with the last movie, the script was written by Erik Jendresen and Christopher McQuarrie.

Sure, 170 minutes is a bit steep of a runtime. Sure, it might seem a bit absurd to encounter the number of flashbacks and little callbacks that come through here.** Sure, sure, sure. But it is the kind of movie that will still find ways to captivate you once it cuts down to all-around viewing when it comes to staging and action, and it does at least make for a worthy enough bow for Cruise and company to at least be proud of. Let's play a bit with some quibbles first, which namely is with the first hour: it really does seem that they wanted to make sure the bases are cleared for even the most possibly confused person, particularly with the flashback to remind that a person with a stomach scar was in fact, totally fine from the last movie. There are other quibbles, but you can check that under "spoilers", I suppose.***, but most can be summarized as just, well, not all action movies are created equal. But the underwater sequence is a generally involving one to really get things moving in interest, one with minimal dialogue that just lets you feel the pressure that comes with making the type of popcorn-chewing curiosity. With that in mind, Cruise hasn't lost a step in the conviction that arises in handling stunts and making you buy the calamity and importance with a smile. His energy is infectious and I will surely miss the audacity to want to ride a plane or go underwater for the audience's enjoyment. You might say he dominates the show, since a good chunk of the movie divides him from say, the charming Atwill and company, but at least the odyssey is worth seeing in dwelling a tiny bit on why choices and coincidences matter, as opposed to just being "it's that guy, remember?" Tillman is a pretty fair highlight alongside Saxon, admittedly. I do wish Morales was a bit more involved in the movie. The general threat being an AI and a wannabee devotee craving power can only go so far when he isn't in it that much and the general threat is really more just the sense of danger (uncertainty?) that could befall our heroes rather than one guy (there is a movement mentioned early, but I suppose they went the way of the Occupy guys). Instead, he does exactly one thing for nearly two hours before he shows right back up to cackle in a plane, and even Whigham or Czerny seem more apt to serve as accidental players in oppositional menace. The attempts at generating tension in the, shall we say, war-room, is probably a bit played out, but I guess a played out rendition is better than if it wasn't there at all. The action involving a couple of planes and wires and time (duh) is fairly satisfying, winding itself up with enough "oohs" for awe to ensure the movie will at least stick most of its ideas about making choices and actually sticking to it. As a whole, it may have been a hard mission to deliver a satisfying type of closure for a near-thirty-year franchise of movies with one key center and commitment to spectacle, but The Final Reckoning delivers a worthwhile enough experience to make one appreciate the journey.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*Look, I've only seen the first two seasons of the original show. Hell, the "second show" had a handful of episodes that were just remakes of the original!

**Nothing is as good as remembering that yes, Hayley Atwill is in the movie.

*** (in light text, you know what to do): Okay, maybe this is a two-fold point: What's the point of introducing folks to be on the team if only one of them end up dead? I think we saw more examples of the prices being paid for being a member of the IMF in M:I III nineteen years ago. The other little quibble is that I forgot about Czerny and Whigham in terms of motivation for a good chunk, and let's be real: even when knowing someone is "Phelps Jr", were you really going to think that would matter for the end of the climax? Also, the death of Morales' character really is a bit too funny. You might say there's something to critique in what McQuarrie and company think AI is, but computer nerds aren't that interesting anyway.

Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One.

Review #2040: Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One.

Cast: 

Tom Cruise (Ethan Hunt), Hayley Atwell (Grace), Ving Rhames (Luther Stickell), Simon Pegg (Benji Dunn), Rebecca Ferguson (Ilsa Faust), Vanessa Kirby (Alanna Mitsopolis), Esai Morales (Gabriel), Henry Czerny (Eugene Kittridge), Pom Klementieff (Paris), Cary Elwes (Director of National Intelligence Denlinger), and Shea Whigham (Jasper Briggs) Directed by Christopher McQuarrie (#1117 - Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation and #1119 - Mission: Impossible – Fallout)

Review: 

I know it sounds absurd, but it really is something to look upon a long running film series reach a seventh film that has not lost a step despite the passage of over 25 years since the very first one in 1996. Granted, Mission: Impossible had bumps in the road as an offshoot adaptation that took loose inspiration from the original series as devised by Bruce Geller, but one can see the lingering consistency that became most apparent with Ghost Protocol, the first one of the series that had Christopher McQuarrie involved (albeit as an uncredited writer). This time around, McQuarrie is listed as co-writer with Erik Jendresen on what is part one of a two-part adventure that evidently will not be the end of the series (of course, "Dead Reckoning" is also a term involving how to find one's position in sea by direction and distance rather than other means). Presumably, Part Two will be in 2024, but one never knows considering how "2020" caused the delay of this film to the point where it has nearly been five years since Fallout. The runtime of the film is the longest of the series at 163 minutes. 

Well, if you want to see a man rid a motorcycle off a cliff and parachute to the ground or deal with a grand train sequence, here is your chance. Honestly, I am conflicted on just how good the film is, mostly because Fallout was apparently so good that I labeled it the best of the series five years ago. One can only remember certain things within these films (hell, remember when Jeremy Renner was in two of them?). I would say that this film is about the second or third best in the franchise (they all play second to Fallout), depending on one's mood goes. The key threat here is a bit more of a challenge for the series than usual, if only because it deals with something that lurks within modern society: rogue AI. Granted, it isn't exactly on the level of say, Skynet from The Terminator (1984), but I think you can see where it seems pretty timely to talk about AI and the weird people that could use it for their own gain. In that sense, with a fairly game cast and plenty of spectacle to back up most of its narrative stepping points, Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One is a solid reminder that it is the one of the best film franchises running today because of how it handles the expectations laid upon it. The viewer is enchanted with where the film can go in thrills within its leaps that keep them right in check without insulting the craft. The journey for any good film is valuable, and the filmmakers know how to use your time wisely. Cruise, in that sense, is the ideal standard-bearer for a franchise like this, one that shows a cipher of a man that we nevertheless love because he is the thrill-seeker in us. He and Rhames may be the only two people to be in every one of these films, but it doesn't mean we like them any less by seeing these folks again and again when they are clearly game for whatever they have to bring to the conundrum. Of course, that isn't selling other regulars like Pegg or Ferguson short, because they don't get lost in the hubbub. The thrill is in seeing new people make their mark on the series more than wondering what surprises might lie ahead (like Czerny, returning for the first time since the first film 27 years ago), which benefits Atwell and her cheerful timing for chaos. It will be neat to enjoy the return of folks like her in the next film, that is for sure. Morales and his act as essentially a religious disciple (the AI might as well be some sort of God) is a bit opaque as a threat, but a decent threat is still a threat to watch nonetheless, mostly because Klementieff is at least a useful adversary to watch within pieces of the spectacle, such as a fight in a really tight space or a chase scene with a neat little yellow car. Kirby is the huckster in the middle that is delightful in charm, obviously. I do think the overall threat within an AI that has managed to calculate many possibilities of whatever it wants to plan (and the folks would rather control it rather than destroy the crap out of it) is at least a useful change to the general threats presented in the action thriller series, if only because it doesn't plod itself with too many leaps in logic. The stakes still matter because the mission still seems impossible to all but one group. Generally, one would wonder just how many films are needed to keep a franchise going, but with Mission: Impossible, the seventh film is just as captivating as what had happened way back in the first while setting itself up for the audience to eagerly await another quality sequel.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.