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.

Civil War.

Review #2199: Civil War.

Cast: 

Kirsten Dunst (Lee Smith), Wagner Moura (Joel), Cailee Spaeny (Jessie), Stephen McKinley Henderson (Sammy), Nick Offerman (The President), Nelson Lee (Tony), Evan Lai (Bohai), Sonoya Mizuno (Anya), and Jefferson White (Dave) Directed by Alex Garland (#884 - Ex Machina and #1581 - Annihilation)

Review: 

"There is something in the film which is trying to be protective of [journalists]. I think serious journalism needs protecting, because it’s under attack, so I wanted to make those people ‘heroes’ to put them front and center.”

Sure, you could have a few pre-conceptions about what the film is or what the film is not, blah blah blah. I went into the film with the bare minimum of attention given to it, which either meant that it would be fine or pretty bad. Admittedly, the first image that came to mind when watching the film was different from what I thought I would be wondering. Specifically, "Saigon Execution". It is perhaps one of the most famous images to come out of the Vietnam War, one that went far beyond just being awarded the 1969 Pulitzer Prize for Spot News Photography. On February 1, 1968, Eddie Adams was a member of the Associated Press that was in Saigon (as known at the time, as opposed to Ho Chi Minh City) alongside an NBC News TV cameraman in Võ Sửu that saw a capture of captain Lem (a member of the Viet Cong) by a general named Nguyễn Ngọc Loan. Both Adams and Võ Sửu captured a moment crystallized in time: Loan shooting Lem in the head. But the thing about Adams is that he was a man of numerous things as an observer: if he was to be remembered for anything, he wanted to be remembered for what he did beyond a photo caught in reflex, because above all, he had his principles to stand by. He was once quoted as saying that "Death is the greatest kick of all. That's why the save it for last." However it worked out, the photo has endured far more than the video (perhaps most notably, it was featured in 1968's Head)., to where even Adams has endured in memory more than Suu. I figured that this was a more interesting way to start talking about the film than simply saying that right before its release, its director stated his intention to lay off directing in the near future, among other things when it came to promoting the film and its intent.

It's interesting, Garland wanted to make a movie about journalists on the frontlines (and there are a few good journalists among a cadre of others that blur the lines), but really, he might have made one long dark joke instead, which basically has the one idea that above all, the observer is not really just an observer just because they wear a vest saying "PRESS" on it. One is observing the observer observing events in their own viewpoint and decisions made to get this coverage (because they aren't just shooting it on their own), basically. Admittedly, once you have a title like "Civil War", you pretty much have put a bullseye on your head, because what else could you have called it? (besides, I went into it barely noticing that there was meant to be a map of which places were fractured from each other because, what difference does it make?) This is a film that has one of the first lines involve a president say "Some are already calling this the greatest victory in the history of mankind" to go alongside footage of unrest, because if one thought the age they live in was bleak (what with the various things one could protest for, such as a less intrusive Israel or other worldly concerns), try this on for size. It doesn't go into too many specifics of exactly how one is in a civil war with various separated territories, but I think using a bit of imagination works out here, particularly since this is basically a road movie with journalists that either have their souls hollowed out or on the verge of it happening, which makes for a fairly unsettling film for those into what it shows (and doesn't show). Trying to frame it as some sort of centrist filmmaking is pretty shortsighted when you get down to it. Besides, the performances work out best when it comes to showing the trials and tribulations of wanting to go out to gunfire with a ready camera on hand. Dunst excels here with no false notes detected when it comes to a tired old soul that could actually play for anyone familiar with the beats of a job that nevertheless seems to have lost a bit of themselves in that grind of production. They know what lines they can cross and shouldn't cross, and it gnaws at them for one can't unsee even when one closes their eyes, so Dunst being paired with Spaeny in a mirror of experience on the frontlines makes for a pretty compelling dynamic to watch play out to the most reasoned conclusion, for which each handle deftly. Moura probably ranks as the most thrill-seeking among the core four, which actually works out pretty well in showing levity along with the craven nature that comes in being gripped in the chase, at least when compared to a more seasoned pro on the last steps on a road in Henderson. Offerman is around for both the start and finish of the film as the object of fascination that has more said around him that, well, use your imagination on how it goes to see a face meant to be playing a dictator.  Probably the most gripping scene is the one with an uncredited Jesse Plemons that exudes the certain terror that I'm sure comes with encountering the back woods on the road. He handles it masterfully for a certain amount of time that keeps the film firmly on its toes. It is certainly a loud film at times that is expected with a dystopian war film that doesn't let a stone go unturned, even in a supposedly quiet moment where a trip to a friendly-looking place leads to a darkly amusing realization. The ending helps seal the film's fate in terms of realizing just where one will find themselves when it comes to the demands of an occupation and what it might do to their soul in the process as a certain image plays out in the credits that really might not be as emphatic in its ending as one assumes at first. In the end, it is a solid 109-minute effort in tension as carried by its main quartet to make for an interesting recommendation for those who know what they are getting into in terms of imagination and the grind that arises from it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part.

Review #1190: The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part.

Cast:
Chris Pratt (Emmet Brickowski / Rex Dangervest), Elizabeth Banks (Lucy / Wyldstyle), Will Arnett (Batman), Tiffany Haddish (Queen Watevra Wa'Nabi), Stephanie Beatriz (General Sweet Mayhem), Charlie Day (Benny), Alison Brie (Princess Unikitty), Nick Offerman (MetalBeard), Jadon Sand (Finn), Brooklynn Prince (Bianca), Maya Rudolph (Mom), Will Ferrell (President Business), and Richard Ayoade (Ice Cream Cone) Directed by Mike Mitchell (#209 - Shrek Forever After, #890 - Surviving Christmas, and #1107 - Sky High)

Review:
The first film was an interesting film experience when it first came out five years ago. Phil Lord and Christopher Miller (who return to co-write the screenplay and the story) managed to deliver something that had plenty of humor alongside a charming story and captivating look that certainly made for a clear winner that kids and adults could enjoy (particularly if one was into playing with their bricks). In the years that have passed since its release, two spin-offs have followed (The Lego Batman Movie and The Lego Ninjago Movie) alongside a sequel at last to the original. Most of the cast returns to portray their characters while playing off the last scene from the previous one (involving Duplo blocks). The easiest thing to say is that the film is interesting to look at, with Animal Logic (provider of the animation for the four Lego Movie films) continuing to make for something that has a fun pallate, where nothing seems to be out-of-step while helping to make for some big ideas try to come to life, such as a dystopian wasteland (appropriately named "Apocalypseberg") or the big birthday cake. When it wants to be colorful, it looks pretty good with doing so, and it never feels unnecessary to look at. For the most part, the cast do a solid job, with no real weak element. Pratt does well with playing dual roles, continuing to make the former one have plenty of charm and being as lively as ever while making the latter role (based on roles played by Pratt in recent years) rugged and amusing. Banks also does a fine job, generating a few laughs while playing well with Pratt at times. The group of returning actors from the first film (Arnett-Day-Brie-Offerman) don't have as much to do aside from a few choice scenes (namely involving a song or two), but they do their parts just fine. Haddish is alright, giving a few laughs when needed. The brief moments in the real world with Sand, Prince, and Rudolph are fine (having one neat joke involving feet on a brick), even if Farrell only appears as a voice.

The film aims for more singing than before (including a take on the "Everything is Awesome" song from before), such as about a character not being evil or one about a song that will get stuck in your head; while I can appreciate the time and effort done to orchestrate musical-style numbers for these songs (and the others), I feel that their attempt to out-do themselves in the music department goes a bit too overboard at times, where it almost feels like noise instead of something really pleasurable. The jokes and gags work adequately enough, even if it isn't as funny as before, being goofy as ever but not quite executing as consistently with the lines. Perhaps it is the fact that it is a sequel that harms it more than anything, where they are trying to capture the magic again. Since the previous one had a twist that as executed in a pretty clever way (to where the second film builds on that by changing it from father-son to brother-sister), this one attempts to have its own kind of narrative shift, although it comes off as one that is a little easier to figure out, not having as much depth. Both films are driven on imagination (as a good film usually is), but I feel that this one is a bit more shaky with its message, particularly during its final act. In going for some goofy fun alongside its message of playing together, the ultimate result is something that is fine and dandy for its target audience with a fine 107 minute run-time. Perhaps it isn't as interesting as the previous one, but it will serve just fine for someone looking for some entertainment alongside their toys.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

In a World...

Review #802: In a World...

Cast
Lake Bell (Carol Solomon), Fred Melamed (Sam Sotto), Michaela Watkins (Dani Solomon), Ken Marino (Gustav Warner), Demetri Martin (Louis), Rob Corddry (Moe), Alexandra Holden (Jamie), Nick Offerman (Heners), Geena Davis (Katherine Huling), and Tig Notaro (Cher) Directed by Lake Bell.

Review
Trailers (whether you love 'em or hate 'em), are certainly an interesting form of promotion for movies, and the voice (or voices) for those trailers certainly try to help sell the movie. The movie starts by showing clips of Don LaFontaine, who (quite possibly) is the most well-known voice actor for trailers, with his popularization of the phrase "In a World..." being the namesake of this movie. Bell also wrote and directed this film, and I'll give her credit for making a movie that at its heart is inherently easy to get behind. It's a movie that is likable enough and it zings with enough barbs to make for a relatively fine film. Bell certainly is a fine lead, having enough charm along with fine comic timing that makes for an interesting character to watch, with her and Martin also having a good chemistry with each other. Melamed certainly does a fine job as well, and while I wouldn't call him an antagonist, he certainly makes for an interesting character to watch with regards to his scenes with him and his (full grown) kids. The characters in the movie are pretty well-defined, all having some sort of quirk or just something that makes you want to watch them. The movie tries to mesh the comedy and drama and while it doesn't always seem to work perfectly, it is at least a movie worth seeing once. Is it for everyone? Probably not, but I felt that it worked on enough levels to work for me.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Lego Movie.

Review #540: The Lego Movie.

Cast
Chris Pratt (Emmet Brickowski), Will Ferrell (Lord Business and "The Man Upstairs"), Elizabeth Banks (Wyldstyle), Will Arnett (Batman), Nick Offerman (Metal Beard), Alison Brie (Uni-Kitty), Charlie Day (Benny), Liam Neeson (Bad Cop/Good Cop and Pa Cop), Morgan Freeman (Vitruvius), Channing Tatum (Superman), Jonah Hill (Green Lantern), Cobie Smulders (Wonder Woman), Craig Berry (Blake), David Burrows (Octan Robot), and Jadon Sand (Finn) Directed by Phil Lord and Christopher Miller.

Review
I grew up with LEGOs. I loved how even though it seemed to simple to build with, it was actually a complex but still excellent system, and I do still have them in my house somewhere. So naturally, I went to go see the movie based on them. Movies based off toys don't have the best track record here (#057-#058 Transformers 1-2, #201 - G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra, #442 - The Garbage Pail Kids Movie, though #190 - The Transformers: The Movie wasn't half bad), but I went to the theater to see if the movie could break that trend. People who go to theaters have their traditions such as making noise, stealing discarded popcorn from people who've left the movie after it ends, commentating on the film, etc, etc. One of my traditions is to notice the amount of people waiting with me in line for a film...an hour before being allowed to go enter the theater, which either teaches the lesson to forever hate lines...or realize how big hype can be. And this film certainly does live up to the hype. The animation is beautifully done, meshing computer and the minifigure mannerisms that make Lego half of what is excellently. The cast is really excellent, Pratt does a fine job for such a normal but still special character. Ferrell is fun to hear, and the live action scenes he shares with Jadon Sand are touching and really effective. The movie has many moments of comedy, along with many moments of brilliance, and of course many moments of action, all three aspects make for a supreme combo of fun.The things that happen in this film really do bring me back to my younger days, hearing about the danger of gluing bricks together, having an average man be a hero, even the idea of a Lego Movie sounds like what I and probably others always wanted to do when we were younger. We probably didn't actually film these movies (Always hide your tracks in case it becomes an Old Shame years later), but yeah. The movie's greatest strength is the love and care the filmmakers have for the subject matter, and combined with the multitudes of people at my theater laughing and loving this movie, The Lego Movie is a great experience to watch, and is a delightful surprise for young and old. I may heap a high rating for this film, but in this case, I don't mind.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.