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.

Star Trek Beyond.

Review #1721: Star Trek Beyond.

Cast: 

Chris Pine (Captain James T. Kirk), Zachary Quinto (Commander Spock), Karl Urban (Lieutenant Commander Leonard McCoy), Zoe Saldana (Lieutenant Nyota Uhura), Simon Pegg (Lieutenant Commander Montgomery Scott), John Cho (Lieutenant Hikaru Sulu), Anton Yelchin (Ensign Pavel Chekov), Idris Elba (Captain Balthazar Edison / Krall), Sofia Boutella (Jaylah), Joe Taslim (Anderson Le / Manas), Lydia Wilson (Jessica Wolff / Kalara), Deep Roy (Keenser), Melissa Roxburgh (Ensign Syl), and Shohreh Aghdashloo (Commodore Paris) Directed by Justin Lin.

Review:

I'm sure you remember the interest generated from a new version of Star Trek. J. J. Abrams directed the first of what is generally known as the "Kelvin timeline" features, doing so in 2009 that was written by Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman (who had gotten their start in television with Hercules: The Legendary Journeys). They managed to bring the series back to the silver screen with a reboot that tried to honor established continuity in the original 1966 series while staying fresh with current perspective. In that sense, I think it did a fine job. Four years later, a sequel followed with the same collaborators (albeit with Damon Lindelof as co-writer). The funny thing about that movie is that it is the most profitable of all the Star Trek movies, and yet it reeks of something that would be made purely to squeeze as many hack ideas as possible for such an average movie, complete with trying to pawn ideas from Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan but with no sense of actual stakes. Three years later, the idea was to have Orci as director (his planned first feature), since Abrams was now slated to direct for another certain space feature, but somehow it went awry, leading to a different direction. Justin Lin started as a director while attending UCLA Film School with Shopping for Fangs (1997), although his most notable contributions are to The Fast and the Furious film series, as he has directed five of the films in the series. At any rate, Simon Pegg and Doug Jung (a duo in which each wrote mostly for television) were tasked to write the script. 

Technically speaking, it is a worthy successor to the last two films. Of course, it is also as of this year the last one to be made, because somehow making a big-budget movie doesn't always result in a certain amount of money bags (of course, paying the actors is tough, too), and it is only now that plans are starting to move for a film in 2023. Perhaps it is a coincidence that Star Trek only returned to television after the release of this film (albeit in streaming form, the most pathetic of broadcasting methods). It continues the trend of trying to aim Star Trek for a crowd that is interested in special effects and action with a sliver of plot, which I suppose makes it essentially a shinier version of when filmmakers did so with Star Trek: First Contact (1996), just with certain choices of music included. I suppose every incarnation of the series in film form also has to show the Enterprise take a beating just so one can build it all up again, so there is that. Of course, the important part is that one has a good time with the adventure, and I believe there is an interesting one to see here, despite the fact that it is the main cast that really shines more so than the villain (again though, how many times is that not the case?). This is a movie that seems quite a bit familiar with its themes of finding one's meaning in continued exploration (i.e. instead of a mid-life crisis about being old, it is now a young-life crisis about seeing the stars again and again). As such, the movie feels the best way to do that is to split the crew into their own little pairs (i.e. Pine with Yelchin, Quinto with McCoy, Cho with Saldana, and Pegg with Boutella). In that sense, some of those pairs work out better than others, depending on how much effects are present. In that sense, Pine is easily the most effective, having molded fully into the role with confidence (without as much of the hammy "curiosity" from William Shatner, if you will) that maneuvers well with resourceful charm that has evolved well from seven years prior. Urban was always quite interesting as McCoy, and he generates a few interesting moments when paired with Quinto in terms of snappy banter that isn't just a familiar re-hash. Quinto might not have as much to really do, but his little scenes involving reckoning his fate as now being the one living Spock is interesting at least. Saldana suffers the most from the split, in that being paired with a bunch of scenes involving the villain doing vague dealings about his motivations isn't really that interesting for the former and barely interesting for the latter (again, the familiarity with these characters go to a certain point when compared to when the movie tries plot for a few minutes). Elba gets to be caked in a whole bunch of makeup while having an okay motivation that honestly could do with better material beyond a twist that could probably be seen coming with a reasoned guess-maker at the hand watching. Maybe he was meant to be a second side of the whole "I have nothing better to do with my time in space" coin with Kirk, I guess. Boutella is okay in terms of curiosity within accompanying makeup and action shots, but since this film already scrounged up introducing an interesting secondary character to play off one of the castmates for more than one film (i.e. Alice Eve not being in this one), why bother? 

Honestly, the movie almost plays itself too corny with certain sequences near the end without having as many stakes as it could have - do I really need to have "Sabotage" in the background for an action shot? Its testing about the villain isnt even that clever, really, since the last one also had a Starfleet adversary that liked things better when it was militarized. As a whole, it definitely keeps interest on a moderate level when it comes to action (credit to hiring a car chase director for this, huh?) and most of its acting chemistry, since these folks have done well with capturing a majority of the charm from the old cast. However, it begs for more to explore than just cursory stakes, and I just cant see myself giving generous praise for being just fine. It needs something more than a few pretty sequences to really soar farther than just average, particularly when this is the 13th of these features; being in the top half of that list is fine, but when it is because it is the middle of quality, one could certainly make improvement. 

On that note, the anniversary of Star Trek is upon us again. Live long and prosper. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Adventures of Tintin.

Review #1560: The Adventures of Tintin.

Cast: 

Jamie Bell (Tintin), Andy Serkis (Captain Archibald Haddock / Sir Francis Haddock), Daniel Craig (Ivan Ivanovitch Sakharine / Red Rackham), Nick Frost and Simon Pegg (Thomson and Thompson), Toby Jones (Aristides Silk), Daniel Mays (Allan), Mackenzie Crook (Tom), Gad Elmaleh (Omar ben Salaad), and Enn Reitel (Nestor) Directed by Steven Spielberg (#126 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind, #168 - Raiders of the Lost Ark, #169 - Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, #170 - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, #302 - Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, #351 - Schindler's List, #480 - Jaws, #563 - The Sugarland Express, #573 - E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, #642 - Jurassic Park, #958 - Always, #1068 - Ready Player One, #1305 - Catch Me If You Can, #1478 - The Color Purple, #1520 - Saving Private Ryan, and #1528 - A.I. Artificial Intelligence)

Review: 
Every aspect of Hergé's great talent are part of my approach: Hergé's humour of course, and the body language, which is so important. There's no plan to change that. We religiously respect his art, even for the supporting characters."

The only person that Hergé, author of the comic book series The Adventures of Tintin, felt could do his series justice was Steven Spielberg. The Belgian writer was commissioned to write a story for Le Petit Vingtième, a youth supplement to the newspaper Le Vingtième Siècle, with the first installment of what became known as Tintin in the Land of the Soviets being published on January 10, 1929, and it continued its serialization for several months alongside further serialization in countries such as France. It moved to the newspaper Le Soir in 1940 due to occupation of the country in World War II before eventually having its own magazine (published by Le Lombard), which went from 1946 to 1993. He would ultimately write 23 volumes of The Adventures of Tintin before his death in 1983, with his stories characterized by the author's extensive research done involving the locale where the stories would be set alongside the main character's well-rounded Boy Scout type of character. The way that Spielberg ties into all of this is because of (what else) a review someone did on Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), in which it was compared to Tintin in its story (which led to him tasking himself to finding a bunch of the books, where he was dazzled by the art). Although he did not have the chance to formally meet the author in person (as he died the week a meeting was planned), there was an arrangement made between Spielberg and Hergé's widow made after a meeting to make a film on Tintin. There had been quite a few adaptations of Tintin on screen, such as three animated features (1947, 1969, 1972) and live-action films (1961, 1964) alongside a pair of television series and even documentaries and stage-shows. The development for a satisfactory script would take considerable time to develop, and it was only the entrance of the 21st century that he considered the idea of doing it with computer animation. It was approaching Peter Jackson and Weta Digital about trying to make a CGI Snowy that led to suggesting the use of motion capture to adapt the series to film. Ultimately, Spielberg would direct and co-produce the film with Peter Jackson and Kathleen Kennedy, while Steven Moffat, Edgar Wright, and Joe Cornish would write the screenplay, which drew upon a few of the works (such as The Secret of the Unicorn, which is used as a subtitle for the film in some places) with a few distinct differences (such as the villain, for example).

It would seem it was worth the wait to make an adventure come to life in dazzling animation. It achieves a picturesque style of animation well-suited for adventure with warm atmosphere and capable enough leads to follow through with great finish for a bright and vibrant time for 107 minutes. It generates just enough interest and charm in its subject matter that makes one asking for more that works for numerous audiences without verging into anything too fanciful or too strange with its range of animation. One could probably imagine an adventure like this in live action, sure, but there is just something different about the detail that comes through here with what is shown (perhaps particularly if one saw it in 3D on release), and the humor generally does a fine job in reflecting that. Bell works well in what is needed in persistent curiosity and good nature needed without seeming inauthentic in do-gooder weirdness. In other words, he fits right in a story of a young man, his (CGI-created) dog, and a beleaguered sea captain going on adventures you could see again and again. Serkis pulls himself well with charm and coarse dryness that when around with Bell makes for a worthy double act that rides along with growing confidence. Craig proves a worthy adversary to finish out the main trio, making an eloquent presence in what is needed for what is required in terms of caper adventure with a stuffy presence for the past and present. Frost and Pegg do just as well in parts with a bumbling duo that contributes a key hearty laugh involving a bit of slapstick with Jones that make useful comic relief suited for this particular duo. It should prove worthy enough for a look because of what it achieves in enjoyment for adventure with the source material that makes for useful caper entertainment that leaves one interested in the imagination for what could go from there or for one to look upon the pages it borrowed from in the first place. As a first venture into animation, I would say Steven Spielberg did a pretty good achievement in that regard.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Shaun of the Dead.

Review #1537: Shaun of the Dead.

Cast: 
Simon Pegg (Shaun), Nick Frost (Ed), Kate Ashfield (Liz), Lucy Davis (Dianne), Dylan Moran (David), Penelope Wilton (Barbara), Bill Nighy (Philip), Jessica Hynes (Yvonne), Peter Serafinowicz (Pete), Rafe Spall (Noel), and Martin Freeman (Declan) Directed by Edgar Wright (#971 - Baby Driver)

Review: 
"Maybe directors who are more interested in realism and naturalism come from cities, where they see things on their doorstep every day. But growing up as a kid in a very pretty but ever-so-slightly boring town, where not a great deal happened, encouraged me to be more escapist, more imaginative, and more of a daydreamer."

One needs new directors in every century, or at the very least ones that can be bold in what they want to do about the traditions of the past and be fun about it. Edgar Wright grew up with interest in comics like 2000 AD alongside interest in films that helped influence him such as An American Werewolf in London (1981), Raising Arizona (1987), and several others. He started his venture into film with shorts that began at the age of 14 with Super-8 and S-VHS cameras (Dead Right, for example, was done on his own money as an attempted pastiche of British and American cop films). He graduated with a diploma in Audio-Visual Design from Arts University Bournemouth in 1994 and thereafter got to work behind the camera, with his first feature being the low-budget A Fistful of Fingers (1995) and his first television projects being Mash and Peas and Asylum (both premiering in 1996), with the latter being his first collaboration with Simon Pegg and Jessica Hynes as Wright co-wrote and directed all six episodes further comedic work that eventually led to his most notable television production with Spaced (1999-2001), which he directed all 14 episodes starring Pegg, Hynes, and Nick Frost. It was during the process of the show that Wright and Pegg came up with the idea to do a zombie film (since they both shared an obsession of Dawn of the Dead) that didn't so much want to parody zombie films as much as they did romcom films, with Wright and Pegg serving as co-writers.

What better way to try and do a zombie comedy but to basically do one that seems like a sitcom/satire that just happens to have zombies interrupting from time to time that make a romcomzombie movie where one doesn't notice the apocalypse starting until it's right in front of your face, where lumbering lazy living and zombie could almost be confused. One could brush aside a sudden change of living if they simply are too drunk to notice (which seems awfully familiar then and now, somehow). It takes inspiration from Night of the Living Dead (1968) and Dawn of the Dead (1978) and rolls with being basically near that same amount of quality when it comes to a well-constructed pace for its chase of zombie without being lost in lame gags or excess gore for 99 minutes. There have been quite a few British low-budget horror classics, and this one definitely deserves its own place in that discussion. It all starts with Pegg, our deadpan man for the day who does a pretty good job in terms of timing that rises from sofa-life to direction in zombie-life that we care about fairly well for what needs to be done to draw a chuckle or some zombie dealing. Frost (in his film debut) is capable in complimenting Pegg with entertaining coarseness that gamely helps the first half do quite well in their exchanges with themselves that can be as simple as record-throwing or a scene at the pub about speculation (which I can definitely find pretty relevant when lost enough somewhere to do so). Ashfield does fairly well in carrying along the film with smooth chemistry with the others while Moran does stuffiness just fine along with counterpart Davis, although it is Wilton and Nighy who contribute the most warmth at carefully planned times with Pegg. It is the control from Wright and Pegg to make a film about regular joes and zombies and not have them turn into caricatures that make it a welcome surprise, complete with in-camera transitions and other little distinct things (such as a beating timed to the beat on a particular song of prime favorite band in Queen) well-enough to let us absorb things without being relentless. Honestly, my one little gripe is just the way it ends the proceedings. Maybe it just seems a little too convenient to really seal things up when it comes to its whole siege second half, particularly since it also has to seal up its romantic comedic trappings, which prove a bit better (its last exchange is fairly poignant). On the whole, it is easy to see why this has been regarded a cult classic in some circles, doing quite well for itself in marks of laughter and blood to work on the strength of Wright, Pegg, and Frost in doing something worth enjoyment on any given day.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Redux: Star Trek (2009).

Redux Review #009: Star Trek.

Cast: 
Chris Pine (James T. Kirk), Zachary Quinto (Spock), Leonard Nimoy (Spock Prime), Eric Bana (Captain Nero), Bruce Greenwood (Christopher Pike), Karl Urban (Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy), Zoe Saldaña (Nyota Uhura), Simon Pegg (Montgomery "Scotty" Scott), John Cho (Hikaru Sulu), Anton Yelchin (Pavel Chekov), Ben Cross (Sarek), Winona Ryder (Amanda Grayson), Clifton Collins, Jr. (Ayel), Chris Hemsworth (George Kirk), and Jennifer Morrison (Winona Kirk) Directed by J. J. Abrams.

Review: 
On December 20, 2010, I covered Star Trek (2009). As is the case with any of the reviews from Season One, while I do feel the rating is probably still accurate to what I feel now as opposed to then, it does feel appropriate to revisit this film, since it has been ten years since its release on May 8, 2009. Hope you folks enjoy - live long and prosper.

It goes without saying that Star Trek is a cultural phenomenon. It has endured for over a half-century in part because of how entertaining it has proven itself to be with a balance of adventure and intelligence throughout its several incarnations. While the original series was cancelled after just three seasons in 1969, it proved to be a hit in syndication, leading to an eventual feature film and a subsequent film franchise. From 1979 to 2002, ten films were released into theaters, six covering the original cast and four with the cast of the third Star Trek show, Star Trek: The Next Generation, which began in 1987. From that year onto 2005, there was at least one Star Trek series on television, with four series coming and going before the cancellation of Star Trek: Enterprise. That, alongside the previous failure of Star Trek: Nemesis (2002) led to a pursuit for a different direction of the franchise, with Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman (writers of Mission: Impossible III alongside J. J. Abrams) brought in to help write a new film, with Abrams initially being brought in as producer. However, he subsequently accepted Paramount Pictures' offer to serve as director, owing to how he felt about the duo's script, describing it in an interview as "...so emotional and so relatable". It is evident to see that Abrams has a passion for entertainment, even if he described himself as someone who was not a particularly a big fan of the original show. He wanted to make a movie that any sort of fan can be interested in without becoming a shell of itself or becoming too absorbed in references. The idea of making a prequel wasn't new to Star Trek, since plans for an Academy Years film was thought up after the failure of the fifth film in 1989, although it was soon scrapped, and the aforementioned Enterprise show was set a century prior to the original. This film tries to have a balance with its time travel aspects and its usage of Nimoy to bridge the past into making a new, somewhat familiar future, which works itself out more often than not.

Undeniably, the film hinges on the dynamic of Pine and Quinto and their characters, with the film building itself up towards them being in the film together. I found myself more interested in the sequence with a young Spock and Sarek than the part with young Kirk, since it felt more impactful to the nature of the plot dynamic, seeing how the former is one of two worlds where the other has had better moments. By the time the plot kicks in, one does get a hold for most of these characters without too many objections (whether fan or not). Pine, trying to not find himself playing a shadow of the original Kirk played by William Shatner, comes off as fairly charming to be around with, fitting right in with the adventure and delivering some of the heroic qualities one would expect, as brash and confident as one can be. Quinto, who has the interesting proposition of trying to fit themselves in as a character while being passed the torch by the previous actor, proves quite capable. He delivers a measured performance, as calm and logical as per the standard while maintaining both human and alien nature that plays off well when with others like Pine, where the seeds of a friendship get well cultivated by the film. When Nimoy appears (feeling as a mix of fan-service and a way to deliver exposition), it does sure feel nice to see him back again, seeming just as in-step with his calm exterior and logic as ever when he is on screen. Bana makes for an okay villain, but he feels underscored when compared to the things around him. His ultimate plan never really seems to come into focus as much as it should. It is clear to see that they want to make a villain just as threatening as Khan from the second film, but they can't quite make someone worth being around. Greenwood carries his weight for the first half quite nicely, encouraging and reliable at once. Urban does well with recreating the abrasive yet amusing nature of his role without too much trouble, feeling right at home for his time on screen. Saldana proves to be a fine match to go alongside the others, as is the case with Pegg, Cho, and Yelchin, who each get their little moments into shine without seeming lost in the background. Instead of a 1960s take on how the 23rd century would be with regard to space travel, now it is a 2009 take, with plenty of lighting choices to go around alongside other things. It certainly is an interesting movie to look at, having plenty of interesting effects (and enough lens flare to point out and likely stair or make fun of) that makes this a well-done spectacle while having enough of a grip with a capable if not flawed plot (in the age of the Internet one could have a bit of day with its usage of black holes); it manages to have a strong foundation while lingering forward in its middle and closing out strongly enough to make a winner. It sets out to please both fans of the original and curious newcomers and does well with its intentions, finding a middle ground that inspires some joy, a little bit of laughs (mostly intentional), but also a pursuit to see where it could go from there, maintaining the spirit of curiosity and wonder from before without being lost in spectacle or technobabble. It works as a recommendation for newcomers and fans looking for a new frontier to set their eyes on.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Mission: Impossible – Fallout.

Review #1119: Mission: Impossible – Fallout.

Cast:
Tom Cruise (Ethan Hunt), Henry Cavill (August Walker), Ving Rhames (Luther Stickell), Simon Pegg (Benjamin "Benji" Dunn), Rebecca Ferguson (Ilsa Faust), Sean Harris (Solomon Lane), Angela Bassett (Erica Sloane), Michelle Monaghan (Julia Meade), Alec Baldwin (Alan Hunley), Vanessa Kirby (White Widow), Frederick Schmidt (Zola), and Wes Bentley (Patrick) Directed by Christopher McQuarrie (#1117 - Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation)

Review: 
For a film series that has lasted 22 years and six films, one would wonder if the Mission: Impossible series would ever seem to be slowing down in its execution and quality, and then I realize that Cruise, like the films themselves, seems to be more durable than ever. After all, how can one not be impressed by someone who insists on doing their stunts for a film that showcases a HALO jump and numerous chase sequences to the point where one said sequence led to him breaking his ankle? Stunts aside, this is a film that certainly sticks out from the other installments in the series in more ways than one. For instance, McQuarrie returns to direct and write once again for the series, and he certainly makes a great follow-up to Rogue Nation, amping the stakes and action while not sacrificing the spirit of what makes these engaging films to watch, particularly since each one has improved on the last one since the third one twelve years prior. This one manages to have a story that piles itself with motivations and turns that certainly try to keep up with the action sequences thrown in from time to time, which is helpful for a movie that lasts 147 minutes but never manages to come off as plodding or too long. Some of its beats and motivations with its adversaries may feel a bit obvious before the movie wants to show its hand, but there isn't anything too complicated or insulting to the film's detriment.

The cast all do a fine job with what they are meant to do. Cruise has a talent for enduring as long as he has as an action hero by being adept at his feet along being adept at being incredibly easy to follow, never letting the audience down once. Cavill does a fine job, playing his role with a raw sensibility that has a blunt consistency that plays well against Cruise. It is nice to see Rhames and Pegg again, proving fine character moments once again while serving well with whatever the plot wants to throw with them and not just being put aside. Ferguson proves capable to the task given for her, having a charm and energy to her that zips with everything neatly enough. Harris (the first recurring villain in the series) manages to still have a menace to his performance that works enough for the time given without feeling stale. Monaghan does fine with her time on screen, being interesting to see again. Bassett and Baldwin make for capable authority figures in their own ways. Kirby is fairly refreshing with her brief moments with Cruise, having a casual but crucial nature that is sold well. The film has a good deal of intensity with its suspense while trying to not cheat its audience with computer trickery while not going overboard too much. The action can be brutal at times, but there is never a point where the lines become blurred or too unsettling to enjoy, confident in what it shows without risk. The best action sequence is the climax, involving helicopters that certainly has a good deal of air to it, being the peak of excitement. Ultimately, I found this to be an enjoyable piece of entertainment with enough action and charm that one can expect from the series that sets the bar as high as it has ever been for the franchise but also likely for action films as a whole. It is a thrill ride from start to finish that accomplishes everything it sets out to do for its audience and more that I think makes it the best Mission: Impossible film yet.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation.

Review #1117: Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation.

Cast: 
Tom Cruise (Ethan Hunt), Simon Pegg (Benjamin "Benji" Dunn), Jeremy Renner (William Brandt), Rebecca Ferguson (Ilsa Faust), Alec Baldwin (Alan Hunley), Sean Harris (Solomon Lane), Ving Rhames (Luther Stickell), Simon McBurney (Atlee), Tom Hollander (Prime Minister of the United Kingdom), Zhang Jingchu (Lauren), and Jens Hultén (Janik "The Bone Doctor" Vinter) Directed by Christopher McQuarrie.

Review: 
Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation manages to capture the essence of its main hero with a line that also best fits the franchise in that it is the living manifestation of destiny. It is the destiny of these films to persist in being made after two decades with a consistency and execution that makes for a excellent piece of entertainment. Once again, a new director is at the helm for the fifth film with McQuarrie, whose previous credits include the Academy Award winning screenplay for The Usual Suspects (1995) along with un-credited re-write work on the previous film. It's not hard to say that this is a brilliantly made popcorn flick, filled with setups and sequences that certainly linger on the eyes for the film's benefit. Nothing does this better than the opening involving the plane, with Cruise hanging off a plane in a field, which is certainly an energetic thing to view just as much (if not a bit better) than the Burj Khalifa tower sequence from the previous one. Cruise seems as resilient as ever to be engaging to watch on screen, whether dealing with the plot or trying to keep up with the action (and acting accordingly), being as calmly collected as ever. It is nice to see Pegg once again, having a spunky energy that certainly clicks well when the movie requires it, and the climax uses him to helpful effect. Renner handles himself pretty well for the times needed. However, it is Ferguson who helps steal the show, proving capable in the action scenes while being interesting to follow throughout, particularly when interacting with Cruise. Baldwin does fine with his time on screen, as is the case with Rhames. Harris does a pretty good job as the villain, having a fair amount of menace to him that works handily enough. The film builds itself on its action sequences while sprinkling in its plot without being ineffective in delivering something solid worth watching. It isn't the strongest spy flick by any means, but it won't overstay its welcome at 131 minutes. The climax is fairly satisfying, not degrading itself into too many annoying action cliche, ending itself handily enough. I enjoyed the movie for delivering what it promised - an exciting action piece with a few clever parts and some handy standouts, most of all being Cruise, who certainly has stayed consistent with this franchise in its run over these films. This will work well for anybody who has enjoyed these films or enjoys seeing some fine action and stunts sequences.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Mission: Impossible III.

Review #1109: Mission: Impossible III.

Cast: 
Tom Cruise (Ethan Hunt), Philip Seymour Hoffman (Owen Davian), Ving Rhames (Luther Stickell), Billy Crudup (John Musgrave), Michelle Monaghan (Julia Meade), Jonathan Rhys Meyers (Declan Gormley), Keri Russell (Lindsey Farris), Maggie Q (Zhen Lei), Simon Pegg (Benji Dunn), Eddie Marsan (Brownway), and Laurence Fishburne (Theodore Brassel) Directed by J. J. Abrams (#009 - Star Trek, #150 - Super 8, #665 - Star Trek Into Darkness, and #769 - Star Wars: The Force Awakens)

Review: 
It is interesting to look back at the first three Mission: Impossible films and look at how each stand out clearly from the previous one despite being popcorn spy flicks. It's also interesting to see the gap between these films, in that this one was released six years after the previous film (with this year's release of the new film being the sixth in the franchise that has spanned 22 years). I try to not make it a habit to compare a film sequel to the one before it every single time, but it is pretty obvious that this one is an improvement in nearly every single way from the earlier one, and it manages to improve in aspects from the first installment. Perhaps it is the infusion of different writers in Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci & J. J. Abrams, with the former two previously being responsible for their work on The Island (2005), while Abrams had created television shows such as Felicity, Lost, but most importantly Alias, which Cruise had watched episodes of prior to offering the directorial job to Abrams. The opening scene certainly helps spark interest with the tension that it inspires from Cruise and Hoffman, that's for sure. The parts with Cruise and Monaghan manage to come off well together, having a bit of refreshing nature to them that is different to the conventional elements in its spy nature without becoming a cloying detriment nor becoming something overtly cliche. As one would expect, it is nice to see Cruise again in the role, with a clear confidence and clear action look that you would expect from before while also seeming fresh and welcome. Hoffman proves to be a serviceable adversary for the moments that require it, with his motivation being at least somewhat clear to breeze through. The group of Rhames-Rhys Meyers-Maggie Q are fairly useful to watch paired up with Cruise in the plot, being capable in any scene (action or small moments of interaction) for comfort. Monaghan does fine for the part written. Crudup plays his role quietly, but it serves the job alright. Russell and Pegg each don't have much time, but they make fair impressions ultimately. Fishburne rounds out the cast with a fairly watchable chief role that cuts the corners you would expect. While the film may not have the highest of stakes to it, it never gets bogged down by complicating its plot or pretending to be anything that it isn't. At 125 minutes, the film runs itself at a fine pace with its action and plot by making sure that neither gets lost too far in its own excitement, being a fair piece of entertainment.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Ready Player One.

Review #1068: Ready Player One.

Cast: 
Tye Sheridan (Wade Watts / Parzival), Olivia Cooke ( Samantha Cook / Art3mis), Ben Mendelsohn (Nolan Sorrento), Lena Waithe (Helen Harris / Aech), T.J. Miller (i-R0k), Simon Pegg (Ogden Morrow), Mark Rylance (James Halliday / Anorak), Philip Zhao (Akihide Karatsu / Sho), Win Morisaki (Toshiro Yoshiaki / Daito), and Hannah John-Kamen (F'Nale Zandor) Directed by Steven Spielberg (#126 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind, #168 - Raiders of the Lost Ark, #169 - Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, #170 - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, #302 - Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, #351 - Schindler's List, #480 - Jaws, #563 - The Sugarland Express, #573 - E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, #642 - Jurassic Park, and #958 - Always)

Review: 
Hello fellow readers. I did not intend for this review to go a bit over 800 words, so forgive the increase in length for once. I hope you enjoy this review.

What can be said of a movie that basks itself in nostalgia and pop culture so deliberately? Can one really criticize said movie for pandering, particularly a blockbuster like this? The film is adapted from the novel of the same name by Ernest Cline, who contributed to the screenplay for the movie alongside Zak Penn. It may serve overwhelming (or obnoxious) for some, but I can't really blame someone for getting some sort of enjoyment out of a popcorn movie, much like I can't really blame someone for liking a Transformers movie or even something terrible like The Room (#185). I will state that this is a better film than either of those examples, but being a thrill ride can't excuse the movie entirely. There is a considerable amount of thrills and action that can shine through most of its shortcomings. One particular shortcoming proves to be its narrative, a collection of cliches and contrivances that comes to the surprise of no one, whether involving its main character or even his chemistry with "Art3mis", and so on. To get angry at the movie for being exactly what it seems like seems fruitless to me.

With its approach to the OASIS, I found that there were times that felt mesmerizing, but there were also moments that felt ridiculous and nearly amusing to see, and having some of the references get explained didn't exactly help. I did find parts of the film that were pretty fun, such as the dance sequence and one particular sequence involving a homage to a certain horror film that is fairly clever, along with a few other references, such as one to The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension (#776). The film certainly has a fine look to it, and the CGI doesn't come off as too particularly distracting, for what it's worth. I never myself hating the film, but I also found myself laughing at parts I probably shouldn't have, such as some of the moments in the OASIS or the ending in particular. The climax isn't too bad, for an action film I suppose. If you find VR headsets cool, I'm sure you'll enjoy it in the film; if you find it to be a bit ridiculous, you might get a laugh, like I kind of did when seeing a scene in which people were using and acting out with the headsets in public. I was surprised to see that the film runs at 140 minutes long, so take your pick on if that is time worth using.

Although it can be said that the characters aren't too particularly developed, I will state that the acting is at the very least fine enough to carry the movie. I find that Sheridan does an okay job, in part because he has a role that doesn't really have much in terms of motivation besides a basic hero type (this can be signified by the speech given during the climax), but he isn't painfully annoying. Cooke does the best with what she is given for a role that also isn't too particularly developed, but she is slightly interesting to watch. I can't really say the chemistry between the two of them is particularly good, mostly going through the motions as if clicking boxes on the checklist. Mendelsohn does a fine job in making a character as generically evil as "corporate businessman" can be and turning it into something that is at the very least entertaining. There's is just something about him and the way that he interacts this environment, reminding me of Paul Gleason, particularly his role in The Breakfast Club (#046). Waike proves to be fairly endearing, providing a few laughs that help the film gain a bit of levity. Miller is also pretty amusing in his henchman role, for the most part. Pegg is fine for the time he is on screen. Rylance proves to be worthy to play this strange character that reminds me of Willy Wonka, albeit with random riddles. The other members of the cast don't have much time on screen, but they serve their parts well.

The film is never particularly moving, but it is at the very least a ride that won't make you too sick to your stomach. I can't give this movie much of an endorsement, but I also won't stand in the way of people who want to enjoy some sort of escapism. It isn't as good as some (or most) of the things that it references, but it is at the very least someone's version of a good time. Will it be some sort of cinema touchstone for pop culture or science fiction? I would say no, but I will conclude that it will just be a movie that comes and goes without leaving something obnoxious behind.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Star Trek Into Darkness.

Review #665: Star Trek Into Darkness.

Cast
Chris Pine (James T. Kirk), Zachary Quinto (Spock), Benedict Cumberbatch (Khan), Simon Pegg (Scotty), Karl Urban (McCoy), Zoe Saldana (Uhura), Peter Weller (Alexander Marcus), Alice Eve (Dr. Carol Marcus), John Cho (Sulu), Anton Yelchin (Chekov), and Bruce Greenwood (Christopher Pike) Directed by J.J. Abrams (#009 - Star Trek and #149 - Super 8)

Review
Eh, it's been a while (10 months, 22 days to be exact) since I've done a Star Trek film (#515 - Star Trek: The Motion Picture), so why not do the most recent film. The first film (of the reboot series) wasn't bad, though it's not like it was a great piece of work, and you find that out during this film. It's not that this film is bad, it just feels like one step forward but one-and-a-half steps back. The effects are at least good, though those lens flares really get in the way on occasion, which almost gets in the way of actors trying to convey their scenes. The acting is fine, though I really didn't buy that Eve's character being Weller's daughter, maybe it's the lack of time they have together, but at least Weller is stellar despite limited time. Cumberbatch is pretty good, but it's the character I have an issue with. By making him play Khan, the film limits his motives in a sense. The original Khan had a motive of revenge and was great at portraying it. This Khan has more a touch of generic than revenge. Even when Cumberbatch cries it feels forced. It's not a bad performance, it's just flawed writing. The story is at least somewhat decent...until it rehashes Wrath of Khan's last half hour. Well, almost. Just because you have the villain from Wrath of Khan doesn't mean you have to emulate it, it's unnecessary and just makes the movie seem unsure of itself, like it wasn't confident with itself. At least the movie has its moments, any scene with Simon Pegg is brilliant, he brightens the movie, if only briefly. Your opinion on the movie will probably rest on what you think of Abrams as a director and/or Khan. It's a toss-up, basically.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol.

Review #128: Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol.

Cast
Tom Cruise (Ethan Hunt), Jeremy Renner (William Brandt), Simon Pegg (Benjamín "Benji" Dunn), Paula Patton (Jane Carter), Michael Nyqvist (Kurt Hendricks), Vladimir Mashkov (Anatoly Sidorov), Samuli Edelmann (Marius Wistrom), Ivan Shvedoff (Leonid Lisenker), Anil Kapoor (Brij Nath), Léa Seydoux (Sabine Moreau), Josh Holloway (Trevor Hanaway), Pavel Kříž (Marek Stefanski), Miraj Grbić (Bogdan), and Ilia Volok (the Fog) Directed by Brad Bird (#083 - The Iron Giant)

Review
This film is the fourth in the franchise, returning with a bang and more. The film uses its chances well, making the film look impressive (Especially with the Burj Khalifa sequence) Pegg does a good job, along with Cruise and Patton, as the film makes sure to inject a bit of humor into the film, making this a useful installment into a franchise that's still chugging after 16 years (1996 by Brian DePalma, 2000 by John Woo, 2006 by J.J. Abrams) with good directing by Brad Bird (His first live action film), making this an excellent film overall.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.