Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol

When I originally published this review, someone didn't like the assumptions they thought I was making about Indian culture in the comments about the traditional Mumbai section (and comparing them to Temple of Doom). I apologize if it seems like I'm making fun of anything or assuming this is what goes on in modern-day India, I wasn't, only that it was interesting, definitely over the top, but something nostalgic in that it could be linked to another of my favorite films. Maybe I didn't really need to say that, but I suppose it helps to be clear. I'd hate to think that someone out there might see a film with a Nazi in it and think all Germans were like that Nazi.

What originally began as a plan simply to ogle the splendor that is Josh Holloway (Sawyer from JJ Abrams' LOST) turned out to be a suprisingly wonderful experience; this was a fun, fun movie. And while no kid's film, whatever skill and ability director Brad Bird picked up at Pixar was not wasted here--- aesthetically and viscerally, Mission Impossible delivers again and again.

The film's premise is simple enough----Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) is after bad guys who plan on doing bad things with nuclear launch codes. The IMF (Impossible Missions Force), for political reasons bails, leaving him with only three other rogue agents to aid him in his mission, invoking "Ghost Protocol." There are some personal bits of story along with the action: one of Hunt's agent colleagues seeks vengeance for her departed love; Hunt seems upset by the breakup of his marriage but unwilling to discuss it; and Brandt, the newest member of the team (played by Jeremy Renner), is there only reluctantly, and eventually reveals inside knowledge into both his experience as an agent and Hunt's own history.  

The story isn't what makes this movie great (though it's quite well-written); it honestly isn't anything we haven't already seen from the previous films or even 24's Jack Bauer. This film is what it is because of its style, special effects, and driving pace. There are some impersonations (a couple which involve masks), numerous explosions, impressive uses of technology, and amazing stunts. The locations and the way that they're constantly changing keep the film always racing toward that next conflict, or that next piece of the puzzle---Budapest, Moscow, Dubai, and Mumbai become exciting settings in which Hunt's extreme prison break/search for materials/con game/and ultimate fighting championship (with a vehicular twist) all take place. Very rarely is there time to take a breath, but it works.

In addition to all the amped-up action, there were moments of humor (mostly snide utterances by sidekick Simon Pegg) and nostalgia. I personally enjoyed Cruise's Terminator-inspired speed running, which happened more than once, and the traditional Indian dancers at the palace toward the film's conclusion, very reminiscent of Temple of Doom, donned in white instead of red. Would an offering of snake surprise or chilled monkeybrains have been pushing it? Maybe, but the film does plenty fine without it. 

Here's to you, Bad Robot. 

Eyes Wide Shut

 Eyes Wide Shut, 1999. Directed by Stanley Kubrick. Written by Arthur Schnitzler (novel) and Stanley Kubrick (screenplay).
starring: Tom Cruise, Nicole Kidman, Sidney Pollack.

"A New York City doctor, who is married to an art curator, pushes himself on a harrowing and dangerous night-long odyssey of sexual and moral discovery after his wife admits that she once almost cheated on him." (IMDB).


So, here we are. At pretty much everyone's definitive for conventional pornography in mainstream cinema, right? All I heard about for years was how Stanley Kubrick was releasing a bona-fide porno, blah, blah, blah. PORN. And while we'll get to what I actually consider this film to be a bit later, I'm guessing it did change quite a few industry conventions (not the least being CG blockers); it's an important film. Almost everyone I talked to about this absolutely hated it. But almost everyone I talked to also were fans of Cruise and not Kubrick, (in 1999, anyway) and I think that makes all the difference. I loved it.


1. Stanley knows what he's doing. In terms of mise en scene (environments, locations, settings, etc.) I think he was (and still is) the best around. If for no other reason, watch this film for the lights and colors. Music also was great.

2. Stanley is crafty; he usually doesn't come right out and say anything bluntly, but many, many times he'll convey things visually, metaphorically that you have to really work hard *not* to notice. He could have said (of all his films) "This character is isolated; this particular space is all-consuming." There are so many interesting ideas in this film: Dr. Bill's inability to command or finish any sort of sexual exchange. Orange Walls (ala Ulmann's office or Mr. Grady's bathroom in The Shining) All those little yellow lights everywhere? They have to mean something; I'm going with virility or prowess, or whatever it is Kubrick is suggesting that Bill lacks. This is the most beautiful emotionless film full of meaning I've ever seen.

No, Bill, really. I'm totally into it. . . 

3. This film, while having kind of a lot of sex, wasn't erotic to me at all. Every review I read really hyped up the eroticism, and yeah, it's physically present, I guess, but completely cold, impersonal, and empty, therefore uninteresting to me. Like robots having relations with each other. For me, this was about marital discomfort from the very beginning. Bill and Alice have awkward conversations and he doesn't really even seem to know her or acknowledge her at all, at least the way she wants. It's hard to miss that look of utter boredom and disdain in her eyes during their love scene early on. The dialogues are extremely slow with many, many beats in between words. Characters' walking seems stretched out. Even when things are running smoothly, (doctor's office, interactions with the daughter, or virtually any other character), Dr. Bill brings nothing but uncomfortable tension. A few critics didn't like the thriller aspect to the film, but I think it was necessary; without it, this would just be one uncomfortable exchange after another---OH THOSE WEALTHY NEW YORKERS! AREN'T THEY JUST *SO* CRAZY AND #*$&ED UP? Who wants to see that?

LIGHTS! 

4. In terms of film vs. book, I'll take the film any day. The novel, Rhapsody: A Dream Novel, by Arthur Schnitzler, was first published in 1927 and in my opinion, was kind of boring. I'm sure it was quite a bombshell when it first came out, I'll give it that, but it really just proved to me that Stanley has the best knack, ever, for taking interesting or semi-interesting novels and turning them into unbelievable films.

5. If you are looking for any further reading on Kubrick or themes in Kubrick films, there is a really excellent book, A Cinema of Loneliness by Robert Phillip Kolker, that is very much worth checking out. It's unfortunately only current up to Full Metal Jacket, but many of the ideas translate to Eyes Wide Shut. (It also examines the themes of Penn, Scorcese, Spielberg, and Altman, so it's a fun, tape-your-glasses kind of film book to have).


6. Stanley is probably the best film director who ever lived, but the ending on this was a bit . . . unsatisfying. I don't know what would have made it better. Any thoughts?

The Bounty Hunter, Vanilla Sky.

This was a really unpleasant duo.

The Bounty Hunter, 2010, directed by Andy Tenant. Written by Sarah Thorpe.
starring: Jennifer Aniston, Gerard Butler, Gio Perez.

Rachel?

"A bounty hunter learns that his next target is his ex-wife, a reporter working on a murder cover-up. Soon after their reunion, the always-at-odds duo find themselves on a run-for-their-lives adventure." (IMDB.)


You know a film is pretty flat when the best thing about it is KE$HA'S music. And I'll say this delicately, as Jennifer Aniston is looking damned good for 40----she's not 23 anymore and Friends is over. Gone are the days of standing around and making repeated and frantic limb gestures while everyone else gets the zingers. Looking pretty isn't really enough. (B O R I N G).


Vanilla Sky, 2001, directed by Cameron Crowe. Written by Alejandro Amenábar.
Starring: Tom Cruise, Penelope Cruz, Cameron Diaz.


"A successful publisher finds his life taking a turn for the surreal after a car accident with a jaded lover." (IMDB). 


Some people like this. I fricking hated it, more than I've ever hated a film before in my life. And before anyone starts jumping to conclusions, it's not because of Tom Cruise, although I don't really like him, and it's not because of the chances the film takes on the twists in the narrative--if anything THAT kept me watching the screen instead of putting a pillow in front of my face and covering my ears. I hated this film because it was THE. MOST. WRETCHEDLY. written and acted piece of garbage I have ever had the displeasure of seeing. I'm not talking about the story, I'm talking about the screenplay that became this film. The dialogues were literally the shittiest of the shitty, shitty lines read by shitty actors that the shitty director thought were permissible? In the film American Movie, Mark Borchardt is sitting (stoned), watching his radio show being performed and later says, "I was no longer paying attention to the actors and the performances. I realized I was no longer a director; there were stilted performances and I did nothing to rectify the situation."

(!!!) ET TU, CAM?


Of course, Oliver Stone also said once that some actors just don't take direction. He worked with Cameron Diaz himself (Any Given Sunday) and she seemed to be equally cringe-worthy in that. Gag.


And what was with the music, popular songs fading in and out at ridiculously inappropriate times? I don't care what kind of Rolling Stone guru you were, almost every piece of background music was a jarring disruption in an already speed-bumpy movie. 


I hated everyone in this and every line uttered. WORST. FILM. EVER. The end.