Gravity

A phenomenal accomplishment in filmmaking supported by an excellent cast, a strong script and bombastic soundtrack. In sum: the theater experience of the year. See it.

I’ve been on hiatus for a while, which has been disappointing because I love writing these things. I’m planning to overhaul my blog once I’m free from Uni commitments, but in the meantime… I’ve been watching lots of stuff! I’ll do my best to pump out a few mini-reviews in the coming days as my essay deadlines loom and I need to start digesting all this information into something academically presentable, but in the meantime… Here’s Gravity.

With all the buzz around this film I just couldn’t resist dashing out to the theater last week to see it. It’s almost like a perfect conclusion to my sort-of series about the Hollywood system: When big-budget movies go right. I don’t really have much more to say about that, except that it does happen! There are creative people working in the industry – not every film that achieves blockbuster status is cookie cutter. Gravity is a totally unique film to experience.

Man Of Steel

Bombastic and ambitious, Man Of Steel creatively re imagines the Superman mythos for the modern audience. It lacks in acting, pacing and story, but makes up for it in sheer spectacle.

In response to the massive success of Marvel’s Avengers franchise, DC Entertainment and Warner Bros. have unveiled their plans to create a Justice League film, featuring iconic comic book characters such as Superman and Batman.

While Batman has found great success on film recently, Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight series was heavily grounded in reality, delving deep into the psychology of its central figure. Not the stuff of science-fantasy franchise building. But in the wake of Batman’s success, Nolan was brought on board (along with Dark Knight writer David Goyer) to develop Superman into a story that could not only resonate with today’s audience, but could also form the foundation for a whole series of DC-universe blockbusters that could intersect and expand.

The two super-powers of the comic book film franchising realm are clashing, and in the glorious carnage, we the audience are about to reap the benefits. Or endure the consequences. It’s hard to say, really, whether this kind of film making is good for the industry or not.

“New” Hollywood tactics – of throwing as much money as possible at a film, and having it appeal to the widest audience possible – have been around for well over 30 years now. Has anything changed? Today’s industry, it seems, is exacerbating the trend started by Star Wars and Jaws, with bigger budgets, bigger marketing, stronger branding, deeper pockets to be emptied and refilled. What do we call films like The Avengers, and the Justice League project? Mega-blockbusters? AAAA movies?

They’re really big, is the point I’m trying to get at. And whether this trend continues until absolutely everything we see in theaters is a part of one mega franchise or another, or whether one of these massive projects bombs out and topples the major studios… Who knows?

Alright, I suppose I’d better get to the film. Hopefully my ranting about the state of the movies has given you some idea of the context in which this film appears (I haven’t covered anything about previous Superman films though, so if you’re interested you’ll have to look them up yourself).

Man Of Steel is… well, mediocre I suppose.

Which is an absolute shame because there are so many great ideas in here – especially in the way the story unfolds, and the way classic Superman tropes have been re purposed for this film. You can see the fingerprints of Nolan all over the place; in the non-linear storytelling, in the grittier atmosphere, in the way he avoids more tired tropes like Kryptonite, and Lex Luthor.

You can also see the hand of Zach Snyder all over the place. The film is about as bombastic and overblown as you would expect – but the style really works when dealing with super-humans clashing into one another.

The special effects are wondrous. Krypton is fantastically realized, especially in the way its technology is presented. Scenes on earth are shot very nicely, with a lot of moody close-ups and nature shots that inspire a nice sense of connection to the earth and nature – a sharp contrast to late-game action scenes.

Boy oh boy, those action scenes. When General Zod finally arrives on earth, and Superman is called upon to protect the planet from him, all hell breaks loose… and it’s amazing. Clashes between the human military and the Kryptonian super-soldiers are elegantly done, evoking the terror and the awe experienced by the humans. Clashes between Superman and the Kryptonians are insane, with two or three mighty beings pummeling at each other, hurling one another through buildings, and leveling cities in their wake. One moment they’re tossing cars around Smallville, the next they’re out in space, battling upon the arms of an ill-fated satellite.

There’s a lot of variety in these battles, so they never seem to get boring. The contrasting settings, characters, objectives, and moods in each smaller scene make the final two acts a smorgasbord of great action beats strung together. The film lives up to all expectations on the action/spectacle front. Man Of Steel is a sight to be seen, preferably on the big screen, in 3D.

So what’s wrong with it?

There is something I can’t quite put my finger on; something in the pacing that probably comes down to the writing, or the editing. For starters, the transition from Superman in hiding to announcing his presence to the world felt rushed. A lot of the character development felt rushed to be honest – Superman’s was mostly well-done, as was Lois Lane’s, but some of the side characters seemed to have no arc – or worse, an incomplete one. The acting is hit-and miss. Most of the main actors do a great job, but again the supporting characters suffer on this front.

Finally, the fight scenes didn’t always gel together very well either. There are moments when the super-humans Superman is fighting just give up and leave. There’s an explanation for this in the story, but it feels pretty contrived and inconsistent; like the writers just needed a way to make the fighting stop, so they implement this whenever the feel the need to. But the breaks between the fights aren’t very long – it feels almost as if much of the middle action should have been woven together into one long fight scene, without the arbitrary pauses that just confuse.

There’s also the glaring issue of collateral damage in this movie. Both as it functions in the story, and as it is present to us on screen. (Note: there are some minor spoilers here)

I’ll start with the story problem: Superman does not kill. Superman does everything in his power to save people. This is exemplified quite well in a few instances when he sees a stray civilian falling, or something like that: he rushes out of his way to catch them, and saves them from a messy end. This logic doesn’t seem to hold when considering people in buildings though, or planes. The number of buildings collapsed by Superman flying into them – or throwing Zod at them… it’s just unbelievable. A spectacular sight, to be sure, but after a while one starts to wonder what Superman’s kill count must be up to – directly, or indirectly by allowing the fight to remain in the city, surrounded by people.

Then there’s the way all of this is shown to us in the film. Countless buildings are destroyed, true. But how many people do you suppose we see inside those buildings? I haven’t watched closely, but at a guess I would say the answer is none. Every wall the brawling titans obliterate reveals an office block completely devoid of precious human life that might have been squashed by the catastrophe. It’s almost as if the film is actively avoiding making us watch people die.

Indeed, I think this is the case, and a sad side-effect of the way blockbusters are made nowadays. Everybody loves seeing wanton destruction – it’s all a lot of fun. Seeing cars crushed by a gravity beam, seeing invincible characters hurling each other through walls, seeing buildings collapse and gas stations explode… It’s cinematic gold. But not a lot of us like to see the human consequence of what might happen if these events did take place in a crowded city. A lot of people would die, and we don’t like seeing innocent civilians die anywhere near as much as we like seeing a good fiery explosion. To make the film appeal to the largest possible audience, the studio has downplayed the effect that those explosions may have had on the random passers by.

This problem is exacerbated by the aforementioned motivation of Superman: to save everyone. The film tries to raise the stakes by staging its fights within the city; around people that Superman wants to protect. But the stakes are artificial; they ring false because Superman makes no effort to stop buildings from falling on people, and because there aren’t any people in those buildings as far as we can see anyway.

The ending particularly suffers from this effect – and I can’t get this across without spoiling a few things (not that they would surprise you). In the climactic moment, Zod suddenly raises the stakes on Superman, by aiming his laser vision at a cowering family of civilians nearby (who have conveniently appeared). Superman is forced to make a choice. As he tries to wrest Zods head away, the laser beam inches ever closer, almost consuming the family – until Superman suddenly snaps Zod’s neck. Zod collapses, dead, and Superman falls to his knees beside him, tears in his eyes.

Why is Superman crying though? Is he crying because he was forced to kill Zod? That didn’t seem like such a big deal before – he was really brutal to him in those fights. Is he crying because the civilians died? Ah, that’s the million dollar question, because the film doesn’t show us! The final shots are framed in such a way that we never catch a glimpse of that corner of the room – which would reveal either a gory sight, or a sense of relief. In its most crucial moment the films artifice is most obvious. We know that in reality actions have consequences, but the film doesn’t want us to really feel them. It tries to convince us they aren’t there, undermining the challenging issues that it does grapple with.

So I’ve beaten up on it a bit for being the most egregious example of conservative blockbuster film making in recent memory (I don’t think Iron Man 3 suffered from this at all!). I’ve also praised its creative choices, and spectacular special effects.

I haven’t even mentioned the amazing score by Hans Zimmer. That’s worth mentioning. It’s amazing.

It all adds up to pretty much standard popcorn summer movie fare. It’s definitely worth seeing, and my hopes are high for the future of this franchise. I think the foundation laid by this movie is solid enough to stand on. If DC can up their game, Marvel may have their work cut out for them in the years to come.

Star Trek Into Darkness

Star Trek Into Darkness is a perfect continuation of a supremely well-executed reboot. It draws on the old lore, builds on the new, with a balance that will likely please both the casual audience and the hardcore.

(This review will spoil some major plot developments from J.J. Abram’s first Star Trek.)

Star Trek Into Darkness takes the solid foundation of the first film, and builds on it fantastically. The aesthetic of 2009’s Star Trek remains with the action scenes, the creatively envisioned future gadgetry  and even the infamous lens flare. Yes, the first film caught a bit of flak for the incessant lights that seemed dialed up to 11, but this film tones it down only a touch. It’s no longer blinding, but it’s familiar and consistent with the feel of the first film. Good compromise.

J.J. Abrams 2009 effort to reboot one of sci-fi geekdom’s most well known franchises was perhaps the most brilliantly executed in reboot history. Recasting new faces as iconic characters, Kirk (Chris Pine) and Spock (Zachary Quinto), the trick they pulled in that film was to make the new series occur in a parallel universe; one affected by time travel. Different from the original series, but with the same characters and settings (well, minus Vulcan).

What made it really work was the presence of old Spock, played by the original actor, Leonard Nimoy. Nimoy’s presence in the film served both to tie it in with the old series; acknowledging its existence, and also allowed the new series to take it’s own direction with this slightly altered timeline. It was like the old franchise was giving its blessing that the new one be made, and be made differently. And how different it is! Unlike previous iterations, Star Trek was an action/adventure blockbuster, and a good one at that.

Star Trek as a franchise has always been interested more in the philosophical; forgoing action scenes for dialogue, problem solving and negotiation. The central corporate entity, Star Fleet, isn’t even a military organisation (despite appearances), their purpose is exploration. While it retains Star Trek‘s penchant for action, Star Trek Into Darkness does justice to the tradition by throwing up a challenging situation for the viewer, with a complex plot that asks mature questions. Most of the film consists of two ships facing off against each other, but there are several parties with different objectives negotiating for control of the situation. There are probing questions of morality and responsibility and war and justice and sacrifice and others that are wrapped up in the thrilling story; the viewer is constantly on the edge of their seat being asked “What would you do?” “What’s right in this situation?”

There are a lot of action beats, and some of them are great. The first time we see Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) fight is nothing short of awesome, and there are a few huge set pieces that are stunning to look at. Scenes where ships get shot, and people are suddenly sucked from their workstation into space are brutal, as are a few close-quarters combat sequences (although none of them are graphic, the sounds they make sure do set the imagination firing). There’s also great stuff done with the simple premise of Scotty (Simon Pegg) running through a large room. You don’t need to go over the top to create great entertainment. Perhaps as a whole the film is on the action-heavy side, with a few scenes running longer than necessary.But it doesn’t feel badly imbalanced; the action doesn’t get in the way of the dramatic development of the plot or characters.

Overall, I’d definitely recommend Star Trek Into Darkness, as probably the best follow-up to a blockbuster film so far this year.

(SPOILERS AHEAD)

For those of you that have seen it and might have missed it, I’ll explain just how much old lore is crammed into this film. And it’s a great surprise, really, so don’t read on if you haven’t seen the film yet.

It turns out that Cumberbatch’s character is actually Khan. If you know even the pittance that I do about Star Trek you’ll know that Khan is the main villain of it’s most acclaimed film, Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan.

I’m not sure how well Khan’s backstory in this lines up with the original series. I do know that in Wrath of Khan, Khan is originally stranded on a desert planet with his followers, alive and standing by him. The changes they made suit well, I think. Khans character seemed whole and coherent, driven by the desire to save his crew. Kirk and Spock’s reversed roles serve each of their character arcs in this film, with Kirk learning humility, and Spock learning how to care like a human being. It’s all very well done, and I hope the series continues to allow these characters to walk their own path.

And apart from borrowing that character, there are also large plot threads borrowed from that movie too. The whole business of Khan coming up from a deserted planet, to engage in a duel with the Enterprise crew, ship to ship. Yes there are a whole lot of twists and turns in this film, but beats such as the warp drive needing to be manually fixed; a major character sacrificing his own life by going into the radiation zone, and the death behind the glass door are all lifted from the older film.

The roles are reversed though! In the new film, Kirk sacrifices himself, rather than Spock; they are on opposite sides of the door. After Kirk dies in Into Darkness, Spock cries out “KHAN!”, in much the same way Kirk did in Wrath of Khan (in a different scene). There are so many little details like this that go to show how intricately constructed Into Darkness is.

If I had to criticize it, I would point to its reliance on old Star Trek lore as a potential weakness. They pulled it off beautifully in this film, but if they lean on it too heavily in the future, the third film may suffer. They’ve well and truly established the universe as one where the same events may occur, but also as one that can break free and do its own thing. I hope they stay creative, because I love this re imagining.

The Dark Knight Rises

Fantastically executed, emotionally affecting, thematically weighty and rich in spectacle – Rises isn’t as tight as The Dark Knight, but it caps off this amazing trilogy in grand style. This series will be talked about for years.

Christopher Nolan has done a bold thing. First by creating this iteration of Batman – in all his brooding darkness and gritty realism – then by following it up with the best superhero film ever made, and now by concluding the story as a trilogy… Anything he served up would appease the studios desire for a big opening weekend, but this series has become more than just a popcorn flick; The Dark Knight proved that super heroes can have legitimately good, artful, well-acted, powerful films, tackling real issues despite their fantastic premise.

I read a poem describing the job of poets: to create “Imaginary gardens with real toads in them“(Marianne Moore), and I think this can be applied equally well to film, and especially well to such films as Batman Begins and The Dark Knight; a fantasy world the draws us in and delights us with its spectacle and inventiveness, while still grappling with the ‘toads’ of reality – those things that plague us still in real life.

The hype surrounding this film has been incredible – with phrases like ‘masterpiece’ and ‘perfect film’ being thrown around to describe its predecessor, can Nolan follow up his success with an equal – or even greater – film?

Well, not quite.

I’ve been reading so many negative reviews of the film, I feel as though I need to come out defending it! But I guess that’s just my strange desire to seek out those who disagree with me, Rotten Tomatoes indicates that reception has been, on the whole, very good. There are a lot of dissenting opinions (well summarized here), and I agree with some of them. But the fact is the greatest sin this film commits is falling short of The Dark Knight. And that was almost inevitable.

I loved a lot of things about this film… but I was also frustrated by it, so in all my indecisiveness brought on by attempts at balance, here are my thoughts on The Dark Knight Rises.

And A quick note on spoilers: I WILL GIVE MINOR PLOT POINTS AWAY NOW, and save the big doozies for further down. If you haven’t seen the movie yet, I would highly recommend it.

First off, it’s always exciting to see Batman. I couldn’t help but tremble in anticipation the first time he appears in this film. It’s such a well executed sequence, moving straight from an attack on the stock market (a great scene), to a motorbike chase, to suddenly the lights going out… and Batman is back!

Especially nice touches are the swelling music, and the old cop speaking to the rookie cop – something like “Oh you’re in for a show tonight” – absolutely elevated that scene from just another Batman moment to an Extra-Special-Batman-Moment. We get the anticipation as the lights go out, the ramping excitement as we see the shadowy silhouette, and in the middle of all that, we’re reminded of the mark that Batman has made on this world, despite his long absence. This old cop was clearly present during the events of the previous two films, but the young guy with him has probably never witnessed Batman first hand – he only knows about him from the stories the old timers tell, that sound a little too preposterous to be true. The audience, of course, is right alongside the old guy. We can’t wait to see Batman do his thing!

Other great moments: Bane. No, he’s not the best villain this series has seen – but he’s coming in the wake of one of the greatest villains in cinema. But even Harvey Dent/Two-Face was a better villain than Bane – his character had an arc, his motivation was powerful, his personality was interesting… Bane has none of that. But Bane is awesome, because of everything he is physically, and everything he represents in opposition to this Batman.

Tom Hardy plays Bane as a man permanently masked, with an odd yet strangely commanding voice. He exerts a terrifying control over his followers; in an early scene he gently tells one goon to sacrifice himself, and the goon takes it rather well. Disturbingly well. I wish the psyche of Banes followers had been more closely explored, perhaps with just a single scene of Bane giving a speech specifically to his followers? Regardless, Bane is still the backbone of this movie (ahem), and every moment he occupies the screen he imbues it with a sense of menace, as he wreaks absolute havoc on Gotham city.

The way Nolan treats Gotham in this film is absolutely effective, and perhaps entirely necessary. Bane accomplishes what Joker just attempted; complete anarchy in Gotham. Things happen in this film that had me slacked-jawed watching – I couldn’t believe this was actually going down.  The scene in which Batman finally gets to fight Bane one-to-one is brutal and visceral , the entire sequence of events soon after that completely turn the universe upside-down. It’s fantastic and devastating all at once… So I guess I’ll count it as a positive. Points for totally shifting the game in terms of what villains are capable of accomplishing in this universe.

Finally, the pit. You know it’s in here, you’ve seen it in the trailers; Batman gets stuck in a pit where prisoners are always free to climb out up the wall – but few dare even try. I liked this whole sequence. On a symbolic level I love what the pit represents, and the call-backs it makes to other moments in the franchise. In terms of narrative cohesion… perhaps it’s a little far-fetched. But the sequence is executed so well, I for one didn’t mind.

There are new characters, good and bad. Let’s start with the good: Selina Kyle and John Blake, played by Anne Hathaway and Joseph Gordon-Levitt respectively. Great new characters – well acted, well integrated, believable and fun to watch. These two personalities fit beautifully into Nolans tale, and while they take a little bit more of the focus off Batman, they add a lot of new depth and perspective to the film. Blake especially is an original character (sort of?) but plays a nice apprentice-type foil to Bruce Wayne and Gordon.

There’s an extra nice touch with Selinas’ night-vision goggles which, when flipped upwards, look kinda like… (and I missed this even after two viewings)

The romance (or apparently ‘love triangle’) is a bit weak all-around. Selina and Bruce’s relationship could have used more development, and the other woman could have used either less or more, but let’s face it; this is not a romantic film. This is a film about heroism, truth, justice, the clash of good and evil and those grey areas in between – having a weak romance plot doesn’t even hinder the film…

At least, it wouldn’t, if they didn’t take it so far with the other woman. Let’s get to her; Miranda Tate, billionaire, philanthropist and potential match for the infamous Bruce Wayne. Marion Cotillard does a fine job portraying her, but her role feels just a little off. For one thing, it’s fine for Alfred and Luscious to make cracks at Bruce about finding a girl, but their relationship escalates so suddenly it’s just a little absurd. Indeed, she seems to be made out as his major motivation at some points, and it just rings a little false that he would care so much, so quickly.

There are some little details about her character that are revealed, so I’ll certainly touch on her again when I discuss the ending.

John Daggart is positioned as a kind of foil to Miranda; self-seeking, ruthless, willing to dirty his hands for a profit… Very much like other corrupt characters we’ve already seen in this Batman series, who turn out to be pawns for the true villain. Oops, did I just give something away? As if you didn’t see that coming from the start.

And I suppose I’d better mention the new police commissioner, Jim Gordon’s replacement, Peter Foley played by Matthew Modine… There’s not much to say really. It’s a neat idea – the commissioner for peace-time, suddenly thrust into war. The new guy in the top job eager to outdo his predecessor – there could have been a lot to this character, but we don’t see much of him, so he just becomes a nuisance. It’s not because of his acting either, it’s just that he doesn’t have enough screen time to make a real mark. He has a few nice moments in the climax, but ultimately I think this character should have either been cut, or more thoroughly explored.

Indeed: ‘I wish they’d explored this more’ was one of my most common complaints in revisiting the film in my head – but the fact is, at close to three hours long, this movie is almost an ordeal. It feels like two movies, first dealing with Banes rise to power and Batmans’ return after a long absence, then after a slow middle section, a second arc about Batmans’ struggle to rise up and match Bane. Perhaps a few characters or plotlines should have been cut to streamline the piece – or more drastically it could have been split into two films; it just feels like it’s doing too much. Following so many characters, exploring so many themes – all of them worthy, but many not executed to their full potential.

Now, to the ending… I’ll have to make a second post. Practice what you preach and all that.
Stay tuned!

UPDATE: I have made a second post; one that contains thorough discussion of all the major plot developments and the ending. Please, go ahead and check it out 🙂

Serenity

Awesome story, awesome characters, awesome world. This TV series was definitely worth resurrecting – go and watch it!

It’s been a long time since my last post, and even longer since I posted about Firefly, but I’ve finally finished it. So here’s a review of the movie that completed the story after the series was cancelled (for reasons I cannot fathom, since this show is so good!)

Basically this film plays out like a much longer episode of the show, which is both good and bad; on the downside the budget is still small by blockbuster standards, so while the effects are slicker and grander, they still feel a bit cheap and tv-ish. That’s the worst of it though – all the best stuff from the show is all here; the dialogue is snappy, the characters are well defined and universally interesting, including all the new ones we’re introduced to, even when they have precious few minutes of screen time. The universe this franchise inhabits is fantastically real-but-not, with a vibrance and believability overpowering any stretches of credibility.

For newcomers, this film caters for you. Characters are introduced cleverly to establish their place in this story, and it all makes sense on its own. If you haven’t seen the show though, you may feel the piece is a little empty, and some characters pointless or boring. I can’t help thinking that for a newcomer, Wash or Shepherd may seem insignificant or forgettable, while fans of the show have a deep sense of attachment developed over the run of the show, so some moments will really hit them hard. While it was clever of them to engineer a film that could open up a whole new audience for them, it’s really at its most rewarding when you already know and love this world. It’s a right shame that the movie didn’t achieve the box office success to justify more movies about this world, because it really is one in which you want to explore further.

Regardless, this is a great film to cap off a great series, and anyone who is a fan of sci-fi, Joss Whedon (especially if you’ve only seen The Avengers), or solid character pieces should definitely watch it.

SPOILERS NOW, SO I CAN TALK ABOUT THE BITS THAT BOTHERED ME

Ok, so in my last post I railed off a list of questions that were intriguing me at that point – around episode 9 in the series. I’m glad I did that, because now I can see which ones have been answered and how.

So what happened to River? This was beautifully answered almost completely in the first few minutes of the film. While that seems a little disappointing – given that it was one of the driving arcs in the series and could have been drawn out longer to give us a gradually unfolding mystery – it very elegantly delivers those answers fans are clamouring to hear at this point, while also setting up a slightly different, equally intriguing premise for the film: what exactly does River know?

One thing I was sad not to see was the men in blue gloves. Those guys were really creepy, and it would have been great to see them pitched directly against Mal and his crew, as well as learn more about their backstory. But again, most of what there is to know about them has been answered or implied; and they are effectively replaced by the very interesting and threatening Operative.

It was a little strange moving straight from Jubal Early in the last episode of the series, to the Operative, as they’re fairly similar characters. Although Early is far more menacing, while the Operative is far more capable, they’re both black, physically intimidating, with quirky dialogue and catch phrases. They’re both great, bad-ass villains, I just think they came a little too close together, and should have been given some breathing room in between.

In my last post I mistakenly referred to the Reavers as “Reapers”. Too much Mass Effect perhaps? Nobody called me out on it though, so I guess that’s ok for now.

The part played by the Reavers in this film is just great. Although it wasn’t the most pressing question for the series at the time, the origin story of the Reavers made for an excellent thread for the movie to tie up, giving us the best of everything the series has established so far. The collision of the two armies was spectacular, and served as an epic backdrop to all the character payoffs that were going on around the climax. This film did over and above what it needed to in order to tie up the many loose ends left by the aborted show.

In sum, again, I love this series. It’s problems all stem from studio stuff-ups, small budget, time constraints and the like. Thankfully, Joss Whedon has gone on to give us the mega-blockbuster The Avengers, and will hopefully continue to produce other fine quality works. The rest of the cast and crew have gone their separate ways, but its so cool to go through the bonus features and see their passion for this franchise, and their dedication to seeing it through to a dignified end.

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol

The fourth instalment in the 15 year spy series, leading man Tom Cruise brings back the action with spectacular flair. Balls-to-the-wall from start to finish, this spy adventure delivers the thrills, especially on the big screen. Watch this film, and enjoy.

First a few changes to my blog: Spoilers will now be placed ‘after the jump’. Everything on the front page of the website, and the front page will be much more compact. Hopefully people are interested enough to click a single button to get to the meatier bits of whatever I’m talking about. Also, I’ll write a summary of the film and my opinion at the head of each post, before the picture. I need to work on creating a hook for the post, and encourage people to start reading rather than blabbing on about never getting time to watch movies. Speaking of watching movies, I actually got up off my lazy arse and made it out to the cinema this week! Here’s a review of something that’s actually screening right now…

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol. MI4, some may call it. If they keep at it a few more films, this series will be verging on Bond territory. In short: I loved it. In long: think The Incredibles in live action, with real(ish) people. Or Bourne, with high-tech gadgetry. Or Bond, with failing gadgetry. I’m not in a position to comment on how this film stands with the Mission series as a whole, but from what I’ve read, this is undoubtably the best of them. The pace is frantic, as the narrative thrusts us from one action set piece to the next, via some short expository interludes. The breathless pacing is matched in every scene by visceral and frenetic action, and more broadly by the urgency of the world-ending threat. This is something close to a perfect action movie. 

Characters have arcs, and a little time is given to each of them, but that’s not the point. There’s just enough backstory to understand where each member of the team is coming from, and to establish them as a tight group – with a dynamic that ranges from hilarious to occasionally tense, but consistently watchable and entertaining. Given the lack of character moments, the actors contribute hugely to creating this tight sense of belonging in our small group of hapless heroes.

What did I not like? Well, spoilers…

There’s one scene at about the end, when Tom Cruise gives a victory speech to his team, and it gets a little cheesy. I’m not sure if its the speech I don’t like here, or just the fact that Tom Cruise is saying it. When the pace finally slows long enough for him to talk, his on screen persona suddenly becomes indistinguishable from his real-life one. I don’t like him in real life, so being reminded of that in the film might be all that’s bothering me. That said, even though I don’t like him, I gotta respect his commitment to this franchise and this film. His insistence on continuing as the leading man plus doing all his own stunt work, at his age is admirable (though perhaps a little cocky). Add to that all the behind the scenes production work, and this truly is Cruises film. Credit to Brad Bird for some amazing direction, and a perfect sense of what makes for great action, but none of it would have come together at all if not for Tom Cruise.

Apart from the character stuff, particularly the underdeveloped villain, I’ve also heard a lot of people say that the final fight sequence in the mechanised parking lot was underwhelming in comparison to many of the more thrilling sequences in the middle (ie. All of Dubai). This is true, but I wouldn’t write it off as a bad climax. Maybe I was a little distracted by just looking at the parking garage and being amazed that those things exist somewhere, but I did think that the final fight had a real visceral sense of desperation. The stakes were as high as they could be, and both men were going all out to achieve their ends (although it seems that Ethan should be able to dispatch Hendricks with ease). As they clashed they slowly wore each other down, and became more wounded yet more desperate. The final turn when Hendricks throws himself over the edge is surprising, and a little crushing, adding that extra notch of tension to the last despairing moments… Until the happy ending finally comes, big shock.

I haven’t even mentioned the Burj Khalifa sequence!

It’s awesome. There we go, time to wrap this up. If you haven’t seen this movie yet, then DO! This is the kind of spectacular thrill-fest that makes blockbuster movies amazing.