Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation (2015)

IMDB Page

Mission Impossible: Rouge Nation is the 5th outing of crazed, rich cultist Tom Cruise as secret agent Ethan Hawke. This time, Hawke is up against another secret evil organization, only this time its secreterer and evilerer than before. Can Cruise (and friends) complete the mission? 

Well, yes, because that's how things work in these kinds of movies. What follows is a series of loosely connected set pieces that are enjoyable, but not nearly up to the level of sheer fun as the last entry in the series.

The plot is... well, typical for this type of movie. Bad thing happens. Secret agents get blamed. Secret agents must battle both good guys and bad guys to clear their name and stop more bad thing from happening. Set piece in exotic locale. Set piece in another exotic locale. Product placement! Another exotic locale. Motorcycle chase. Expensive underwater set piece. Climax. More product placement. Resolution.

In fact, the main thing that I noticed about this movie was all of the shameless product placement. Some of the things I noticed (Full list taken from brandchannel)

Airbus (A400)- The plane Tom Cruise dangles from on the poster.
BMW- Make sure the logo is in focus at all times
Dell- Lots of Dell Monotors and laptops with logos perfectly visible and centered in frame.
Microsoft Windows- Close up on screens, gratuitous. Shots that linger on surface tablets with large Microsoft logos for long amounts of time.
Nokia- Windows phones!
And plenty of others that I can't really remember. The biggest one do I remember, that I'm not sure many others would have noticed, is the Zoll X Series Cardiac Monitor/Defibrillator. Its used to revive Tom Cruise in one scene, and to knock out another character in the same scene. These big studio franchises are a big business, and I understand that. However, there is a point where the product placement becomes groan worthy and stands out a bit too much.

Revive your own action hero, starting at $15,358 MSRP. 

The mission impossible films, at least the last two, really survive on their unique tone. Its somewhere in between the Jason Borne modern, dark spy thriller; and the old-school, wacky 1970s era James Bond adventures. It keeps itself serious enough to keep us invested in the plot and its consequences, while at the same time being just tongue-in-cheek enough to keep the action fun and entertaining. While this outing was less fun than the Brad Bird directed Ghost Protocol, its still a serviceable outing. The main set piece, this time inside of a giant, water cooled computer core, certainly is thrilling. But its still no comparison to the Burj Khalifa sequence in the last film. While I'm sure it involved Tom Cruse risking his life in some kind of giant underwater pool it still ended up looking like a video game with all of the CGI spliced in. In contrast to the Burj Khalifa sequence, where the only thing that CGI was used for was to erase the wires holding the studio's $50 million plaything Tom Cruise in the air. 

Bottom Line- 3 out of 5: An enjoyable action film, especially if you like millionaire cultists Tom Cruise. Worth a rent, but not as fun as the last outing. 

Sicario (2015)

IMDB Page

Sicario is Spanish for “hitman” or “assassin”. I learned this from watching the trailer. For the majority of the film, I was waiting to find out what its significance was. It paid off in a very slow, tense, and anxiety ridden way that subverted the usual type of plot twist that tries way too hard to “blow your mind”.

Sicario starts out by using tropes we’re very familiar with in crime dramas or police procedurals. Some examples:

-Rookie FBI agent recruited for extra special secret dangerous mission.

-Sassy partner/sidekick.

-Super clean, futuristic government offices with glass walls, glass tables and lots of flat screen monitors.

-Viewing security cameras in the back of an unmarked van.

-Black government SUVs with tinted windows.

-Mysterious, unconventional mentor.

-Don’t touch that, it’s going to- Yep, it blew up.

 It uses those tropes very well, though, and drops most of them by midway through the film. Emily Blunt stars as Kate, an up and coming FBI agent working the drug trade routes along the southern border. She is recruited by the unconventional (He wears flip flops in the office! So unconventional!) government agent Matt, played very well by Josh Brolin. The real star is Benicio Del Toro, who is a shady government “consultant” working on the team. I won’t go much more into plot details, because its best if you go in fresh, but the overall plot is relatively simple.

Where Sicario really shines is pacing and the building of tension. The score is extremely minimal, and gives a sense of dread the minute it starts. The type of tension is also something that’s rare now-a-days; it’s not “edge of your seat” in the “wow this is an exciting, fun adventure” sense, its edge of your seat in the “wow I’m scared, I feel sick to my stomach and am actually sweating right now” sense. Director Denis Villeneuve has demonstrated with great skill how he can impart a sense of pure dread on an audience.

My one and only gripe with the film is that the main character felt relatively flat up until the third act. She just goes along for the ride, literally, for the first 40 minutes of the film. This is explained away in the end but sort of feels unrealistic to add an FBI agent to your team just to have them do nothing. Blunt plays the character very well, and an arc is apparent by the end of the film. Josh Brolin does a good job in his role, but is overshadowed by Benicio Del Toro. Del Toro’s performance starts out benign and kind of mysterious, but slowly morphs into something you’d check under your bed for before going to sleep at night.

Bottom Line- 4 out of 5: Like I said, the plot and overall lesson of this film has been done many times before. How far will you go to stop the bad guys, will you risk resorting to immoral means to win, etc. Where Sicario really shines is in pacing, tone and casting. Overall a very good crime thriller that subverts some genre tropes to make for a memorable experience. 

Format Change... And hopefully more posts.

If you follow at all (and you probably don't), you know my posts here happen with the frequency of a lunar eclipse. I'm hoping to change that and begin posting more often again.

I'll also be including a slight format change in how I rate movies. It will still be in a 10 point scale, but this time I'll be splitting the 10 points into two different categories. The first will be the technical quality of the film- cinematography, editing, and effects to name a few. The second will be story, pacing, and characters. I don't think this will change the overall ratings I hand out, but it will help you differentiate between a film's technical failings and things that are just my opinion.

Trainwreck (2015)

IMDB Page

Directed By: Judd Apatow

Starring: Amy Schumer, Bill Hader (many other celebrities) 

I'll start out my review of Trainwreck by saying this: Its not usually my type of movie. You can look back at my older reviews full of sci-fi/action/corny remakes to realize that. I had no intention of going to see it, but was invited by some friends to a showing. So if rom-coms are your deal, maybe you'll appreciate it more than I did. 

Amy Schumer is a very funny standup comedian. Her show on Comedy Central is pretty funny and equally insightful. Trainwreck, on the other hand, is peak mediocrity. 

This stock image lady feels the same as I do. Three "mehs" out of five. 

Trainwreck follows the sexual exploits of Amy (Amy Schumer). Taught by her father that monogamy is unrealistic, she leads a life of one night stands. Trainwreck is played out as a "reverse" rom-com in the sense that its the promiscuous female that needs to be tamed by the noble male, not the other way around. Working for a magazine, Amy is assigned to do a story on a high profile sports medicine physician (Bill Hader). It quickly progresses into a one night stand instigated by Amy. The good doctor wants something more, so he seeks to tame Amy's wild streak and form a more serious relationship. 

Many of the promos marketed this as a "different" romantic comedy. Besides the role reversal I mentioned above, it is about cliche a rom-com you can get. Two unlikely souls meet. Fall in love. Fall out of love. Both have moments of somber introspection. Both realize they were meant for each other. Roll credits. To me, its a flaw. To others, it could just be a normal rom-com genre plot. Like I said, not usually my type of movie. 

But is it funny? Sometimes. Its usually funniest at its raunchiest, I could not have enjoyed this movie in the slightest if it had gone with a PG-13 rating. (If you ever wanted to see a 98% naked John Cena, this is your flick) Where the funny bits fall flat are the bit celebrity parts. Some of the cameo roles are not actors and it shows, big time. Other celebrities, actual actors, feel shoehorned in and serve no purpose, kind of rendering the scene pointless (I'm looking at you, Mathew Broderik). The presented style feels odd too, like they couldn't settle on the style of comedy they wanted to do. Sometimes its played straight, sometimes there's a narration, sometimes theres fourth wall smashing jokes that did nothing but make me confused. 

Honorable mention: Even if it was a bit part, I was surprised to see comedian Mike Birbiglia as Amy's Flanders-esque brother in law. He was pretty funny. 

Bottom Line- 5/10: Those who are die hard fans of Amy Schumer and rom-coms will appreciate this flick. Otherwise, its just another tired, if a bit raunchier than average, romanic comedy fare. 

Elysium (2013)

IMDB Page

Directed By: Neill Blomkamp

Starring: Matt Damon, Jodie Foster, Sharlto Copley, Alice Braga

Elysium is director Neill Blomkamp's second chance at directing a feature film. His first was 2009's District 9, which still remains as one of my favorite movies of all time. Elysium seems to share a lot of traits with D9: a gritty/dirty setting, a not-so-subtle political message, and badass looking future tech. So, now that Blomkamp has had a chance with a bigger budget and Hollywood star power; did he pull of another sci-fi masterpiece? 

Elysium is set in the year 2154. The earth has become a desolate wasteland, with future LA taking center stage looking like a sprawling third world slum. The ultra-super rich have retreated to a space station called Elysium. They have robot servants that cater to their every need, and space magic medical beds that can cure any aliment in seconds, including severe cases of "exploded off face". Mat Damon stars as Max, a reformed car thief and thug. Max suffers an accident at work, leaving him with only days to live. Rather than die in a slum on earth, max decides to enlist the help of his old gangster friends to get him to one of Elysium's magic medical beds. 

Elysium gets a few things right- Blomkamp comes from a visual effects background, and it still shows. All of the future tech is incredibly cool looking. Not only does it look slick, but it looks feasible; from the cobbled together tech of the gangsters that live in poverty, to the shiny (and scary) looking security droids of Elysium. You can tell a lot of attention to detail went into creating this world. The action scenes are also well done, even if they don't last that long. 

Apart from that, Elysium falls into a deep pit of mediocrity. The villains in the film, both the rich soulless bureaucrats and the evil mercenaries that protect Elysium, are totally one demential. There is more substance in the average Scooby Doo bad guy. Jodie Foster seems totally out of place as Elysium's defense secretary, it almost feels the only reason she was cast was so they had another cool name to put along side Matt Damon on the poster. 

The bad guys aren't the only ones that suffer from poor character development. Max, the main character, is little more than a blank slate. He has no arc, remaining totally flat throughout the entire film. He never has any kind of revelation or change of heart, and never really faces any difficult decisions. This rings true for the other protagonists as well. The film' message and conclusion is just as hollow as the characters. 

Bottom Line- 6/10- Blomkamp's second film is far more forgettable than his first. It has the same fun visuals and action, but fails on the most important things that make a movie: characters and story. 

Pacific Rim (2013)

IMDB Page

Directed by: Guillermo del Toro

Starring: Charlie Hunnam, Idris Elba, Rinko Kikuchi

Pacific Rim is a rare film considering its competition this summer. Its a big budget summer action film that manages not to be a reboot, sequel, remake, or a haphazard adaption of a novel. Yes, it is inspired by the giant monster movies of the past, but it manages to feel quite original and refreshing. So, what do you get in Pacific Rim? Just what the trailers have shown you: giant robots punching the shit out of giant monsters, and vice versa.

Image Source
'Nuff said

The plot in Pacific Rim is a fairly simple ordeal. Monsters, dubbed kaiju, are coming through an inter demential portal at the bottom of the sea. After cities are destroyed, the nations of the world pool their resources to create jaegers; giant, 250 story tall humanoid robots operated by two pilots  All of this is explained in the first 5 minutes of the film. This is one of the good things about the Pacific Rim. It doesn't get bogged down in unnecessary backstory, nor does it try to make up too much fake science to explain how it's fictional technology works.

After years of fighting the war against the kaiju, the jaegers start to loose their effectiveness. The nations that fund them start pulling out of the project to pursue other options. What was once an army of robots is reduced to a handful, stretched thin trying to push back the increasing number of monsters. Instead of continuing the war of attrition they decide to take the fight to the monsters, and collapse the portal that is delivering them to our world. Pacific Rim is definitely a movie that requires the suspension of disbelief. However, its not a movie that will insult your intelligence, like some other popcorn-entertainment flicks.

In the character department, Pacific Rim is a mixed bag. Raleigh (Charlie Hunnam) is our main charter,  a washed up jaeger pilot. He is a pretty blank slate, which is a normal story telling technique to allow the audience to insert themselves into the story. He is a bit too blank, and comes off as bland and forgettable. Mako Mori (Rinko Kikuchi) is a rookie pilot with an interesting back story that doesn't get fleshed out enough. The one that really leads the cast is Stacker Pentecost (Idris Elba), who is a veteran pilot and in charge of the jaeger program. Never since Independence Day have such corny, cheese filled lines been delivered with so much fervor. Other times, I'm not sure which accent the British actor is trying to use. J.J Abrams Charlie Day and Burn Gorman are a fun addition as the pair of kaiju researchers attached to the jaeger program.

Image Source

Of course, you wouldn't be able to have this movie without copious amounts of CGI. Overall, it works, with the effects giving you a good deal of how freaking big these monsters and robots are. During the battle scenes there are a few neat moments that bring everything back down to average human level. One in particular involves a robo-fist plowing through an office building. The action scenes were excellently filmed, and the shaky cam is kept at a minimum. If you see it, you'll want to see it on the big screen. I get the feeling it won't be the same on a home TV screen.

 Bottom line- 8/10. Overall, Pacific Rim manages to be a quite entertaining action flick, with a fair amount of heart to go along with it. Those who complain about their inability to suspend disbelief enough to enjoy a film about giant robots vs monsters may want to skip it. It has plenty of action/disaster movie tropes and cliches, but also does something a little new, and has a few genuinely emotional moments.

Looper (2012)

Director: Rian Johnson

Release Date: 28 September, 2012

Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Bruce Willis, Emily Blunt

IMDB Page

Looper is... Hard to describe. Its a very interesting take on the very tired time travel genre. Even if you get a gist of its premise from the trailers and description; the plot manages to surprise on more than one occasion. It isn't a time travel movie, but more a movie about the what happens when time travel exists. If that makes any sense. 

Much, much more sense than this. 

Joseph Gordon-Levitt stars as Joe, a looper. Loopers are special assassins hired by the mob to eliminate targets without leaving a trace. You see, the mob has access to illegal time travel devices in the future. When they want to wipe someone out, the victim sent back in time, bound and with a hood obscuring their face, where a waiting looper executes them and destroys the body. They're paid very handsomely for this morbid task. The only catch is that, eventually, they'll have to "close their loop". They must execute their future self to eliminate any evidence of time travel being used. The reward is a huge payout and 30 years to live as they wish. 

Of course, it doesn't go as planned. Joe becomes increasingly concerned as many of his fellow loopers are retired. Rumors go around that the mobsters in the future are planning on getting rid of all of the loopers. Eventually, Joe is brought face to face with future Joe (Bruce Willis). For some reason future Joe isn't bound or hooded, and quickly over powers young Joe. He escapes, intending to kill a future murderous gang leader only known as "The Rainmaker" while he is a child. Young Joe must hunt his future self down or become a target of the mob himself. 

Heres where the plot could have become very cliche. I was expecting future Joe and young Joe to eventually team up together to take down the gang. But that never happens. There's no "good"or "bad" Joe either. They both have an end goal they wish to achieve  and are willing to go to any means to get it. This leads to a showdown that completely caught me off guard (in a good way). 

Plot and story aside, Looper comes together pretty slickly. The future world has a very dirty "tech noir" feel to it that harkons to films like Blade Runner. Looper is fairly violent, but doesn't revel in the violence. It would have been easy for them to erase the blood, half second of visible breasts,  and a handful of F-bombs to get a PG-13 rating. But the mature and complex themes remain, which I don't think would appeal to a PG-13 audience. The film looks great, with some pretty impressive action sequences. They're not grand in scale where everything explodes leaving half of the world scorched. The set pieces are smaller, but the action is more tense because you actually care about the characters and their world.

"Yes, I know pages 37-90 are blank. Thats where all the CGI robots and fake boobs go."

The characters and actors are great. Willis and Godon-Levitt make a great pair and their chemistry with each other is great. Pierce Gagnon has a role as a youngster that puts most of the grown up actors in this movie to shame. He plays a character that is too spoiler-y for me to talk about here, but the performance deserves serious recognition. 

There is some silly makeup that Gordon-Levitt wears to make him look more like a younger version of Willis that looks pretty awful from some angles. It is something the film could have totally left out and it wouldn't have made a difference. The film ignores the time travel paradoxes that could potentially bog it down, which keeps it somewhat not confusing. That being said, the plot may be had for some to follow.

Bottom Line: 9/10- Looper is a surprisingly entertaining sci-fi film. It is a shining example of what sci fi should be. Introduce an amazing technology and ask a simple "what if?" question. Looper isn't about shoving as much shiny computer generated future on the screen as possible. Looper is about how the world can shape a person. Its about how even one person can become two completely different people, willing to go to completely different means to get what they want.