Mission Impossible Rogue Nation: Film Review

images

How do you keep a franchise fresh? Not by doing half of what this film did.


Writer: Christopher McQuarrie Drew Pearce DirectorChristopher McQuarrieRuntime: 131m Cast

I showed this simply because it was exactly what was wrong with the start of both of these films. Films are much better when you don’t know what’s going to happen. When you have no idea what you’re about to see. If you get all of it in the trailer or in leaks or whatever, you don’t really have a reason to watch it. At the start of this thing, the editor decided (or the studio) to do a two minute montage of a lot of what you’re about to see. It ruins the film. Furthermore, the most daring stunt I think I’ve seen any one do that isn’t Jackie Chan, is right before the opening credits. Now this may have been to set the tone but, nothing you do as a director/actor, in any movie, will be as daring as having your key talent, hang off the side of a plane. With no green screen… No… Anything. That was actually Mr. Cruise. If you’re gonna do a stunt like that. Don’t open a film with that if nothing else is going to be as daring. That one scene is impressive when you factor in his role, and that he’s 50. Anything could have gone wrong. Thankfully it didn’t.

ffn_tom_cruise_4_kb_141103_4x3_992

Anyway. You know who this movie was missing. Paula Patton. I’m probably going to say that again.

The story was rather expected. But the intensity was is what kept the story on its edge. It definitely was missing something from M.I. 4… which was probably Paula Patton. But seriously, in M.I. 3 there was a villain who jxust hated Ethan Hunt and you secretly cheered him on for how relentless he was. I’m not saying he had to recreate that flair but it would’ve been nice to just have a villain to really see get taken down or out. Sean Harris’ overall villainy just seemed flat. So much so, that I don’t even believe he was the end game villain as his role intended. There was so much time spent on being accountable for the amount of damage the IMF cause(in the film), that the American political brass seemed more of a threat than Solomon Lane.

Le Sigh…

The film brought in a new group of talent that these films tend to. The lead female was very good at her role. If I didn’t know what I know, to see her  forthcoming deception, I would have thought her performance brilliant (another reason not to show scenes before its time). Nevertheless I saw past it and saw a decent performance and arguably one of the best female leads this series has seen. Definitely not the hottest… Hi Paula!

Tom Cruise was great. He did his usual running and yelling gig. I feel he’s reached the top of his limits within this character. I’d be lying if I didn’t say his age was revealed a few times in this. Not that it hurts him, but it’s just so much on the surface. Now, I’m not trying to witch hunt him out of a job, but I’d be totally ok if he said his wife or something had a kid and he trained him in the IMF as it’s all he knows. Then that said child carried on the franchise. I just think we all know he will stop at nothing to protect us. I will say having him doubted like that, both visually artistically, was a cool dynamic to add.

THE one thing about Tom Cruise, is that he runs. No one in film will have a better run than him. Not shooting it correctly is a tragedy. even though they have shots of him running, they often had it in the wrong angles. The best one he has is during the opening sequence. The under water scene was outstanding. I caught myself inching to the edge of my seat.

 

 

Go figure I didn’t like it, it was as obvious a movie as Iron Man 3 was.

 

 

Rating 4

  • Overall rating of the movie: 4 out of 10,
  • Cinematography: 5 out of 10,
  • Editing: 2 out of 10,
  • Audio: 6 out of 10,
  • Acting: 5 out of 10,

Theatres or wait for the blu-ray? It’s cool in Imax but the bad taste in your mouth after wouldn’t justify paying to see it there.

THAT’S IT! Cheers: “To Peace”. Your eLEWsive Thought Provided by: the “LEW System”

– Xavier – @CoolyoNgeLEW

Oblivion: Movie Review

Another apocalyptic film, this time starring Tom Cruise.

DirectorJoseph Kosinski WritersMichael DeBruyn (screenplay), Joseph Kosinski(graphic novel original story),

Cast:

I saw the trailer online, thought the concept was ok, but I didn’t care for it either way… I wasn’t in a rush. That aside, my general feeling for this film is one of mixed feelings. Personally, I find that it didn’t know what kind of movie it wanted to be. From the early stages, it’s definitely an apocalyptic love story with some action. Well, more of a haunted love story and a really grand optimistic view on a dark reality. I say haunted, not in the horror/scary movie sense, but just simply by a moment in time before this the end of the world. Then it turns into a fight for the power, but it’s very short-lived. In a 124 minute film, a good percentage is spent on the love story side of it all. Then the rest, roughly 45 mins, is all “kill the slave masters” (yes, I’ve been watching way to much Spartacus).

Tom Cruise.. He runs in all of his movies so if he didn’t do that, I would say that this movie really sucked. But, this role didn’t have him as hero bad ass, as his last installment, “Jack Reacher” would imply. But, he did run, and, surprisingly enough, he made his co-stars seem very much believable from his acting skills. Now that’s some talent. Andrea Riseborough I didn’t like, I don’t know her, by face, from any other film/role, but she creeped me out the entire time she had any screen time. Her role seemed to be the most organic, however. The main love interest, with the help of Cruise, also seemed to be very believable. She comes in late, but you kinda care for her once it’s all said and done.

The biggest highlight to this motion picture, was the cinematography. It just has these great use of camera angles and meaningful ways to convey hidden messages. There’s a bit of a Peter Jackson/Lord of the Rings style with showing a lot of landscapes as Tom Cruise’s character, “Jack Harper” travels the barren wastelands. They found great ways to get images to work in their favor. Apparently, they used a projector lamp to get some of their final shots. They took HD images of what they wanted, placed it behind  Jack Harper, who was in front of some kind of projection screen. It actually comes off pretty nicely. Typically, a director would just use some kind of “green screen” (so far I’ve seen purple, blue and the traditional green for effects of this nature). One thing I was disappointed with was that this movies seemed to be a movie worth a bigger scale. It could have easily been an Imax movie (after it’s all said and done of course) or looked just that much better in 3D. Truthfully, I can only guess why a movie isn’t in 3D these days.

The general story line gets mucky after the character Julia shows up. It just doesn’t flow as it once did. The audio for some actors isn’t entirely crystal, so when they speak, you hear them, but you can’t entirely hear what was being said. Now, that could have been due to the theatre of choice and then the theatres choice of auditorium (I saw it in an AVX theater for those of you Canadian/Toronto folks). the story also very predictable if you rationalize everything. The details point to a very clear “twist”, then by the end of the feature, you’re kind of left wondering how it all started, even with the explanation at the beginning.

Bottom line, it’s a good movie. If it happens to be in IMAX, for the cinematography alone, it’s worth the price. But, ONLY, on a cheap day. You really aren’t missing much that you need to pay for.

Rating:

  • Overall rating of the movie: 2.1 out of 5,
  • Cinematography: 5 out of 5,
  • Editing: 3 out of 5,
  • Audio: 2.1 out of 5,
  • Acting: 2.5 out of 5,
  • Theatres or wait for the blu-ray? Honestly, just download it when it gets to be a blu ray rip, & used the money you just saved on the soundtrack.

THAT’S IT! Cheers: “To Peace” . Your eLEWsive Thought Provided by: the “LEW System”

– Xavier – @CoolyoNgeLEW