Review: Mission Impossible, Dead Reckoning Part One

Mission: Impossible
Dead Reckoning, Part One
Cert: 12A / 163 mins / Dir. Christopher McQuarrie / Trailer

Things have finally heated up inside the cinema as well as out and the war is truly on for Summer box-office dominance, as the major studios triumphantly present their long-planned showcases for audiences who stopped going to the pictures in 2019. You love to see it. Paramount's saviour is, once again, Tom Cruise - perhaps the last of the great bankable movie stars who manage to get bums on seats purely by being themselves again in a slightly different hat. Anyway, there's a new Mission: Impossible flick out...

This penultimate instalment sees Ethan Hunt and his ragtag IMF team trying to prevent various world- and criminal-powers getting their hands on 'The Entity', a lengthily described yet sketchily defined self-learning, fake-news generating Artificial Intelligence, which could either destroy humanity or just convincingly swap-out the faces of everyone on ITV (whichever is the most inconvenient), activated by a two-part interlocking key*¹ that's been stolen from a Russian nuclear submarine. As McGuffins go, this one is nailed so firmly onto the zeitgeist that it's actually kinda quaint...

NOTED

Before we get into specifics, it should be noted that Dead Reckoning is incredibly solid. It's just never more than a Mission: Impossible movie. And while it's certainly arguable that it doesn't need to be, the whole thing plays out with breathless adrenaline and surgical flair, yet no real emotion at all. There's never the sense that this is leading to anything bigger than in previous entries (no matter how much Lorne Balfe's score swells), and for a screenplay which spends so much time harping on about its past, you'd be forgiven for expecting it to mean more, somehow...

There are slightly too many characters for the (admirable) simplicity of the story, each set-piece is slightly too long, and every rubber-unmasking is unintentionally funnier than the last.

Simon Pegg gets the lion's share of the comedic quips (delivering them perfectly, it has to be said) and a high-speed chase across the Italian cobbles in a yellow Fiat 500 brings some much needed silliness to the mood, but overall Christopher McQuarrie has gone for brooding intensity over fun. Again, whether levity should even be necessary is a debate for more scholarly viewers, but Dead Reckoning is far more slick in the moments when it's got a grin on its face.

GOODYEAR

Cinematographer Fraser Taggart puts in solid work all round with framing, composition and deftly following the action, plus capturing the immersive yet distinct colour palettes of the many locales. Unfortunately his work is slightly undone when it comes to the melee scenes (of which there are many), where Eddie Hamilton's editing fast-cuts between angles so quickly that the whole thing loses coherence rather than adding excitement. And because these physical sequences are often used to move the story along, the script then requires regular industrial-sized injections of exposition from Simon Pegg and Ving Rhames, as they sit in front of generic nonsensical laptop displays and explain to other characters where we're all at and what's happening next.

The choreography and stunt work itself is - it should go without saying - beautifully executed of course, huge in its scope and minute in its detail. At this point in 2023 however, the thought occurs that since Fast X has already shown us pseudo-family-bonding and destructive car chases, Mr John Wick has brawled and shot his way through half of Europe and Indiana Jones has had a prolonged train-top fight for a powerful golden artifact on a steam engine which is hurtling towards a bombed viaduct... well, what is Ethan Hunt bringing to the party exactly, except for all-of-those-again?*²

ANCALENDAR

Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning is great on a technical level, but unambitious on a narrative one. There's plenty in there to come to the cinema for, and yet little take away. Since the audience only trusts four characters at the start of the movie (and that only really raises to five), there's little jeopardy in tantalising that others 'might be a bit shady'. They're all a bit shady mate, that's why we're here. But Esai Morales going full Bond-villain as the marvellously camp Gabriel lifts that end of things considerably.

Decent, but the series has been better than this*³, so next year's finale has its work cut out.

Oh, and I'm taking points off for McQuarrie chickening out of a potentially brilliant and literal-cliffhanger ending, instead resorting to a damp squib of a decompression coda accompanied by another two minutes of expository voiceover...

*¹ SPOILERS, highlight-to-read: Apparently the powers-that-be are desperate to get their hands on both halves of this key, even though they're shown in the first act as having an exquisitely detailed 3D model of it, so they could just print that and then cast their own copies. There's something about some red and white 'dragons egg' jewels in the key's handle which light up when it's assembled, probably acting as a verification system, but this isn't explained in any practical sense either. We see two guys using it at the start of the movie and they literally insert the key into a lock and manually turn it. Lads, Timpsons are open until 6, they can run one of those out for you...
^{[ BACK ]}

*² Look, I know it's not Bruce Geller's, Erik Jendresen's or Christopher McQuarrie's fault that the action sequences of Dead Reckoning have been undercut by its own release-date but seriously: we've already seen most of this, and in films which weren't afraid to also make us laugh. I mean if they'd had Ethan Hunt punching a giant prehistoric shark at the end, at least he'd have got his foot in the door before Jason Statham...
^{[ BACK ]}

*³ The first two Mission: Impossible films are the best ones and for wildly different yet complementary reasons thank you I will not be taking questions at this time.
^{[ BACK ]}

DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Review: Christopher Robin

Christopher Robin
Cert: PG / 104 mins / Dir. Marc Forster / Trailer



Well I for one wouldn't have put money on a cinematic highlight of 2018 being Ewan McGregor's chemistry with a CGI bear. In fact, it's a damned shame that this (repeated) display is the best thing about Disney's Christopher Robin. As a demo-reel for what a great physical and emotional actor Ewan can be, this movie is worth every penny of the ticket.

But it's… well, it's Disney. We know what to expect from the sentimental live-action fare they present, yet it still stings a little when it's not as perfect as their animation. Don't get me wrong, Christopher Robin is a solid movie, but it's one you've seen elsewhere - and not just in Winnie The Pooh stories. Great care is taken to gently lay All The Hits into the script in terms of callbacks and catchphrases, and there are some solid gold moments in here. But it feels like a large idea written in small words, while Jon Brion and Geoff Zanelli's score tells the audience what they should be feeling at any given moment.

Never quite patronising but certainly simplistic, all the emotional buttons are pushed in a way which suggests a safe-play from the studio. Some great deadpan comedy performances get slightly lost in a script which uses twee slapstick as its default setting. I'm not entirely sure that director Marc Forster is the best candidate for the job (despite his excellent work with McGregor, as noted), having previously delivered the lacklustre World War Z and the oft-derided Quantum Of Solace. Moving around the genres is perfectly permissible, but mastering one along the way is preferable.

Christopher Robin's story itself is based on a solid enough premise of nostalgia, family values and paternal redemption, but it's a formula which Disney have already done to perfection with their first Mary Poppins outing. December hares toward us with considerable expectation, to put it mildly.

The film all but abandons its core-message after the first act, racing for the finish line and becoming that movie where the businessman tells his snide boss to stick it up his backside while making an inspirational speech with his daughter at the back of the room that results in a gradual-applause response. Basically, a Jim Carrey film in the late 1990s.

Christopher Robin is good, but despite its high-points you know it should be better.

On the plus side, the recurring motif of the red balloon was very reminiscent of IT, and during the dreamlike underwater-sequence I did expect Ewan to pick up then discard two opium suppositories. Damn that PG certificate.

It feels like a property with the cultural legacy of Winnie The Pooh perhaps deserves more, but that comes down to Disney's stewardship of the brand more than anything else, which is by no means a new issue.

At some point in its development, Christopher Robin was a fantastic movie. But this feels like Disney are lazily trying to ape the success of Paddington, and for that they'll need a little less schmaltz and lot more sincerity…

Well, Paddington, frankly.
Not that it really should be.



Wet Sunday afternoon, sure.



When it comes down to a sensible price it'll be a one to have on the shelf.



Well, McGregor should certainly be proud.



That's possible.



There isn't.



Level 1: Obi-Wan Kenobi, Commander D'Acy, Sio Bibble and Farns Monsbee are in this.
Sersiously, actors. Get onto Disney's books. You will not be idle.



Yes, even though I've done little but complain about it.
It's because I care, honest.




DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Review: Captain America - The First Avenger

Captain America: The First Avenger (3D / sixth-pass)
Cert: 12A / 124 mins / Dir. Joe Johnston / Trailer



Ah, a chance to separate the hardcore filmgoers from the opportunists, a test of theatrical endurance, that rarest of treats in this modern age: the triple-bill. To usher in 2016's blockbuster season*¹ and Marvel's Captain America: Civil War, a back-to-back screening of Super-Soldier adrenaline kicked off tonight at 18:30. The First Avenger, followed by The Winter Soldier, leading into a midnight screening of the newest installment. For a viewer who's resolutely Team Iron Man*², I'm unaccountably happy with this ;)

Now I've written about Steve Rogers' first outing on several occasions in the past. It's a film I absolutely adore, therefore it's one that I have no problem watching again. One of those movies I'm always in the mood for, in fact. A lot has changed since I started reviewing here, and I find I watch films differently now. In fact, that was very much the point. I didn't want to be using my Unlimited card several times a month and just letting each screening wash over me, leaving no impression as I sat glazed in the cinema*³. Writing about each film I see, including repeat viewings, helps me build a framework by which I can appreciate and enjoy them more. And generally speaking, by the time I've picked apart what I did and didn't like about the thing I've just watched, I arrive at a conclusion I'm happy to commit to the blog.

Now people's tastes change over the years, which is entirely as it should be. Watching a bunch of old movies for the first time, I know that I wouldn't have enjoyed many of them had I seen them when I was younger (and likewise there are a few entries which young-me might have enthused about, but which I now realise are dreadful). But I do find that my opinion on a specific movie doesn't really change once I've watched it. I'll find new details to love (or new bugbears to hate), but the work as a whole will sit in pretty much the same slot.

And it's with that in mind that I'm going to do something I wouldn't normally do. Because I read back my previous mutterings on The First Avenger and I appear to have repeatedly scored it six out of seven when it's clearly a bloody seven. So I'm changing that from this point onward. I also make a point (okay, occasionally) of saying that the number attached to a film doesn't necessarily make it comparable to another one with the same score. My final ratings are more a measure of the film's potential versus its actuality. But y'know what? The First Avenger actually can be compared directly with The Winter Soldier, even though the former is a far more enjoyable movie (although more on the second shortly). In short, Cap gets ramped up to full-marks, this outing.

Against the collective stories which have followed it (and that I still love, remember), I genuinely believe that this might be the perfect Marvel Cinematic Universe film. Bolstered by Alan Silvestri's score, director Joe Johnston captures the uncynical spirit of adventure which made the Indiana Jones movies so much fun. This is a science-fiction tale which is relatively light on the unexplainable 'magic' it needs to fuel the plot. A classic underdog origins story, Steve Rogers is the archetypal hero, empowered by science and morality, but completely unbound by ego and with an innate understanding of everything he's fighting to protect, pitted against a supernatural villain who feels like a genuine threat because he's a complete psychopath and a macguffin which could destroy everything. And from the sure-footed roller-coaster of a movie comes a victorious ending laced with an agoraphobic melancholy which hasn't been matched before or since. The 1940s setting separates the film both chronologically and tonally, and sets up (and ret-cons) events to come, while owing nothing to them. With the exception of the final five minutes, this is a true standalone feature and it still encapsulates the essence of Marvel.

So yeah, I've changed my mind. The First Avenger isn't a great film, after all.
It's a brilliant one.

Indiana Jones, The Rocketeer.



If you can.



Absolutely.



It may well be.



I very well might.



There absolutely is.



Level 1: Mace Windu's in it. And Richard Armitage from off of The Phantom Menace.





*¹ Sorry Clark and Bruce, you don't count. I wish you did, but there we go.

*² Yup. Style over righteousness, I'm afraid. Every time.

*³ Although some movies just have that effect anyway, to be fair. But I try.



DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Review: Ant-Man (second-pass)

Ant-Man (3D / D-Box / second-pass)
Cert: 12A / 117 mins / Dir. Peyton Reed / Trailer



So I read this article (also linked in my previous review) in which Avengers writer/director Joss Whedon says:

"Somebody said, ‘Well, that was a great setup for the next thing!’ in one of the test screenings, and I died inside. [Marvel executives] were like, ‘No! They say that all the time, it’s fine.’ I was like, ‘No, that’s the worst thing I could have heard.’ I want people to come out feeling done."

…and while I feel for Mr Whedon, I have to admit that the reaction of the audience-member in question isn't a million miles away from my own over Marvel's latest saga-installment, Ant-Man. Apart from the fact that it's slightly counter-intuitive to run mid/post-credits teasers for the next film in the series if you're going to complain when people leave the cinema rubbing their hands in anticipation for three/six/eight months time, and apart from the fact that the script for Ant-Man is littered with both references to the previous movies and setups/foreshadowing for future ones, the bottom line is that it's part of a steadily expanding series, and not really an individual movie.

It could certainly be enjoyed as a standalone if a viewer hadn't seen any of the previous MCU flicks, but structurally, the film is basically Captain America all over again: A well-meaning, if troubled, young man is given a shot at greatness by an enigmatic mentor who's been working on a scientific means of enhancement, so that he can a) grow as a person and character (à la The Hero's Journey), and b) settle a score for the mentor by vanquishing his enemy who is using an ideologically twisted version of that same enhancement as a tool to gain power. It's not a new structure for storytelling, of course, but it's not even a new concept for this series.

So if audiences distract themselves from that thematic hurdle by reading the portents and hints you've left in plain sight, don't get too disheartened, okay? From a business point-of-view you're doing it right, and if they're leaving the screening-room with smiles on their faces, you're doing well in terms of the long-term story, too ;)

Plus, if you want to keep your audience's attention on the right-now, maybe stop dropping shit like this?



* cough *

Anyway, as you may have gathered, I caught Ant-Man again at the weekend, this time in eye-popping 3D and in D-Box. The 3D is well-enough implemented but, like most live-action movies, isn't in any way essential for enjoyment of the film. It seems odd that these movies are released in 3D as default now, yet there still aren't that many '3D moments' in them, which suggests a lack of confidence as far as the cinematography is concerned. The D-Box on the other hand is essentially a plush leather seat which gently sways when characters are in the air, gently thrums when characters are in a car, and shakes like fuck when things are getting broken. Which, in a movie like this, is quite a lot of the time (although each seat is adjustable). Like the 3D, once you adapt to it, it's quite fun (if a little distracting) and in no way makes for a better movie. It's not that I'll never sit in D-Box again, but it probably won't be until Star Wars, put it that way.

In more film-related news, I'm glad to say that Ant-Man's smaller plot-points make more sense the second time around (as is standard form for the MCU), but I still think the film's a little scattershot at times and doesn't make full use of its lead actor. But it's still bloody good fun. As with Guardians of the Galaxy, the film's humour works better when you're watching with a large audience, so see it sooner rather than later.

The 3D's not really necessary, the D-Box even less so, but the bigger the screen you see Ant-Man on, the better.

And stay 'til the end.
Obviously.

You could pay your money and see something a lot worse, put it that way.



I'll be buying it, but probably once the BluRay comes down to a tenner.



With the best will in the world, no.



It achieves what Marvel set out to do; I'd genuinely love to hear Edgar Wright's thoughts on it.



Not a lot.



Watching it again, I still can't hear one, no.



Ant-Man stars Evangeline Lilly who played Tauriel in the Hobbit movies, alongside Sir Christopher 'Dooku' Lee.







DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Review: Ant-Man (first-pass)

Ant-Man (2D / first-pass)
Cert: 12A / 117 mins / Dir. Peyton Reed / Trailer



And here we are! It seems like a bloody age since I first saw the trailer for Ant-Man and thought 'yep, I'm on for that!', and the day has finally arrived, albeit with less of a fanfare than we've become accustomed to for films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Using the names and general premises of the established characters but moving the pieces around the board enough to feel fresh (as is the modus operandi of the MCU), Ant-Man sees ageing physicist and inventor Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) and his daughter Hope (Evangeline Lilly) recruit the wayward Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) to protect his Pym Particle formula; the scientific process by which a human can be shrunk to the size of an ant whilst retaining their strength and momentum. Locked out of his own corporation, Pym needs to utilise his own secret technology to prevent it being developed anew and sold to Hydra by the crooked CEO, Darren Cross (Corey Still). Short version: Lang goes all small, Cross goes all small, they fight, and Pym is caught in the middle looking concerned. And it's very good.

Funny and exciting in equal measure, Ant-Man is genuinely deserving of a place in Marvel's Avengers timeline, although the most disconcerting thing about the film is the knowledge that it wasn't always meant to be. While it always feels like Marvel, some of the references to existing characters and organisations feel a little shoehorned in, as if they've been added for no other reason than to reinforce the connection. That said, there are a few familiar faces dropping in (including Iron Man 2's John Slattery as Stark Snr, no less), and a bold verbal setup for everyone's favourite web-slinger. I honestly think this is a better film for being inside the existing timeline.

Importantly, director Peyton Reed knows how to have fun with his cast, and it certainly stands in contrast to the earnestly po-faced Winter Soldier, especially when Hydra is mentioned on-screen. The script doesn't quite make full use of Paul Rudd's comic ability*¹, but doesn't quite give him enough actual acting to do either, preferring to hand the gags to Michael Peña's Luis and his gang of small-time criminal misfits. Their gags and pratfalls work in context but as a result, Lang's humorous lines end up coming off like an inconsistent Star Lord. It's not a deal-breaker, but less is less this time around.

Michael Douglas is great value for money but feels a little under-used, as does Evangeline Lilly, yet the whole thing works as a whole and makes a great standalone movie. Just, a great standalone movie which talks about other movies quite a lot.

But hey, these are just my opening thoughts. Like all the MCU entries, there's a bit too much to take in on a first viewing, and like its predecessors, I'll be watching Ant-Man again pretty damned soon.

Spoilery-question, highlight-to-read: So if people/objects are shrunk by moving their molecules closer together, then they retain their original mass and density. But this means Hank Pym's pocket-sized keyring would weigh the same as a full-size tank, surely? It was still a nice moment, though. *shrugs*

The business-end:

• Is there a Wilhelm Scream? No.
• Is there a Stan Lee cameo? Yes.
• Is there a mid-credits scene? Yes.
• Is there a post-credits scene? Yes.

The post-credits scene is potentially more significant than the the mid-credits one, so have patience ;)

If you're into Marvel, it certainly is.



If you're not hyped enough to see it at the earliest opportunity, a rental should suffice.



In all fairness, not really.



It does, indeed.



Not too much.



Y'know, I didn't hear one.
More attention will be paid next time.



As well as a stonking-great visual reference to General Dodonna's Death Star assault plans, Ant-Man features a the dulcet tones of Mr. Tom Kenny (as the ugly-rabbit), who lent his voice to the Star Wars Angry Birds cinematic trailer. I've told you before, it's licensed: it counts.







*¹ Which is especially odd as Edgar Wright and Joe Cornish's original screenplay was reworked by Adam 'Anchorman' McKay and Paul Rudd himself.

DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.