Friday, May 26, 2006
American Idol Badly Satirized
American Dreamz attempts to satirize American Idol, our current president and terrorism. I say attempts because it never quite gets there. Paul Weitz doesn't have the guts to go in for the kill in this movie. The film plays serious, but tries to get in a joke every once in a while. These jokes fall flat. None more so than Seth Meyers as a skeezy and scheming agent. It wasn't even two hours long and I found myself falling asleep in this film.
Reason Why More Care Should Be Taken When Translating Video Games To Film
Silent Hill is based on a very popular video game. I'm told the game is creepy and atmospheric. Well, at least the movie got the atmosphere right. The movie looks very interesting. Unfortunately when the characters are not running around confused, they are being forced to listen to seemingly never ending plot explanation. This movie was not scary and actually started to annoy me after about half an hour. This one might have been better had it remained a game.
Stay Away
It has been so long since I saw Stay Alive that I really cannot remember much about it. It had video game geeks battling a supernatural evil. I recall that much. Oh and it had television's Malcolm in the Middle star Frankie Muniz. Oh and it is laughably bad. An embarrasing blemish on the resumes of all involved. Even admirers of bad movies should probably stay away from this crap.
I'm not infallible
On my birthday several weeks ago I decided to see a movie. I had seen in the previews that the movie Stick It was written by the writer of Bring It On (2000). I'm not ashamed to admit that I very much enjoy Bring It On. She also directed the film and suddenly the importance of a director becomes clear. Because this movie was bad. It was painfully bad. Thank god I got to hear about how gymnasts have it way harder than Navy SEALS. I'm sure Gymnastics fans will eat it up. I very much rue that I saw this film.
Who Dies Next Game
Poseidon is of course a remake. No not of the made for tv movie that came out last year but the 1972 film starring Gene Hackman. The original also starred Ernest Borgnine which is for me pretty close to carte blanche to do whatever you want. This movie stars Kurt Russell and Richard Dreyfuss. Mr. Russell was in Escape from New York (1981) with Mr. Borgnine but that isn't enough for carte blanche. Sorry.
So it's a remake. Hollywood likes remakes, I've grown hoarse screaming that Hollywood needs to get an original idea, so I won't bore you too much with that here. Our movie begins with an overview. Literally an overview. We see a whole bunch of the boat and the different areas. We meet every key character in a single scene defining character moment and with that minimal development out of the way...bam. Rogue wave hits the boat and boat flips over. The ship's captain advises everyone stay put and wait for rescue.
Richard Dreyfuss conveniently is an architect who knows the boat cannot sustain the pressure upside down. A recluse hero emerges because that is exactly what the situation calls for. He leads a ragtag group of passengers up to the surface. There are numerous f/x laden sequences and of course there are some deaths in the works. If you have seen even a few disaster movies, then you can pretty much guess which characters will die. I knew almost from minute one, which ones were fish food.
There will be sacrifices and noble gestures not to mention ethical delimmas, although this last one is brushed over pretty quickly. It is fairly mindless so if you are just looking for something to veg out on this might be the film for you. And if you are really committed you might try to figure who will die next. It could be some fun.
So it's a remake. Hollywood likes remakes, I've grown hoarse screaming that Hollywood needs to get an original idea, so I won't bore you too much with that here. Our movie begins with an overview. Literally an overview. We see a whole bunch of the boat and the different areas. We meet every key character in a single scene defining character moment and with that minimal development out of the way...bam. Rogue wave hits the boat and boat flips over. The ship's captain advises everyone stay put and wait for rescue.
Richard Dreyfuss conveniently is an architect who knows the boat cannot sustain the pressure upside down. A recluse hero emerges because that is exactly what the situation calls for. He leads a ragtag group of passengers up to the surface. There are numerous f/x laden sequences and of course there are some deaths in the works. If you have seen even a few disaster movies, then you can pretty much guess which characters will die. I knew almost from minute one, which ones were fish food.
There will be sacrifices and noble gestures not to mention ethical delimmas, although this last one is brushed over pretty quickly. It is fairly mindless so if you are just looking for something to veg out on this might be the film for you. And if you are really committed you might try to figure who will die next. It could be some fun.
Ron Howard: Movie Innovator
Ron Howard has managed with his new movie The Da Vinci Code to do what I wasn't sure was possible. He has constructed a movie thriller with only two elements: Expository scenes and chases. Perhaps I should give the writer some credit, since we do that so rarely these days. Regardless of who is responsible, if you are looking for a film in which the whole movie is long, boring moments of excruciatingly detailed and ludicrous plot development followed by bland chase sequences, well then this is the movie for you.
Some claim it is pointless to retell the plot since everyone has read the book. I actually didn't. Nor did several people I know. Besides recaps fill up space. Tom Hanks plays Robert Langdon. Langdon is a symbologist. Some would bicker that he is actually a semiologist, but that great aid to our day the Oxford English Dictionary has both words, so potato, potato. Langdon is called to the scene of a grisly murder. The investigator thinks he is guilty, another thinks he is innocent and bam. The chase is on.
As Langdon and the sympathetic cop (a cryptologist named Sophie played by Audrey Tautou) run they learn or explain to each other tidbits of an elaborate church coverup regarding Jesus. They even go to get the help of an Englishman whose field of study is the exact thing they are caught up in. This is extraordinarily convenient for the two fugitives. Ian McKellan is the convenient character and he does play the role with the delight of a teacher showing you something he thinks is really cool but it doesn't stop it from being exposition.
There is also a parallel plot of an Albino monk named Silas (Paul Bettany) and a powerful Bishop (Alfred Molina). More chases and more exposition and we finally get the end. Whew! There we receive more exposition! This movie is long. Long and uninteresting and laughable when it deals with history. The only thrill I felt was in the previews section when I saw the new Superman Returns trailer. If Ron Howard works hard enough, I'm sure by his next movie, he can actually do away with the action all together and we can just get down to the basics. People telling other people what is going on. Or maybe he could just film someone with a great voice reading a book from cover to cover.
Some claim it is pointless to retell the plot since everyone has read the book. I actually didn't. Nor did several people I know. Besides recaps fill up space. Tom Hanks plays Robert Langdon. Langdon is a symbologist. Some would bicker that he is actually a semiologist, but that great aid to our day the Oxford English Dictionary has both words, so potato, potato. Langdon is called to the scene of a grisly murder. The investigator thinks he is guilty, another thinks he is innocent and bam. The chase is on.
As Langdon and the sympathetic cop (a cryptologist named Sophie played by Audrey Tautou) run they learn or explain to each other tidbits of an elaborate church coverup regarding Jesus. They even go to get the help of an Englishman whose field of study is the exact thing they are caught up in. This is extraordinarily convenient for the two fugitives. Ian McKellan is the convenient character and he does play the role with the delight of a teacher showing you something he thinks is really cool but it doesn't stop it from being exposition.
There is also a parallel plot of an Albino monk named Silas (Paul Bettany) and a powerful Bishop (Alfred Molina). More chases and more exposition and we finally get the end. Whew! There we receive more exposition! This movie is long. Long and uninteresting and laughable when it deals with history. The only thrill I felt was in the previews section when I saw the new Superman Returns trailer. If Ron Howard works hard enough, I'm sure by his next movie, he can actually do away with the action all together and we can just get down to the basics. People telling other people what is going on. Or maybe he could just film someone with a great voice reading a book from cover to cover.
An Open Letter of Anger
To Whom It May Concern:
Hi, let me introduce myself. I am Rory Larry, your friendly movie idiot. Some would question the wisdom of choosing a blog that names me as a movie idiot. I cannot argue with these people, since I will see any number of movies that aren't worth the celluloid they are imprinted on. I should tell you a few things about myself before I get any further. I am a comic book geek. I love reading comics, heck; I love collecting comics and then reading them again later. I have spent a lot of money over the years, sometimes when I had very little to spare all on comics. I'm not going to claim to be the biggest comic book fan; I don't even mark in the running for that title. I just enjoy them. I like Spiderman and Superman. I like the Green Lantern and the Hulk.
And oh yes, I like X-Men. I know like many that when Stan Lee was coming up with comic ideas in the early sixties that many of his creations were merely ways of expressing his thoughts on pressing social issues. X-Men clearly represented the issues of race that were pertinent at the time and still are today. I know lots of geeky things about specific characters and their powers, not better than some, or many for that matter, but I do know. I collect X-Men comics and read them and I watched the first X-Men movie with delight that it had finally made it to the screen. Some thought it a bit too expositional. I defended it saying things like "what do you expect? It's an introduction to many non fans and it has to be commercially viable to more than just us geeks."
I let you know that so that you know what one of my other favorite things in this world is. I love movies. I love watching them, reading screenplays, learning about which director or producer is involved, what actors have signed on and other tidbits of knowledge that bore other people. And I defend many genres of movies even if they aren't the best films around. Yes, in some ways I am a movie snob, but in other ways Red Dawn (1984) is one of my favorite films of all time. Yes, the movie from 1984 about Russians invading the USA and teenagers no less fighting against them. I watch it and smile at Patrick Swayze and C. Thomas Howell (remember C. Thomas Howell?). Powers Boothe as the gnarled old air force pilot who aids them. God bless Powers Boothe. So let me assure you that my love of Red Dawn should prove that I can enjoy a movie that isn't very good.
One more quick note, I don't mind adaptation. In fact I appreciate a well adapted film. I think the complaint "it wasn't like the book" is meaningless. If you want it to be like the book, just read the book. If you want to see a film, go to the movies, or rent. I don't even care if you mess with mythology. I enjoy the retelling of Superman in the show Smallville. One of my favorite current comics is Ultimate X-Men which is a re-imagining of the X-Men saga. So I don't get upset that a film is not true to the source material.
I apologize for this digression, but I felt it was necessary before I tell you how much I hated X-Men: The Last Stand. But let us not get ahead of ourselves. After the end of the second film, one got the feeling that a bigger, more flamboyant film was coming. One in which all the issues of the X-Men universe would come to ahead. So as our film begins (minus a few background moments that set up some plot points) the President has a Mutant advisor in Hank McCoy (Kelsey Grammer) and things seem to be getting better for mutants. We learn of a cure that has been developed and we see how this news is received. Hated by some, embraced by others, the plot flies back and forth between several characters at once.
The film at times requires a prosopographic lexicon for all but the most die hard fans just to identify the characters. Big ones like Wolverine or Storm are obvious, but will the common audience know that Warren Worthington III is Angel? Well he does have big white wings so maybe that was a poor example. Well in any event, Magneto (Ian McKellan) begins to stir up mutants and at a rally we meet several young and eager acolytes. I didn't catch names, if any were given. One has the power to sense mutants and their power. She says something about levels as if it is meaningful. I don't recall a name for her and she will be important so I'll name her here.
Plot Device seems like a fitting name. Since that is all she is, she shows up explains a power, where people are and general moves along a plot that is flowing like molasses. She really serves no other purpose, sure they give her a speed mutation as well so she can compete in battle, but do not be mistaken, she is a rather uninventive plot device. Plot Device helps Magneto find his lieutenant Mystique. She is in a convoy being escorted...well somewhere. This is the point of the movie were some really stupid and badly written dialogue introduces us to Red Herring and also a comic fan favorite Juggernaut. I know Red Herring was not his name, but it should have been, since that is his only purpose in this movie!!
Things get worse as Magneto declares all out war and a few X-Men stand against them in some sort of 'last stand'...hey, that's the subtitle of the movie! The only other 'last stand' I can think of is the one that Custer had...boy that didn't turn out so well. There is more to the plot; the Phoenix of course had to show up, mainly because it was alluded to in the end of the second film. But I'm already tired of describing it and I've probably already angered somebody reading this by revealing a spoiler, but it is nothing truly important really.
Mr. Ratner and his cadre of writing support staff lack subtlety. I really cannot say it more clearly than that. It rarely gets more banal and uninteresting when you have characters whose sole purposes are to work out a plot point or attempt to mislead the audience. You can pretty much calculate when a character is going to do something in this movie based on the economy of characters (relatively main ones at least). Hey, I haven't seen Red Herring do anything yet...oh here it is. Whew...I was worried you had forgotten him. Hey, Plot Device we need to advance the story what can you do for us? Excellent, let us go to that location and do stuff.
There are so many plots and subplots in this movie and all of them pretty boring. Wait...what is that? Must pause story for romantic subplot. Where would an action movie be without an unconvincing love story? There are also tons of characters. So many and some on screen for mere minutes that it felt as if Mr. Ratner had gotten a focus group of comic geeks together and told them "We only have room for 183 X-Men characters in this film, we need you to vote on which ones you want? Juggernaut? Okay can do. Moira McTaggart? Done and done." I think you get the picture.
Thank god the writers also picked up a copy of "Every Action Movie Cliche" and "Cliched Dialogue" at the bookstore. Because without those precious moments I might have been fooled into thinking Plot Device and Red Herring were actually inventive ideas. As in any good action film (or at least one that expects to make money) the film's final act is dominated by special effect laden fight scenes. It is this element that will make this film oodles and oodles of money. Enough people won't care about the fact that the film is really bad and will just enjoy seeing Iceman take his Ice form or Colossus his metal form or Wolverine slicing and dicing and doing what he does best.
But I never thought I would convince that market anyway. I don't expect to convince anyone. But even with a subtitle like Last Stand, the fight scenes lack some potency because one can be confident that Custer's fate is not in store for our heroes. In the end, it seems like some major things have happened definitive ending of the franchise type things. The kind of things that if I believed for one second they would actually follow through on, I could have actually offered them respect for. Two little moments occur in the final seconds. One you get before the credits, the other you have to wait for, so stay if you are so inclined. But I had already thought of the first after the cure was brought up and the second revelation can be seen coming miles away!!
I'm not convinced that Bryan Singer could have done better, although I eagerly await his Superman Returns. I thought X-Men 2 (2003) was a bit tedious at times, but I still enjoyed it. Mr. Ratner is no Bryan Singer. What acting there is in this movie is as well done as one could expect. The actors are some of the best in the business, Ian McKellan, Halle Berry, Anna Paquin. Still the utter lack of characterization in these shells that the actors have taken on leaves everything a bit wooden. I might be more harsh but I know who the characters are in a sense, because I've read the comics, the average viewer may be in more trouble. X-Men 4 will no doubt do away with plot, dialogue and acting all together and just be a two hour battle royale of Marvel Universe mutants. The irony is that idea would probably make it more popular and make it more money than all the previous three films combined.
Sincerely,
Rory Larry, The Movie Idiot
Hi, let me introduce myself. I am Rory Larry, your friendly movie idiot. Some would question the wisdom of choosing a blog that names me as a movie idiot. I cannot argue with these people, since I will see any number of movies that aren't worth the celluloid they are imprinted on. I should tell you a few things about myself before I get any further. I am a comic book geek. I love reading comics, heck; I love collecting comics and then reading them again later. I have spent a lot of money over the years, sometimes when I had very little to spare all on comics. I'm not going to claim to be the biggest comic book fan; I don't even mark in the running for that title. I just enjoy them. I like Spiderman and Superman. I like the Green Lantern and the Hulk.
And oh yes, I like X-Men. I know like many that when Stan Lee was coming up with comic ideas in the early sixties that many of his creations were merely ways of expressing his thoughts on pressing social issues. X-Men clearly represented the issues of race that were pertinent at the time and still are today. I know lots of geeky things about specific characters and their powers, not better than some, or many for that matter, but I do know. I collect X-Men comics and read them and I watched the first X-Men movie with delight that it had finally made it to the screen. Some thought it a bit too expositional. I defended it saying things like "what do you expect? It's an introduction to many non fans and it has to be commercially viable to more than just us geeks."
I let you know that so that you know what one of my other favorite things in this world is. I love movies. I love watching them, reading screenplays, learning about which director or producer is involved, what actors have signed on and other tidbits of knowledge that bore other people. And I defend many genres of movies even if they aren't the best films around. Yes, in some ways I am a movie snob, but in other ways Red Dawn (1984) is one of my favorite films of all time. Yes, the movie from 1984 about Russians invading the USA and teenagers no less fighting against them. I watch it and smile at Patrick Swayze and C. Thomas Howell (remember C. Thomas Howell?). Powers Boothe as the gnarled old air force pilot who aids them. God bless Powers Boothe. So let me assure you that my love of Red Dawn should prove that I can enjoy a movie that isn't very good.
One more quick note, I don't mind adaptation. In fact I appreciate a well adapted film. I think the complaint "it wasn't like the book" is meaningless. If you want it to be like the book, just read the book. If you want to see a film, go to the movies, or rent. I don't even care if you mess with mythology. I enjoy the retelling of Superman in the show Smallville. One of my favorite current comics is Ultimate X-Men which is a re-imagining of the X-Men saga. So I don't get upset that a film is not true to the source material.
I apologize for this digression, but I felt it was necessary before I tell you how much I hated X-Men: The Last Stand. But let us not get ahead of ourselves. After the end of the second film, one got the feeling that a bigger, more flamboyant film was coming. One in which all the issues of the X-Men universe would come to ahead. So as our film begins (minus a few background moments that set up some plot points) the President has a Mutant advisor in Hank McCoy (Kelsey Grammer) and things seem to be getting better for mutants. We learn of a cure that has been developed and we see how this news is received. Hated by some, embraced by others, the plot flies back and forth between several characters at once.
The film at times requires a prosopographic lexicon for all but the most die hard fans just to identify the characters. Big ones like Wolverine or Storm are obvious, but will the common audience know that Warren Worthington III is Angel? Well he does have big white wings so maybe that was a poor example. Well in any event, Magneto (Ian McKellan) begins to stir up mutants and at a rally we meet several young and eager acolytes. I didn't catch names, if any were given. One has the power to sense mutants and their power. She says something about levels as if it is meaningful. I don't recall a name for her and she will be important so I'll name her here.
Plot Device seems like a fitting name. Since that is all she is, she shows up explains a power, where people are and general moves along a plot that is flowing like molasses. She really serves no other purpose, sure they give her a speed mutation as well so she can compete in battle, but do not be mistaken, she is a rather uninventive plot device. Plot Device helps Magneto find his lieutenant Mystique. She is in a convoy being escorted...well somewhere. This is the point of the movie were some really stupid and badly written dialogue introduces us to Red Herring and also a comic fan favorite Juggernaut. I know Red Herring was not his name, but it should have been, since that is his only purpose in this movie!!
Things get worse as Magneto declares all out war and a few X-Men stand against them in some sort of 'last stand'...hey, that's the subtitle of the movie! The only other 'last stand' I can think of is the one that Custer had...boy that didn't turn out so well. There is more to the plot; the Phoenix of course had to show up, mainly because it was alluded to in the end of the second film. But I'm already tired of describing it and I've probably already angered somebody reading this by revealing a spoiler, but it is nothing truly important really.
Mr. Ratner and his cadre of writing support staff lack subtlety. I really cannot say it more clearly than that. It rarely gets more banal and uninteresting when you have characters whose sole purposes are to work out a plot point or attempt to mislead the audience. You can pretty much calculate when a character is going to do something in this movie based on the economy of characters (relatively main ones at least). Hey, I haven't seen Red Herring do anything yet...oh here it is. Whew...I was worried you had forgotten him. Hey, Plot Device we need to advance the story what can you do for us? Excellent, let us go to that location and do stuff.
There are so many plots and subplots in this movie and all of them pretty boring. Wait...what is that? Must pause story for romantic subplot. Where would an action movie be without an unconvincing love story? There are also tons of characters. So many and some on screen for mere minutes that it felt as if Mr. Ratner had gotten a focus group of comic geeks together and told them "We only have room for 183 X-Men characters in this film, we need you to vote on which ones you want? Juggernaut? Okay can do. Moira McTaggart? Done and done." I think you get the picture.
Thank god the writers also picked up a copy of "Every Action Movie Cliche" and "Cliched Dialogue" at the bookstore. Because without those precious moments I might have been fooled into thinking Plot Device and Red Herring were actually inventive ideas. As in any good action film (or at least one that expects to make money) the film's final act is dominated by special effect laden fight scenes. It is this element that will make this film oodles and oodles of money. Enough people won't care about the fact that the film is really bad and will just enjoy seeing Iceman take his Ice form or Colossus his metal form or Wolverine slicing and dicing and doing what he does best.
But I never thought I would convince that market anyway. I don't expect to convince anyone. But even with a subtitle like Last Stand, the fight scenes lack some potency because one can be confident that Custer's fate is not in store for our heroes. In the end, it seems like some major things have happened definitive ending of the franchise type things. The kind of things that if I believed for one second they would actually follow through on, I could have actually offered them respect for. Two little moments occur in the final seconds. One you get before the credits, the other you have to wait for, so stay if you are so inclined. But I had already thought of the first after the cure was brought up and the second revelation can be seen coming miles away!!
I'm not convinced that Bryan Singer could have done better, although I eagerly await his Superman Returns. I thought X-Men 2 (2003) was a bit tedious at times, but I still enjoyed it. Mr. Ratner is no Bryan Singer. What acting there is in this movie is as well done as one could expect. The actors are some of the best in the business, Ian McKellan, Halle Berry, Anna Paquin. Still the utter lack of characterization in these shells that the actors have taken on leaves everything a bit wooden. I might be more harsh but I know who the characters are in a sense, because I've read the comics, the average viewer may be in more trouble. X-Men 4 will no doubt do away with plot, dialogue and acting all together and just be a two hour battle royale of Marvel Universe mutants. The irony is that idea would probably make it more popular and make it more money than all the previous three films combined.
Sincerely,
Rory Larry, The Movie Idiot
Saturday, May 06, 2006
Let the Summer Action Movie Season Begin
The summer movie season is upon us, since it starts in May, although Summer doesn't technically start until June 21st. I guess there isn't a point to nit picking with Hollywood. As we all know the summer movie season is generally dedicated to mindless popcorn action flicks. This year is no different, coming right out of the gate with Mission: Impossible III. Forgive me for a bit of history and no doubt a misrepresenting of the argument but a poet of the early twentieth century named Vachel Lindsay wrote a book in 1915 called The Art Of the Moving Picture, in one chapter on action films, he argues that they are supposed to be mindless with poor character development, because its about the chase scene or the fight scene.
I find this to be flawed in our current world, because I've seen movies that do both. Michael Mann is pretty good at developed characters and chase scenes. John Frankenheimer did wonders in Ronin (1998). If we accept a crappy action filled two hour movie with no character development then we will get exactly that. Okay I'll try to stop moralizing about film now. So when I went to see Mission: Impossible III, I tried as best I could to not let the absurd at times incoherent plot get to me. This was very hard for me to do. But I think I managed okay. So I'll attempt to leave any criticism of the plot out of this review.
Tom Cruise has returned as Ethan Hunt, who is now engaged to a woman, who thinks he is a traffic pattern specialist in a DOT. I've found lies are the best way to cultivate a caring, loving relationship and apparently so does Ethan Hunt. He's asked to do one more mission, despite not doing that stuff anymore and eventually gets caught up in a bigger mission, going head to head with Owen Davian (Philip Seymour Hoffman). There are twists and turns and lots of really intense looks. And in the end we have a happy ending. Sorry if I ruined that for you, but then again if you didn't know that all would be right with the world in the end, then you really don't pay attention in these types of movies.
Okay, I've summarized the movie as much as I can without criticizing it endlessly. Did this movie have anything to speak to its being good? Philip Seymour Hoffman is the answer. He was a villain in the way you want a villain in a movie like this. Cold blooded and unfazed by anything the hero could threaten. Hoffman is delightful for most of the movie. It got a little disappointing in the end, when his character was suddenly doing things that seemed unlikely for the development they had established, but he was still fun to watch.
By contrast there was Tom Cruise. At times I think Tom Cruise is really good. He was amazing as a misogynistic help guru in Magnolia (1999). He was even great as a ruthless assassin in Collateral (2004). But most of the time Cruise is pretty boring. Here he fumes and huffs and puffs and really got on my nerves. He's supposed to be this bad-ass special agent, and his temper boils over faster than water on the surface of the sun. I'm not sure that last metaphor makes sense. Regardless, Cruise is boring and just not convincing as this super spy.
In fact most of the people in this film are unconvincing as super spies. Keri Russell has a small role as one of Hunt's trainees who was recommended for field duty. TV's Felicity for crying out loud! I'm sorry but, no, I don't buy it. What else did we get in this film? Jonathan Rhys Meyers, really well cast in Match Point (2005), really poorly cast in this. He didn't even do anything that couldn't have been done by another side character. Ving Rhames, I like Ving Rhames, but he isn't exactly a good actor. He does his cool guy routine the whole movie, its gotten tired after three movies.
Now the biggest casualties in the realm of actors. Laurence Fishburne plays John Brassel, a by the book, do your job right pain in the ass, who ironically is right most of the time in the movie. He does what he can with the role and it works, except that he is so methodical and strict that it doesn't make any sense when he is lenient on the very things he is critical about, if they succeed. Also in the position of upper management in this film is Billy Crudup. Poor, poor Billy Crudup. Poor development and a twist, a twist that makes absolutely no logical sense. Really I just found it silly.
I should note that early in the movie I saw a scene where Tom Cruise rides a motorcycle to an airfield to go on a mission. Two thoughts entered my head. One, wow that seems oddly reminiscent of Top Gun (1986), eerily so. Two, Why is he not wearing a helmet? I would guess its illegal to drive his bike without one and its common sense. What Super Agents don't have to worry about massive head trauma? This guy is an idiot.
I thought the Top Gun thing might be a fluke, but then later there was a scene when ol Tom has to get out of the country without the sophisticated gadgetry (he's gone rogue you see and can only use what is freely available). So he puts on a wig, a mustache and a skull cap. He now looks early like his character from Born On The Fourth Of July (1989). Apparently despite a warrant out for his arrest and presumably pictures of him posted at all major ports of exit from the country, trained security can be fooled by a disguise that makes him look exactly like him, except for a mustache and a wig. Oh well, que sera sera.
Back to the plot, sort of. In the first film, there was an elaborate amount of detail applied to the big set piece of the film, breaking into the CIA headquarters. There was explanations of the traps and security and it is pulled off cleverly. By this film, they can barely be bothered to explain why stuff is so hard to get into and often the skip actually showing you anything of the sort. They break into like four or five secure locations, it meant nothing by the end. They literally don't even show the last break in. It was absurd. A character actually says at one point that breaking into this one building will be harder than Langley. Its good to know that there are buildings out there in the private sector that are more difficult to break into than the headquarters of the CIA. Apparenlty the CIA is a cake walk in the world of b and e.
Well in conclusion, this movie was ridiculous. Of course the reality is, if you want to see this movie, nothing I say will change your mind, and if you had no intention of seeing it, then you didn't need my two cents worth. Still I felt the need to get it off my chest as it were. Here's hoping for no future Mission: Impossibles or would it be Missions: Impossible?
I find this to be flawed in our current world, because I've seen movies that do both. Michael Mann is pretty good at developed characters and chase scenes. John Frankenheimer did wonders in Ronin (1998). If we accept a crappy action filled two hour movie with no character development then we will get exactly that. Okay I'll try to stop moralizing about film now. So when I went to see Mission: Impossible III, I tried as best I could to not let the absurd at times incoherent plot get to me. This was very hard for me to do. But I think I managed okay. So I'll attempt to leave any criticism of the plot out of this review.
Tom Cruise has returned as Ethan Hunt, who is now engaged to a woman, who thinks he is a traffic pattern specialist in a DOT. I've found lies are the best way to cultivate a caring, loving relationship and apparently so does Ethan Hunt. He's asked to do one more mission, despite not doing that stuff anymore and eventually gets caught up in a bigger mission, going head to head with Owen Davian (Philip Seymour Hoffman). There are twists and turns and lots of really intense looks. And in the end we have a happy ending. Sorry if I ruined that for you, but then again if you didn't know that all would be right with the world in the end, then you really don't pay attention in these types of movies.
Okay, I've summarized the movie as much as I can without criticizing it endlessly. Did this movie have anything to speak to its being good? Philip Seymour Hoffman is the answer. He was a villain in the way you want a villain in a movie like this. Cold blooded and unfazed by anything the hero could threaten. Hoffman is delightful for most of the movie. It got a little disappointing in the end, when his character was suddenly doing things that seemed unlikely for the development they had established, but he was still fun to watch.
By contrast there was Tom Cruise. At times I think Tom Cruise is really good. He was amazing as a misogynistic help guru in Magnolia (1999). He was even great as a ruthless assassin in Collateral (2004). But most of the time Cruise is pretty boring. Here he fumes and huffs and puffs and really got on my nerves. He's supposed to be this bad-ass special agent, and his temper boils over faster than water on the surface of the sun. I'm not sure that last metaphor makes sense. Regardless, Cruise is boring and just not convincing as this super spy.
In fact most of the people in this film are unconvincing as super spies. Keri Russell has a small role as one of Hunt's trainees who was recommended for field duty. TV's Felicity for crying out loud! I'm sorry but, no, I don't buy it. What else did we get in this film? Jonathan Rhys Meyers, really well cast in Match Point (2005), really poorly cast in this. He didn't even do anything that couldn't have been done by another side character. Ving Rhames, I like Ving Rhames, but he isn't exactly a good actor. He does his cool guy routine the whole movie, its gotten tired after three movies.
Now the biggest casualties in the realm of actors. Laurence Fishburne plays John Brassel, a by the book, do your job right pain in the ass, who ironically is right most of the time in the movie. He does what he can with the role and it works, except that he is so methodical and strict that it doesn't make any sense when he is lenient on the very things he is critical about, if they succeed. Also in the position of upper management in this film is Billy Crudup. Poor, poor Billy Crudup. Poor development and a twist, a twist that makes absolutely no logical sense. Really I just found it silly.
I should note that early in the movie I saw a scene where Tom Cruise rides a motorcycle to an airfield to go on a mission. Two thoughts entered my head. One, wow that seems oddly reminiscent of Top Gun (1986), eerily so. Two, Why is he not wearing a helmet? I would guess its illegal to drive his bike without one and its common sense. What Super Agents don't have to worry about massive head trauma? This guy is an idiot.
I thought the Top Gun thing might be a fluke, but then later there was a scene when ol Tom has to get out of the country without the sophisticated gadgetry (he's gone rogue you see and can only use what is freely available). So he puts on a wig, a mustache and a skull cap. He now looks early like his character from Born On The Fourth Of July (1989). Apparently despite a warrant out for his arrest and presumably pictures of him posted at all major ports of exit from the country, trained security can be fooled by a disguise that makes him look exactly like him, except for a mustache and a wig. Oh well, que sera sera.
Back to the plot, sort of. In the first film, there was an elaborate amount of detail applied to the big set piece of the film, breaking into the CIA headquarters. There was explanations of the traps and security and it is pulled off cleverly. By this film, they can barely be bothered to explain why stuff is so hard to get into and often the skip actually showing you anything of the sort. They break into like four or five secure locations, it meant nothing by the end. They literally don't even show the last break in. It was absurd. A character actually says at one point that breaking into this one building will be harder than Langley. Its good to know that there are buildings out there in the private sector that are more difficult to break into than the headquarters of the CIA. Apparenlty the CIA is a cake walk in the world of b and e.
Well in conclusion, this movie was ridiculous. Of course the reality is, if you want to see this movie, nothing I say will change your mind, and if you had no intention of seeing it, then you didn't need my two cents worth. Still I felt the need to get it off my chest as it were. Here's hoping for no future Mission: Impossibles or would it be Missions: Impossible?
School Getting In The Way, Again
Hello, faithful reader, or more accurately, reader, who hates their job and uses anything, even my sad little reviews to waste company money. End of semester concerns have held me up from writing anything for a while. But believe me I have still been seeing movies. Unfortunately I can't recall much about them so some of these coming reviews may be a bit brief.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)