Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation - 2015

"Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation" - 2015
Dir. by Christopher McQuarrie - 2 hrs. 11 min.

Official Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

Impossibly, these "Mission: Impossible" movies seem to keep getting better.  To give a quick history of my viewership of these films, I was okay with the first, hated the second one so badly that I refused to see the third, watched the fourth only because it was Brad Bird's first live-action directorial job (and was very happy with that film), and was actually looking forward to this fifth installment.  And this one delivers, at least as well as the fourth film did.

Once again, Ethan Hunt  (Tom Cruise) is back on the job, trying to get his next assignment.  However, he's been identified by the enemy, an organization called "The Syndicate," and is captured in a typically elaborate manner.  Meanwhile, Stateside, William Brandt (Jeremy Renner) is tasked with defending Hunt's and the IMF's actions against accusations by the director of the CIA, Alan Hunley (Alec Baldwin).  Ultimately, the IMF is shuttered and folded into the CIA, and Hunt is on the official government shitlist, trying to solve the issue of the Syndicate without any official help.

So, let's get the big stuff out of the way.  With films in this franchise, you know there's going to be at least a couple of spectacular, arm-rest-gripping scenes, and that they completely need to deliver.  There are two (well, three, if you include the opening scene), and they come correct.  The car chase is spectacular and wild, and there's an underwater scene that's just as gripping.  So rest assured that you'll get your action fix.  As far as the actors, they've eased into their respective roles.  Especially so with Simon Pegg, whose exasperation with Cruise's character is a constant stream of amusement.  He has a more prominent role this time around, and he's game.

Beyond that, the story does carry some intrigue.  There are unexpected twists and turns, and the movie keeps you guessing all along, until you see exactly how things are going to play out.  I mean, you know that everyone's up to something, and that the movie is essentially a series of reveals, and that's okay.  That, along with the action pieces, are why you'd show up for a MI movie.  That, and the girl, of course.

Someone get Rebecca Ferguson a towel!

Ilsa, played by Rebecca Ferguson, is up to the challenge of stringing along both Ethan Hunt and the leader of the Syndicate, and looking damned good while doing so.  It's not a femme fatale situation; Ilsa has her own motives beyond romance (and there's not exactly a romance angle in MI5; there's the possibility, but Ethan always has other things on his mind).  And, as the picture above shows, the nod to Ursula Andress in "Dr. No," albeit in evil black instead of white, was appreciated.

I don't have anything bad to say about MI5.  I was looking forward to seeing this one, and it delivered.  One might suggest that the complicated traps and the insane stunts stretch credibility, but that's exactly what you sign up for when you buy your ticket to a Mission: Impossible movie.  So no complaining about that now.  I was completely into the story, and the run-time flew by, and the twists and turns worked.  "Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation" is maybe the best of the five movies (or at least even with the fourth installment).  It used to be that sequels were an exercise in the degradation of a concept, but this franchise and the Fast & the Furious franchise prove that doesn't have to be the case.

4 / 5 - Theatre

Paul - 2011

"Paul" - 2011
Dir. by Greg Mottola - 1 hr. 44 min.

Official Red Band Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

"Paul" is that movie with Simon Pegg and Nick Frost that's not part of their "Three Flavours Cornetto" series, even though Pegg and Frost wrote this one.  I guess it not being directed by Edgar Wright is the difference.  Also, they're in America this time, which is another difference.  But it's still pretty good.  It's not great; it's like a well-written version of a fairly thin idea.  So that means that whatever you think of the idea of two comics nerds coming across a genuine alien and engaging in a road trip, this is one of the best possible versions of whatever is floating around in your head.

Clive (Frost) and Graeme (Pegg) are a pair of British comic book fans who are fulfilling a life-long dream of attending ComiCon in San Diego.  Since it's quite a haul from GB to San Diego, they've also rented an RV, and are taking a road trip through the southwest, hitting up all the big alien-related hotspots, like Area 51 and Roswell.  Along the way, they discover a genuine alien, named Paul (voiced by Seth Rogen), who is trying to escape the clutches of the government.  Also, he's foul-mouthed and smokes weed.  Among the government agents trying to track down Paul are Agent Zoil (Jason Bateman), and Haggard (Bill Hader) and O'Reilly (Joe Lo Truglio).

One of the unusual things about "Paul" is that it's a movie with two straight-men.  Both Clive and Graeme aren't really the sources of the humor, unless you're really amused by the notion of attending ComiCon or digging alien stuff.  Instead, they spend a lot of time reacting to the people and the world around them.  To some degree, this is a political statement about the oddness of America, from a fish-out-of-water viewpoint.  It's also literalized through a pair of hillbilly bullies, Gus (David Koechner) and Jake (Jesse Plemons).  But this approach might be part of the reason why the cast is stacked, comedically-speaking.  I haven't even gotten around to mentioning that Kristen Wiig is in the movie, and pretty much steals the show whenever she's on-screen, and we're already something like a dozen deep of people who are funny every time out.

On the downside, Seth Rogen does pretty much exactly what Seth Rogen does every time in every movie he's in, but without the benefit of his physical acting and presence.  It's not so much that Rogen isn't funny, as it is that I'd like to see him do something against expectations at some point.  A genial, gravel-voiced little buddy is pretty much 100% what I expect out of him in this role, and a couple of "Observe and Report" moments would have gone far to keep audiences on their toes.  I'll admit this is a petty complaint; I've seen a lot of Rogen's movies, and I'm sure there are plenty of people that are perfectly happy watching him do his thing.

I'm happy I finally got around to watching "Paul."  It's not the best of the Pegg/Frost movies, but it's still pretty funny, and there's a near-infinite amount of really good comedians doing what they do.  And the entire run-time of "Paul" is worth it for the scene where Wiig's character breaks free from her oppressive religious father, and it dawns on her that she can do anything she wants, including cursing and fornicating.  Not only is her awkward pawing of Graeme hilarious, it sets her character down the path of learning how to swear for the rest of the film, which is one of the Rated-R highlights of "Paul."  I feel certain I'd watch it again, if I stumbled across it on cable, and I'd probably enjoy it just as much.

3 / 5 - TV (HD)

Hot Fuzz - 2007

"Hot Fuzz" - 2007
Dir. by Edgar Wright - 2 hrs. 1 min.

Official Trailer #1

by Clayton Hollifield

When you're going to do a comedy version of a genre film, there is a wide chasm waiting for potential filmmakers to stumble into.  And that chasm exists between overt amateurism and professional polish.  Anything that falls in between those two goalposts is going to pull viewers out of the film.  Good gags and scenarios will get you pretty far, but when it comes down to the action-filled climax, the goods must be delivered.  That, or it needs to be so absurdly, recklessly, irresponsibly stupid that all you can do is sit there and laugh that the filmmakers tried to get away with whatever they're trying to get away with (like the mansion fire near the end of "Orgazmo," or the bus-leap in "Spice World").  Yes, "Hot Fuzz" works as a comedy, but the action is passable, too.

Nicholas Angel (Simon Pegg) is an overachieving, driven London Police Officer who's enthusiasm and skill at his job is making everyone else look bad.  He's given a "promotion," a better title in a rural village in the countryside, much to his co-workers' delight.  Nicholas arrives in Sandford to find a cozy model community, where things like teens in hoodies and gold-painted mimes are the scourge of the town.  Nicholas is paired with PC Danny Butterman (Nick Frost), the sort of slow, yet enthusiastic son of the police chief.  A series of mysterious deaths in Sandford convince Nicholas that a murderer is on the loose, but finding proof proves difficult.

The first hour of "Hot Fuzz" is flat-out hilarious.  Once Nicholas' stern, by-the-books character is established (and it takes all of about a minute to do that, with one of director Edgar Wright's signature near-montage sequences), literally everyone and everything starts hammering away at him.  It's an interesting approach, to show how an over-zealous approach (which is somewhat necessary to excel at anything) works in a real world where everyone is not even zealous, but complacent.  At least his partner is ambitious (or envious, maybe both), but without skill, that ambition isn't worth a lot.  The Angel character is an interesting flip from Pegg's character in "Shaun of the Dead"; instead of having to be roused to action, Nicholas is all tension and fury waiting to be unleashed, and must be forced into inaction.  Nick Frost's character is also not the same thing as in their previous work; Danny is eager to please, whereas Ed was antagonistic and a drag on whomever was around him.  It's very easy for comedians to slip into the same role and dynamic over and over again until every drop has been milked from it, but Frost and Pegg have avoided that completely here.

The second hour of the film when it turns direction into Nicholas vs. the baddies, and that's also when the action starts to take over a bit.  Now, I'm not going to tell you that "Hot Fuzz" would be a standout film if it had to rely on its dramatic chops, but it's close enough that if you caught it on cable, you wouldn't think it stood out as being incompetent either.  That's something that sometimes sabotages comedies; the people involved in making something think that just seeing Adam Sandler run in slow-motion (to make up an example) is going to be funny enough to overshadow the lack of professional rigor that a dramatic film would require of the scene.  Yes, it's pretty fun to see Simon Pegg atop a horse, armed to the teeth.  Yes, it's awesome watching Nick Frost jump through the air whilst shooting two guns.  But it's even better when the scenes make sense, work visually, and ALSO have Nick Frost jumping through the air whilst shooting two guns.

The result is that "Hot Fuzz" is a really good movie.  The humor's great, the action stuff works, there's some visual flair in the direction and action, and it's paced very well, without lulls.  I like "Hot Fuzz" better than "Shaun of the Dead," and that might just be because I like cop movies better than zombie movies.  Your mileage might just vary.  But if you like one, I'm pretty sure you'll like the other.  So I'll just shut up so you can get to watching "Hot Fuzz" and laughing along.

4 / 5 - Streaming

Shaun of the Dead - 2004

"Shaun of the Dead" - 2004
Dir. by Edgar Wright - 1 hr. 39 min.

Official Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

It seems hard to believe that by 2004, there was already some comedy push-back on the idea of zombie movies.  I mean, it's hard to believe it considering that the nearly ten years since have seen an explosion of films all offering up their tiny new wrinkle on the concept, to the point where rolling your eyes and sighing exasperatedly at any idea that includes even a mention of zombies is a more-than-reasonable response.  Especially considering that "Shaun of the Dead" pretty much nailed whatever needed to be nailed about the scenario (and "Zombieland" took care of the rest).  Thankfully, this is less a "zombie movie" than a lot of people's introduction to a Simon Pegg/Edgar Wright/Nick Frost film, which is far more interesting.

Shaun (Simon Pegg) is an underachieving pub denizen in London, and the predictability of his routine (along with his nonexistent goals) seem to be the source of friction between himself and pretty much everyone in his life.  This includes his flatmate Pete (Peter Serafinowicz), his girlfriend Liz (Kate Ashfield), and his step-father Philip (Bill Nighy), who all want more out of Shaun, and also feel that he's being dragged down by his loutish friend, Ed (Nick Frost).  Aside from the zombie outbreak that seems to happen in the background, Shaun has a terrible day that sees everyone he knows get angry with him.  And then, zombies.

"Shaun of the Dead" is a successful film for a lot of reasons.  A lot of those reasons are boring, nuts and bolts storytelling stuff (like character arcs, and good characterization), but that foundation holds up some pretty good performances (and good comedy bits).  Shaun is a character that everyone feels like they know.  At the same time, everyone seems to expect more out of him, and judging by the first act of this film, I'm not sure what basis that opinion was formed on.  He doesn't appear very bright, is certainly unmotivated by anything other than routine, and most of his friends just yell at him all the time.  His only friend who doesn't yell at him is pretty far from a good influence, and is also content to pass the time cracking wise in a pub.

But also, for something that's billed as a comedy (and is very funny all the way through), there's more of an adventure approach to the story.  There's jokes, and physical comedy, but the film isn't paced as a series of gags.  "Shaun of the Dead" isn't a film with crackling dialogue and shocking moments, it's about Shaun seeing around him what everyone else has been seeing with Shaun.  To Shaun's friends, who have goals and motivations (sort of), seeing Shaun working a dead-end job and killing time at the pub seems like a waste of time and potential.  But when the rest of society's normality drops to shambling about, groaning and biting at people, Shaun is finally moved to action to avoid falling into that trap, the same way his friends are motivated by not dropping to Shaun's level.

Because the main character changes over the course of the film, and because this isn't just a series of gags and one-liners, and that there's an actual story being told here, "Shaun of the Dead" holds up pretty well.  The humor is built up within the story, and doesn't rely on timeliness or current pop culture material, so what's funny is still funny.  "Shaun of the Dead" is really, really funny, even after a handful of viewings, and even after another decade of zombie material being beaten into the ground.  It would still be funny if it was released now, that's the hallmark of a good comedy.

4 / 5 - DVD

Star Trek Into Darkness - 2013

"Star Trek Into Darkness" - 2013
Dir. by JJ Abrams - 2 hrs. 12 min.

Official Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

By Sunday afternoon standards (which is when I saw this), "Star Trek Into Darkness" is perfect entertainment.  I grew up on weekday afternoon repeats of the original TV series, and then weekend episodes of "Star Trek: the Next Generation," and the newest movie fits right into that sort of slot.  It's funny, the characters play well off of each other, and the visuals are pretty stunning.  But if I'm being 100% honest about things, I'm not exactly sure how the content of this movie justifies it being a film that took four years to deliver to theatres, rather than the end-piece of a season of a kick-ass TV series.

ST2 opens up with Kirk (Chris Pine) and Bones (Karl Urban) having stolen a sacred scroll on an alien planet, luring the aliens away from their village that will be destroyed by an impending volcano explosion, which will basically exterminate that particular species of life.  Kirk, Bones, and Spock (Zachary Quinto) sort of succeed at this task, but not seamlessly, and it didn't really fall under their orders anyways, which leads to some demotions from Starfleet.  Meanwhile, another Starfleet officer, John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch), organizes what you'd have to call a terrorist attack against Starfleet headquarters itself, which leaves him on the run, many dead, and the Enterprise on his trail to a very dangerous locale.

One of the things that ST2 does really well is the brief, sharp exchanges between characters.  There aren't really soliloquies here, so much as commas punctuating the action sequences.  Kirk is a man of action, and although he's not an unthinking character, that's about all the self-examination you can realistically expect from him.  And since he's in charge, the other characters largely follow suit, albeit in ways that work with their own personalities.  There are also a number of stunning visuals, the best of which is probably in the opening scene, which has a planet with a red and white forest.  It's hard to explain how exotic it looks, but one of the film posters uses a picture from that scene:

Beyond that, there's plenty of space porn: nebulas, moonscapes, alien planets, ruins, enormous space stations.  And in at least a couple of scenes, director JJ Abrams really gets across a solid sense of the scale of these ships, something that's easily lost in space scenes with no normal points of reference.  In terms of the story, I felt like it worked (although one of the third act twists was so apparent from a very early point that there appeared to be a giant shoe hovering over the screen for the duration of the run-time, waiting patiently to drop).  Long-time Trekkies won't be entirely surprised by some of the things that happen, but I didn't find it to be a detriment to my enjoyment of the film.

But to get back to my early point, I'm just not sure that what was here was worth a trip to the theatre and waiting four years for a second installment.  That's not to say that I didn't enjoy ST2 quite a bit, and it's also not to say that you wouldn't, either.  I liked this one a lot better than the first one.  I will grant that some of the scenes of calamity aren't anything that you couldn't accomplish on a tight schedule, and that this movie had a couple of fairly intense moments.  But I'd argue that it wasn't any better than ST:TNG's Borg storyline, merely a bit prettier.  Part of the burden of doing franchise movies is that you have to realize that the characters' histories are loping behind you, and having watched years of Star Trek TV series, I feel like that's a more ideal environment for stories involving these characters.  You can't do big, action-filled stuff every week (and that's not really what the shows were all about), but more than half of the appeal of the earlier TV series is that you can see characters you like engaged in everything from drudgery to excitement.

I'd love to see these characters bored out of their minds and getting on each other's nerves (space is big and empty, it can't possibly be all explosions), but as long as there's one movie every so often, that'll never happen.  There's an obligation to deliver something specific if you're going to build up a story as an event, lest you derail the franchise and kill off any future sequels.  That totally didn't happen here: "Star Trek Into Darkness" is a lot of fun, and it's good popcorn entertainment.  But I was a little bummed out that there's not going to be another, tonally different story with these same characters next week.

3 / 5 - Theatre

The Adventures of Tintin - 2011

"The Adventures of Tintin" - 2011
Dir. by Steven Spielberg - 1 hr. 47 min.

Official Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

I feel like I need to preface everything that I'm about to say here about this movie: I'm not a fan of this style of animation.  As in, not at all.  As in, I usually refuse to see movies with the mo-cap/CGI combination.  To my mind, it misses the point and charm of animation, which is to simplify and distort for effect.  The idea of creating a photo-realistic world via computer animation is pointless; there's already a perfectly fine HD world that we're already all walking around in.  I spent many years as a cartoonist, so my opinion here isn't based on nothing.  And it's also not an opinion I'm likely to change.

Having said that, "The Adventures of Tintin" was actually pretty fun.  I spent most of the first ten minutes trying to remind myself to have an open mind towards the technique, and to just try to get lost in the story.  Thankfully, "Tintin" is a fast-paced, light-hearted, adventure movie above all else, so once I was in, I was in. Tintin, who I couldn't tell if he's supposed to be a small adult human or a big teenaged orphan (he has his own apartment, but his appearance suggests that he's not necessarily an adult), gets dragged into a long-running family feud by virtue of buying a much-desired trinket at an outdoor market.  Like any good adventure story, there are different settings (the high seas, a desert, exotic cities), lots of action, a plucky side-kick (Tintin's dog, Snowy) and a buried treasure.  Probably best of all, Tintin actually has a distinct personality, and isn't just a blank slate for the viewer to use as their doorway into the film.

The thing that makes "Tintin" the most fun is the light touch that director Steven Spielberg shows.  There's two great scenes that last less than a minute apiece that really show off that skill.  The first comes in the midst of Snowy trying to keep up with a truck that contains a kidnapped Tintin in it: Snowy takes a shortcut through a herd of cattle, eventually falling down to the ground.  Snowy raises his head right into a low-hanging udder, which causes the cow to raise it's head in surprise.  Then, rather than showing Snowy smacking into udders or zig-zagging through the hooves, the camera stays above the herd, where one after another, cows raise their head in surprise, indicating Snowy's path.  The entire chase is a lot of fun, but this particular detail was very clever.  The other scene comes in the middle of the movie, where Tintin is swimming in the ocean below the surface, his trademark poof of hair raised above water level.  It's a funny throwback to "Jaws," one that all the parents caught and chuckled at.  Those are probably the two best examples of the visual approach that Spielberg takes, but it's consistent all the way through the film.

I could nitpick the techniques used to make the film to death out of spite, but the truth is that the movie was good enough to make me forget about that aspect.  In a less sprightly film, the technique would have been a major turn-off for me as a viewer, but Spielberg managed to make it a non-issue.  That's probably as much as I could have hoped for.  I wasn't terribly impressed with the character designs (mostly, it seems that the extent of artistic license used was putting an exaggerated nose on otherwise sort-of realistic face structures), but that was addressed (sort-of) immediately in the film when we're introduced to Tintin as he's sitting for a portrait in an outdoor market.  The portrait is in the style of Herge, the cartoonist who created the character in the first place.  So what it comes down it that I enjoyed "The Adventures of Tintin" despite myself, and that I'd probably look favorably on a sequel, should it arrive (one was clearly indicated at the end of the film).

3 / 5 - Theatre

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol - 2011

"Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol" - 2011
Dir. by Brad Bird - 2 hrs. 13 min.

Official Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

Do you know how hard it is to win back a viewer after they've bailed on a franchise?  The simple answer: really hard.  You might even say... impossible.  As a quick background, I refused to see the third installment of the "Mission: Impossible" series because I absolutely hated the second installment.  It's been a few years now, so I couldn't exactly tell you why I hated it so much, but I disliked it so intensely that I refused to even admit the existence of a third installment.  And it might be selective memory, but I don't remember hearing much that suggested I missed out on much of anything.

So the question is, what is it that would make me reconsider?  There are two big reasons.  First, the trailer was really, really good.  If you want to sell a big, action movie, this trailer is textbook.  It promises insane situations, exotic locations, huge effects and action pieces, and is set to a really great song (Eminem's "Won't Back Down").  Secondly, it is the live-action directorial debut for Brad Bird, who has a couple of animated instant classics ("The Iron Giant" and "The Incredibles") to his credit.  To sum up: looks good, plus I'm curious about the director.

Going in to a movie like "Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol," you know that you're not likely to see a hyper-intelligent, mind-bending film.  That's not a knock, you're going to see an action movie, and you can't punch or kick a conundrum.  There are different standards for different films.  In a big-budget action blockbuster, the keys are whether the action pieces are satisfying, and whether or not there are any lulls that would let a wandering mind start to poke holes in the plot.  Thankfully, MI4 succeeds wildly on these accounts.

There is a pretty non-stop string of action pieces from beginning to end, with lulls just long enough to let you catch your breath and start to build anticipation for the next sequence to get underway.  Things kick off with a prison break, which is a great way to reintroduce the Ethan Hunt character that Tom Cruise plays (as well as the rest of his team).  From there, there are extended sequences in Russia, Dubai, and India.  I'd rather not get into specifics (it's much more fun to kick back and enjoy the events not knowing what's coming up), other than to say that there is a fun travelogue-esque aspect to this film, and that the Dubai sequence of events is beyond spectacular.  There's also a certain logic to the physical combat in this movie that's refreshing - Hunt in particular may achieve his goals, but it's rarely smoothly or without some personal physical agony.  It humanizes his character, and gives a little weight to his nearly suicidal complete lack of regard for his own well-being.  It's one thing for a character to attempt death-defying feats if they routinely escape unscathed, but when Ethan Hunt tries something in this movie, you know that it's at his own peril.

"Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol" holds up well against the other big action movies of the year.  Although the story doesn't have a tremendous amount of depth, it's a true adrenaline ride, possibly more so than other films of it's ilk.  It's also a refreshing deviation from wise-cracking action stars delivering punchlines out of the side of their mouths; Ethan Hunt is a machine, but verbal cleverness isn't part of what he has to offer.  The character understands what is at stake, and prioritizes success over literally everything else.  With that driving the film, even the impossible (like me jumping back on the franchise bandwagon) becomes possible.

3.5 / 5 - Theatre