"Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation" Review

Spanning five films and almost twenty years, the Mission Impossible franchise has had its up and downs. Starting in 1996, the films have been varied in quality, with the last one, “Ghost Protocol”, being by far the best. With its focus on teamwork, death-defying stunts, and general fun, that film become one of my favorites of 2011. Now, four years later we have “Rogue Nation”, a film that touts itself as having not only impressive stunts, but real ones that Tom Cruise performed himself. Going in, I had high expectations not only from the quality of the last film but also from the overwhelmingly positive critical response it has received. The only question is, did it live up to the hype?

                Picking up years after “Ghost Protocol”, Ethan Hunt is still with the IMF and is still active in crazy missions. For over a year, Hunt has investigated into a conspiracy involving an agency made up of missing or presumed dead agents named the Syndicate. They seem to be involved in major deaths and events across the globe all involving political figures. Before Hunt can fully reveal his findings, he is kidnapped by the Syndicate. At the same time, the IMF is shut down by the CIA, leaving Hunt alone and on the run. After six months of silence, Ethan Hunt returns to recruit his old IMF buddies to finally take down the Syndicate.

 

                Just like the last film, the plot of “Rogue Nation” is overly complicated and nonsensical. There were many points where I had no idea what was going on or why the team had to do certain things. Yet, it’s obvious that story was not the main focus of the film and is made up in the characters and parts of the script. Everyone has a funny line or good banter with each other, Jeremy Renner and Ving Rhames especially. Simon Pegg is also funny as always, yet they do feel somewhat useless. Pegg is utilized multiple times, but Renner and Rhames are only there to spout some lines of dialogue and tag along for Cruise to shine in his action scenes. In the end, I’m still glad they were included, since they give the film a comedic edge that makes it seem like the filmmakers are in on the joke with audience, that being that “Rogue Nation” is a silly movie at heart and should not be taken seriously.

                While the story is lackluster, the action is anything but. As I stated earlier, Cruise did most of his own stunts, included the scene where he hangs off the plane as it takes off. 

Yes, that was real. 

Many of the set pieces are a step down in scale and sheer insanity from “Ghost Protocol”, but they are made impressive by the fact that they were done on set with very little CGI utilized. There is a scene that requires Cruise to be underwater with no oxygen tank for three minutes. In order to shoot the scene, he learned how to hold his breath for six minutes. That kind of crazy dedication elevates these scenes from a downgrade to probably more impressive than the last film. It cannot be ignored though that many moments are implausible and ridiculous. Cruise wipes out while flying at high speeds on a motorcycle, yet he immediately gets up and acts as if nothing has happened. He should be dead, or at the very least have giant wounds on his entire body. While the film has a somewhat silly tone, that does not excuse the lack of logic, even if it does lead to cool and exciting action sequences. 

                Yet, something feels lost in the transition from “Protocol” to “Nation”. There is less focus on the team and instead returns to being the Tom Cruise show. While not a huge issue, it is sad to see many of the side characters reduced to background props when they could have bigger roles. Also, there seemed to be less tension in the action scenes. While they are still impressive, they never left me on the edge of my seat or gave my panic attacks like “Protocol” or even this year’s “Mad Max: Fury Road” did. The action has a better behind the scenes story then an actual bearing on the plot. 

                “Rogue Nation” is not a bad film by any stretch of the imagination, in fact it’s up there as one of the better Mission Impossible movies. Yet, it cannot be ignored that it is a step down from its predecessor and is an above average summer blockbuster when taken on its own merits. I do recommend “Rogue Nation”, as it stands out from many other offerings in this waning summer season, just go in with lowered expectations.

               

"Don't Look Now" Review

The 1970’s are well known for their quality of films; films that are thoughtful, controversial, and different. This was the time of social and individual revolutions, and movies were there to explore these ideas.  Nicolas Roeg’s “Don’t Look Now” is one such film. It is one of the most radical, risky, and gratifying films I’ve seen, and that makes it all the more difficult to talk about. This film is one that needs to be experienced, one that the viewer should be mostly unaware about. I went in with this mindset and was greatly rewarded, so this is my one and only warning: if you don’t want to be spoiled, then do not read the rest of this review.

                “Don’t Look Now” follows a married couple played by Julie Christie and Donald Sutherland who have a skeleton in their closet. Their daughter accidently drowned in a river outside their house, her death leaving a noticeable scar on the family. Years later, the two are in Venice (ironically a city known for its rivers) doing their jobs as architects and restoring old churches. One day, Christie meets a pair of sisters, one of which is blind and claims she can see her daughter who is happy and well. Christie is obviously stunned by this, but she soon accepts this statement and changes her attitude completely. She is finally happy and has come to terms with the death, yet Sutherland is worried that this might not be the best way to get this reaction, and he is distrustful of the sisters in general. He doesn’t believe in the supernatural, openly criticizing the blind woman’s claims. Yet, he soon starts to see odd things and a feeling of foreboding looms over the couple as everything may not be as it seems.

                Talking about the plot of this film is hard, since it doesn’t truly reveal itself until the last twenty minutes or so, which is the genius of “Don’t Look Now”. It is a slow, methodical, and eerie two hour ride that hides under a vail for most of its runtime. Focus is given to random objects, dialogue hints at past events, and the editing cuts from scene to scene almost randomly. This scattershot film making plays with the viewers expectations, eventually playing with their mind. You think something is going to happen, so you make up details. Characters show up in the background, certain camera shots have larger meanings, and you swear you saw one of the sisters in that fast cut. All of this serves to create a feeling of dread, waiting for something to explain it all. When the explanation comes, and it comes in a spectacular fashion, all the waiting and minutes seemingly wasted all make sense. 

                To be more specific, this film would be nothing without its frantic and unique editing style, which when mixed with the cinematography, instills ideas into the viewers mind simply with imagery by cutting between scenes that are matched in themes and thought processes alone. For example, there is a set-piece where Donald Sutherland is hanging precariously from a scaffolding, hanging on the edge of death. Cut in-between the action are scenes of the sisters laughing, seemingly mocking the non-believer without even looking at him. 

                 Credit must also be given to the two main actors Sutherland and Christie, both of which give great, if at times outlandish performances. Sutherland in particular, whose screams of agony when pulling his daughter out of the river came off as comical rather than heartbreaking. Yet, when they need to be a married couple in distress, both do an excellent job. The controversial sex scene is a great example, expressing their crumpling marriage coming back together after a long time through their naturalistic and un-cinematic love-making. 

                As I’ve stated many times already, it is difficult to talk about “Don’t Look Now” since it is something one has to view for themselves. It is a film that has been called haunting and horrific, but no one can understand why until they’ve felt the agony of sitting through a scene where Sutherland is unknowingly chased by a mysterious man through the claustrophobic streets of Venice, his figure appearing at the end of every cut. We have no idea who the man is, but we know there is a murderer on the loose. We also know Sutherland does not trust his wife, or the untrustworthy sisters. These ideas mixed with the presentation serve to make a creepy atmosphere that never leaves the film. While slowly paced, “Don’t Look Now” is well worth the time and patience it takes to get immersed in its unique vision of a marriage ruined by death.  

Amy (2015) Review

  Documentaries are an interesting genre of film. If done correctly, they can make any subject interesting and can entertain while informing the viewing. If done incorrectly, they can support the stereotype that documentaries are boring and inaccessible. Director Asif Kapadia proved the former with his film “Senna” about world famous Formula 1 racer Ayrton Senna whose tragic death changed the safety rules of the sport. The film itself is able to draw in the viewer with this man’s story, even if they have no interest in racing, such as myself. It is a fantastic film and one that I suggest to everyone, which you can watch on Netflix right now.

               

  Recently, I found out about the documentary “Amy”, which focuses on the career of Amy Winehouse and is directed by the same man. Not only am I a fan of “Senna” but I’m also a fan of Winehouse herself. She was one of the first musicians I ever listened to extensively, buying all three of her albums and learning the words to many of the songs. Yet, I started listening to her about a year after her death, so I didn’t get to experience the tragedy of a fan seeing their idol pass away. The want to know her story and the talent behind the film made “Amy” one of my most anticipated films of 2015. After seeing it, I have to say it went beyond my expectations.

              

    “Amy” is different from many documentaries in how it presents itself, which was also done in “Senna”. While Kapadia conducted extensive interviews for this film, there is no footage of these conversations. Instead, the audio is used to narrate footage of Amy from concerts, talk shows, tabloid photos, and even home movies. This is the film’s main selling point and biggest strength since it never leaves Amy’s story. We follow her from her first record deal in the early 2000’s to her death in 2011 and we never leave her side. The audience essentially becomes a fly on the wall to her life, seeing every step of her journey. We see her best successes and her worst downfalls, all while her family and friends describe these situations. It’s immersive and puts the viewer directly in the action. This was used in “Senna” with footage from inside the cars, showing the audience just how fast and dangerous these vehicle were. “Amy” uses this to give an intimate portrait of Winehouse and her career.

                

    One aspect of the film that surprise me was how honest it was about everything. While it does have the mindset that this whole thing is a tragedy, it’s not afraid to show or discuss some truly dark parts of Amy’s life. One effective scene is when she goes to an island to rehabilitate and the footage used shows her in a bikini. At this point, she was deep into her drug/alcohol addiction and her bulimic practices, meaning her body is closer to a skeleton than a healthy woman. While attention is never really drawn to it, it’s never hidden. It is simply there to further prove the severity of the situation.

               

   A nice touch the filmmakers added was connected her music to events in Amy’s life. Many times, the film will focus on an issue or situation that had an effect on her, like her different boyfriends or attempts at recovery, and then it’ll show concert footage of a song that relates to said event. While she performs, the lyrics will appear on screen in her handwriting, furthering the connection. There is a section that talks about her first love in her late teens. He was in his early 20’s and she was madly in love with him, at least for a bit. She soon turned on him, wanting him to be a dominant force in her life when instead she had to fill that role. This failed relationship lead to her first single “Stronger Then Me” which makes several, specific references to this person. “You’ve been here seven years longer than me”, “All I need is for my man to live up to his role”, are just a few examples.

               

                “Amy” is a tragic film, telling the story of Amy Winehouse’s rise to super stardom and how it eventually killed her. As a fan of Winehouse’s music, I was going to like this documentary no matter what, it was a given. What I was not fully expecting was how much I was going to love it. The amount of love, effort, and passion that went into this film is easy to see and is made for fans of Amy and newcomers alike. There were many moments that made me tear up or changed how I look at her music. Yet, the moment that truly got to me was the ending, which legitimately made me cry. “Amy” is now the third movie to ever make me cry. This mixed simply with the quality of the film make it not just one of the best documentaries but also one of the best movies of 2015. If you are a fan of Amy Winehouse, then you’ve probably already seen it. If you are like most and only know “Rehab” then this will be an even better film, since you are seeing it the way the filmmakers intended it, unaware and ready to learn.

I'm Coming Back!

That's right folks, after more than a year, I've decided to return to reviewing movies on this blog. This past year, I've been busy. I completed my final year of high school where I had one of my most difficult classes in AP English 12. I also worked a part-time job which I had been employed at since November 2013. Mixing those two severely cut my free time and drive to make reviews. While I still saw many films, and gave my opinion on them, I just didn't have the drive to write something or sit down and do anything with these thoughts.

I did produce a video analysis of Guardians of the Galaxy, which you can watch here. I was hoping this could help to reinvigorate my drive to review films, giving me a new medium with which to mess around in. Yet, It never panned out. Now, in the middle of the summer, and my college career looming in the distance, I've decided to start this blog back up.

At this point, I'm not sure if I want to keep a schedule or not, but I will update as often as I can. My reviews will also go back to the style I was adopting before the hiatus, so expect long paragraphs. Yet, I'm not keeping the review scores, I want to see how these reviews can work without them.

With all that in mind, I'm going to post a new review in a little bit, so be on the lookout for that. It's good to be back.