Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation (2015)

Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation (2015)

Director: Christopher McQuarrie

Cast: Tom Cruise, Rebecca Ferguson, Simon Pegg, Ving Rhames, Jeremy Renner, Alec Baldwin, Simon McBurney, Sean Harris

I’ve gone down as saying that writers turned directors don’t always make the best movies which is true a lot of times, but in the case of Christopher McQuarrie this isn’t so. McQuarrie started out writing The Usual Suspects (1995), then he took a stab at writing/directing with The Way of the Gun (2000) which I remember not loving so much the first time I saw it. I haven’t seen it in ages so I might feel differently about it now. His first experience working with Cruise was on Valkyrie (2008), which wasn't a successful movie, yet started their professional relationship which led to McQuarrie writing and directing Jack Reacher (2012), which also starred Tom Cruise. I remember it having an amazing car chase sequence that stood out. Making Jack Reacher with Cruise must have been a good experience because here he is again working with Cruise on his first big budget summer blockbuster; Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation (2015). This is the fifth installment in the still running strong franchise, which is growing in popularity with each picture. In my opinion, each film has been better than the last. So what’s so cool about this fifth installment?

This time around the IMF (the Impossible Mission Force) is being disbanded by the American government because apparently their results are too destructive. But of course, Ethan Hunt and his team aren’t that easy to disband, and so they go on one final mission to try and stop ‘The Syndicate’, a group of terrorists who are out to destroy the Impossible Mission Force, so they can go about their usual villainous plans. Can Ethan and crew clean their name and prove themselves useful to the U.S. government once again? Or will their names remain tarnished for all eternity?

I’ll be honest, I’ve never been a huge fan of the Mission Impossible movies, but from the fourth one on, for some reason I’ve started liking them more. I guess the stunts and the action have gotten way more interesting, even more impossible. And the fact that Tom Cruise is doing a lot of his own stunts makes everything way more fun. I mean, truthfully, screw all the crap that’s been said about Cruise, I’m all for applauding genuine talent, and Cruise has proven himself to be the quintessential action star, unafraid of going out there and really giving us a show. And by going out there, I mean, really literally going out there and doing stunts himself! The man is currently 53 and he still looks like a million bucks! I guess when you're a millionaire film star, when you're not making movies you're in the gym working out with your personal trainers, while a professional cook makes you the healthiest dinners imaginable. The dude looks brand new, healthier and more active than a lot of men at his age, so expect a Cruise that looks like he’s still 30.

The film is none stop action from beginning to end; it starts with an action set piece where Cruise is hanging from a plane…literally! Sure he used wires and harnesses, but still, it’s admirable that he was actually hanging from that plane in a day and age where everything is done with green screen! Tom Cruise, I salute thee! This movie is so gung ho for reality that there’s this underwater sequence in which Tom Cruise has to hold his breath for an extremely long time while switching a computer disk on an underwater computer. It’s an extremely complicated scene that I thought was completely CGI, but upon my investigations of how it was done, I was amazed to learn that it was truly shot underwater. This means they built the actual set, filled it with water and shot the sequence down there. Awesome. Any other filmmaker would have done that whole sequence in CGI, again, my hats down to McQuarrie and crew for choosing to shoot their film in front of their cameras as opposed to the inside of a computer. On this show Cruise even rides motorcycles at high speeds! There’s this moment in which he scratches his knee on the road while taking a curve and I was like whoa! That’s what I’m talking about! So yeah, it’s true, Tom Cruise is the big special effect of this franchise. Similar to how Jackie Chan was on his films, Cruise is an actor and a stunt man all in one.

It was good seeing the Mission Impossible Force together once again. Here we get Ving Rhames, Simon Pegg, Jeremy Renner and heeelloooo, Rebecca Ferguson! Holy Moly, this actress looks stunning on this movie! You might remember her as ‘Ergenia’, the bow and arrow specialist in Brett Rattner’s Hercules (2014). I mean, this lady is a show stopper. Not only does she look amazingly beautiful, the epitome of sensuality, she also kicks major ass on this movie! She has this fight sequence where she’s saving Tom Cruise’s life that is a wonder to behold, she has great physical ability that’s for sure! Then we have Simon Pegg with the comedy relief, he reminded me of the obligatory comic relief guy from 80’s action films, where the big action star always had a ‘funny’ guy tagging along saying one liners and jokes throughout the whole movie, only Simon Pegg is actually likable and funny. So all in all, I’d say that this Mission Impossible is a sure fire winner. Even better then Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol (2011), and that’s saying a lot because Ghost Protocol was tons of fun, however simple it was. The good thing about the action on this film is that the action sequences are intricate, extensive and aren't throw aways, they really go out of their way to do something that will entertain, that will sustain our attention for a long period of time. Don’t even think so hard about the story or if you’re getting it or not, remember everything will be explained in the climax, just go with the flow. By the time it’s all over you’ll be a satisfied moviegoer, that’s a guarantee!

Rating: 4 out of 5

The Boxtrolls (2014)

The Box Trolls (2014)

Directors: Graham Anabelle, Anthony Stacchi

Voice Actors: Ben Kingsley, Jared Harris, Nick Frost, Tracy Morgan, Elle Fanning, Toni Collette, Simon Pegg, Isaac Hempstead Wright

I've always enjoyed the films that the guys at Laika produce because they pride themselves in making children’s films that opposed to 95% of children’s films made these days, actually have something to say. They have a brain to them. They don’t make empty crap, they actually make films that have substance. Take for example Coraline (2009), a film about a little girl who is unhappy with her family life, so she escapes to an alternate universe with alternate versions of mommy and daddy. They appear to be better, but are they? I’m still finding new themes every time I watch Coraline. For a children’s film it’s extremely layered, it’s a film that both parents and children can enjoy. Same can be said for Paranorman (2012), a film about a little boy who is having a hard time adjusting to the fact that he is just a little bit different than the rest of the kids in town; he can talk to the dead! And so, here comes The Boxtrolls; does it deliver the depth in themes that we've come to expect from Laika films?

Of course it does! This production company’s mission is to enlighten young minds; and so this time around the film takes place in a fictional town called Cheesebridge, a town where everybody loves cheese. The townspeople believe in these creatures called The Boxtrolls and according to town legend these Boxtrolls are murderous creatures that come out at night to steal and eat your children. We soon learn that these creatures aren't evil at all; they simply live on other people’s garbage. Whatever humans throw away, the Boxtrolls can find a use for. The Boxtrolls have raised a human boy amongst them whom they call ‘Eggs’ because the box he wears is a box of eggs. When Eggs grows into a teenager, he wants to see the world above. Will he ever learn that he is a human and not a Boxtroll? Will he ever meet his real parents? On top of things, the rich and powerful elite are scheming to eradicate the Boxtrolls forever! Will they achieve their goal? Or will the Boxtroll’s fight for their right to exist? 

So yes, once again we get a deep, heavy themed movie from Laika. This time around they've decided to address class issues. You see, in this film the Boxtrolls represent the poor, the underclass, those struggling to survive in the world and 'The White Hats' are members of high society whose only worry in life is eating the finest cheese and wearing finest clothes, the concerns of the people don't really matter to them. These White Hats see The Boxtrolls as a menace, a plague that should be eliminated. Not so different from what goes on in the world today, where the rich and powerful see the masses as a hindrance, as ‘monsters’ so to speak, as people they don’t even want to associate themselves with. This is why in the film The Boxtrolls are seen as hideous, but only because this is a myth that is propagated amongst the people. In reality, The Boxtrolls are harmless, even lovable. They all live inside their little boxes, which they hide in as soon as they sense danger. The symbolisms are quite clear when we look at it. The poor live inside “the box”, they hide from society, looking for their own comfort. But we learn through the film that what they need to do is think outside the box and fight for their right to coexist in this world. In this sense the film is extremely similar to Fritz Lang’s Metropolis (1927), the poor who live in the underworld and the rich who live above must find a way to understand each other. If I’m to draw comparison’s to other films, Little Monsters (1989), would be another one, in that one, the monsters also lived in some kind of underground alternate universe. Another similar one would be City of Ember (2008), which played with similar ideas.

And this is why I love Laika films. They address themes that kids should be exposed to and rarely are. I mean, I’m all for “believe in yourself” and “follow your dreams” (and there is some of that in this film) but there’s other themes that can be addressed to children, especially when we take in consideration the kind of complex world we live in, a world in which children deal with more diverse matters than the ones presented in what passes for children's films these days. This is why I always applaud children’s films that go a little further and don’t take our children for granted. Films like Wes Anderson’s Fantastic  Mr. Fox (2009) or Spike Jonze’s Where The Wild Things Are (2009), films that don’t treat children like idiots, which I think is something that modern society tends to do just a little too much. It is my opinion that children are very capable of grasping and learning concepts and ideas a whole lot faster than they are given credit for, so I’m all for children movies with brains,  especially ones that are as artful and as interesting to look at as the films that Laika is producing.

The cherry on the cake is the amazing stop motion animation which I just love to look at, to me stop motion animation, when done right, is eye candy. And trust me; these films are a true wonder! I still bow down to stop motion artist and I am glad this film making technique refuses to die. It works wonders in films of this kind, and I honestly hope that the folks at Laika never stop making their films, though I know these films are an endangered species. Still, I’m happy that every now and again a stop motion animated film pops up and I'm happy that they have not completely disappeared. To me the films that Laika is producing are as amazing as the films that Studio Ghibli produces, unique because not everybody is making them. Unique because they are old school and that makes them all the more special, true gems.

Rating:  5 out of 5   

Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)

Title: Star Trek Into Darkness

Director: J.J. Abrams

Cast: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, Simon Pegg, John Cho, Anton Yelchin, Peter Weller, Benedict Cumberbach

Review:

I’m not a Trekkie in the pure sense of the word, because I don’t know every single episode from every single series that ever came out and there have been a few series. I did see every episode of Star Trek the Next Generation which for non Trek connoisseurs is the series in which Patrick Stewart played Captain Jean Luc Picard. Now that one I enjoyed all the way through! I’ve also seen every Trek film ever made and have enjoyed them for different reasons. For example, I love the old ones starring William Shatner because of the chemistry between the characters, the interactions between them and the banter they play off each other, this by the way is an element that the new films are delivering as well. The new actors channel their older counter parts rather effectively in my book; which of course makes the whole film that much more enjoyable, cause a huge part of what audiences like in these Star Trek films is seeing Kirk and Spock quibbling about “gut reactions” and whether something is logical or not. I think audiences agree with me on this respect, the audience I watched Star Trek Into Darkness with giggled at the comedic elements in the dialog, especially when they brought in those old phrases like “Dammit Jim! I’m a doctor not a miracle worker!”. There’s lots of nudges here and there that Trekkies will eat up, it’s a film that’s mindful of its core audience while at the same time attempting to appeal to a broader audiences in order to break with old stigmas.

J.J. Abrams bringing Star Trek Into Coolness

This time around, there’s a mysterious terrorist inflicting fear upon the population of earth, by blowing up landmark buildings. The terrorists real purpose is to kill the leaders  of the federation! When the terrorist successfully kills some of them, Kirk and his crew have to head to the Klingon home planet in order to find the one responsible and make him pay. Along the way, relationships will be tested, friendships will clash, and the enterprise will test its limits! Can Kirk and crew bring this megalomaniacal madman to justice?

In this film connoisseur’s eyes the Star Trek films have always been cool, I have always loved them; but I know this is not the way everybody sees them. To the rest of the world Star Trek is synonymous with the freak and geek crowd, you know, those guys that dress like Klingon’s in comic book conventions and have discussions on Star Trek lore speaking in the Klingon language. What J. J. Abrams wants to do with this new series of films is change all that, he wants to make Trek sexy, make it cool. Not an easy task when we consider that Star Trek has never cared to be sexy. They’ve never been about beautiful looking people. In fact, in the first series of films we followed a crew that was populated by fat, old, bald people. Not so with these new films where the crew of The Enterprise is young, beautiful and sexy. Hell, on these new films Kirk’s always getting some action, he is portrayed as a womanizer! There's a scene in which a character needlessly strips to her under wear which many people seem to think went "too far", a comment which I find absolutely stupid, hollywood has never been shy about showing skin, especially when it will get more butts in theater sits. The scene is surely gratituous, I agree, but no big deal. Certainly not something to make a big deal about. Pretty ladies in underwear aside, I think all these changes serve to make the film more entertaining. J.J. Abrams wants you to be amazed by a Star Trek film, he wants people to go see Star Trek Into Darkness more than once! Well, if you ask me he has successfully achieved his goals, I know I’ll be seeing it again. This is the biggest Star Trek film ever, what’s not to celebrate? I mean, this here Star Trek film is a summer blockbuster of gargantuan proportions!  I was wowed. First up, the visual effects are sheer perfection, you should be impressed. I mean you will see gigantic spaceships traveling through the universe, alien planets and civilizations, a futuristic version of earth, these vistas offer us bucket loads of escapism. If you want to escape to another world, here’s the movie for you to do it with. 

I wasn’t aware that in some ways this film was going to be a pseudo-remake of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn (1982) a film that is heralded by legions of Star Trek fans across the world as the best Star Trek film of the first series. That film is a flat out revenge film, and Kahn, as played by Ricardo Montalban is without a doubt the best of all Star Trek villains. Not a single actor has been able to reach Kahn’s memorable villain status. Considering that Wrath of Kahn is one of the best Trek stories ever told, what did J. J. Abrams and his crew do? They basically remade Wrath of Kahn. I wasn’t aware of that going into the theater, but damn, with a few alterations here and there, the second half of this movie is basically a remake. But, to be honest, it’s a damn good one and it doesn’t play out the same exact way that it did in Wrath of Kahn. The film also borrows heavily from episodes of the television show. Still, even when we take these things into consideration, the film manages to offer us many innovative ideas, one after the other. There’s this awesome chase sequence that takes place as two ships are traveling at warp speed that was so awesome! So be ready for a film that has similarities with other stories of Trek lore while at the same time blowing your brain to smithereens with cool new ideas. Even the aliens who have minor scenes look freaking cool!

The infamous (yet delectable) stripping scene

Thematically speaking this film is all about terrorists attacks and what makes them happen. Why does a terrorist decide to attack a country and kill innoncents? What fuels that hatred? Is their anger somehow jusitified? The film addresses the terrorist attacks that took place during 9/11 and it also plays with the notion that these terrorist attacks might have been self inflicted in order to provoke a war. It also speaks about how the government trains individuals to become stone cold killers, and then, when these trained killers have to return home, they are unable to continue functioning properly in society because they are used to carnage and death. Soldiers just can’t go back to buying cereal at the supermarket and mowing the lawn, kind of like what we saw in First Blood (1982). They also talk about weapons of mass destruction, a fear that has recently shown its ugly head again in society and as a result, these fears are now reflected and discussed in films as well; so we get contemporary themes on this film. Above all, what I enjoyed the most about Into Darkness was how fun it was, it’s never boring, not for a second. So far, this is the most exciting movie of the Summer 2013 season, it’s even more exciting than Iron Man 3 (2013), which kind of lacked in action a bit. If it’s not the entertaining banter between the crew (how charismatic and funny are these guys?) then it’s the amazing action pieces. Bottom line is this is one big, fun ride! Now, we all know that J.J. Abrams is the director behind the next Star Wars film (Episode VII) and all I could think of was what J.J. Abrams will do with the Star Wars universe; I say strap your selves tight, if Star Trek Into Darkness is any indication of what J. J. Abrahams can do with a science fiction property, then were in for an exciting ride through hyper space!

Rating: 5 out of 5   

       

Paul (2011)

Title: Paul (2011)

Director: Greg Mottola

Cast: Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, Seth Rogen (voice), Kristen Wiig, Sigourney Weaver, Jason Bateman, Bill Hader

Writers: Simon Pegg, Nick Frost

Review:

Paul is a film that has its main characters running away from religious fanatics and the government through out the whole film; so right from the start the film got off on a good foot for me. It is a film that comes to us from the mind of Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, two British comedians whom we’ve seen working together before in films like Shaun of the Dead (2004) and Hot Fuzz (2007), hell, if we go even further back in their careers, they’ve been working together since ‘Spaced’ their British sci-fi sitcom. The success of their collaborations has assured us that we will be seeing a lot more of this comedic duo in the future. Up to now, the films that Simon Pegg and Nick Frost have appeared on had all been directed by Edgar Right (Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World) but Paul marks a departure from that norm, it was directed by one Greg Mottola, a director who is better known as the guy who brought us Superbad (2007) and the nostalgic homage to the 80’s Adventureland (2009). Paul is also a homage, but it’s a homage to science fiction films and geeks in general. It’s that kind of movie that attempts to capture what it is to be a man child/geekazoid. But aside from that, it also addresses one of the most controversial themes in history: religion, and what a bunch of baloney it is.

The film starts out with its two main characters Graeme (Pegg) and Clive (Frost). These two British guys have come to the United States to attend their beloved Comic Con, the world renowned comic book convention of legendary proportions. For those of you not in the know, Comic Con is the grand hoo ha for comic book geeks. It’s a gathering of science fiction and fantasy fans from around the world. It’s the one place where its 100% okay to let your geek flag fly high and proud. It’s the kind of place where you are liable to see Bruce Campbell and pay 20$ for a picture with him. So anyhow, as part of their trip, Graeme and Clive also plan on visiting a couple of sites that are considered important amongst UFO enthusiasts. One of these sites being the ever mysterious AREA 51. On their way there they stumble upon Paul, an actual alien who’s been imprisoned in AREA 51 ever since he crash landed on earth many years ago. But now, Paul has escaped AREA 51 and wants to go back to his home planet, and he wants Graeme and Clive to take him to the rendezvous point where he will be picked up by his alien buddies. Unfortunately, everyone is after Paul; even the F.B.I.!

What I loved the most about this movie was how blatantly anti-religious it is. It is not afraid to speak its mind and say its piece when it comes to its views on religion. In one scene, Paul the Alien reveals himself to Ruth a Christian girl. A girl who’s been raised by her religious fanatic of a dad her whole life. She starts the film out by saying things like “The world is 4,000 years old and can only be the product of intelligent design”, but as the film progresses Paul, Clive and Graeme make her see the light. You see, Paul has this ability to get into your mind and show you the “truths of the universe”. All he has to do is touch your forehead with his hand and in a flash of light it becomes clear that everything you believed to be true suddenly isn’t. It was all a bunch of horseshit. Religion isn’t even close to the truth of how things really are and sin was never a real thing. So suddenly, Ruth starts cursing like a sailor and wants to fornicate as much as she can and she even partakes in a bit of weed smoking. In other words, she’s finally learning to cut loose. After her ‘enlightenment’ when the guys ask Ruth if she’s hungry she replies with “You bet your big fat cock I am!” That whole angle of turning a Christian into a non-believer was interesting and made for some funny moments, made all the funnier because that’s exactly what happens when a Christian stops being a Christian. Suddenly, it’s a whole new world out there and it takes a while to get used to it.

The symbolisms in the film where interesting, for example when we first meet her, Ruth the Christian girl is blind from one eye. This is a symbol for her limited view of life due to her religious fanatism, but when Paul literally cures/restores her eyesight and shows her the truths about life, it is then that she is no longer blind in more ways then one. Now she is seeing the world with both of her eyes, religion and it’s often times unrealistic views of the world no longer blind her. She is free from the chains that held her. But as we soon discover her fanatical dad won’t let her be, and so she is chased through the whole movie by her dad who thinks that Paul is a demon that has kidnapped his daughter. This whole thing with her father bringing her up in religion and basically forcing her to see things the way he does is a comment on how many times, what we end up believing comes as a direct result of what our parents believe in. And sometimes, what our parents believe in isn’t necessarily the truth. Think about it, would you believe what you believe if your parents had not taught you those believes from childhood? So these are the themes this film plays with. Heavy stuff for a sci-fi comedy, but hey I applaud it for that, its not every day that a commercial film dares to address religious themes. Hell, this movie is so ballsy that it turns Paul into a Christ figure that can heal wounds, and bring back the dead. Kind of like E.T. did back in the day, when he had a penchant for resuscitating dead flowers.

But aside from the films anti-religious views it is also an extremely fun science fiction comedy. I would include it along side films like Galaxy Quest (1999), a comedy that totally got what Geeks are all about and what makes them laugh. Same can be said about Paul. The dialog is constantly referencing sci-fi movies, mainly films by Spielberg and George Lucas. When Paul asks Clive about the last time he got laid Clive replies “Collectormania, London ’08. Ewok chick. She was ‘Furry’ Nice!” Ha! Hilarious! This is the kind of comedy that Fanboys (2008) tried to be but failed for some reason, not so with Paul. It makes jokes of all those cliché’s we expect from alien movies, like aliens performing anal probes on humans, to which Paul replies “Why does everyone always assume that? What am I doing? Harvesting Farts? How much can I learn from an ass?” As I said, if you are a geek, you will most certainly laugh.

The film also visually references E.T. and Close Encounters of the Third Kind. You’ll see some scenes in Paul that will bring back scenes from both of these films, I mean, literally copy pasted certain moments from both of these films. Basically, they are kissing Spielbergs ass with this movie. So much so that the man himself makes a cameo in a flashback in which Paul is giving him the plot outline for E.T! I’d say that Paul is a funny dirtier version of E.T. It plays with the same basic storyline about an alien crashlanding on earth and how the government will stop at nothing to capture the fugitive alien in order to study and dissect its brain. Not surprisingly, the film ends with the proverbial aliens coming to pick up their stranded buddy. Nothing groundbreaking there in terms of plot, the only difference between the two films is all the dirty jokes, the foul mouthed dialog and the anti-religious themes. Imagine E.T. smoking weed and making anal probe jokes and you’ll get an idea of what to expect from Paul. So anyways, this was a fun time at the movies, laughed all the way.

Rating: 4 out of 5