Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol Review

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (2011)

Dir: Brad Bird

An explosion in the kremlin, people hanging off tall buildings and a car chase in the middle of a sand storm, that’s what Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol is all about: intense and incredible action sequences. Brad Bird’s almost poetic approach to these scenes and the amazing choreography is what makes them work so well, it also helps that the story itself is more than an excuse to get to these moments, it’s actually a fantastic thriller that while it can get pretty ludicrous at times, it never stops being fun.

Every Mission: Impossible movie has a movie-defining sequence, whether it’s Tom Cruise’s character Ethan Hunt hanging from a cable dangerously close to a pressure-sensitive floor in the first one or a slow-motion mid-air shoot out after jumping out of a motorcycle in M:I 2. It’s hard to choose a best one from all the incredible action sequences in Ghost Protocol, but the most memorable sees Cruise hanging on the side of the world’s tallest building in Dubai, which is absolutely one of the most impressive and exciting scenes in modern action cinema and it’s all the more impressive knowing that it was done with little CGI and without stunt doubles. This scene kept me at the edge of my seat; I can’t express well enough just how incredible it is. 

And that’s the thing that makes this film great, even though there are a lot of special effects, there are also many realistic stunts that are way more creative and exciting than most of the stuff we usually see in movies right now. They never give in to the chaotic, 1-second cuts style popularized by Michael Bay and Jason Statham. Everything is wonderfully choreographed, photographed and edited which makes them understandable and truly exciting.

That’s not to say that the film is entirely realistic, there are some truly ridiculous things in it, the prime example being a robot-controlled floating suit. But they are done so casually that it works, most of them are very funny too and yet they never lose the high tension that the film carries all the way through its 135 minute running time.

At times, the movie feels like a combination of all the best elements from the previous three films, but director Brad Bird makes it much more than that. The way he frames every shot and builds up every moment takes it to highs the series has never been even close to reach and the script by Josh Applebaum and Andre Nemic that sees the proceedings getting more and more complicated in ways the viewer never expects is, while not unique in the genre, one of the most inventive.

Of the newly added elements to the series, Jeremy Renner who plays former agent-turned analyst Brandt is the best of them. He adds a level of charisma to the character that even Cruise with all his enthusiasm fails to reach. That’s not saying Cruise is not good in the role though, in fact he is pretty effective and believable in his stunts, he still has the physicality and charm to play the lead character a movie like this needs. The rest of the cast also get their own chance to shine, Simon Pegg is the funny man and gets all the best lines and some hilarious moments. Meanwhile Paula Patton, while not great in the more emotional scenes does a pretty good job in her role.  

The only thing Ghost Protocol lacks is an engaging villain, which sometimes is a necessity in a film like this, but that doesn’t make it any less of an exciting action thriller. Brad Bird’s first live action movie is certainly the best in the series and one of the best action movies in the last few years. Let’s hope that whatever the future holds for this series, which usually sees directors changing from film to film, lives up to what Bird’s excellent installment. 

John Carter Review

John Carter (2012)

Dir: Andrew Stanton

As I left the 3D screening of John Carter (for which I won a free ticket) I heard a kid who I presume was between 11 and 14 years old saying “That reminded a lot of Prince of Persia”. The comment immediately clicked on me, I now realized why the film seemed so familiar even though i’m not familiar with the original novels or any related material besides the movies it has inspired, like Star Wars. Disney’s latest big-budget extravaganza can be compared in most ways to their 2010 attempt at franchise building.

The biggest comparison that can be made is in the way the whole thing looks. John Carter is an excellent looking film from a technical standpoint, but the style is pale and monotonous. The alien design is decent but nothing really special and the costumes look like they were reused from Prince of Persia. They’re even similar in the yellow-ish tone that is prevalent through both films, which I guess can be justified as coming from the desert setting but it is overused.

But this isn’t necessarily what makes this a bad movie. The film’s biggest weakness is the story that focuses on the titular character, an American civil war veteran is mysteriously transported to Mars, where he finds himself in the middle of a multi-race conflict and falling in love with the princess of one of the nations which forces him to stay and fight to prevent the destruction of the planet. The story is predictable which is not really a problem considering its age and the elements that have been taken from it by other pieces of media but it is the way it develops that leaves a lot to be desired. 

The major problem here is with the pacing, there are some really exciting scenes in the film that are interrupted by 10 to 15 minutes of melodramatic dialogue and un-engaging plotting which leads to a lot of boring moments and the first half hour feels disconnected from what follows. Andrew Stanton’s previous films as a writer/director like Finding Nemo are character-driven stories, never letting the fantastic events surrounding them take the focus away from what is truly important: the character’s growth.  The same happens in John Carter but the characters’ arcs are poorly constructed and the attempts to add emotional depth with flashbacks and such are terribly placed and end up ruining otherwise great action sequences.  That and the fact that the villains never feel compelling and lack a real reason for their actions make me feel like it would’ve been better to keep the story and characters on the sideline in favor of the impressive set pieces.

The use of 3D is good but never feels specially necessary, there are some neat looking effects during the battle sequence between Carter and his pet “dog” against a group of evil alien and with the villain’s light beam but it adds nothing to the overall quality of the film, just like it doesn’t take anything away from it, the experience should be the same regardless of how it’s watched. In the end the best use of 3D is in the Disney logo at the very beginning.

There are some good ideas behind this movie but they are badly executed. It has some entertaining moments but they are overshadowed by the overall mediocre feel of the film. There’s a lot of room for improvement should a sequel ever be made, though I really doubt so, let’s hope Disney does a better job at their next attempt to build an action-adventure franchise to emulate the success of Pirates of the Caribbean. After all, the third time’s the charm right? 

Vertigo Review

Vertigo (1956)

Dir: Alfred Hitchcock

I must admit that Alfred Hitchcock’s work is one of the big deficiencies in my history as a cinephile. I have only watched five films by the renowned director and though I’ve liked them all in one way or another, I’ve never felt compelled to dig deeper into his filmography.  Vertigo is the most personal and maybe even best of the ones I’ve seen, but there are certain things about it that keep it from being my favorite of his.

In Vertigo, the legendary James Stewart plays Scottie, a former detective who leaves the force after his acrophobia (fear of highs) kicks in during a rooftop chase and results in the dead of a fellow officer. Afterwards he is recruited by his old friend, businessman Galvin Ester to use his skills to follow his wife Madeleine (Kim Novak), whom he suspects is possessed and in verge of committing suicide; Scottie accepts reluctantly.   

Always a realist, Scottie believes her to be insane rather than possessed. Shortly after they fall in love with each other and it is here when things start getting really strange.  Madeleine begins showing signs of her possession by one of her ancestors. Scottie can’t do anything to stop her and it all ends in tragedy.

It’s at this point where the themes of the movie change radically. What used to be a mystery and somewhat supernatural story turns into a tale of guilt, obsession and insanity. The big shift happens halfway through the movie but it manages to keep things interesting and exciting so the viewer never feels cheated.

Steward commands this film by portraying a genuinely unlikable character. He’s obsessive, compulsive, neurotic and the kind of person who tries to convince you that all the strange things happening around you have some logical explanation to the point of annoying you. Steward portrays these emotions not with expressions or movements, but with his big blue eyes that tell you everything you need to know about his character better than the dialogue would.

And in a way that is a great thing because the weakest part of this movie is its dialogue, too melodramatic and self-explanatory for its own good. Sometimes going as far as ruining scenes that could’ve been great. But the key plot points remain interesting and make up for it, that is until the absolutely horrendous and abrupt ending that kills any sense of excitement that the story had going for it until it reaches that point. There’s a big confession and then it just ends, like that, mid-climax. It’s an unsatisfying and disappointing finale that leaves the viewer without any sense of conclusion.

That, combined with the long running-time and slow pacing keep this movie’s story from flourishing the way it should. Characters like Scottie’s friend played by Barbara Bel Gedes feel unnecessary; granted, it’s important to show Scottie has normal relationships but her scenes are uninteresting and the character is not developed further than being a jealous ex-girlfriend. It just keeps the focus away from the really important characters.

If there’s something Hitchock is known for is his mastery of every technical aspect of his movies. In Vertigo, the color plays an important part in allowing us to understand the characters and it’s done in a beautiful way.  The uses of zooms and tracking shots (usually at the same time and on opposite directions) do a fantastic job in conveying the sense of vertigo Scottie is feeling and the color flashes and animation combined with live-action really get us deep into his deteriorating mind. If there’s one scene that summarizes the perfect technical qualities of this film is when Kim Novak first appears on screen in the restaurant scene,  the combination between the angle of the shot, her clothes, the background and the music is simply magnificent.

Vertigo is technically the best of the Hitchcock’s films I’ve seen, but its many flaws really hindered my enjoyment of it.  The main story is certainly exciting and it’s interesting to see a more personal side to Hitchcock’s film in the character of Scottie, who tries to model his girl in the way he wants her to be, not unlike what Hitchcock did with his main actresses. But it just lacks that entertainment value of his other films, which is why North by Northwest still remains my favorite of his work.