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.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo Review

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011)

Dir: David Fincher

I should open this review by saying that I have not read Stieg Larsson’s novel upon which this film is based on, nor have I watched the 2009 adaptation from its home country so I can’t compare the two or talk about faithful or not it is to the novel. I came to this film very unfamiliar with its story except for the fact that I knew there’s supposed to be a big rape sequence in it.

The film opens with a hypnotic title sequence that puts James Bond’s to shame and sets the crazy, dark, melancholic tone for what’s about to come. We are then shown Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig), an investigative journalist who lost a libel case against a corrupted businessman named Wennerström which leaves both his ego and reputation shattered; that he is constantly reminded by everyone about it just makes it worse.

Later on he is hired by former industrialist Henrik Vanger to use his investigative skills to find out who in his incredibly messed up family killed his beloved niece 40 years ago. The case is not easy, everyone in the family seems to have their own motives and is evil in one way or the other, but the reward is far too good to pass: information about Wennerström that proves Blomkvist is right.

But what role does the titular girl play in this whole thing you might ask? The first time we see Lisbeth (Rooney Mara) is giving a man working for Vanger all the information they need about Blomkvist. She is also an investigator and possesses almost supernatural computer hacking abilities. For most of the first hour of the movie her story plays separately to Mikael’s; she’s under legal guardianship due to being diagnosed mental incompetency at age 12 after burning her father to death. She is presented as antisocial, strong, determined, violent when she needs to be and most of all, smart.

Though not bad by any means, all of this feels a little disjointed, almost as if we were watching two different movies intercut between each-other. It’s not until both stories converge that things start getting really good. Mikel hires Lisbeth to work with him, she only accept cases that are interesting but he doesn’t have to do much convincing her after he tells her what he has found out.

This is the point where director David Fincher’s mastery for thrillers really gets to shine. As proven by Se7en and Zodiac, very few directors can craft a murder mystery quite like Fincher does. Like those films, there’s a point where the interest stops coming from the investigation itself and instead comes from just watching fascinating characters that are well-created by both actors and screenwriters do their thing and interact with each other which elevates the otherwise predictable plot.

Fincher’s movies are also known by having a very specific type of look, this time provided by Jeff Cronenweth, with whom he also worked in The Social Network and Fight Club. Girl is no different; it’s stylish like only Fincher knows how to do. The sets are not beautified, everything looks just as it would in real life which combined with the gloomy lightning establishes the haunting mood that somehow feels both real and dreamlike at the same time.

His confident direction allows him to try inventive and impressive camera angles (like a subjective view from inside a plastic bag) that are great. The score by Trent Reznor and Atticus Finch is also brilliant and complements fantastically the beautiful visuals and they’re not afraid to experiment as a torture scene with an Enya song in the background proves. All in all, this is a pretty much perfect movie technically speaking.

One thing I should point out is that this is a very violent movie, which to me at first posed no problem as I’ve seen violent movies ever since I was a kid. But Fincher’s desire to make things as realistic as possible makes certain scenes very tough to watch. The rape scene in particular is absolutely brutal and stands right there with Irreversible as one of the most cringe-inducing moments in my cinema watching history.

Even though Daniel Craig’s name appears first in the titles and every promotional material, it’s Rooney Mara who steals the film with her sublime performance as Lisbeth. Her most powerful tool is silence, which makes her seem almost robotic and cold hearted but there’s a certain vulnerability displayed behind her tough exterior. The attention to every little detail in the way she talks, moves and even when she isn't doing anything is incredible. She gave everything to the character physically and emotionally and it shows on screen.

But that’s not to say that Craig is not good. He plays against type as a man who has lost confidence in himself but is nonetheless determined to get the job done, he is also clumsy and more normal looking than usual. They have great chemistry and that makes the interactions between the characters and the little moments like Lisbeth rolling her eyes when Mikel takes several minutes finding a picture on the pc an absolute joy.

Fincher is not a director who sticks to the usual three act (beginning, middle, climax) storytelling method. He does it his own way and plays around with several stories at the same time like he has with his other movies. It doesn’t work as well here due to the source material not being as strong, the main investigation is great but some subplots drag it down and the last few minutes feel out of place with the rest of the film. At two hours and forty minutes it's just too long and can get pretty heavy at parts because the story is just not made to support such a long film.

Fincher is one of the masters of modern cinema and even though Girl with the Dragoon Tattoo does not quite reach the highs established by his other films, it still is a great movie with interesting characters and beautiful aesthetics that is definitely worth watching.

Tokyo Drifter Review

Tokyo Drifter (1966)

Dir: Seijin Suziki

Tetsuo walks through a deserted train cemetery wearing a white jacket, he stands next to a man who’s wearing a black jacket. Through conversation we find out Tetsuo was once part of a yakuza gang led by Kurata, who has decided to give up his life of crime and to whom Tetsuo is loyal to. The man in black works for Otsuka, a rival gang boss who’s trying to convince Tetsuo to join him. He refuses, is beaten up and earns Otsuka’s hate. This is the beginning of Tokyo Drifter, shot in black and white, which contradicts the color-filled story that follows.

Otsuka pushes them back into the crime life after he ties them up to a real state scam, which forces Tetsuo to leave Tokyo and live the life of a drifter while trying to survive the attacks of Otsuka’s men who are trying to get rid of him once and for all.

Many other characters come into play as the plot gets thicker and thicker, but none of them are as impressive as Tetsuo. He is a classic action hero, too smart, fast and strong to be killed; a bullet repellant that never runs out of bullets himself and a master marksman. He fights to survive and because of his loyalty, which makes him pay a heavy price later on. At first sight, this seems like any other yakuza/gangster movie, and story-wise it pretty much is. But the way the story is treated is what makes it truly special. 

Director Seijun Suzuki created a film that is very much a product of its era, but one that stands the test of time like few others. He seamlessly combines amplitude of genres to make this a complex and intriguing gangster drama, a silly comedy and sometimes even a musical.

The colors are vibrant and the visual motifs are endless and can be seen everywhere from the designs of the cars’ painting to the backgrounds and the clothes the character’s wear.  But they’re not only there because they look pretty; everything has a meaning to it, the clearest example is that through the movie Tetsuo wears a light blue suit while Otsuka, the villain wears a bright red one. The set design is also inventive as well as absolutely insane. This is one of the clearest examples of how colors and lightning can be used to enhance the story and our understanding of the characters and the director’s intentions.

The editing is also extremely weird. There are many jump cuts that happen right in the middle of the action and completely throw the viewer off. One example is when Tetsuo is being chased by one of Otsaka’s men on foot; he hides behind the pillar of a bridge, we see the enemy walking above the bridge without noticing Tetsuo hiding beneath, a fast cut to the train signals and then cut back to Tetsuo facing the man in the middle of the train track with the train coming dangerously close to them.  There are many more moments like this through the movie that are absolutely bizarre.

And yet, the movie is able to get away with it because it just adds so much to the whole experience of watching it. It’s not hard to connect the dots of what happened between one moment and the other which makes it really interesting because the director fully trusts his audience’s ability to understand the procedures and they actually help the pacing of the action sequences and make them feel less silly than what we’d expect from a 60’s movies.

But this is a silly movie nonetheless. One scene in particular exemplifies this better than any other; in the last half of the movie there is a ridiculous bar fight that feels straight out of the 60s Batman show, people start joining the fight for absolutely no reason, a group of girls play around with the fighters saying things in terrible English; tables, chairs and bottles are used and in the middle of the madness an exotic dancer saves Tetsuo by punching an attacker before turning to him and saying “better than French, English and American men together” with the stupidest expression that I’ve seen in my life before he throws her away. In the end, everyone ends up conveniently piled up outside the bar.The sound also plays an important role in the film, especially the song that gives the movie its name which is sung by Tetsuo to indicate his presence.     

This is one of the few cases of “style over substance” that work, a movie that embraces its style in such a way that it is completely defined by it. There might be deeper, more meaningful stories and characters to be found in other films in the genre, but Tokyo Drifter stands out because of how absurdly entertaining it is.