Mission: Impossible III Review

        I’m back and we got about five movies left. It’s one thing to review a franchise where the first two entries are technically the worst ones. While there are some merits where there some appreciation, the fact of the matter is that the films barely coasted by just through the action and tension. The big flaws that hampered them were the slim characterization of Ethan Hunt and the overall story of getting the MacGuffin. As convoluted as the first entries were, this film marked the turning point of the series where it would get progressively better. 

1. The Rabbit’s Foot

        The first minutes of the film is the exact opposite of what we’ve seen. It’s one of those where it sets the tone of what kind of situation Ethan got himself into. Just seeing Hunt strapped into a chair and having a woman with a gun pointed to her as he’s being interrogated just makes the whole thing interesting. Right from the start we see the antagonist and just how he seemingly has Ethan by the balls. It balances the tension with the dread that we never see Ethan get put through. 

        To me, it’s one of the best openings. And it’s easily contrasted with one of the worst title sequences that we’ve seen. For anyone who marathons the series, the title sequence is supposed to be exciting with having non-sequential shots appearing as the theme song is playing. The original series did that as well to show the audience what they’re going to see but not told in chronological order. Here it’s like an after thought where the crew decided that they forgot to put something together so they just hastily cobbled up something at the last possible minute. 

        Anyways, we follow Ethan as he’s retired from the IMF. He settles down as he and his fiancé are enjoying their time together. He gets word from the IMF director that one of his former students is captured and is tasked to rescue her. Meanwhile, Ethan uncovers a new weapon that is being shopped around by a weapons trafficker named Davian. This one is completely different from the other two entries. What I mean by that is we already see a seasoned Ethan where everything clicks when he reunites with Luther and gets a new squad. 

        I like that the film goes into the action first while also blending in with the covert stuff. It makes everything exciting but also makes it so that the action isn’t over the top like the last one. To me, it manages to have the balance of being an action flick while also having it’s own covert flair without being a wannabe James Bond film. The overall feel for the movie is sort of grounded but there’s that shine to it where it looks slick. It’s an Abrams movie alright just before he went haywire with the lighting of his Star Trek films some time later. 

        While we talk about him in a moment, I feel that I should talk about the main villain in this one. All the other antagonists that we’ve seen had ties to the IMF, this one is different. Owen Davian is one bad hombre, as I mentioned earlier he manages to seemingly break Ethan as he tries to find out from him where the secret weapon is at. Philip Seymour Hoffman portrays him as a calculating and brutal man who just lays into Ethan on how he’ll kill everyone he knows and loves. He’s the main highlight of the film and one of the rare best villains in the entire series as of now. 

        Ethan’s team is also different even though Ving Rhames’ Luther is the only consistent aspect in these films. While we don’t know much about Zhen and Declan, they each carry their roles since they manage to help Ethan and executing the mission. I think my favorite part which involves all of them is when they’re in the Vatican. Just seeing it how Ethan and Declan kick off their part and then it all unfolds perfectly. It’s one of those things that was missing in the prior entries where the covert stuff wasn’t shown or done differently where it wasn’t exciting in the least bit. 

        The highlight within the highlight is seeing the masks being made. I can imagine someone finding the mask removal parts too out there. Like you mean to tell me that they constructed a mask that looks exactly like who the IMF are searching for, right down to the distinct voices. I’m glad that we see the masks being made like a wood carver. Luther just makes it believable when he has to tell Ethan to wait on the voice modulator to kick in. It’s great stuff is what I’m trying to say. 

2. J.J. Abrams

        Whenever this name is uttered among the geeks or nerds who follow Star Trek and Star Wars, a derisive groan is uttered or grunted. It’s one thing to watch his very first film he directed but also acknowledge just how he got his start. Most people prior to this entry know him for his work on T.V. He made shows like Felicity and Alias that were a character drama and an investigative show. Lost is where he made it big, due to the story being complex with his patented mystery box story devices. Meaning that, the story presented a mystery where it would lead to it being resolved or a curve ball throwing the story into fray. 

        With this film, you can say that he practically saved the franchise from being reduced to just action shlock. As I mentioned earlier, we didn’t get an idea as to who Ethan was as a person besides doing work for the IMF. More so that having a revolving door of directors would give the series a dysfunctional feel to them where it bordered on a psychological thriller to an action packed gun toting film. Abrams managed to ground the film by making it feel personal to Ethan with how personal his stakes is. 

        To me, it feels like it was originally going to be the last entry of the series. You can say that this wraps up the 2000s era of the franchise. Since we have Ethan seemingly retired from the IMF and he already has a fiancé. This one mission was going to test him to save his significant other and stop the villain from obtaining the secret weapon. What the film has going for is the drama that we see Ethan go through, it replaces having to see him retrieve the weapon and gives the audience something different where the characters are put into focus and having the action being retooled and believable. 

        Lastly, while Abrams wouldn’t direct another Mission: Impossible film, his production company would be associated with the franchise through his Bad Robot label. Going forward, the 2010s would be where the franchise was at it’s peak where we’d see Ethan and his team go through various locales and stopping a variety of threats. It’s one of those franchises where there’s a list of tropes of stuff that happens, but none of it feels repetitive and that we see just how much Tom Cruise alternates his hair from being short to long. And seeing him do his own stunts for our enjoyment. 

3. Overall

        Mission: Impossible III is one of the best in the 2000s era of the series. It’s the definition of a franchise rebound film. 

Mission: Impossible 2 Review

        My look into the Mission: Impossible series continues. With the financial success of the first entry, it only seemed reasonable that a sequel was inevitable. Around this time is when Tom Cruise was flexing his drama chops with films like Jerry Maguire, Magnolia and Eyes Wide Shut. Also, he had to find another director since Brian De Palma declined to return as director for the sequel. It only seemed fitting that he would find a more action oriented director to give the sequel an extra squeeze. Unfortunately, this is one is regarded as one of the worst in the series. 

1. The Chimera Virus

        One thing that I forgot to mention in closing with the first entry, every sequel is independent from each other. Meaning that nothing would carry over plot wise and that every entry is an entirely new mission for Ethan and his team. So here’s a gist of what’s the new thing that Ethan has to stop. He gets word that a new virus has been created and it has been stolen by a former agent. And that’s about the main story since it’s practically straight forward. It’s the weakest part in the whole film which I’ll get into. 

        Seeing Ethan scale and climb one of the mountains in Utah is one of the highlights in the film. Especially with how he gets the IMF mission from a pair of explosive sunglasses. From then on, we see Ethan go to Spain as he tries to recruit a former thief to help him get the virus. Thandiwe Newton plays Nyah as she’s thief that Ethan is attempting to hire for his team. I like that they have a sort of flirt for each other. Albeit it gets ridiculous where they car chase and they had to pad it out to inevitably have her join the team. 

        The villain is Sean Ambrose who’s a former IMF agent that turned rogue. He’s probably one of the worst villains so far since he has that attitude where he’s kind of like a cartoon villain and not so much of a legit threat in the context of the movie. What it’s lacking to make the movie more interesting is a secondary antagonist to throw a wrench into Ethan’s plan. We instead get a henchman but it’s kind of weird that he gets close to Ambrose that he’s a straight up confidant in some cases. 

        Luther is back, but we also get another agent named Billy who is a transport guy. I’ve read that Cruise initially felt bad for killing off Emilio Esteves’ character and that John Woo and Cruise tried to find some way to bring the dead character back. Billy was just there and there’s really nothing interesting about him. It wouldn’t be until the next entry where Ethan has a stable crew but we’ll get into it when we get into it. 

        I think the big thing that’s lacking aside from the main plot progressing is that there’s a clear lack of characterization among everybody. One would think that we would have a moment where we see Ethan be vulnerable since it’s shown that he has a fling with Nyah. The action is amped up we gun fights popping off near the end of the movie. Which I think with how it’s handled is an opposite of the prior entry with Ethan dual wielding pistols to take out the bad guys. Like the film is bordering on the edge of ridiculousness and seriousness. 

2. John Woo

        This is the first John Woo film that I’ve seen. His track record is one that it demands commendation since he gave the action genre new breath and style. He became known for the Hong Kong action cinema that was popular during the 80s and 90s. Notably, his films The Killer and Hard Boiled are one of his best and one of the best action films in general. Later on, he directed the John Travolta and Nicolas Cage film Face/Off. It’s from that film where it can be assumed that Cruise wanted him to bring the sequel that certain style of action that was lacking in the first entry. 

        Woo is primarily known for action and for his motifs of flying birds or dove’s during action. Interpret it as over the top, but this is one of the few times where a franchise would have individual director motifs imbued in the film. The one thing that’s lacking is the overall characterization and having an interesting story. Like the action can only hold the movie together but it becomes just visual eye candy when it seems that Ethan isn’t in control with the plot. What I mean is that his new recruit does most of the espionage since Nyah has some ties with the main bad guy.

        I feel that in some way that Woo attempted to have his Mission: Impossible film be a sort of American-ized James Bond film. You have moments of a romance going on which was probably the series’ first attempt to have a Bond Girl-esque character in the story. Car chase and a motorcycle chase that feels over the top instead of an elaborate action set piece that the series started off with. It’s not a good movie with what I’m trying to get at, but I feel that it’s necessary to show the series at it’s low and it’s inevitable rebound. 

3. Overall

        Mission: Impossible 2 is not a good movie, it’s skippable if you want to casually watch the series. 

Mission: Impossible Review

        It’s summer once again, I’m surprised that I haven’t discussed the Mission: Impossible franchise. Since I only got two months of Summer, I think it’s appropriate to talk about this one. I think with any franchise that I get exposed to, one of the sequels is my first exposure. And then watching everything backwards, I swear it’s this franchise where I watch the series backwards instead of going to the very first entry. Well, consider the first through the fourth entries as my first opinions since I haven’t seen either of them. So let’s get started. 

1. Ethan Hunt

        To give you guys perspective of how this came to be, I got to establish that there was a lot of 60s and 70s nostalgia during the 90s. Much like the 2010s was beset by 80s nostalgia with Stranger Things to name a few, the 90s had multiple films that were based on old tv shows. You had ones like The Brady Bunch and The Flintstones to name a few since there were to cater with the Baby Boomers at the time. Even other stuff like Dazed and Confused and That 70s Show that caters to a fond look at the past. And it seems that with each succeeding decade, there’s usually a yearning of the past when things tend to be complicated in the present. 

        With this film, it’s an adaptation of the 60s series of the same name and the sequel series that aired during the 80s. The show has the viewers following the Impossible Mission Force, stick with me on this one, as they attempt to thwart corrupt governments among many various threats that pose a danger to the agency. One would think that it was only created after the popularity of James Bond, but in fact that the series was inspired by the actions of former FBI agent Robert Maheu. In total the series in its entirety ran for nine seasons and it made sense that Cruise wanted to adapt it since he was a fan of the series growing up. 

        I think we’re all caught up with the ins and outs of the whole perspective, now I can talk about the film. So we follow Cruise’s Ethan Hunt as he’s under the direction of IMF team leader Jim Phelps. His team’s been assigned to stop a mole of stealing info on IMF agents, unfortunately his team is killed including Phelps. With Hunt being accused, he sets out to clear his name by enlisting other disavowed agents to find the actual perpetrator. Story wise, it’s clear what’s going on as Ethan tries to avoid his arrest. 

        What makes Hunt interesting is that he manages to be active enough where he goes through the means of expungement. I like that he manages to set in motion of meeting a weapons dealer who would benefit of having the list. More so that he is very tactical when dealing with his next steps. I like that he does his own investigation to piece together some irregularities that his boss Phelps mentioned just prior to his team’s demise. I think the most important aspect that makes Hunt an interesting character is just the athletic means he goes through to get the Agents list. 

        Any mention of the film series or just watching a compilation of Tom Cruise’s stunts always includes the scene where Hunt goes to Langley, Virginia to make a copy of the list to smoke out the mole. That whole scene is full of tension as it’s established in a prior scene that the entire computer room is rigged with sensors that detect temperature, weight and sound as one employee has access to the room. And I love how Hunt, along with other agents Luther and Claire make it so that the employee is temporarily disposed so that Hunt can do his mission. Especially with Krieger gripping the rope as Ethan is repelled down. 

2. Brian De Palma 

        There’s that scene and the famous train sequence involving a helicopter that represents the whole film. Everything else in the film is convoluted plot wise. This is the second De Palma film that I covered aside from Carrie. His motifs are mostly thriller driven, to the point where in the past, he’s been accused of ripping off Hitchcock. Since the series has been prided with espionage, it made sense to have him do an adaptation where his motifs are present. You got moments where Ethan is interrogated by the IMF director. The camera angles has it tilted where Ethan’s world is turned since he’s been accused. 

        While there’s some action sequences, it’s a very conservative film that mostly leans in on the espionage aspect rather than have any shootouts. I think it’s a me thing where I was exposed to the later sequels and not having the time to see the series from the beginning. What I will say is that I think the main thing that brings the film down is the overall plot. It’s one thing where the expression “the suspension of disbelief” is thrown around to justify a massive logic leap. With this one, I found it hard that the IMF director would think that Ethan killed his own team. More so that it can get a bit confusing just following what’s going on since Hunt emails a weapons dealer that he just happens to know. 

        I think what’s more tragic is that this is the last De Palma film to be a big blockbuster. That’s not to say that he his movies ebbed and flowed, he did but he made many profitable films in a span of three decades. He was part of the new crop of American Directors that broke out in the 70s, along with Spielberg and Coppola to name a few. It wasn’t until after this film that he would experience a massive dip in quality that affected his films. The majority didn’t get any critical praise and most of them bombed financially. 

3. Legacy

        While this film was one of the highest grossing films during it’s release, most of the original cast didn’t like the adaptation. The point of contention was that the main character in the series was portrayed as a villain in the movie. One of the cast members even walked out of the film during it’s premiere. It can be explainable that the adaptation was taking some liberties so that it wouldn’t be exactly what was presented in the past. In some way, I think it was Cruise’s idea that he would be the lead in the future sequels by having to get rid of the original main character. I think it’s a good conspiracy but it hasn’t been confirmed. 

        From this point forward, the series would have a revolving door of other directors that would direct a sequel. De Palma declined to participate in the sequel since he believed that what he made was more than enough for one film. Specifically, he didn’t like the idea of sequels. Aside from that, it’s interesting to see the other director’s style be shown in the sequels as it seemingly continues to show just how much Cruise can be put through stunt wise. And I think this is the rare franchise where the first entries weren’t good but the ensuing sequels get progressively better. 

4. Overall

        Mission: Impossible isn’t the best Cruise or De Palma film, but an essential for a marathon of the series. 

Babylon Review

        If you feel like I skipped out the following film of Damien Chazelle, don’t worry since I covered that one many years ago. While Whiplash was my first exposure to the guy, First Man was the first film that I covered of the director. While I would do a re-review of that film. I feel that I should at least cover the recent film of Chazelle just to keep some consistency. I think that this is the rare time that I covered a directors entire directorial library. I know it doesn’t make up for my look into David Lynch, but to me it’s fun marathoning a director’s work and see the ebbs and flows. And this one ebbed to the point of mediocrity. 

1. Hollywood Decay 

        So color me shocked to realize that this is Chazelle’s first critical bomb in his filmography. At first it seems standard to have a director riding high and then meet the point of humbleness. One can sustain a good run but inevitably that level of creativity can go so far where it’s just either mundane or stupid. Whiplash and La La Land are one of the greats as far as independent films and for a generally accepted love story. First Man is where he tried to branch out, I’d say that it’s underrated in comparison to the prior two entries. This one, oh boy, where do I even begin to describe this one. 

        It’s kind of hard to talk about the overall plot since the story is very character driven. Meaning that the characters decide by their actions where the whole movie goes and we’re just as seemingly active of what’s at play. We follow three characters: Manny, Nellie and Jack as they navigate the state of Hollywood where the silent generation is slowly being phased out as the “talkies” take over filmmaking. One would think that it would be a very impactful to have one or two characters navigate the era as they go through the twists and turns that either change them for good or worse. I’ll get to that in a bit.

        I’ll at least highlight the level of depravity that is on display. I feel that in most of his movies, the opening minutes practically set up what kind of film we’ll be watching. From a conductor being brutally demanding, a basic traffic turns into a musical number, to an elephant defecating on its handler on the way to a party. That one moment practically gets us prepared that this is going to either be a raunchy good time or a piece of crap. And it’s not just by design where the level of explicit moments is risqué for the sake of it. Far from it, the film presents it to show just how shotty making a film in Hollywood was during the 1920s. 

        With the three characters that we see, they’re witnesses to it and one of them is the personification of it when she’s trying to make it into show business. In one part, I think as a historical film it’s important to show just how bad it was in the context that most of the people weren’t aware of how seemingly dangerous and annoying shooting a film was at the time. Another is that it sort of takes away from something where you’re trying to process a moment emotionally but then take you to another moment where it’s extremely contrasting. One moment is where we follow Brad Pitt’s character as he’s shooting a film. 

        One scene takes place in a ranch area where there’s multiple films being shot simultaneously. Pitt is shooting an epic where there’s problems. After a moment where the extras are charging at one another, an extra is impaled and dies. Like, I feel that when something like that happens its glossed over and there’s never a moment to process it, but just treat it as a “well that happened”. To me, it sort of makes the graphic scenes tacked on like, it’s supposed to be shocking but I’m not feeling or caring about what’s happening. I might as well talk about the problem since I’m knee deep into it.

        While I’ll talk about the characters in a bit, I feel that the movie is very bloated. Clocking in at 3 hours, the runtime is not justified in the least bit. And I can understand having multiple stories overlap and then having it weave together in the end. With this one, it’s just whiplash having to juggle three main characters where there’s nothing interesting about them where the run time is earned. It reminds me in some ways like Martin Scorsese’s Casino, where you have two characters reminisce about a “golden” time in Las Vegas and how it all went wrong. What separates that one is that we have characters that are interesting and that they’re own personal pride directly causes the fall of an institution. 

2. Character Multiplication Effect

        I don’t know if it was by design where Chazelle thought to multiply the main characters in his films. With his debut it was just one guy, La La Land with two since they’re the ones we follow. It contracts with just Ryan Gosling in First Man. Then we have three with Brad Pitt, Margot Robbie and newcomer Diego Calva as they navigate the changing landscape of Hollywood. When you have a movie like this in terms of the massive cast and range location-wise, it’s usually referred to as an epic. One of the greats that have been epics are mostly classics such as Lawrence of Arabia and The Ten Commandments to name a few. 

        What makes them work is that it’s centralized with one guy or a couple as the story is very big in terms of scope. With this one is just too much as far as juggling with three casts as they go through the motions of the story. One would think that Diego Calva’s Manny would be the main character since he’s an outsider that wants to work in Hollywood. Him meeting with Pitt’s James and Robbie’s Nellie would’ve worked as he’s shown the highs and lows of Hollywood and have him be a part of the system. Then have a point where the excess consumes him where he chooses to leave on his terms. 

        None of that happens since Manny feels very passive and that stuff just happens where he gets a position in one of the studios. In some way, Pitt and Robbie practically steal the movie away from them since their story gets interesting as we see two sides of acting. The up-and-coming actor and the one where time has already passed one by. I can imagine that Chazelle was drafting the story and felt that it had to be bigger than James and Nellie, having an audience representation that sees it all and have it be us where it’s shocking. What makes it worse is that the characters have no depth and they’re just tokens. 

        I might as well talk about the other characters aside from Manny. With Robbie's Nellie, she's a very eccentric actress who's the party girl. Everything about her screams manic since she's very active where she's a huge drug user and is independent. To the point where when the studio tries to tamp it down, she mocks the other Hollywood elite. Pitt's James Conrad is a respectable actor who had his time. It's shown that he takes Manny under his wing, but soon he becomes dejected as the projects aren't good enough for him. One can make the argument that juggling the characters works, but it feels contrasting since we don't have the time to understand when things get quiet. 

        And I feel that it’s worse when there’s nothing about them that’s interesting as far as what they are in the context of the story. Yes, we know that one’s an actor and another is attempting to be one, albeit her background is questionable and it’s enough to get her employed. We never have a moment to at least reflect on their journey. Just one with Pitt’s character where he states some empty platitudes on movie making, to the point where it’s just words being stated. More so that he could’ve been the only guy to follow and the others are just side characters. 

3. Damien Chazelle

        First Man is the first one where I wrote about the guy in the context of the film. Having watched three more, I feel that I can talk about him a bit better. It’s quite clear that he is talented as a filmmaker. His movies are quick and the editing is constant since most of his characters are constantly on the move. One of his main motifs is that he has an appreciation for jazz, and it’s imbued in a good chunk of his movies. You have one the characters play it and is very passionate about the music genre. 

        If there’s another thing that I noticed is that the main motifs in his films is that the characters go through a creative struggle. With Andrew, he wants to be the best drummer but deals with a demanding conductor. Mia and Sebastian are struggling actress and jazz player who want to make an impact on their mediums. With this one, it’s jumbled where the characters are in the position whereas another is slowly fading away and can’t deal with it. I feel that the motif would’ve worked had it just been one. I know I’m a broken record but the film could’ve worked had it just been centralized and all the time could’ve been on one singular or duo characters. 

        It’s clear that Chazelle has a taste for films. There’s a moment in mostly his movies where the main characters go to the theaters and watch a movie on the big screen. Interesting that Chazelle researched on the history of Hollywood to prepare for the shoot on this one. Somehow he made it too conflicting where the grotesqueness and the prestige clash where it’s too much. Nothing is earned or learned as there’s not enough depth or caring with what’s going on. I think the worst thing that is egregious is the final montage. 

        With how his movies end is either a tragic ending or a what if scenario being played out. Since we got a movie that shows how bad Hollywood was, we get a montage of the celebration of the medium after the fact. Watching it for the first time three years ago was like a slap in the face. Just a tribute of the medium that didn’t need to be there and is a dictionary example of visual self-gratification. In the context of the movie, Manny goes to the theater to see a film and is emotionally moved that it reminded him of what he went through. Like, it didn’t need to be there to end the movie since him being teary eyed could’ve been enough to cut to the credits.

        If there’s anything left to be said about the guy is that it’s unfortunate that he’s in director’s jail right now. It’s understandable that he had two hits under his belt and it felt that he couldn’t do anything wrong. Only for a studio to give him the money and let him go hog wild with what he wanted to direct. With what’s presented, it’s a mess that tries to pay tribute of a by gone era but is just a dumpster fire with uninteresting characters. Nothing is earned and the payoff is just an ending that tries to pay tribute to a medium after seemingly scorching the past process of making movies. 

4. Overall

        Babylon is one of the most disappointing movies I’ve seen of this decade.