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. 

La La Land Review

        My look into Damien Chazelle continues. After the smash success of Whiplash, it yielded multiple Award nominations. With J.K. Simmons winning his second award for Best Supporting Actor. It only seemed natural that Chazelle would continue with his Jazz-motifs into something bigger. He drew from his own life experience of attempting to work in Hollywood and the struggles that came with it. While La La Land isn’t overtly negative with the creative struggle like the last entry, it manages to be endearing with the romance angle and the inevitable reality crunch.

1. Mia and Sebastian

        The opening minutes of the film did not adequately prepare me to believe that it was going to be a musical. This is my actual first time watching the film. And I distinctly remember just the discourse around the film when it came out and of course the Oscar mess up that happened. While there would be another moment that would slap that gaffe away, La La Land was supposed to get the guaranteed win for the top prize at the Oscars. With that, when you strip away the romance and the tragic angle, it would seem like a love letter to Los Angeles. 

        The traffic dance moment sets it up where this isn’t going to be the typical romance or love story. We don’t initially see the two leads only after the dance number ends. Both Mia and Sebastian are the main characters in the film. We follow both as they are creatives who want to pursue their endeavors but struggle. Mia is an aspiring actress who can’t seem to nail a role after multiple auditions. Sebastian is an aspiring jazz player who is too traditional and restrictive to adapt to the contemporary sound of the genre. 

        A chance encounter between them kicks off the story where there’s a mutual liking to each other and it inevitably blossoms. It’s the kind of movie where there must be a chemistry between them for us to believe that they can be a couple. Especially when we see them before they meet as they struggle with what they got going on. Those moments help us build empathy that want us to believe they have a chance when the going gets rough. It inevitably does but that’s not my point. The overall point is that it has to be believable and for us to buy into these guys. 

        I think the thing that makes this film special is that it has that fantasy element that is grounded in a general sense. What I mean by that is that it’s inherently a musical but the overall gist of the movie is about the creative struggle of the artist and actress. We have those moments where Seb is playing the piano, but there’s a moment where the spotlight is on him and everything around is dark. Same with Mia when she’s auditioning. What makes it work is that they’re expressing themselves. Even better is when they’re together that makes it more endearing. 

        So much so that when we see them together, Seb encourages Mia to write her own play in order to be creative without the rejection. Their romance is spot on as they encourage each other to pursue what they want. More so that they’re equally supportive on their respective endeavors. We get a moment where both spend time with each other attempting to understand what they’re wanting. With Seb with Mia at the Warner Bros. studio lot and Mia with Seb understanding jazz music in its pure form. You know it’s a Damian Chazelle film where a character gushes about the genre.

        I think my favorite scene is when they’re at Griffith’s Observatory. When the film they were watching gets burnt, the duo head to the observatory to spend some time. They look around as they casually dance. When they go to the planetarium, it’s my favorite moment when they’re dancing among the projected stars. I really like just the idea that they’re together and they just elevate where their love isn’t bounded by anything and that they’re probably meant to be together. It’s not that kind of movie, which I’ll get into a bit don’t you worry. 

        One more thing I want to mention is that the movie is very vibrant. As far as I know that it wasn’t advertised that it was shot in Cinemascope. A type of film that makes the footage be presented in a widescreen ratio. As well as make the colors pop, as we see moments where Mia’s friends’ dresses easily pop out when light is shown. It’s appropriate to have the whole thing be vibrant and not too oversaturated since the film is paying tribute to the musicals of the past. The scenes where both Mia and Seb are dancing stand out. It’s not too stylized but their dances are good enough to communicate to us that they’re in sync with each other. And I think it was a nice touch to have Rebel Without a Cause playing since it did use that type of film. 

2. Clash with Reality

        I will continue to state that no romance/love film are the same. Even though by association there is some sense of romance, there’s a clear definite difference between the two. Romance is the film where the couple becomes one in the end. Love is when the couple doesn’t make it due to differences or they must separate out of love for each other. This film is the ladder, and it’s surprising to me that they would frame this film as a sort of fantasy. I stated before that the film is a grounded fantasy film, but one where it doesn’t clash in the least bit stylistically speaking. 

        The film is smart enough where there’s not a single entity that threatens the couple. More so that the big conflict between the two is the actual careers that they want to pursue. No one could’ve imagined where basic reality would be the central crux of the couple stability. Additionally, I feel that it was smart that after the Observatory dance, the scene ends like a Looney Tunes short. Communicating to us that the fantasy stuff is now done, we’re going to be slapped by this thing called reality. I think it’s a roughly new idea in a love story where just the harsh truth of reality is what ends things. 

        You have other Love films where the couple is too toxic where it can’t be reconciled or they just die like Romeo and Juliet. With this one, one visual key shows us that they’re drifting is with how they’re dressed. I’ve seen other commentators noticing that and I feel that I should amplify it. You have Mia’s wardrobe being vibrant in contrast with Seb’s who’s more dapper than anyone. As the relationship continues, her wardrobe changes to slightly match Seb’s and when things are nosediving, her colors are more muted. It’s one way to communicate her growth and one where her relationship wasn’t going to last. 

        I think my favorite scene is when they have the argument where it practically sets it up that the relationship is a failure. Seb surprises her with dinner after touring with a contemporary jazz band. They talk, until it goes south when Mia questions why Seb must go on tour. To which Seb asks her when she’ll visit him. It’s like being the third wheel in a bad dinner date. And it seems like it’s in Ryan Gosling’s contract to be in a movie where a relationship doesn’t last long. Just an odd actor motif, but in any case this relationship wasn’t going to last. 

        Back to the argument, to me what really the crux of the issue for the two of them is that they never once communicated anything beyond their dreams and aspirations. Seb encouraged Mia to pursue her acting and going further to write a play. Especially ignoring anyone that would deem it negatively. Whereas we have Mia encouraging Seb to open a jazz club, unbeknownst to her that he’s in a band where it pays good but plays music that he doesn’t like. It’s the factors at play where their careers are incompatible with what they want out of each other. Even more heartbreaking when the final moment is a montage of a what if between them. 

3. Overall

        La La Land is Damien Chazelle’s best film and one of the best in the 2010s.