Bruce Geller – People Talking

Quick Thoughts – July Mega-Post – ‘Mission: Impossible – Fallout’ ‘Sorry to Bother You’ ‘Skyscraper’ ‘The Equalizer 2’

My affinity for these movies is fairly well-documented, from the first one to the last one.

And why not? After all, when the consensus “worst film” in your franchise is a John Woo guns-motorcycles-doves-knives spectacular, you know you’re doing something right.

A lot of that credit belongs to J.J. Abrams for resurrecting things in 2006 (and staying on as a producer ever since), which was perfect timing, because when the James Bond franchise zigged to more gritty and grounded, Mission: Impossible zagged to what classic Bond always was: a globetrotting, fun, high action, insane stunt-filled series. The key difference is that where the Bond actors would step aside for a stuntman (or stunt driver, or stunt pilot), Tom Cruise, more often than not, gets in there and does these amazing feats himself, and Fallout is no different; so much so in fact that to me the movie played more like a Bond Greatest Hits album than a Mission: Impossible film, which is fine by me.

Hate him all you want for whatever reason you want, I choose to respect Tom Cruise for this: he was an action star at 27, and is still an action star at 57, and while this may be the last Mission: Impossible movie with him in the lead, it looks like he’ll be an action star for at least a few more years.

All that said, and it’s hard to put my finger on exactly why, the script for Fallout feels like a step back compared to the last two films (not to mention my boy Jeremy Renner feels conspicuously absent). However, I will still give it four stars because the action and stunts are more than big-screen worthy, and because the movie does reward long-time fans (making reference all the way back to the first, and yes, second one).

Rating: ★★★★☆

Sorry to Bother You

Often times, when I find myself having to sit through a movie’s trailer dozens upon dozens of times (*COUGH*EighthGrade*COUGH*), I become resentful and refuse to see it on the principle of how annoyed I am, but in the case of Sorry to Bother You, I was always looking forward to it, just because it looked so refreshingly original, which it most definitely is.

In fact, not only is it an original script from writer/director Boots Riley, he also contributed a number of songs to the film’s soundtrack with his band, The Coup, so the whole project has a real homegrown vibe to it (but in a good way, not a crappy student film way).

Fair warning, the third act goes off the rails, which will divide people, but in terms of comedies with social commentary and satire, it’s the best I’ve seen since Ingrid Goes West (though the style of much of the satire is akin to the original Robocop, which, again, is a good thing).

It’s definitely not a movie for kids, and I’m sure it’ll piss some people off, but I enjoyed it and would absolutely recommend it to adults with brains.

Rating: ★★★★☆

Skyscraper

I know I’m not making a revelatory statement when I say that this movie is like if Die Hard and The Towering Inferno had a baby in Hong Kong.

In fact, it’s safe to say that not only do most people going to see this already know that, but the movie knows that they know that, and therefore delivers exactly that.

What I’m trying to say here is that the movie knows what it is: a fairly mindless yet relatively satisfying piece of popcorn entertainment. Is it dumb? Yes. Is it as dumb as it could be? No, and I appreciate that.

It’s nothing special, and you’re either on board or you’re not, but if you are, you’ll have a good time (and I even noticed and liked some of the music, which feels so rare these days).

Rating: ★★★½

The Equalizer 2

Maybe I’m wrong, but I’m starting to get the sense that Antoine Fuqua is not a great action director, because though I think these movies are okay (largely because Denzel is Denzel), I have issues with both that hold me back from enjoying them as much as I theoretically think I should.

My major problem with the first one was I felt the “badassness” was way overwrought, and I thought the movie would have been better served by underplaying it a bit; but I guess be careful what I wish for, because the sequel swings the pendulum hard the other way, but overall I didn’t find the story as interesting as its predecessor, so, I don’t know.

There are some satisfying moments and plotlines, and I really can’t hate on the slower pace (and the James Bond-esque cold open was kind of nice), but, I can’t say I’ll be all that disappointed if they never announce an Equalizer 3.

Rating: ★★★☆☆

Classic Movie Review – ‘Mission: Impossible’ – Rulers Who Had Gold

Original Release Date: May 22, 1996
Directed by Brian De Palma
Written by David Koepp (story and screenplay), Steven Zaillian (story), and Robert Towne (screenplay), based on the television series created by Bruce Geller
Cast: Tom Cruise, Jon Voight, Emmanuelle Béart, Henry Czerny, Jean Reno, Ving Rhames, Kristin Scott Thomas, Vanessa Redgrave, Ingeborga Dapkunaite, Rolf Saxon, Andreas Wisniewski, Ricco Ross, Dale Dye, Marcel Iures, Emilio Estevez
Soundtrack: Danny Elfman

A lot can happen in twenty years.

Just ask Paramount. In the two decades they’ve been releasing Mission: Impossible films, they’ve also managed to put Star Trek into a space coffin, only to successfully resuscitate it again (although it did take them three movies to really get it right). Certain wisdom might suggest they think about packing the M:I series in after five films in twenty years, but it doesn’t look like they plan on stopping anytime soon, so long as Tom Cruise is still willing and able to do big, on-camera stunts.

What’s really funny, though, is that for a franchise that’s become synonymous with top-of-the-line action, the original movie seems quaint in comparison. In fact, outside of the helicopter vs. train sequence, 1996’s Mission: Impossible barely has any “action” as we think of it today. Yet, it’s still utterly engaging from start to finish. Who, you might ask, is responsible for this?

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Mr. Brian De Palma.

His own contentious relationship with the movie aside, it’s undoubtedly one of his babies. Outside of gratuitous nudity, pretty much any De Palma hallmark you can think of can be found in Mission: Impossible: killing off important characters for shock value, rogue investigations, crane shots, Steadicam shots, sharply-angled shots, POVs, split diopter shots, stairwells, murder, blood, murder, payphones, murder, and, of course, lots and lots of tension.

He’s never gotten the same level of respect as his contemporaries (Spielberg, Lucas, Coppola, Scorsese), despite directing at least a few movies that have left indelible marks on pop culture (Carrie, Scarface, The Untouchables), but Brian De Palma is a remarkable talent nonetheless; unabashedly visual in his direction, and a quintessential expert in cinematic language [that’s sadly being lost as time goes on].

That said, the movie doesn’t rest entirely on De Palma’s shoulders, broad as they may be. At the time of its release, Mission: Impossible was, as the kids say, “a big effing deal,” and a lot of heavy hitters were involved. You had De Palma himself; you had Tom Cruise on top of the whole wide world (and producing his first picture); Jon Voight was still very much in the public eye (a cameo on Seinfeld certainly didn’t hurt his Q-Rating); Danny Elfman did the score; you had Paul Hirsch in the editing room (he cut together a little film called The Empire Strikes Back); and, last but not least, special make-up effects by Rob Bottin (The Howling, The Thing, RoboCop).

In other words, Mission: Impossible was always intended to be a big movie, not something the studio took minimal financial risk on and hoped did well, because they clearly went out and hired tried and true professionals, and, in the end, the investment paid off very well. The film is wonderful to watch, filled with all sorts of visual sumptuousness; the vault sequence where Tom Cruise is hanging on wires makes you tense up every time; and, as silly as it is, the end action sequence still looks fine, especially comparing effects from twenty years ago to modern CGI.

Again though, what makes Mission: Impossible truly special, in comparison to other action-espionage films as well as its own sequels, is the lack of reliance on gunplay and general action schlock. It may not be a hard spy film like A Most Wanted Man, but, like many other Brian De Palma features, it starts out grounded enough in reality to make the insanity that comes later seem plausible while you’re engaged with it.

As much as I do enjoy the recent entries in the series, Mission: Impossible is still the best of the bunch. Quite simply, it’s captivating, gorgeous, and fun. A great popcorn movie if there ever was one.

Rating: ★★★★½

Movie Review – ‘Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation’ – The Well Runs Deep

Directed by Christopher McQuarrie
Written by Christopher McQuarrie (story and screenplay) and Drew Pearce (story), based on the television series created by Bruce Geller
Cast: Tom Cruise, Rebecca Ferguson, Jeremy Renner, Simon Pegg, Ving Rhames, Sean Harris, Alec Baldwin
Soundtrack: Joe Kraemer

It’s been a little over three-and-a-half years since the last Mission: Impossible movie was released, and I still can’t figure out if “Mission: Impossible Fans” are even a thing (I mean, I’m definitely one), but I know they should be. Over the span of nearly two decades, one of the best action film series in existence (and certainly one of the better film series in general) has slowly but surely been dosed out to us, and I really don’t think the movie-going public has fully appreciated it. It’s time they come ’round.

My own personal journey with this [movie] franchise began in earnest in 2011, as a means to an end. Sure, I had seen the first one on TV a bunch of times (gotta love USA Network), and the second one in theaters back in 2000 (the third one I missed completely, probably thanks to being in college at the time of its release), but when I learned that they’d be showing footage from The Dark Knight Rises ahead of IMAX screenings of Ghost Protocol, well, as Master Shake would say, “Now what you’re saying is interesting.”

It was then decided, my best friend and myself would watch I, II, and III on the opening day of the fourth installment, and so we did. “Mission: Impossible Day”, as we naturally called it, was not an exercise without merit, after all, Ghost Protocol had callbacks going all the way back to the first one, but it was that fourth film in the series that really sold me on the franchise. The original is objectively the best film (and might be my favorite Brian De Palma movie; I know that sounds crazy), but Ghost Protocol remains my favorite, because Brad Bird and company absolutely nailed that perfect mix of “serious stakes” and “fun and enjoyable” (pretty much the same tone as Ghost Busters, though with much less ectoplasm…I hope).

So, where does Rogue Nation fit into all of this?

Well, it’s not the best one, and it’s not my favorite one, but it’s very, very good.

Performance-wise, everybody’s fine all around, though not everyone is given much to do. Cruise, Ferguson, and Pegg are decidedly the stars of the show, with Renner, Rhames, and Baldwin solidly in support. For those characters with unsure allegiances, they do a great job of keeping you guessing throughout the run time, which is especially appreciated in a movie about espionage. I’d also be remiss if I didn’t mention Sean Harris (who you might recognize from Prometheus). He’s not an all-time villain by any stretch, but he brings about a nice mix of menace and creep factor that an evil spy should.

One aspect of the series I’ve always appreciated is that each movie has a different director at the helm, and Rogue Nation gives us longtime Bryan Singer-collaborator Christopher McQuarrie (perhaps most famous for writing The Usual Suspects). In terms of overall filmmaking, McQuarrie wisely decided not to try to out-top the last installment, opting instead to go smaller and more intimate, relatively speaking (the scope of the story still spans the globe). The result is something darker and generally less humorous than I expected, but the laughs are still there, and the action and accompanying stunt work is definitely still there (arguably never better, as that is actually Tom Cruise hanging onto the side of a real plane). It’s almost like a nice medium between new tough-realistic James Bond and classic over-the-top James Bond.

McQuarrie’s screenplay also features some clever self-reflection on the series itself, referencing past events, and even going as far to say that Ethan Hunt is the embodiment of “destiny” (or something to that effect). All-in-all, it was refreshing to watch a big movie that, while it certainly had the global market in mind, was made with more than a 5th grade level of intelligence. There’s some product placement I could complain about, but it’s mostly in the first reel, so it’s not a distraction throughout.

Honestly though, perhaps lost in all of the spectacle, the five different directors (i.e. J.J. Abrams), and the myriad of producing partners (i.e. J.J. Abrams), is that this whole film franchise is really Tom Cruise’s baby; because Paramount may have held the property rights, but it was fan of the TV show Tom Cruise that actually got the ball rolling. Not only has he been the star of each film, but he’s produced them all as well. In fact, Mission: Impossible was the very first movie released under the banner of his production company, Cruise/Wagner Productions.

So, go ahead and say what you want about the man personally, but Tom Cruise continues to give us the gift of a great action franchise, arguably at the time we need it most, and Rogue Nation is a worthy addition to it.

Whether you’re a “Mission: Impossible Fan” or not, I’m betting you’ll have a good time (though if you’ve not yet seen Ghost Protocol, I recommend checking that one out first, but I’m not making it a requirement).

Rating: ★★★★☆

P.S.
Have you seen Kingsman yet?