Tom Cruise – 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: ★★★☆☆

True Life Twofer – ‘American Made’ and ‘Battle of the Sexes’ – Nothing Special

Nothing really connects these two films other than the old “based on a true story” moniker, but they did go wide the same day, so here we are. I wanted to like them; I tried, but…

American Made

Directed by Doug Liman
Written by Gary Spinelli
Cast: Tom Cruise, Domhnall Gleeson, Sarah Wright, Jesse Plemons, Caleb Landry Jones, Lola Kirke, Jayma Mays, Alejandro Edda, Benito Martinez, E. Roger Mitchell, Jed Rees, Jayson Warner Smith, William Mark McCullough, Mickey Sumner
Soundtrack: Christophe Beck

The last time Tom Cruise and Doug Liman got together resulted in one of the best action movies of the new millennium, so I had reasonably high expectations going into this one.

Unfortunately, my hopes were dashed fairly quickly.

For one thing, somebody decided it would be a good idea to shoot American Made like a Duplass Brothers film (complete with annoying snap zooms), which, for the life of me, I cannot understand, anymore than I can understand all of the praise for Tom Cruise that I’ve been seeing. I mean, I like Tom. He still does great movies from time to time (mostly of the Mission: Impossible variety, but that’s fine), but boy oh boy can he not pull off even the slightest of accents.

Really though, these are just nitpicks compared to the bigger issues.

There are two fatal flaws with American Made. One, despite the “based on a true story” label, the movie is severely lacking in verisimilitude, especially in the performances (and I mean across the board), and, two, we’ve seen this kind of story done better already, and in particular I mean Blow. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again, I don’t mind if you play fast and loose with the truth, but the movie better be interesting and at least feel real within the world of the story, and American Made largely fails at both.

This is not to say it’s entirely bad. There’s a fair amount of entertainment value from the flying scenes (which are sadly shrouded in deadly controversy), and a few moments of good humor, but other than that there’s not a whole lot to grab onto.

I wish I could rate it higher, but my heart tells me no.

Rating: ★★☆☆☆

Battle of the Sexes

Directed by Jonathan Dayton & Valerie Faris
Written by Simon Beaufoy
Cast: Emma Stone, Steve Carell, Andrea Riseborough, Sarah Silverman, Bill Pullman, Alan Cumming, Elisabeth Shue, Natalie Morales, Eric Christian Olsen, Fred Armisen, Martha MacIsaac, Mickey Sumner, Jessica McNamee, Austin Stowell, Wallace Langham, Bridey Elliott, Lewis Pullman, James Mackay, Enuka Okuma, Mark Harelik, Jamey Sheridan, Chip Chinery, Chris Parnell, John C. McGinley
Soundtrack: Nicholas Britell

Speaking of lack of verisimilitude, let’s talk Battle of the Sexes.

To be fair, this one doesn’t play with the truth nearly as much as American Made, but outside of Emma Stone as Billie Jean King, Steve Carell as Bobby Riggs, and the fantastic period costuming, this one fell rather flat as well, not to mention obsolete.

I say obsolete because ever since ESPN debuted its 30 for 30 series in 2009, and showed the world the depths to which sports documentaries could now reach, the idea of the classic “based on a true story” sports movie has become rather outmoded. Not to say that any genre can’t still be done well, but I’m not sure Battle of the Sexes did justice to the story it attempted to tell, nor, frankly, did it do justice to being an entertaining film. I tell you what though, if ESPN ever does a 30 for 30 on it, I’m all in.

One of the big problems is the pacing, due largely to the fact that the movie spends an inordinate amount of its two hour runtime tightly focused on the affair between Billie Jean King and her lover, Marilyn Barnett. Undoubtedly, it was a crucial part of King’s life, and I’m not arguing it should go without any mention, but it doesn’t add much to the film other than to set up a moment that was obviously made up for dramatic purposes.

Beyond that though, there’s just a lot about this movie, performances especially, that feels one-dimensional. Maybe much of the dialogue was inspired or directly quoted from real conversations, I don’t know, but most of the characters in Battle of the Sexes feel more like caricatures than real people, which would be fine if it was more of the comedy it was advertised as, but not in a film attempting to deal with real life drama.

Again, Stone and Carell are great, but they’re not enough to push this one into recommendation territory, which is sad.

Rating: ★★☆☆☆

P.S.
No stingers of any kind on either film.

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

Quick Thoughts – July Round-Up, Part 1 of 2

‘All Quiet on the Western Front’ (1930)

Of all the armed conflicts in human history, perhaps none was more senselessly brutal than World War I. Early 20th Century Europe was a powder keg waiting for one good spark, and when it came, the continent (and beyond) was plunged into darkness for four long years. Worse yet, the battlefields and high seas were the most violent Petri dishes imaginable, as aging military tactics met groundbreaking new technology: airplanes, submarines, tanks, chemical gas; pretty much anything that could be weaponized was put to such use.

Based on the seminal novel by Erich Maria Remarque, ‘All Quiet on the Western Front’ is an equally important motion picture, as it captures the madness of “The Great War” from the level of the common soldier; from enlistment, to training, to combat, to back home, and, ultimately, to death.

It doesn’t seem logical that a film made four score and six years ago about a war that happened a century ago would feel at all contemporary, yet ‘All Quiet’ somehow manages to do just that. The battle scenes, though not filled with the blood and gore we’re accustomed to now, are as harrowing as can be. What I find even more striking, however, are the characters and their conversations, trying to simultaneously hold onto their humanity while also numbing themselves in order to be effective. If you’ve seen ‘Fury‘ or ‘American Sniper‘ in recent years, you can draw lines back to ‘All Quiet’.

If I have one major criticism, it’s that you feel the movie’s length (it runs over two hours) and sometimes scenes don’t quite flow together, but given how long ago it was produced, that can be forgiven.

There’s little doubt that this is an all-time great film that everyone should see at least once.

Rating: ★★★★½

‘Top Gun’ (1986)

When people ask me what my favorite arthouse film is, I always say it’s the first few minutes of ‘Top Gun’, before “Highway to the Danger Zone” comes in, because it’s nothing but a bunch of long, gorgeous “magic hour” shots of flight deck operations aboard the USS Enterprise, set to that beautifully ambient Harold Faltermeyer score. Really, until Mr. Loggins comes storming in, my brain tells me this is going to be one of the best movies I’ve ever seen, but then reality eventually sets in, and I retreat to a place of disappointment.

That’s right. ‘Top Gun’, that awesome movie you loved when you were a kid, is actually terrible. In fact, by and large, if there aren’t airplanes, Tom Skerritt, or Michael Ironside on the screen, the movie’s a hot mess: the script is bad, the story is dumbed-down, and the romantic sub-plot is horrendous and needlessly log-jammed into the middle of the film. It’s bad. It’s a bad movie.

Now, that’s not to say it’s totally irredeemable, because F-14s are awesome, and F-14s taking on other fighter jets are even more awesome, but all that action doesn’t quite make up for the fact that almost every other element is cringe-worthy.

Basically, ‘Top Gun’ is the kind of movie you put on and fast forward through all the boring parts. There’s absolutely no need to spend all 110 minutes watching the whole thing.

Rating: ★★½

‘Risky Business’ (1983)

‘Risky Business’ is another movie I throw in the Overrated bin. Not unlike ‘Beverly Hills Cop‘, this film lives in the muddled middle: not funny enough to be an effective comedy, and not intense enough to be a cool high school crime drama.

Frankly, the movie is sophomoric, and I get that as a high school story maybe it should be that, but what I really mean is at certain points it feels like it was made by an actual 10th grader. Perhaps the ultimate example of this is when Joel and Lana (Tom Cruise and Rebecca De Mornay) are attempting to get intimate on a Chicago “L” train and the soundtrack is blasting Phil Collins’ “In the Air Tonight”; it’s just such a poor creative choice that made me hate the movie in that moment.

However, there is some good work here, especially the Tangerine Dream score, but not enough for me to recommend the movie outright. Stick to ‘Ferris Bueller’ if you’re looking for a Chicago-area high schooler wish fulfillment movie.

Rating: ★★½