Mission: Impossible III (J.J. Abrams, 2006)

Oddly enough I never watched the full MI movie series before. The first Mission: Impossible from 1996 was the first ‘proper’ film I saw in the cinema. Therefore it carries a lot of sentimental value and I still believe it is actually a good movie. After I ‘incidentally’ saw the 4^th film last year I was pretty disappointed and decided it was about time to watch numbers 2 and 3. The 2^nd one was pretty bad as well but the 3^rd oddly enough was a very entertaining and intelligently constructed film. I will try to explain the difference.

Let’s start with the first one, why was it good? Of course the complexity of the plot (let’s say it is more complex than the other 3 or for instance Inception) made it challenging, but I think in this case the director (Brian de Palma) managed to create a lot of suspense mainly by introducing every mission properly and explain its urgency to the viewer. Of course the movie has its flaws, but I believe it did pretty well what it was supposed to do: create an entertaining suspenseful action film.

About the second one. I will not spend too many words since I will compare most elements in my review of the third movie but director John Woo for me failed in most elements where the movie should and could score points. The story is usually more or less the same for these films (or a James Bond film if you wish) so this is not where the film can distinguish itself. This can be done in chemistry between male and female leads, the villain, the choreography of the action scenes and the suspense created.

Most of the elements mentioned above are much better portrayed and executed in Mission: Impossible III. Let’s start with the male and female lead. In this film Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) got married and wants to settle down. Of course the mission calls when he has the rescue a girl he trained and sent out in the field. When he can’t manage to save her the situation becomes personal for him and he wants to go after the villain Owen Davians (Philip Seymour Hoffman) who after being held hostage and threatened by Hunt promises to go after Hunt’s wife. This creates a sense of urgency we as viewers can understand. Compare this to the 2^nd film, where the relationship between Hunt and the female lead was forced and therefore felt unnatural, the sense of urgency was missing for me there.

Then the earlier mentioned villain, with personal favourite Philip Seymour Hoffman the choice could not have been better for any film that needs an intelligent evil villain. Period.

Finally, the suspense. In every respect this film beats its predecessor. First of all, the choreography of the action sequences is much better. The style of John Woo couldn’t interest me much but the most important reason for this lies in the preparation. Let’s for instance take the masks Ethan Hunt and other characters tend to use in these films. Of course this is a gadget we take for granted, let’s not point out the differences in eye colour, length and manners of characters that could make this feature an unlikely one. The usage of this feature should somehow be introduced to us to make it credible I would say, this is exactly what Abrams does in the third film when Owen Davians is about to be kidnapped and Ethan will be impersonating him. We see how the mask is created and that it takes time to do this job well, this creates great suspense. In the second film the masks came out of nowhere, which annoyed me.

Last but not least: the missions. In the second one we have some kind of deadly ‘Chimera’ virus, which somehow can be spread by someone who is infected. There are some plotholes in this story. Abrams makes a very intelligent choice in the third film by not giving the viewer any details about a dangerous compound called ‘the Rabbit’s foot’. Not knowing what it is makes it scarier, this always seems to work. More or less the same holds for the presence of the villain, in the third film Hoffman doesn’t have that much screen time making him more mysterious than his predecessor in the second film. The missions concerning the deadly compounds are set out differently, just like in the first film Abrams prepares his viewers very well in how to get what they are after (in the third one this is the villain in person). Woo failed to introduce the scene of the heist in the second film and as a viewer you kind of fall straight into the action.

All in all, the 3^rd film can measure itself with the first Mission Impossible film and I believe that director J.J. Abrams took a good look at what went wrong before. Of course, not every role is acted well, and there are some flaws but overall he created a very credible and suspenseful action film which I can strongly recommend.

7.5/10

Rock of Ages (Adam Shankman, 2012)

"This man spews out three things: Sex, hateful music, and...sex!"

A rock musical, it sounds too good to be true. Normally I would never be thrilled to watch a film made by the director of Hairspray and Bringing Down the House, but when I saw the trailer a couple of weeks ago I was excited to see this one and I am proud to say this movie is already my guilty pleasure of 2012.

The story is total crap. The small town girl Sherrie (Julianne Hough) comes to the big city to make a career as a singer. She runs into Drew (Diego Boneta, who looks like Matthew McConaughey’s little brother) who works in the Bourbon Room, a famous rock temple about to go bankrupt. Drew of course has his own aspirations as a musician and of course the two of them fall in love. And of course later on when Drew has success in the industry something goes wrong, and in the end...you can guess.

Secondly there are the two owners of the Bourbon Room (Alec Baldwin and Russell Brand) who have tax issues. The major’s wife (Catherina Zeta Jones) is determined to shut the rock temple down and especially has something against rock god Stacee Jaxx (a brilliant role by Tom Cruise).

This synopsis sound lame and cliché and has been done a thousand times before. The filmmakers obviously didn’t take it serious since they use minimal time to tell this story and focus on the strong and funny performances by the supporting actors and last but not least on the great rock music from the eighties. Music from bands like Def Leppard, Journey, Twisted Sister and Whitesnake are integrated into the storyline, or maybe not, I believe that the story was built around the songs, since the corny 80’s lyrics fit perfectly to the story.

And then Tom Cruise as Stacee Jaxx. When I saw the trailer I was afraid that he would only have a cameo appearance but fortunately he has a lot of screentime and clearly enjoys every minute of it. The sheer fun he and actors like Paul Giamatti (his manager) have can be felt perfectly and makes this film ‘Nothin’ but a good time’. The scene between him and the Rolling Stone journalist, going under the brilliant name Constance Sack (Malin Akerman), is priceless. Besides all the fun, Rock of Ages ridicules some of the developments in the music industry. There is a funny development regarding a shift in pop culture (if you like New Kids on the Block it’s likely you disagree) that must be loved by anyone who is into rock music. The film also dares to ridicule the rock culture in a way as well with some gay thematics, hairstyle and the extreme adoration of a rock idol (“When my hamster died, your music got me through it”).

If you plan to regard this movie as a serious one you will be disappointed. If you, just like me, love eighties rock you will find this picture a treat. Enjoy the pleasure the actors are having in their performances and the spoof-factor (which I think is present). Don’t compare it to classics like This is Spinal Tap or Almost Famous, but just sit back and relax.

7.5/10

Cosmopolis (David Cronenberg, 2012)

Cosmopolis, the latest production of David Cronenberg (Videodrome, A History of Violence) resulted in a lot of discussion amongst the critics at this year’s Cannes Festival. After watching this film I can completely understand why. After his (for me) disappointing A Dangerous Method I was curious and even excited to watch this one in which the director supposedly went back to his roots. Personally I wouldn’t agree with this statement but this movie is for sure a typical Cronenberg mixing the ‘old’ and ‘new’ side of the filmmaker.

Eric Packer (Robert Pattinson) is a confident 28-year old billionaire who lives in New York City. He is a brilliant Wall Street prodigy who bet a lot of his capital on the yuan’s exchange rate. We follow him in his limousine on his way for a haircut. While losing most of his capital as the rate is going up Packer calmly discusses his philosophies with co-workers, friends, security guard and his lovers. All of this happens in his limo, he even gets a prostate exam while talking, and in the outside world the riots and threats against his life are getting worse and worse.

The long monologues and dialogue especially in the first hour of the film can easily be qualified as monotone and therefore dull. Even though some of the theories and topics are very interesting (consider we are in the near future) it is hard to keep your attention. Most of this appears to be due to Pattinson’s performance, but as the movie progresses we learn that this is exactly the point, and I think Cronenberg chose the Twilight-star for a very good reason. Not only does he have the right looks for this role, his lack of emotional expressions and somewhat cold manners are exactly what Eric Packer is like.

Of course a parallel could be drawn between Packer and Patrick Bateman, the protagonist in Bret Easton Ellis’ American Psycho, but there are some important differences. First of all the fun is missing in Packer’s monologue, it is not about his favourite bands or how he wants to kill women but about less superficial and more intelligent subjects. The comparison is very strong for the relationships Packer has, especially the one with his newly wed. In a few occasions these scenes had strong similarities in emotional (or lack of ) involvement. Patrick Bateman claimed not to ‘exist’ emotionally. Packer is craving for kicks and emotions, since the spoiled billionaire doesn’t seem to be impressed by all the dangers around him. It’s like nothing can or will hurt him. (Yes, when his favourite rapper dies, the whole world cries, what a future prospect!)

The dull start of the movie could easily spoil the rest and I can imagine a lot of viewers give up after a while, I have to admit I had a hard time getting involved with any of the characters (again, this is probably what Cronenberg wants) but after a while a dark and depressing mood struck me, this feeling is amplified by the impending soundtrack which reminded me of the director’s 90’s classic Crash.

The strongest part of Cosmopolis is the final scene with a brilliant Paul Giamatti who was a former worker for Packer. The role Giamatti plays shows how much better an actor he is than Pattinson, but again, his lack of talent is not problematic at all, it is functional I would say. Some typical Cronenberg stuff and great dialogue makes a thrilling final. The director takes a risk with this film and balances on a thin line between (functional) dullness and making a philosophical statement about the future. For me it partly worked, but I will probably not watch it again soon….

7/10

TRON (Steven Lisberger, 1982)

So, here is another classic from the science fiction genre, probably the movie genre with the most potential as it comes to creativity and visuals. In my opinion the infinite possibilities for writers have led to some awesome films, for instance Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey has been and still is in my personal top 10 for years, Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner is coming close. But I feel there are a lot of disappointing ‘classics’ as well. One of the biggest problems I have with some scifi’s is that filmmakers tend to overdo their ‘gimmick’, they sometimes seem to forget how to tell their story properly and put all the effort in action, special effect and visuals. This is exactly my problem with Steven Lisberger’s TRON.

The story in its core sounds interesting. Computer programmer Flynn (Jeff Bridges) lost his job because one of his colleagues Dillinger (David Warner) stole the games he wrote and is now the president of a software engineering firm called ENCOM. This information is stored in the mainframe computer, which he tries to hack. This computer is protected by an artificial intelligence called MCP (Master Control Program, not as creative as HAL, IBM alphabetically 1 letter shifted). When Dillinger finds out this MCP wants to hack and gain control of the Kremlin and Pentagon it blackmails Dillinger to reveal his plagiarism. When Flynn breaks in at ENCOM to hack the MCP he gets sucked in the computer mainframe entering a virtual reality and has to find his way in the digital world to beat Dillinger, who is in control, to get his recognition regarding the popular video games.

As I mentioned earlier, the SF genre has a lot of possibilities in a lot of different fields. Think about time travel, space travel, aliens, future prospects etc. I am generally a big fan of the type of SF where one or a few details have been changed or are different compared to our conventional world and that are told properly in a ‘conventional’ real-world film (Donnie Darko, Primer or Brazil). Films like Star Wars, Star Trek of Serenity are usually too ‘chaotic’ for me, there is simply too much going on or possible to keep me fascinated (I admit that I do like the old Star Wars, especially The Empire Strikes Back). Like I said I have the same problem with TRON, it started off promising but in the second half when we have entered a new virtual world there is so much going on that I lost interest.

Suspense, mystery combined with emotional thrills and involvement are in general some of the key ingredients that keep a good story going. Elements which the great directors master to integrate adequately in their films. In the SF films I qualified earlier as being too chaotic I meant that they are chaotic in the sense that the story doesn’t seem to be the most important element of the film. Especially when characters are having special skills of which I am not aware I can get really annoyed since it often breaks the coherence and puzzle element of a good story.

Director Lisberger clearly focuses on his visual imagery and I guess it is mind-blowing for the early eighties, but at the same time he proves not to be a great storyteller and fails to create a coherent suspenseful story (for me at least). The message he tries to tell us has been done before and much, much better (Kubrick). I will not go as far as to say it is a bad film, therefore it is too unique and visionary in its animated imagery but TRON is definitely not my cup of tea.

5.5/10

Walkabout (Nicolas Roeg, 1971)

When I prepared for my Australia trip 1,5 years ago I stumbled upon a number of movies in the Lonely Planet guide. I am not sure anymore if Nicolas Roeg’s Walkabout was in there, but I would say it is obligatory for anyone who somehow relates to this beautiful country. Many hail this movie as a masterpiece and I can fully understand why. I will get into the cinematic qualities shortly but first I have to say it was a very personal experience for me, having been a guest Down Under for a year I felt somewhat melancholic watching the red hot desert, the kangaroos, the carpet pythons and even listening to the buzzing blowflies made me want to go back. Disregarding my personal attachment this movie is a pearl!

It tells the story of a father (who works in mining, still the main driver of Australia’s flourishing economy) of two children who took them outback and commits a bizarre suicide. The teenage girl (Jenny Agutter) and her younger brother (Luc Roeg, the director’s son) end up in the deserted but beautiful outback and seem doomed until they run into a 16-year old Aborigine boy.

Director Roeg started his career as a cinematographer (Lawrence of Arabia, Fahrenheit 451) and this is visible throughout the entire film. He captures the endless beauty and harmonious nature in a poetic way like for instance Malick can and uses intelligent editing. His obvious message lies in the visual contradictions between nature and (mining) industry (mainly towards the end). The cross-cutting between the Aborigine boy slaying a Kangaroo and the conventional butcher says a lot but there is more. Like Roger Ebert points out in his spot-on review there is also the issue of communication.

There is definitely a sexual attraction or tension developing between the 14-year old girl and the Aborigine boy but since they cannot communicate the black native (who has no problems communicating with the younger brother) has to fall back to his ritual dance which doesn’t have the desired effect. One could interpret this as if the cultural differences get in the way of natural developments in a number of ways as pointed out by Roeg.

A lot of the problems that are going on in Australia with the Aboriginals are left implicit by the director and are visualized by the surroundings and how both cultures are treating animals and especially nature. Roeg does make explicit that 'western' Australians and Aborigines are in two different worlds together with the striking scene with the abandoned car, not very subtle, but effective. On the other hand this film doesn’t explicitly points out the country’s history of genocide (this is what happened!) but leaves room for interpretation. It may not reach every viewer, but instead of making a 'standard' moralizing picture, we got our visual and poetic masterpiece.

I saw the final sequence 4 times and I believe it is one of the most beautiful and at the same time depressing scenes I ever saw. For a film from the early seventies it is scary how it predicts and criticizes developments that have expanded more and more over the years. I believe it is not just criticizing the Australian mining industrialization, Walkabout is a general statement about man's attitude towards nature.

9/10

Hwal (Kim Ki Duk, 2005)

Asia produces a lot of movies that are getting more and more popular in our western filmworld. One of best known movie-countries for us is probably South Korea. Director Kim Ki Duk stole my heart after I saw his Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter…and Spring and Bin-Jip (3-Iron). Of course I want to watch all of his movies (I am a cinephile…) and today it was Hwal or the Bow.

Like many great movies this picture deserves its credit for the feeling and mood it gives you as a viewer (for me this is something where Ki Duk always succeeded so far). The director is not shy of showing us some of his trademarks again which are, in this case, minimal dialogue and a story on a single isolated location.

In Hwal the location is a fishing boat owned by an older man around 60. His only company a 16 year old beautiful girl who he will marry the day she turns 17. The boat serves as a fishing location for visitors, some of them are talking about the rumours that the girl went missing when she was 6 and her parents are still looking for her. The old man, equipped with bow and arrow, is very protective of his fiancée and fires warning shots towards anyone who shows an interest in the young girl. The old man also predicts the future of his guests if they request, he does this with a very odd and dangerous ritual. After this the little girl whispers something in the man’s ear after which he tells his guests their future. Apart from this ritual the two main characters are not talking at all.

When a younger guy visits the boat, the isolated girl fancies him instantly and the two seem to fall in love. Of course he is chased off the boat at first by the old man, resulting in alienation from the girl towards her future husband. But can the love between the two young people be stopped by the old man eventually?

The story about this somewhat unconventional love triangle begs for at least some dialogue from either the old man or his fiancée but Ki Duk manages to tell his story without and this is exactly the strength and talent of this director. The imagery and colouring is beautiful as usual and the director shows again how to tell his story with minimal text but optimal acting performances and directing. The final act of the movie is bizarre on the one hand but I have to admit it gave me goosebumps, merely because of an awesome soundtrack.

Not as good as his earlier mentioned masterpiece Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter…and Spring but again a great film from the Korean master of cinematic poetry. Poëcinema if you wish.

8/10

Kárhozat (Béla Tarr, 1988)

Opening take: A bleak industrial landscape with the background noise of a coal power plant. The camera slowly zooms out and we see how some guy is witnessing the daily industrial process from his room. It’s a take of a couple of minutes where basically nothing happens but it sets the tone if it comes to the mood of the movie and the environment we are in.

With this scene I started watching my first Bèla Tarr movie called Kárhozat or Damnation. It is black and white, has long takes with an extremely slowly panning camera, no establishing shots, making the images fascinating and even though it may look empty at first, there is so much to see. I wouldn’t call it beauty, the movie is not an advertisement for Hungary, but the cinematography is awesome!

The plot is absolutely not important but I will try to summarize it. We see a somewhat depressed recluse in his local bar Titanik. He falls in love with a blonde singer. The owner asks him to participate in a smuggling scheme. He asks the husband of the singer to do the job so he has his hands free with her. We see how the protagonist is trying to get to her, sometimes subtle, sometimes violently, sharing his deep and philosophical insights with her and the viewer.

Again, this plot is just a means for the director to give us an impression of the bleak circumstances of a country in the last years of a Communistic regime. The movie puts its viewer in a depressive mood with ease and hypnotises with beautiful images and camerawork. Tarr chooses to repeatingly focus on rain (in both dialogue and visually), stray dogs and sad surroundings. I believe that he deliberately chose for a black and white movie to make it as bleak as possible.

Kárhozat was the first Tarr movie I watched and it was exactly what I was expecting. It is not digested lightly and the images contain so much sadness in every detail that I will wait a while before I’ll watch another one. The director does not use establishing shots but positions his camera close to the objects or characters he is observing resulting in some surprises when he slowly pans to a different corner (for instance the off-screen diegetic music, there always seems to be a musician in every corner). This unconventional trademark technique makes every take interesting and creates an undefinable suspense.

This filmmaker got my attention and I will try to watch more (his next one Sátántangó has a runtime of 450 minutes, so I may have to schedule….) but I will make sure to be in the right mood and circumstances. Definitely not your conventional popcorn film!

8/10