Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol

Mission: Impossible is kind of a strange series.  The first film, directed fifteen years ago by Brian "subtlety's my middle name" De Palma, was an entertaining but logically dubious special effects feature with quadruple crosses galore.  The second film, directed by John "I rape subtlety for breakfast" Woo, was a ridiculously over-the-top and incredibly stupid tribute to slow motion effects; it also featured a theme song by Limp Bizkit.  Ugh.  The third film, directed by J.J. "Blue F'n Lights" Abrams, went back to basics, but narrowed the scope down so far that it felt more like an awesome TV show than a blockbuster movie.  Honestly, I didn't have high hopes for Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol, the fourth entry in the franchise.  It's not that I haven't enjoyed the other movies in the series--- they are entertaining for what they are --- but experience warns against the probability of a fourth movie in a franchise being good.  There are a few facts about Ghost Protocol that indicate that it may fare better than, say, X-Men Origins: Wolverine.  First of all, this is the first live-action feature film directed by Brad Bird, who wrote and directed one of my favorite films of the past decade, The Incredibles.  Second, despite being a blockbuster, this was not filmed in 3D, but in IMAX; I may be petty, but 3D still feels like a gimmick in most films and, as Christopher Nolan has proved, IMAX can make some awesome special effects scenes breathtaking.  Finally, Ghost Protocol makes sure to keep the heroes from donning the ridiculously perfect Mission: Impossible masks that have plagued the series so far.  But is that enough to make this fourth volume worth watching?

Look!  An actual disguise!  Times have changed since 2000.

The plots of Mission: Impossible movies can be nosebleed-inducing if examined in too much detail, so I'll try to keep this relatively simple.  A bad guy, Kurt Hendricks, (the Swedish Millennium Trilogy's hero, Michael Nyqvist) wants to start a nuclear war.  That's bad.  Worse, he has framed the IMF (Impossible Missions Force) for an international catastrophe, so the entire organization and its agents have been officially disbanded and disavowed.  Specifically, Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) and friends have been framed for said international catastrophe, so they top the international wanted list.  Of course, they are the only ones who realize that Hendricks is planning to ruin the world, so they need to stop him.  They are all alone, without their usual bag 'o' tricks to help them and without international government support for their actions.  But that's why it's called an impossible mission, right?

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol was never designed to be an acting Goliath, but it's not half bad.  While it certainly won't net Tom Cruise the Oscar he obviously desires so desperately, I thought he was perfectly fine in this movie.  His character is clever and pretty bad-ass, without much angst or annoying principles to get in the way.  Simon Pegg returns for a second film, and he once again provides comic relief as the nervous tech guy.  I like Pegg, but I wish he would try something a little different in his next big budget movie.  I wasn't too impressed by Paula Patton, though; she had a sizable role and had the opportunity to be sexy, conflicted, and awesome, but was missing something --- depth, for starters --- to make her character work.

Meh

A lot was made of Jeremy Renner being added to the cast of Ghost Protocol,  with rumors suggesting him as a possible heir to headline the franchise when Cruise is finished.  If so, this isn't the movie that will make that happen.  Renner is perfectly fine, but he doesn't steal any scenes and just hints at his character's potential --- he's supposedly an Ethan Hunt-level bad-ass with an analyst's mind --- instead of doing anything particularly awesome.

I said "awesome," not "a clear homage to M:I I"

Lost alumni Josh Hamilton (who I barely recognized without his signature long locks) makes a brief appearance as a good guy, but he doesn't get a chance to do much.  The good guys also had some brief appearances from Ving Rhames, Michelle Monaghan, and Tom Wilkinson; of the three, Wilkinson had the most to work with and was the most fun to watch, if only because his character defied the expectations of a bureaucrat in a Mission: Impossible movie.  As for the baddies, Anil Kapoor was fairly entertaining as a bumbling sex fiend; I will admit that I found Kapoor especially fun to watch because his hair and beard reminded me of a friend who works for NBC.  Léa Seydoux got to look disinterested and sexy as an assassin, but how hard is that if you're already bored and French?  As for the main villain, Michael Nyqvist was given surprisingly little to say or do.  Sure, he has a crazy scheme, but he doesn't talk much and --- aside from his final fight scene --- doesn't do much in the film.  I'm not slighting the man, even though he looks ready for a nap, despite having a nuclear holocaust on its way any minute.

In all fairness, Nyqvist was never meant to be the draw for this film.  Mission: Impossible has never been about the villains, so much as it has been about having high stakes and fantastically elaborate stealth and action missions to pull off something even more ludicrously difficult.

That's what I'm talking about!

So, how are the ridiculous action and stealth sequences?  Pretty well done.  As usual, Tom Cruise is the centerpiece for most of these scenes, and he showcases why he is such a big damn action star.  It doesn't matter how ridiculous the premise behind a scene is, Cruise commits to making the action as bad-ass as possible.  And it usually works.

Even Cruise being chased by sand turns out to be decently cool

It would be hard to argue that the action in Ghost Protocol is anything but top notch, and I also enjoyed the film's sneaky moments, too.  The combination of unusual set pieces and exotic locales really helped keep this entry in the series from being boring.

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol is the first live-action directorial effort from Brad Bird.  He did a pretty good job.  The pacing of the film was fantastic, the action sequences were very well done, and the story wasn't too convoluted.  Heck, even the scenes that looked stupid in the movie trailer turned out to be pretty cool in the feature film.

Case in point

There aren't any impressive acting performances in the movie, but nobody was distractingly bad, either. 

As fun as Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol is, it's not quite a complete victory lap.  I understand that Ethan Hunt is the main character in the series, but it is getting a little old, watching him do all the ridiculously hard stuff while his team is given fairly remedial tasks.  The action in this film maybe nonstop, but I would have liked to have been surprised by a truly awesome action sequence that showcased another character.  I was happy to find that this film's plot didn't rely too heavily on the earlier movies, but the mystery behind Ethan Hunt wasn't as fascinating as the script had hoped.  All in all, this is a fast and fun action movie, but it is missing that special something --- a fantastic villain, a more charismatic hero, an iconic plot twist, etc. --- to make it truly great.  Still, I would argue that this is in a close race for the best entry in the Mission: Impossible series.

44 Inch Chest

I don't know why, but the buzz I heard about 44 Inch Chest was that it was a risque exploration of misogyny.  That's not something that I always enjoy, but I do like British crime stories, and I generally like Ray Winstone, John Hurt, and Ian McShane; I've also heard that the writers, who wrote Sexy Beast, have a talent for over-the-top characters.  All of that combined with the tagline ("The Measure of Revenge") to make me think that this could be a decently cool movie.

The story begins with Colin (Ray Winstone) on the floor of his home, which appears to have been recently ransacked.  At first, I thought he was dead, but it turns out he was just in shock.  You see, his wife of over a decade, Liz (Joanne Whalley) just left him.  One of Colin's buddies calls him on the phone, gets a mumbled reply, and hurries over because something is obviously wrong.  Once Archie (Tom Wilkinson) is able to comprehend what has happened --- Colin is doing a lot of sobbing and playing Nilsson's "Without You" over and over again, which would be more than enough for me to slap him silly --- he decides to do what any good friend would in a similar situation.  Archie calls together Colin's closest friends --- Mal (Stephen Dillane), Peanut (John Hurt), and Meredith (Ian McShane) --- and they all agree that the one way for Colin to get over this emotionally devastating moment is for him to spend time with his friends (obviously), drink a lot of liquor (makes sense) and then torture and murder Liz and her lover (natura --- wait, what?).  Colin had dragged loverboy's name out of Liz before she left, so the friends find his work, kidnap him, and throw him in a cupboard until Colin can work up the desire to kill the bastard.  What are friends for?

I'm going to go ahead and say that the general premise of this movie is awesome.  It takes a classic idea, that of a cuckolded man reacting to his situation with violence, and twists it around; instead of Colin being the bloodthirsty and revenge-obsessed monster, his friends are.  In fact, they heckle Colin for not immediately killing loverboy.  If I were in Colin's place, I have no doubt that my friends would choose to cheer me up with friendship and booze (and, let's face it, movies), but murder seems like an unusual remedy for soul-crushing depression; I doubt more than one of my friends would suggest that route to happiness. 

This was the first full-length motion picture directed by Malcolm Venville, and I like his style.  There are large chunks of this movie that take place within the mind of Colin, with his friends personifying his conflicting thoughts.  This could have been very confusing, since the friends are physically present as well, but Venville finds a way to differentiate between the imaginary characters and the actual ones.  I thought that all the actors were directed well, even if I hate seeing Ray Winstone as anything less than a scary mofo.  But even that worked out well; when Winstone switched from sobbing self-pity to helpless rage, the contrast made his anger seem all the more dangerous.

The acting was good all around.  As I mentioned, Ray Winstone plays outside of his comfort zone as the heartbroken Colin, but his intensity is still obvious.  I would have preferred more of his anger and less of his crying, but that's because I get a little uncomfortable watching frightening men cry.  Tom Wilkinson did a good job as the most reasonable and understanding friend of the bunch, although I was never clear on why his character (who seems nice) would be a party to murder.  Stephen Dillane, sure, I can buy that.  Ian McShane?  Definitely.  But Wilkinson's character felt a little out of place.  I definitely enjoyed McShane's homosexual gambler character; I usually don't include sexual orientation in character descriptions, but it's a significant part of his character.  Normally, British crime movies spend a decent amount of time ridiculing gay characters, but McShane's strong and charismatic jerk was a refreshing take.  John Hurt was amusing as the hate-spewing Peanut, although his bit about Samson and Delilah was a strange detour in the story.  It's hard to judge Joanne Whalley's performance, since it takes place primarily within Colin's tortured mind; she assumes whatever personality suits the plot at that moment, so it's not your typical film performance.

Now, you might assume that I really enjoyed this movie.  Well, I didn't.

Despite some clever direction, solid acting, and a good premise, 44 Inch Chest has one major weakness: the story.  The premise is established within the first seven minutes of the film; Colin is heartbroken and loverboy is kidnapped.  The rest of the movie (about a hour and a half) is Colin deciding whether or not to kill the guy.  Let me tell you, that time drags.  Nothing happens in this movie after the kidnapping.  Each of the friends tells a story about something that loosely relates the their current situation, Colin acts wounded and lame, and then it cycles again.  And what is the deal with these friends?  None of them appear to be criminals, so their quick and confident kidnapping and their pestering of Colin to kill loverboy is damned odd.  They act like professionals, but at least two of them (McShane and Winstone) are explicitly not hoodlums.  Leaving that unexplained in a dialogue-heavy movie is very unusual.  The dialogue is okay, but it's not fantastic, and it absolutely needs to be when the audience is waiting 90 minutes for one character to make one decision.  And that's what this movie boils down to: a lot of good work wasted by a story that could have been told in ten minutes.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

Well, it's just about Valentine's Day again. I've always had trouble with the cinematic notion of what romance should be.  Romantic comedies are insulting to my intelligence (but maybe not yours, I'm not judging), and Nicholas Sparks movies are manipulative pieces of trash (I'm okay judging this one).  So, where does a moderately odd person like myself find his romantic movies?  Today, I find it in a Charlie Kaufman script.

Joel (Jim Carrey) seems to be a pretty normal guy.  Maybe he's introverted, or maybe he's just uncomfortable.  On the day before Valentine's Day, while waiting for his train to work, Joel is seized by an overwhelming urge to go to Montauk --- so he skips work and jumps on the Montauk train.  If you are unfamiliar with New York, Montauk appears to be a fairly ritzy beach town, although it is mostly deserted in the middle of February.  While spending the day there, Joel meets Clementine (Kate Winslet), an outgoing stranger with bright blue hair.  Initially overcome by shyness and shock, Joel eventually warms up to Clementine and the two really hit it off.  In fact, Joel offers her a ride home and, instead of going inside, she asks if she can go home with him --- just as soon as she grabs her toothbrush.

That's a pretty good first quasi-date, right?  Well, it's not.  Joel and Clementine have dated for the past two years, but don't remember it.  After they had a big fight, Clementine went to the Lacuna Company and underwent a procedure where they selectively erased all memories of Joel from her mind.  When Joel found out, he did the same to her memories.  Halfway through, though, Joel realizes that he made a mistake.  Sure, the mean memories leaving are no big deal, and he lets them go with a smirk.  But the happy memories, and there are so many of those, are too special not to hold on to.

Michel Gondry was, at this time, better known for directing music videos than movies.  Fair enough, the man has made some pretty awesome videos, notably for Bjork, Radiohead, and The White Stripes.  This film is way beyond anything he had ever done before.  Most of the time, when a director has music video experience, their movies have moments of visual brilliance, but they tend to misuse the actors and the script.  Not so much here.  Gondry's touch is obvious throughout the movie, from the lighting to the soft-focus camera work in the memories of Joel.  This isn't a visually interesting movie, this is a fantastic visual experience.  The camerawork is wonderful, showing the stars at their happiest and at their puffy-eyed and bleary-faced worst.  The lighting takes on a character of its own when the natural lights turn into a spotlight, hunting for Joel's memories of Clementine to destroy them.  This narrative is designed like a maze, so it is especially impressive that, except for the first jump back in Joel's memory, the movie isn't very confusing (surreal, yes; confusing, not really).  Gondry's editing and direction are to thank for this; he was able to establish visual cues (like Clementine's hair color) to let the audience know an approximate time for whatever events they are watching.

As impressive as Gondry's direction is, the bizarre screenplay from Charlie Kaufman is what stands out most.  From a purely technical standpoint, this is an impressive piece of work.  The story folds back into itself, winds around, folds into itself again and again and again, to the point where the story could just be a labyrinth --- and that still would have been a really cool movie.  What sets this story apart from Kaufman's earlier work, like Being John Malkovich and Adaptation, is that this goes beyond his normal "seriously, how do you come up with this stuff" plots and actually has an emotional core.  Joel and Clementine's relationship is  natural and believable and understated, and that's what makes it feel so true.  Sure, this could be another wacky story about opposites attracting, and some of their memories are just silly, but this is about puzzles finding their missing pieces.

The cast was really good, and I'm impressed with several of the performances.  This is my favorite dramatic Jim Carrey role, if only because he keeps his rubber face in check for almost the entire movie.  I really liked his performance; he wasn't terribly charming or witty, and he always seemed to say the wrong thing, but this was a vulnerable piece of work.  Kate Winslet was fabulous, as usual.  While I may not want to see everything she's in, Winslet has never been anything less than excellent in anything I've seen her in.  There is a tendency for female characters with loud personalities to be flighty or flaky, but her performance made her eccentric character less of a caricature and more of an impulsive friend.  The supporting cast was surprisingly good, given their limited screen time.  Kirsten Dunst, who I normally hate, was great as the love-sick young woman, and she had one of the more believable performances I've seen of a character high from the medicinal hookah (as the hep kids call it).  Mark Ruffalo was solid, although his haircut really irritated me.  Tom Wilkinson was also respectable.  Elijah Wood, though was downright creepy as the socially inept stalker of Clementine.  I was less impressed with Jane Adams and David Cross, but even their relationship had layers to it.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (which takes its name from an Alexander Pope poem, FYI) is the sort of thing that we ought to see more of in movies.  This could not have worked so well in any other form of media; this is the sort of film that I finish and feel excited.  Brilliantly written, flawlessly executed, and well acted.

Somebody requested that I review this movie a while back, but I was saving it for this "holiday."  Sorry for the wait! 

Here's a clip of Michel Gondry doing what he does best: blowing my mind.