In "Rogue Nation," Tom Cruise Proves That He Is Truly the Last Action Hero

Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation

Of course, I went with this picture. Do you see his face? That's really Tom Cruise doing that!

When Last Action Hero, the underrated Arnold Schwarzenegger action-comedy that you should definitely watch now that its meta approach to action movies can be appreciated, came out back in the 90s, it served as a prediction of the future: no more action stars to singlehandedly get you to go to the movies. Part of the joke at the time was that it seemed silly that people would eventually stop blindly going to the new Schwarzenegger, Stallone, Willis, etc. movie. But it did happen, and not just because those stars got old. There are no new automatically bankable stars anymore. Even people that appear to be bankable, like Chris Pratt, are only truly successful because of the franchise they are in. Jurassic World would have been popular with a no-name in the Pratt role. His presence added to the film, no doubt, but no one can claim that the film was a Chris Pratt vehicle. But there is one man still fighting the action star fight: Tom Cruise.

Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation is obviously a franchise film (the fifth in the series), but unlike a Marvel movie or Jurassic Park sequel, it is driven by the presence of Tom Cruise. This is because Cruise has become obsessed with practical stunt work. The last three Mission movies would have been mediocre without Cruise in the Ethan Hunt role. The series would undoubtedly end without him. His presence, and need to do his own stunts, make the films an entertaining spectacle. More importantly, he makes them better action movies.

Today’s action environment suffers from too much computer generated material and/or nausea inducing shaky cam/quick cutting techniques. Because Cruise is the one doing the stunt, the camera needs to stay focused on him so the audience can tell he really did all the crazy stuff, such as the heavily promoted scene featuring him hanging from the side of a plane during takeoff and flight. So we can tell it’s Cruise, but we can also tell what’s going on in general. This is what makes all of Cruise’s action films so watchable.

Obviously, as far as action goes, Rogue Nation is great. There are multiple impressive sequences that adequately up the ante from the previous films. The series has become much like the Fast and Furious franchise, but better. The Mission films are better because they amp up the action while still making it very real through practical stunt work while the Furious films have amped up the action while throwing logic and practicality completely out the window. (Both series are enjoyable, I just prefer the “grounded” [I use that word very lightly] action of Mission: Impossible.)

All the action is great, but one thing that has suffered with each subsequent film is the story. Not that anyone comes to a Mission film expecting a groundbreaking plot, but it does get old seeing Ethan Hunt disavowed, on the run, rogue, etc. every single movie. At this point, shouldn’t everyone just trust him? Screenwriter/director Christopher McQuarrie (Jack Reacher) does what he can, but these movies can only cover so many different ways to save the world. To the film’s credit, one character at least acknowledges that the situation will never change by pointing out to Ethan that there will always be somebody out there creating chaos. The question is how long will Ethan (and Cruise) keep it up? The answer seems to be at least one more time since the sixth film in the franchise has been given the green light.

With the plot in the background, there needs to be good supporting actors, especially since some people don’t care for Cruise (because of his real life persona). Rogue Nation has this covered with Simon Pegg basically becoming Cruise’s comic relief sidekick. Pegg definitely keeps things light and fun throughout. Rebecca Ferguson is a bit of a standout as a female double agent who can hold her own against Cruise. But really, this is Cruise’s movie, and if you’re not on board with that, you’re not going to enjoy it.

Rogue Nation is exactly what we’ve come to expect from a Mission: Impossible movie, and that’s a good thing because you should be expecting a lot at this point. McQuarrie does what he can with the story, but he does shine as an action director here, picking opportune times to use unique camera placement within the action. And, most importantly, he knows to leave the camera on Cruise so everyone can see the crazy stunts that he is actually doing. Honestly, though, McQuarrie is expendable here. Mission: Impossible used to be a franchise for each director to put his personal stamp on it. DePalma brought his split-screens and atmosphere to the first film (still my favorite). Woo brought his trademark gunplay and inexplicable pigeons to the second (still my least favorite). And Abrams reinvigorated the franchise with his Spielberg-esque fun and action for the third. With the fourth, things changed. Cruise took over (not directing, but in general), and the series is only getting better and better because of it. Here’s to Tom Cruise, our last action hero.

Rogue Nation receives a:

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

I like Simon McBurney (the head of MI6), but he needs to allow himself to go bald or wear a wig. His hairline was distracting in his first scene in the film. It was mostly due to the lighting, but it looked ridiculous. Someone should have at least realized this and changed the angle or the lighting or something. 

Alec Baldwin's character was mostly worthless in the film, but at least he didn't end up being the villain.

Renner was a bit of a nonentity for most of the film, due to his other job as Hawkeye, no doubt. Most of the film requires him to hang out in an office and look mildly annoyed.

The obligatory heist of the film was decent, and I really enjoyed that they brought up wearing a mask only to dismiss it. I only wish they hadn't ended up using a mask later in the film. I'm just sick of the masks...

As far as villains go, Sean Harris was all right, if not a bit too raspy/Bond-villainish. He looked a bit too much like Simon Pegg, though. If a mask was to be used, I thought for sure they would go that route, but they didn't.

The titles of these movies really makes you appreciate punctuation. It's not every day that a movie requires a colon and a dash. 

"Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol"

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol - Directed by Brad Bird, written by Josh Appelbaum & Andre Nemec, starring Tom Cruise, Paula Patton, Simon Pegg, and Jeremy Renner - Rated PG-13

This film doesn't have a villain nearly as cool as the Evil Kurgan, but the action more than makes up for it.

The Mission: Impossible franchise has transformed from complicated (some would say overly so) spy thriller to the go-to series for outrageous action.  Some may prefer the former (the first film is still my favorite, though I’m okay with where the series has gone), but it’s hard not to have a lot of fun with Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol.

Ghost Protocol picks up right where the third film left off.  Not story wise, necessarily, but in regards to the action.  Mission: Impossible 3 invigorated the series with its amazing action set pieces, fun tone, and memorable villain.  Ghost Protocol certainly takes the fun tone and action set pieces and amplifies them, though it falls a bit short in the villain department.

The plot of Ghost Protocol is ripe for ridiculous action as the members of Agent Ethan Hunt’s IMF team must stop a nuclear explosion while they themselves are on the run after being blamed for blowing up part of the Kremlin.  To stop the nuclear blast they have to travel all over the world and engage in over-the-top theatrics, like climbing on the outside of the world’s tallest building just to reach a computer. 

If the plot sounds a bit vague, it’s because it is.  I am still not entirely sure what the villain’s true goal was.  That isn’t a fault against the movie, though.  It is probably explained in full spy-lingo detail, it’s just that the action overshadowed the stakes of each situation to the point that it became easy to forget just why the characters were doing what they were doing.  I suppose that is actually what you would call a plot hole, if the reasons are so vague you’re not even sure what they are, but it’s easy to forgive a film that features Tom Cruise running down the face of the Burj Khalifa (the aforementioned world’s tallest building). 

The action is simply astounding.  And when seen in IMAX, it can be nearly overwhelming.  It’s not all big set pieces, though.  The way the action is filmed is easy to follow so you never get that frenetic “who’s punching/chasing who?” feeling that modern action films so often succumb to.  Brad Bird (Ratatouille, The Incredibles), directing his first live action feature, shows that he knows his way around an action scene.  Of course, a film starring Tom Cruise has to show action in a specific way: you have to be able to see Cruise’s face as much as possible.  This isn’t an ego thing, but more about proving to the audience that it is, in fact, actually the actor performing many of the crazy stunts of the film.  Being able to see Tom Cruise’s face isn’t what makes the action better; but if you have to hold the shot long enough and you have to zoom in close enough to tell who the actor is, then you’re also going to get to see the action in a straightforward manner. 

While Tom Cruise is the face of the franchise, he is certainly not alone in Ghost Protocol.  Jeremy Renner steps in as a new, mysterious team member, and Paula Patton and Simon Pegg round out the cast.  Renner does okay, but his character isn’t all that interesting.  There might be some potential in a sequel, but he pales a bit in comparison to the rest of the cast.  Patton is pretty much just there to be the woman in the film.  And Pegg, of course, supplies comedic relief.  It’s that comedic relief that changes the tone a bit. 

Ghost Protocol comes off as an action comedy more often than not, which is not in keeping with previous films of the series.  (The third film starts off very dark, with a menacing Phillip Seymour Hoffman threatening Tom Cruise, while the most memorable beginning moment of this film is a slightly goofy prison break.)  A few laughs are okay in an action film, but some people may be thrown off by just how often the film goes for the comedy.  It does make the film feel a bit more cartoonish than it should be at times, but a lighter Mission: Impossible is simply more entertaining. 

A bit more comedy isn’t that big of a deal, but what is truly unfortunate is the downgrading of the villain.  Michael Nyqvist (the original The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo) is okay but this is one of the most uninteresting villains in recent memory, not just in this series but in movies in general.  He’s just the guy who wants to do bad things and that is it.  The character is a complete letdown, especially since the previous film had such a memorable villain. 

A weak villain isn’t the end of the world, though.  Ghost Protocol is about big action, a few laughs, and that is it.  While there are weak elements, the strong aspects outweigh them so much that you’re not likely to notice problems unless you try to look for them.  Can I remember the villain’s name or even what he looks like?  Nope.  Can I still vividly picture Tom Cruise climbing the tallest building in the world?  I think I could storyboard it if need be.  In an action movie, that’s the way it should be.

 Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

The gadgets are interesting, ridiculous, and funny at times, even if they do make the movie feel more like another popular spy franchise.  I really dug the that whole fake hallway screen.

Renner makes for a decent addition, though I would prefer Ving Rhames to be part of the team.  I understand that Pegg has pretty much taken over as resident computer guy so Rhames wouldn't have his own thing anymore, but why tease us with a cameo from Rhames at the end?  Just find a way to work him into the movie since his presence made the first three better. 

Can we finally put the disavowed plotline to rest?  How many times is Hunt going to be portrayed as enemy to the States?  Wouldn't they trust this guy at this point?  He's been set up fifty times it seems.  Shouldn't somebody at IMF put out a memo: Hunt is a good guy and always will be.  Also, it's not like their means are limited even when disavowed since the team had an insane amount of resources even though they technically had no support.  How about having Hunt and his team actually remain official agents in the next film?

"The Town"

First off, I know it's been a couple weeks, but I've been a bit busy and couldn't make it to the theatre last weekend. I plan on making it up in the next few days. Along with The Town I will also be posting reviews of My Son, My Son, What Have Ye Done and Easy A later in the week.

The Town - Directed by Ben Affleck, written by Peter Craig, Ben Affleck, and Aaron Stockard, starring Ben Affleck, Jeremy Renner, Rebecca Hall, and Jon Hamm - Rated R

Keep 'em comin', Affleck.

The Town, based on the very enjoyable novel “Prince of Thieves” by Chuck Hogan, is a film about Boston. More specifically, it’s about a part of Boston called Charlestown. Much like Mystic River and Gone Baby Gone the city itself is a character. Ben Affleck (who co-writes, directs, and stars) has done a fine job of incorporating the city into the film. I found his ability to place the viewer into a scene much more impressive, though.

Charlestown, the film claims, contains the most armored car/bank robbers per capita in the United States. Affleck portrays Doug MacRay, leader of a crew of robbers. The gang seems to doing well, though Doug is on a different track than his cohort Jem (Jeremy Renner). Doug is ready to cash out and Jem is ready to step up to the big leagues and start working directly under the local gangster. Things get much more complicated when Doug starts dating a witness from their last robbery who could possibly identify Jem to the FBI.

The story is interesting enough, especially since it’s one of those movies in which the “good” and “bad” guy roles are reversed with the robber in the sympathetic light. The relationship aspect is what makes it a bit more fascinating because the set up allows for instant tension. The first date scene between Doug and the witness, Claire (Rebecca Hall), is quite good. Imagine the victim (she witnessed the brutal beating of a co-worker during the robbery) relating the story of being taken hostage to one of the men who took her. Strangely enough, I found myself hoping things would work out between them even though the entire relationship is based on a falsehood of epic proportions.

The Town contains enough dating scenes to consider this a romantic action film. That’s not a bad thing, really. I consider this to be one of those rare films for adults that has a little something for everyone. On the action side, Affleck films shootouts and heists serviceably with a bit of creativity here and there. I particularly liked his transitions from security camera footage into the actual scene. And there are some very effective and brutal scenes near the end that stuck with me.

The most impressive sequence in the film, however, was a twenty second scene in slow motion and almost completely muted. I don’t want to spoil it or anything, suffice it to say that it’s a scene in which MacRay feels like his world is about to collapse and it was filmed and edited in such a way that I knew exactly how he felt.

That scene may have only been impressive to me because I have read the book. Affleck completely captured that scene exactly as I imagined it. I don’t want to spend much time on a book comparison, I’ll just say that the film represents the book quite well and the change to the ending was interesting.

Of course, capturing a moment and placing the viewer in a character’s shoes is only as interesting as the performance. Affleck plays MacRay with a sincere intensity that I completely bought. Renner played the barely restrained psycho effectively and the two had plenty of good scenes together. I also enjoyed Chris Cooper’s small role as MacRay’s father. He only had one short scene, but it was a powerful one. Along those lines, I enjoyed Pete Postlethwaite as the aging gangster in Charlestown. The only one left with little to do is Jon Hamm. I would like to see the “Mad Men” star crossover into the movies a bit more, but he just isn’t given anything to do here. He is believable as the driven FBI agent, but he’s just bland. I was hoping for a showdown along the lines of Pacino and De Niro in Heat, but this film did not have anywhere near the payoff that that film had. It seemed like that role could have gone to anyone.

The weak FBI character isn’t the only issue with the film. It seemed that too many scenes were shot with the talking character with his/her back to the camera. I think it had something to do with the looping of the dialogue, which is a pet peeve of mine. No big deal, it just made the film look a little sloppy here and there.

Small nitpicks aside, The Town is a very good film that places you right in Charlestown. It moves at steady pace and never gets boring. It looks like Affleck is coming into his own as a filmmaker. I can’t wait to see what’s next.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS for both book and film)

Jon Hamm's FBI agent could've been more interesting...if they had stuck with the book. Frawley in the book is a rival suitor for Claire and is more than just his job. Sure, this would've taken up more screen time, but it would have made the rivalry between MacRay and Frawley much more compelling.

I was hoping for more heist planning scenes but I understand that the point of this film isn't how to pull off a heist. It's more about MacRay and his desire to get away from it all. I suppose all the planning stuff in the book is best left on the page anyway.

Man oh man I wish they would have stuck with Jem packing the grenades for the last job. He still went out hard in the movie, but the grenades would have been hardcore. Of course, that may have turned out to be a bit over the top. But then again, I do enjoy explosions...

I called the change in the ending "interesting" above and I chose that word carefully lest it sound like I agreed with the change. I preferred the novel's more realistic and bleak ending, but I was okay with the film's much more positive finish. I have to give it up to them for deciding to go all the way and not only make the criminal the hero but also let him live and give him the hope of getting the girl.

"The Hurt Locker"

The Hurt Locker - Directed by Kathryn Bigelow, starring Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie, and Brian Geraghty - Rated R

Who better to represent a tense movie than Anton Chigurh?

The Hurt Locker finally came out relatively close to Cannelton (about an hour and a half away) so here's a review for a movie that's been released theatrically for over two months now.

The Hurt Locker, simply put, is a great film. Based in Iraq in 2004 (though I've read that the year is only listed on some prints, not all, I'll get into why that's important later), The Hurt Locker follows a bomb disposal unit during it's last forty days in rotation. Armed with that knowledge, one might assume that the movie is one typical bomb disposal scene to another featuring lines like, "Which wire do I cut?" and "It's gonna blow!!!" But this movie turns those Hollywood staples on their head and creates countless nerve wracking, realistic scenes.

The film starts with the unit following protocol, using a robot to get close to an IED (improvised explosive device) and take care of it via remote control. It's a tense scene and it sets the tone and style for the entire movie, but I don't want to watch a movie about bomb disposing robots. Enter Jeremy Renner as new team leader Staff Sgt. James. When out on his first call with Sgt. Sanborn (Mackie) and Spc. Eldridge (Geraghty), James tells them to leave the robot and help him put on the blast suit. He then strolls off at a leisurely pace, stops to back off a brave cabbie at gunpoint, then finds the bomb and disarms it without seeming to give a second thought about it. Sgt. James never looks like he is unsure which wire to cut, he only seems to be looking for the right wire. From the get go, you can tell he either has a death wish or an addiction to adrenaline...or both. Either way, Sanborn and Eldridge aren't too happy about it and that leads to some entertaining and tense interactions with them throughout.

The seeming ease of the first disposal doesn't mean that everything is a walk in the park. There are different circumstances and locales during the film and it always stays fresh. I don't want to give away details, but let's just say you won't be bored, you might be disgusted once or twice, but boredom won't factor in, trust me.

A movie in which any character could die at any minute is only as good as its characters and that's what makes this film stand out. The three main soldiers are not mindless, bland grunts. They are characters. I already mentioned James and his need for a rush or death. Tie that in with his interactions with the team and you have a realistic character on your hands. Sanborn tries to be the sane, balanced character of the group, constantly arguing with James about procedure and risking all their lives, but he has more going on than that. He has ambitions and he certainly want to survive. And then there's Eldridge, by far the most troubled of the group. He has "sessions" with a base doctor about how scared he is of death. So you know, since this is a war film, that he's going to have to deal with that fear quite regularly. Throw these three guys together and the film writes itself.

The other factor that raises this film from the good category into greatness is director Kathryn Bigelow (Point Break, Strange Days). She creates tension as well as any director out there. I know I may sound like a broken record with all this tension and nerve talk since that was a focus of my review of Inglourious Basterds, but I cannot help it. It just so happens that the last two films I've seen are filled with amazingly tense moments. With The Hurt Locker, it's more than just the possibility of an instant explosion (don't get me wrong, that tension is obviously there), it's also the setting. IEDs can be hidden under any pile of trash so when Sgt. James is walking in a garbage strewn street, it might as well be a minefield, and Bigelow frames to shot to show it as such. The director also knows when to cut to the many bystanders during each disposal scene. In the Iraq setting, who can tell the difference between an innocent onlooker and a terrorist, especially when normal devices like cell phones can be used to detonate the bomb? Bigelow uses all of these elements to eat at the nerves of the viewer. She also films explosions quite well, showing the gritty details without making it seem gratuitous.

I want to mention a few minor details regarding the year of the film before I wrap up. As I wrote above, the version I saw set the movie in 2004. But I have read on message boards that the version people saw in Canada and New York did not have the year at the beginning. Some have claimed that setting the movie five years in the past somehow lessens the political aspect of the film. If it's about the past, then it's not a comment on the war right now or something. If that's the case I don't think it works, especially since the movie ignores political views. There are no questions about whether or not the war is justified, there's only the theme (mentioned in the opening line) that war is like a drug. Apply whatever political meaning you want out of that idea; the point is the film itself doesn't make any decisions for you. Political or not, the year is an issue and I do believe was added by the studio because it creates a few mistakes. First off, a soldier mentions youtube, which wasn't around until 2005 (I know, I know, I thought it had been around longer myself, but I looked it up: February 2005). Secondly, a soldier is seen playing the Xbox 360 game "Gears of War" which wasn't released until 2006. To be honest, none of this occurred to me while I was watching the film, but I know that stuff like that bothers some people, so just know that the year may have been a late addition by the studio.

All of that political/what year crap aside, this is a film worth watching and if it does get some nominations (hopefully for director, actor, and picture) it certainly deserves them. I want to point out, though, that depressing and tense though the film may be, it is also quite entertaining. There is plenty of action aside from bomb disposal (I thought the sniper scene was great) and the cameos from David Morse and Ralph Fiennes are a lot of fun. If The Hurt Locker makes its way to a theater near you, check it out. If not, at least check it out on DVD, you won't be sorry.