Valuable Movies: Mission Impossible Fallout

Warning: Your mission, should you choose to accept the consequences of reading this review, is to not freak out when you see any spoilers for the movie without having seen it first. You have been warned.

So, the sixth Mission Impossible movie came to theaters recently. As someone who has been entertained by several of the MI movies, most especially the previous two installments before this latest release, I looked forward to seeing this movie on the big screen.

This was also the first time I can recall seeing a movie in IMAX in a long time. Here's what I thought in terms of artistic and moral values to the movie.

Artistic Value (Rating: 4)

It's hard to talk about this movie without breaking up its artistic value (how the movie was presented) into two categories: Stunts/Action Scenes and Story Plot Points.

I came in wanting crazy Tom Cruise action scenes and I got them! We saw a HALO (high altitude low opening) jump, an intense fisticuffs brawl, obligatory motorcycle chase, obligatory yet hilariously awesome Tom Cruise running, and even a helicopter chase/ literal cliffhanging finale.

The best thing was that none of these stunts were super-hyped in the marketing as far as I can remember (unless I just wasn't paying attention). In Rogue Nation, they pushed the fact that Tom Cruise was hanging onto a flying airplane and held his breath for 4+ minutes underwater. In Ghost Protocol, they wanted you to know that Tom Cruise really was climbing the tallest building in the world.

Here, there's several crazy stunts, and you get a sense of them in the promotional trailers, but I can't really recall hearing things like "Come see Tom Cruise soar through the air in a HALO jump" or "Can you believe Tom Cruise really hung from a rope underneath a flying helicopter?". I was just stunned and impressed by Cruise's running here, especially when he's sprinting along on top of the London train station.

Sound effects and music were prevalent and essential here. These are the second best parts of the movie after the action stunts. Music emphasized important moments and established emotional highlights. Noises stood out too, like the gun shots or moments like Ilsa riding her motorcycle down a Parisian walkway with columns and highlighting the engine and wind tunnel sounds.

Now like I said, the artistic value is mainly split by the action and the story, and unfortunately here's where the weaknesses pop up. Rarely does the script explain much in between the action. It's almost like when developing the story, the action scenes were the primary focus and the idea of how to get from Point A to Point B was only thought up when they needed to set up the next stunt.

Moments of exposition dialogue really highlight this fact, such as the opening mission briefing or the team's drive in to Kashmir and establishing the goals to accomplish the final mission. All of this is to get the audience up to the speed to understand what all is about to happen.

The reason why this is a weakness is because I found myself asking questions I shouldn't have to be asking, wondering what's going on in the story. Here are a few major problems I thought of during my viewing of the movie (heavy spoilers ahead):

-Where is Jeremy Renner?
-Alec Baldwin's character matters in this movie, but he's completely forgotten after his death.
-No real resolution at the end. No "where do we go from here?" moment with intention to establish what's going to happen next time.
-Cruise's wife character comes back, but there's not really much time given to have closure.
-How did the bad guys run away with the plutonium in the middle of the movie? I thought they were supposed to be making a rendezvous with White Widow to trade Lane for the plutonium. All of the sudden, poof, they have plutonium and are about to annihilate the world.

Now, while the script had a few problems, there were also a few strong emotional moments with great drama. There is a particularly touching scene delivered by Ving Rhames that actually worked surprisingly well because the movie took its time to put character development ahead of action. I'm glad to have characters and plot threads from previous installments back and continued here in this story. That continuation in the series is the saving grace of the script's plot.

The visual element, the way that the movie looks, is a mixed bag for me here. In my eyes, the cinematography or types of cameras kept changing. Some shots looked so smooth and high resolution, they looked like they came from a GoPro. Other shots, especially in the dark or distanced from action, looked grainy and low resolution like film stock. Could this have been because of my IMAX movie screen? Either way, the lack of consistent visual style bothered me.

This two hour movie in some ways almost felt like an extended TV show episode. The editor used wipes to move between scenes/ locations. The expositional style of dialogue between the characters was very TV-esque. Even the abrupt ending just made it seem like we'll see these characters again soon in next week's episode. This is not necessarily a bad thing when this is the sixth movie in a major franchise based on an older TV series, with homages and connections to both.

I wasn't initially sure what rating on the 1-5 scale to give this, but I think ultimately I am won over by the astounding and thrilling action scenes. They are the most important element of this movie, and in certain ways made up for any storytelling elements that may have been lacking.

Moral Value (Rating: 3)

Mission Impossible as a movie series has always been a good guys versus bad guys plot line, though understanding who is on which side has been a little more blurred in some movies than others. Thankfully, it's pretty well established here that Ethan Hunt and his friends are all good guys while Solomon Lane and his Apostles are the bad guys.

In this movie, the bad guys, the Apostles, like to pretend that they're the good guys because their ultimate goal is "world peace" but the means with which they're wanting to achieve that goal is by demolishing a third of the world's population. Even the CIA in this movie is willing to do whatever it takes, even if it means killing potential threats, in order to achieve their missions, so they're presented as more anti-heroes, or at least not the primary protagonists.

I do appreciate the fact that in this movie they emphasize the fact that Ethan Hunt cares a great deal about lives on an individual basis, especially the life of an innocent bystander. They put a moral ethic in the good guys and a lack of empathetic morals in the bad guys. However, I often wondered why Tom Cruise...I mean Ethan Hunt...has a problem with killing innocents, but not bad guy lackeys? We see him struggle to shoot people in certain circumstances, but shows no remorse or concern whenever he kills a villain or their henchmen. Just because they work for the bad guy does not mean that their lives are anymore expendable.

I do think the movie makers tried to establish important figures in Ethan's life and had an interesting contrast near the end. This movie builds up the fact that Ethan has a budding relationship with Ilsa Faust (Rebecca Ferguson) and an antagonistic relationship with Walker (Henry Cavill). Near the end, Ethan is reunited with his former wife (Michelle Monaghan) and her new husband (Wes Bently). It may just be me but not only do Monaghan and Ferguson look similar, but (at least in the eyes and facial features/ facial hair) so do Bentley and Cavill. I think it presented an interesting character dilemma where we see where Ethan's passions, concerns, and struggles really lie.

The movie presents some potential religious themes and ideological overtones at first. There was the opening wedding dream sequence, the group name The Apostles, the fake nuclear disasters to three holy sites, and the constant quote "There cannot be great peace without first great suffering". This opening led me to believe that there would be some discussion or examination on themes and ideas from a religious or theological perspective, almost a battle of philosophy and ideology. In some ways it was a battle of philosophy (life is sacred versus peace through death), but the religious aspect quickly quickly disappeared and I feel like that was a missed opportunity.

Some action movies are all about the spectacle, the crazy visuals they can throw on the screen, and that's it. The Mission Impossible franchise, especially here, understands that a good movie with action has to have more than just spectacle. You have to care about characters and have them overcome personal struggles in order to have a good movie (my artistic value and moral value highlights this). Fallout takes some time in between the spectacle to build up characters and relationships, even if that's not the scripts strongest suit.

I found that I laughed at moments I maybe shouldn't have. I laughed because of the overblown action scene over-the-top-ness. Most memorably this was Cavill's death scene at the end. This is where Hunt's blurred line on when it's okay and not okay to kill causes confusion or struggle. We're supposed to root for Tom Cruise because he cares who he is shooting at, but then the moments like Cavill's death scene went to such heights of crazy movie spectacle that I couldn't help but grin and chuckle at the absurdity of it all. It's one of those moments when I become more conscious of how a movie influences the way I think and feel. If the movie examined its good vs. evil themes with some more depth instead of basic action movie formula, I may have given it a higher ranking.

Mission Impossible Fallout is rated PG-13 mainly for the violence of the action, which sometimes can get bloody, as well as profane language, from some using the Lord's name to even a use of the F-word, though ultimately none of the negative language is necessary for this movie.

Overall, this movie is thrilling throughout. Tense action scenes and even tense character moments in between the stunts are all part of the fun. This is a great movie to wonderful on the big screen, despite any weaknesses or issues.

Overall Rating: 3.5 out of 5

Valuable Movies: The Hoodlum Priest Movie Review

The cover and title that caught my attention

I'm a fan of my local library. It's a great place to access so many different mediums of learning and entertainment. Many of the movies and things I've talked about on here have come from what I find at the library. Just like at a movie store, when I look through the shelves of DVDs at the library, I have so many options of things to choose from. Some great classics, some crappy modern schlock, some hidden gems I'd never heard of before, and some B-movies that just should've never been made. I often feel like the bad choices outweigh the good choices in most instances, but maybe I just have too narrow of movie standards, and I do really appreciate when I find some great, great pieces of cinema.

Rambling aside (hopefully) I recently came across a movie in the Dramas genre, "The Hoodlum Priest". My Catholic Movie senses began tingling, yet I didn't recall hearing of it before. I quickly looked online. No real reviews for the movie, barely a word on Rotten Tomatoes, mainly just some newspaper-type articles about the history of the making of the movie as a cheap, true-to-life B movie. The actors weren't familiar names to me (though one of them, Keir Dullea, went on to star in "2001: A Space Odyssey") and this was one of the first directing gigs for Irvin Kershner, who everybody loves now because of "The Empire Strikes Back". Unsure about the quality of the movie, I eventually decided that I was going to check this movie out, whether it turned out to be great or terrible. The reasons being:

1) It's a movie with a Catholic subject.
2) It's a real life story about a priest whose passion was helping ex-convicts.
3) It was filmed on location in St. Louis

I also knew I wanted to write a review of  the movie after seeing it, to try to either get this movie more positive reviews and credibility as a good film or to steer people away from it if it turned out to be an abysmal waste of time. My ratings below should indicate how I felt after finally watching this movie.

Artistic Value (Rating: 4)

Let's start with a little surprise towards the beginning. After we see our main ex-con Billy Jackson, played by Keir Dullea, being released from prison, a friend of his takes him to a shady part of town. They are planning a robbery and the friend, Pio, leads Billy to a third guy. The way these three interact, you think this third guy is just some other criminal in town, one who is cool, streetwise, and critical like any other typical gangster you've seen in other movies. By the end of the scene though, the man changes his clothes and you realize that the guy the cons have been talking about doing a robbery with is the priest, Father Charles Dismas Clark, played by Don Murray. It's a confusing yet interesting entrance.

At first, it feels misleading. We spend enough time with Billy and Pio in the beginning, and I'm just waiting for the priest, you know, the main character of the movie, to show up. And then this third guy who I don't think is the priest shows up and I'm like "Give me the main character all ready!" when suddenly the movie's like "He's been here the whole time" and I'm like "WWWhhhhaaaaa???!!!". This scene has unexpected value though, other than just introducing characters to us in a unique manner. It provides some context to dialogue and scenes that appear later on in the movie, so that we better understand Father Clark's reasoning and motivations in this opening scene.

The script is also surprising, confusing, and unexpected. Some dialogue can make this movie feel dated or stuck in its own time period. There's lots of lingo and slang from late 1950s used by our main characters, and you'll often hear words like "square" being thrown around in a city gangster tone. Sure, it gives you an idea of what kind of background these characters come from, but at times it could feel like how the Brady Bunch kids would throw around "groovy" or "right on" in an attempt to be hip and cool with the current audience. Don Murray's accent as Father Clark also goes back and forth. Sometimes it's a little too thick, a little too gangster, a little too specific to a particular time and place. Other times he just sounds like a regular guy at any time.

Yet, like I hinted at before, there's some good things going on in the script too. It reveals information about different characters at the right time and place. It helps you understand our main character and his motivations well, along with understanding the theme of the movie without feeling like it's talking down to its audience. The actors all say their lines with conviction and purpose, so there's less melodrama and more real life happening on screen. There are also a few moments of silent interactions, where you see people engaging in conversation, but don't hear what they're saying, or they're observing a situation without saying anything. Yet, you still clearly understand what's going on by the body language and facial expressions on the actors' faces. I liked that.

The two lead actors, Don Murray and Keir Dullea, have fantastic performances. Keir Dullea especially impressed me since he had to go through a variety of emotions and had to handle more of the quieter dramatic moments than Don Murray. Yet, even when Murray's Father Clark had to get emotional or extreme, I never found it overblown or past the point of disbelief. It sounded like a man who was convicted of his way and caught up in the passion of the moment.

It's hard to examine this movie's story and its main character without comparing to or pondering other movie priests from around this time period. Classic Hollywood is known for some great movies with interesting priest characters, and this movie matches a lot of these other classics:

-"On the Waterfront": Karl Malden's Father Barry also goes to the seedy, grimy parts of town you don't expect to find a priest at, in order to find the lost sheep and help people who would otherwise be ignored by other Christian people. There's even a powerful monologue where the priest gives an impassioned speech about helping these men.

-"Angels with Dirty Faces": Pat O'Brien's Father Jerry also has a desire to help criminals and low lives around him. He knows how to speak truth to these gangsters in a way that they understand and make them think because he comes from the same background as the criminals. There's also a scene with a criminal facing death row.

-"Going My Way/ Bells of St. Mary's": Bing Crosby's Father O'Malley is also a charismatic, streetwise priest.

-"I Confess": Montgomery Clift's Father Logan also ends up in some courtroom drama and has a surprising background for a priest.

I've even seen comparisons to other priests in movies like "Boys Town", "Fighting Father Dunne", and other movies that I haven't seen yet. I mean, here in "Hoodlum Priest", you've got a streetwise priest who devotes himself to saving needy men in criminal circumstances and ends up having to go to court or aiding someone on death row. It's hard not to think of movies with similar circumstances and made around the same time period, or in a sense paved the way for this movie to be made.

Yet, Father Clark was also a real person, with a quirky personality and strange history. They bring that reality and history of the legitimate Father Clark to the screen as well, you can feel like this all stems from a real person, not just somebody written up for the screen. Of course, as we know with any movie based on a true story, the movie isn't 100% authentic in its retelling of history, but I think this one does a good job of blending reality with the positive traits found in previous priests and stories in other movies.

The aesthetic of the cinematography worked very well. The black and white film helped to emphasize the shadows and special light effects that honed in on important moments. Also, with it being about dark subject matter and filmed on location, the black and white punched up the realism and better connected with the themes. When it came to editing the movie though, there were lots of jump cuts where they set up a scene and immediately cut in the middle of the action. You're seeing the exact same location, except the position of the actor or the angle of the camera is just a little off, just different enough to notice that something changed at a time and place that should've stayed the same.

For a film set in St. Louis, this movie shows a lot of the dirty, grimy parts of town, even back in the day before Downtown really became infamous for crime and grime. It goes through a lot of rundown buildings, shady alleyways, and seedy venues. Sure, you see some nice courtrooms, the St. Louis Zoo, and shots of St. Louis University High School (SLUH for locals), but otherwise this isn't exactly an attractive advertisement for the city of St. Louis.

The best reason for why it is acceptable for them to film in so many bad parts of town (or at least, unattractive parts of town) is because the subject of the movie is about criminals and working with people in the city's underbelly. As far as what particular locations were used and how they look similar or different today, someone more familiar with the St. Louis city and region would be better able to identify all of that than myself. For me personally, there wasn't much that helped me identify it as specifically St. Louis, but maybe that's because I'm not all that familiar with downtown architecture and history and such.

Like I mentioned before, there's plenty of scenes with some really great acting and there's some suspenseful scenes. There's a moment of great tension where Billy takes part in a crime. At first, it's just Billy and his friend Pio working on breaking into a small business vault. There's no music, just lots of shots establishing the scene and space. Suddenly, we start cutting back and forth between a truck pulling into the business and Billy slowly realizing that one of the bosses has returned to work. It's just several minutes of visuals without any background music or even much sound except for the tools used in the robbery. You know that something dramatic is going to happen and you know it's not going to be good, so you're just waiting for chaos to come crashing down and when it finally happens it's so worth it. This even leads to another fantastic scene filled with tension and terrific acting where you can see the aftereffects of the robbery scene have very deep psychological and emotional impacts on our leading characters.

Moral Value (Rating: 4)

The major theme of this movie revolves around Father Clark's desire to aid ex-convicts. His dedication to help people transition from criminal to moral citizen is inspirational to see and cunning in design. It's one part relationship-building, another part social justice, some tough love, and a dash of carefree rebellious attitude. In this movie, Father Clark really lives out Christ's call to visit the imprisoned and help the least of His brothers. We see Father Clark going into the jail and build relationships with the men inside. We see him provide people with means of escape from an impoverished life to one that provides better opportunity and rises above crime. We even see him pound the pavement for awhile just to get a guy a job.

Sometimes the testament that someone is living a Christ-like life is seeing good people cringe and think the worst of the intentions of the do-gooder-in-question. Just as the Scribes and Pharisees thought the worst about Jesus interacting with the tax collectors and prostitutes, good Christian citizens of St. Louis in this moviedon't seem to think it's good for Father Clark to engage with ex-cons. However, Father Clark brings up some good points and reasons for why he does what he does. How else are the ex-cons going to turn away from a life of sin and choose to do good? How can they do that without someone who provides resources and, perhaps more importantly, believes that they have what it takes to be more than just a common criminal?

One of the few downsides to this movie's morality stems from people who are antagonistic without much character growth. One such example is a newspaper man named McHale who is a journalist for the Times-Herald newspaper (which doesn't exist anymore fyi). He is continually trying to find ways to ruin Father Clark's plans and his life. The journalist thinks there's ulterior motives involved in Father Clark's actions. He thinks because Father Clark spends so much time with the criminals that there is something criminal about the Hoodlum Priest too (McHale is even the one that gave Father Clark that nickname).

The shame is that there is no resolution to this issue. There comes a point in a court room scene where Father Clark makes a passionate, almost confrontational, statement, aimed in part at the journalist, but that's the last that we see of the journalist and that's almost halfway through the movie. It would've been nice to see if the journalist changed his attitude towards the priest or if he remained an antagonist throughout the rest of the movie, provided there was good reason.

The other main antagonist in this movie is Mario, one of Billy's new bosses. Right from the get-go, Mario has a strong dislike and prejudice against Billy because of his past time in prison. The two never really get to know each other and whenever Mario gets a chance to vent his anger or display his strength against Billy, he takes it. At least this part of the story has a resolution, and it impacts the rest of the actions in the movie.

There are several times in this movie when characters talk with Father Clark about Saint Dismas, the thief hung on a cross next to Jesus in the crucifixion, who repented at the end. They continually connect St. Dismas with the title "good thief", constantly connecting the fact that the man had been a criminal but turned from his sinful ways in the end. The priest even goes so far as to use the story of St. Dismas as inspiration for a man who is on death row, in order to give him hope and even possibly a conversion experience at the end. I like that this man and his conversion story is used to relate to the situations the characters are going through, even if sometimes it feels like it's brought up more out of desire for the movie to sound more dramatic rather than just naturally stemming from character interactions.

I can see where some people may see this movie as preachy. It gets pretty focused on the death penalty near the end and there's a lot focus on social justice throughout the picture. It also talks about bringing dignity to men who may lack it because of their involvement in the prison system. However, if the acting was off or if it really felt like the movie was hitting the audience over the head with its themes, then maybe I can see the moral value of this movie being diminished. However, I find it all warranted based on how the audience connects to the characters and how much the story depends on the characters' connections to the themes. It's a good story that even has some relevance to today's audience.

Overall Value Rating: 4/5

As you might be able to tell, I was very satisfied with my viewing of "The Hoodlum Priest". I suggest finding it wherever you can check it out. I think it deserves more recognition and should be viewed by a wider audience. However, with that said, the fact that it is a relatively unknown movie and that there's more information online about the history of it rather than actual film criticism of the movie gives me some pause.

I wonder if I enjoyed this movie as much as I did because I have a personal connection to the region  or if it is because of my Catholicism. I wonder if someone who isn't from around St. Louis or who isn't Catholic/ religious would enjoy this movie as much as I did. Does the movie stand on its own or does it need some personal attachment in order for it to work? Sure, you can tell it's low budget, but for as quick as it was made, the fact that it was put together by a group of newbies and veterans in the movie business, and also with the understanding that it was set in a real place and about a real person, it makes up for most of its defects with lots of charm and passion.

This movie got me thinking about other movies I've seen, especially Catholic movies, and how much I appreciate when the people and philosophies of the faith are done well, as well as when things don't always get produced well. I really think this movie deserves more recognition and should be viewed by more people than just random film connoisseurs and the viewership demographic of TCM.



Sources for photos (all credit and rights to the rightful owners):

Wikipedia
The New York Times
The Riverfront Times