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
No comments:
Post a Comment