Showing posts with label Tom Cruise. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tom Cruise. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Mission: Fairly Difficult, But I Did It Anyway


With the never-ending amounts of sequels being released today, I've had to fill in many gaps in my watchlist to ensure that I'm up with the play. The latest series demanding my attention was Mission: Impossible. Starting in 1996 with a Brian DePalma film, which rebooted a popular TV series, and spawning three sequels, the latest of which - Ghost Protocol - has just been released on DVD, the series follows Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise), a super IMF agent who always accepts fairly difficult missions. It was strange watching a series that is just one year younger than myself, and like my life, it has gone from stage to stage with varying results. Let's pick each film apart...

Monday, August 29, 2011

Classic - Magnolia


Magnolia opens with three stories: One about a resident of Greenberry Hill in London being murdered by Joseph Green, Stanley Berry and Daniel Hill; another about a scuba diver killed by a firefighting airplane, and the fact that the scuba diver actually encountered the pilot of the plane a few days before; and finally a 17-year-old attempting suicide by jumping off the roof of his apartment building, only to have his mother accidentally shoot him as he falls past her window. What do all of these stories have in common? They're all a matter of coincidence. So what does this have to do with a mosaic of stories about a police officer who lost his gun (John C. Reilly); a dying TV producer (Jason Robards), his mentally unstable trophy wife (Julianne Moore) and his lonely but kind nurse (Philip Seymour Hoffman); a Cocaine addict (Melora Walters) and her fractured relationship with her quiz show host father (Philip Baker Hall); a misogynistic man (Tom Cruise) who endorses 'Seduce and Destroy', which allows men to get their way with women easily; a former quiz champion who apparently needs braces (William H. Macy); and a young intelligent boy (Jeremy Blackman) afraid of disappointing his father?


Well, for most of the film, it would appear that these stories are just thrown together into one film, holding little resemblance or connection to one another. But what writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson wants us to realise is the fact that there are a lot more connections between one life and another that comes down to pure coincidence. In three hours, Anderson does everything he possibly can to get his point across, and there is definitely no other way that the point could have been achieved. First, he uses a lot of examples just to show how widespread coincidence can go. Since he used a lot of examples, he does everything in his power to make sure that his many characters don't succumb to two-dimensionality. And guess what? They don't. Every character is carefully crafted, so it is a lot easier to believe in them all, and stay with each of them throughout the whole time. When Anderson gets to his point, its glorious. An unlikely event allows all of these characters to save themselves in some small way, and it's beautiful to watch.


The fact that Paul Thomas Anderson made this film three hours for a potentially mainstream audience is a bit of a stretch. But it also shows that Anderson may in fact be one of the most talented modern writers/directors around. Magnolia is nothing short of epic, and it also remains completely engaging for the entire running time. It's also a film that requires multiple viewings, as there will always be something new to discover. I had to watch it twice to entirely get the gist of it, but had I had the chance, I'd have watched it a few more times. On the second time around, I realised how much attention to detail Anderson gave. It's ridiculous the amounts of times the numbers 8 and 2 show up, because of the many references to Exodus 8:2 which gives this movie most of its meaning. Also, on a second watch, many of the themes in the movie became a lot clearer to me. Other than the theme of coincidence, the one theme I was most impressed with was that mistakes from the past cannot simply be erased. A lot of movies that deal with forgiveness always make sure that once a person is forgiven nothing else matters. This movie, however, realises that forgiveness is generally a good thing, but the past never really goes away. I think this was probably most evident in Frank (Cruise) and Earl's (Robards) story, but it could be found in just about any of the others.


Being a multi-plot film with several stories and well-built characters, a strong cast was needed. Anderson got nothing less. If I had to choose two of my favourite performances in the movie, I'd probably go with Tom Cruise and Julianne Moore. Now, for some reason, I've always pictured Cruise as someone who often plays the nice guy. Here, he is the complete opposite. He offended the crap out of me while he was trying to sell his 'Seduce and Destroy' book, as he looked like he didn't have any respect for women at all. But I'll always remember him sitting by his dying father's bed, refusing to cry...and there, the man is changed. Julianne Moore has always been one of my favourite actresses, and I really liked her performance here even though her character was pretty shaky and crazy. The scene where she breaks down in the pharmacy was quite memorable. The film is filled with many brilliant performances, whether it be from a calm Philip Seymour Hoffman, a bed-ridden Jason Robards, an on-edge Melora Walters, a smitten John C. Reilly or an insecure William H. Macy...everyone is brilliant, which I think is a rarity in multi-plot films as actors are usually never given the chance to shine as much as they do here.


Providing a lovely final touch is Jon Brion's brilliant score and the heavy influence from Aimee Mann's music. The song opens with her cover of the song 'One' by Harry Nilsson, which is perfect for all of the characters introductions. Also, a song of hers, 'Wise Up', was at one point sung by each of the characters in the middle of the film. I felt that this sequence was a little bit indulgent on Anderson's part, but hey, not every film can be perfect, right? As a character study, though, this film gets pretty damn near to perfection.

THE VERDICT: Paul Thomas Anderson may just be one of the best writer/directors out there, as Magnolia clearly shows. It's an epic drama that is engaging through its entire three hour running time, and has enough material to last over several watches.

What I hoped for:








What I got:

Monday, January 10, 2011

Rewind--Lions for Lambs

or: Just like going to college...


One word to sum it up: Tiring.

You know how when you are kinda obsessed with a certain actor and you feel obliged to watch a lot of their films? Well, yeah, my current obsession is Andrew Garfield, and there aren’t too many films out there with him in them...yet. But given the fact that Lions for Lambs was right there at my disposal, which happens to feature Andrew Garfield in one of his early American roles, of course I had to add it to my list of Andrew movies. Even though I had to be lectured for 87 minutes in order to do that.

Lions for Lambs begins after two determined students at a West Coast University, Arian (Derek Luke) and Ernest (Michael Pena), follow the inspiration of their idealistic professor, Dr. Malley (Robert Redford), and attempt to do something important with their lives. But when the two make the bold decision to join the battle in Afghanistan, Malley is both moved and distraught. Now, as Arian and Ernest fight for survival in the field, they become the string that binds together two disparate stories on opposite sides of America. In California, an anguished Dr. Malley attempts to reach a privileged but disaffected student (Andrew Garfield) who is the very opposite of Arian and Ernest. Meanwhile, in Washington D.C. the charismatic Presidential hopeful, Senator Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise), is about to give a bombshell story to a probing TV journalist (Meryl Streep) that may affect Arian and Ernest's fates.

I knew Lions for Lambs wasn’t going to be interesting from the very start, since it deals with the Iraq war...something which is overused in the film industry to an often dry and thoughtless extent. Lions for Lambs is no exception to that rule. It's an overly contrived set of stories which seem barely even connected right, and overall can't elevate from being like every other war movie: boring. It's the same every time when Hollywood tries to attack the government over something they aren't particularly proud of. Unfortunately, such elements can't be made into a piece of pop culture. Lions for Lambs tries to paint a bad picture of everyone involved, which contributes to some off-the-mark characterization through it's series of lectures. It too rarely feels like a film, and I kinda felt like I was being lectured by Robert Redford just the way that Todd did. Maybe this is a good film to show at college when talking about the subject this movie tries to tackle?

You usually can't go wrong with Meryl Streep, but her performance is a little bit bland, until the end when it turns a little desperate. Tom Cruise is, you know, Tom Cruise, except this time he is being all powerful and executive. Robert Redford takes on both the lead role and the direction duties, and does those both adequately well. Andrew Garfield, in his film debut (he also made his BAFTA winning TV-film Boy A in the same year), shows us some early signs of what he is truly made of. He's such an honest actor who deserves any accolades coming for him. I wouldn't exactly call him scene stealing in this movie, but I would say that he is possibly one of the better parts of it.


THE VERDICT: A dull stab at the US Government that feels like a series of lectures...and no film should be a series of lectures.

4/10

Thursday, November 25, 2010

DVD--Knight and Day

or: Frivolous Fun.


One word to sum it up: Out-of-it.

I remember when I first saw the Knight and Day trailer at the cinemas. I think I could actually taste the popcorn becoming a lot more buttery when I saw it. To me, it's the epitome of a typical brainless popcorn blockbuster. My dad went to go see it while I watched Inception, and he hailed it as 'the best Cameron Diaz movie of all time'. Not that there are many great Cameron Diaz movies out there, but yes, Knight and Day ranks among the best. That's if you aren't opposed to plot holes big enough for King Kong to get through and the most silly action sequences ever.

June Havens (Cameron Diaz) is just a normal woman going about her day. She gets a flight back home, but on that flight she meets the mysterious Roy Miller (Tom Cruise), who happened to kill everyone aboard the plane. The next morning, June finds herself at home, with everything back to normal. But as the day progressses she is thrown into a mission with Miller, and has to work with him in order to keep herself safe. Things won't ever be the same for either of them.

Knight and Day has little substance, little style, but manages to be a bit better than the average blockbuster. Okay, so, some of the action sequences we see out lead characters in are a bit over the top and totally unrealistic, yes, but is it entertaining? It's amazingly entertaining. The movie has some of the best action sequences I have seen this year, and is nonetheless a film which is driven by it's star power. Don't let Tom Cruise put you off...he's actually quite good in this movie. Cameron Diaz shows us all that she has a good set of lungs and can scream louder than the usual damsel in distress. Surprisingly, Cruise and Diaz have a rather good on screen relationship, and the comedy comes out of their mismatched pairing.

The first half of Knight and Day sets off to be a comedy, and it does well at this. But the second half brings in the seriousness, which feels out of place when I felt I couldn't take the movie seriously. Unfortunately, things got a little tired as the movie progressed, and I started to see the cracks in this film. Sit back and enjoy the ride is my advice, because this is no doubt an enjoyable film. Hats off to the casting directors for getting Cruise and Diaz, and also my personal favourite Peter Sarsgaard in an action film. Knight and Day is no doubt just a blockbuster, but it can elevate itself past that status because of it's star power and out there action sequences, where we know that they aren't fighting 'just because they can' (ahem, I'm looking at you, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen).


THE VERDICT: Average blockbuster fun that offers few surprises, but is still as cool as Cameron Diaz.

6/10

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails