Risky Business

You remember those Star Trek episodes where they wind up in an alternate universe? This movie is like watching the alternate universe version of Ferris Bueller's Day Off. From the Chicago suburbs setting to the madcap teenage adventures to the unrealistically tidy denouement, everything in this movie echoes not just the Ferris film but the entire John Hughes oeuvre—except here it’s all a bit more dangerous, a bit more adult (versus the self-consciously adolescent tone of the Hughes movies), and a bit more serious in disposition. And it all comes from a different auteur (Paul Brickman). Where the overlap is greatest lies in the '80s sensibility that pervades every atom of the world inhabited by the characters in this flick. If anyone tried to remake this movie today it would be impossible; no one active now had the same connection to that particular wavelength, and the story would end up wildly different, and probably not as good. (It would certainly be more violent; the action here practically demands more extreme behavior, and it says something about the relative innocence of those times that this plot plays out as tamely as it does.) Tom Cruise and Rebecca De Mornay work extremely well together here as rich high school boy Joel and Lana the hooker, respectively, Joe Pantoliano is a bit too lightweight as Guido "the killer pimp," while Curtis Armstrong nearly steals the show as Joel’s overly encouraging buddy. The soundtrack features a number of terrific—and contemporary representative—songs, and the Brickman's direction, in certain sequences, approaches something artful now and then (unlike Hughes’ generally more simplistic staging). So which universe is better? Perhaps it’s a reflection of my personal childishness, but it must mean something that I saw most of the Hughes films long ago, while I waited till I was an old man to watch this movie. I guess I prefer the adolescent hijinks over a slightly more downbeat version of coming of age. That’s not a pan—this qualifies as a good movie—but I do tend to choose pleasure over business, risky or otherwise.

Mission: Impossible - The Final Reckoning

Sic transit gloria cinema. If this really is the end, that is. What was in many ways the most unlikely of top-level movie franchises—in story, in execution, in star power, in sheer quality of execution—has apparently reached its denouement with an outing that is, perhaps, not the best of the series, but one that is representative and certainly full of entertainment value. You don’t really need to fret too much about the story here; this installment is continuing a thread that has been building for around three episodes now (and arguably grew out of the details of the entire series, as the movie makes clear with numerous self-referential flashback montages)--and all that really takes a back seat to the typically audacious stunt sequences anywat. Tom Cruise is very much his usual self here: strong, on-point, and totally in control of his character and environment (and he is deserving of accolades for clearly being a driving force in making this franchise what it became, which is a film series that far exceeded any reasonable expectations). The supporting cast does good work, too, including fine goodbyes to stalwarts Ving Rhames and Simon Pegg in their definitive roles, as well as solid performances from the rest of the crew--including Pom Klementieff in a role where, oddly, she speaks only French but apparently understands English in amazing detail. But hey, we’re not here to quibble; this stuff is all about a fun times at the movies, and this flick mostly pays that off, without ever descending into self-destruction. That’s a good mission to complete successfully—and here’s the proof. 

The Firm

In which we learn that lawyers are sleazy. Sorry, sport—that’s old news. I’ve never read a John Grisham novel; never seemed like my cup of tea. So I had to overcome some preconceptions to appreciate this flick, and I’d have to say the effort mostly succeeded. As always, it helps to have Tom Cruise working towards that goal; he brings his usual solid performance here as young, on the verge of being compromised lawyer Mitchell, though here he plays it without his usual level of hyper-confidence. Even without his normal level of self-assurance, Cruise gives the audience a protagonist to root for. Our lead is ably assisted in this effort by a host of familiar faces in supporting roles, with Jane Tripplehorn not the least among that secondary cast as Mitch’s suffering but ultimately involved and active wife. The plot is intricate, though not so much so that it trips on itself, and there’s just enough action to relieve any slow spots in the proceedings. No doubt the references to various workings of the law are accurate and relevant to the story, though perhaps that’s the least important aspect of the production. I’m going to say that overall, this is a good, entertaining and satisfying flick—I’d just prefer not to have to swear to that under oath. Your witness, counselor.

Jack Reacher: Never Go Back

A second and likely last outing for Cruise as Reacher. (The character moved on to a streaming series, and I’m guessing those footing that bill demanded exclusivity.) This outing is more explicitly military in its operational theater, so to speak, which both ups the ante in terms of the danger to the hero and compatriots, and creates more of a muddle in terms of who is guilty or a problem or an ally. One hopes the military is not this corrupt; one fears (with evidence) that it is. As for the personal dimensions, Cruise brings the same confidence and intelligence to the role of reacher as in the first flick. One interesting aspect of his performance: Cruise's Reacher, unlike many a badass movie protagonist, is not invulnerable; he takes a licking, and feels it—he just makes sure to deliver a bit more damage than the opponent in the end. It’s a big part of what makes you root for the guy. Another intriguing aspect: the clearly handsome Reacher partners with equally handsome women in both flicks to work through the problem, yet there are only teases of romantic involvement; Reacher, true to his mission statement of personal detachment (in all things, apparently), avoids any strings. It’s not a typical approach to the genre, and makes these stories stand out. Maybe they don’t stand out as movies overall—this and it’s predecessor are good but not exceptional—but they do stick out somewhat within the genre. One wonders what more Cruise might have made with this character, but that seemingly was not meant to be. (And maybe we would have been poorer in Mission: Impossible movies if that had played out.) Ultimately, it’s a bit of a dead end, but one that provides two solid hours of entertainment on its way to relative irrelevance.

Jack Reacher

The idea of Tom Cruise portraying Jack Reacher was laughable to my late mother, a fan of the novels. Cruise’s relatively diminutive physical presence is apparently not a match for the character on the page, but, as this film demonstrates, it’s not really an issue once the longtime star makes the role his own. The bedrock of Cruise’s success in movies has been confidence, the possession and projection thereof—and as usual, Cruise brings his A-game essence to this story. You get the sense, when you’re watching his portrayal of the ex-army investigator, that Cruise’s Reacher really can take out five or so dudes of bad intention without any help. You also believe the more contemplative aspects of the tale—for an action thriller, this film has a lot of quiet and talky (but not boring) scenes—and that Reacher is not just a bundle of writhing muscles, but a substantial brain, too. The mystery requires that sort of thinking; while some pieces of the puzzle may seem (or are) simple, how the picture resolves offers a worthy challenge to even the most seasoned whodunit fan. Put all that together with strong supporting work by Rosamund Pike, Richard Jenkins and David Oyelowo, as well as the city of Pittsburgh in all its glorious grittiness, and you end up with a perfectly respectable thriller that doesn’t, um, fall short of expectations.

Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning, Part One

A previous review link suggested that, perhaps, this series’ prior outing might be the last of its breed, if only because Tom Cruise has been doing this for so long that the exercise can’t possibly maintain particular interest going forward. Well, I guess here’s the proof that I was, shall we say, dead wrong. Apparently, the man and his crew have an inexhaustible ability to wring entertainment out of this concept. The stunts—in many ways the raison d’etre of this franchise—are up to the usual level of audacity. The plot is relatively clear, and rather timely, even if it drags its concept to a certain outlandish extreme. As for the human elements, I admit that there have been so many personnel twists and turns so far in the series that I’ve forgotten quite a bit about who is whom among the crew, beyond the core members of the team—Ving Rhames and Simon Pegg inhabit characters who are indelibly well-defined—but that really doesn’t matter for enjoying this flick. The experience is about just letting all the hyperkinetic chicanery wash over you, appreciating the awesomeness of those stunts and the cleverness of the setups while relishing the laughs scattered throughout the not-taking-itself-too-seriously script. At that level, it’s no wonder the thing keeps working. MI is pretty much as immortal and unkillable as Ethan Hunt himself—there’s always some escape to be made, some new ledge to leap onto and keep the thing climbing or running or scrambling its way forward. That, the fact of this franchise’s eternally entertaining nature, is a mission—or at least an enticement—that moviegoers have long since learned to accept. The thing couldn’t self-destruct even if it wanted to.

Mission: Impossible - Fallout

An acceptable level of audacity. After taking a bit of a dip in the previous outing, this installment -- almost a direct continuation of the previous film’s storyline -- rises up once again to a most satisfying height of mayhem, twists and turns, and hanging by a fingernail intensity. And, as an added bonus, the script injects an element of emotional depth into the proceedings, in the person of our hero’s former flame, a piece of his puzzle that had been building in the previous outings, but only becomes fully realized as a key component here. Adding that to the already expert execution of all the great spy movie must-haves -- outrageous action, world-class locations, eye-popping settings, and a hint of aplomb and cool humor -- solidifies this flick as both another fine and fun entry in the series, and a representative example of the franchise as a whole. This one has a certain valedictory air to it, as if this may be Cruise's last go-around as Ethan Hunt; if so, it’s a worthy way to say sayonara to what is, in many ways, a career-defining body of work. Impossible or not, I’m willing to declare this mission more than just accomplished. Bravo.

Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation

Solid but not spectacular. This is the first film in the franchise that feels like it lives a rung down on the ladder. Not to say that it’s bad; this is a fine, workmanlike rendering of the series’ oeuvre, with all the elements that made the previous four outings so successful. There’s just a hint that maybe we’ve seen a bit too much of this at this point. The action is top notch, if not as hair-raising as some of the sequences of earlier entries. This one is a bit thin on the humor that leavened the prior episodes, hinting that perhaps the production has started to take itself a bit too seriously. One thing that does stand out: these movies have a (I don’t know if I’d call it refreshingly) jaundiced view of government -- not just foreign governments or the USA’s institutions, but seemingly every government on earth. In that way, this is a spy franchise that is more plugged into the zeitgeist than, say, the Bond movies have been for a long time. That’s perhaps not something you want to appreciate -- the world was probably a better place when you could actually believe in something -- but it is at least worth nothing, and to some extent respecting. So, in sum, we take a small step down here, but this part of the canon remains high-level action entertainment -- still a mission worth accepting.

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol

The strength of this franchise? Scenario imagination. The things these people think up are simply outrageously entertaining. The Dubai sequence here, for instance, is remarkable for its inventiveness, in multiple dimensions -- not the least of which is Tom Cruise scaling the Burj Khalifa's exterior, which set my fear-of-falling response into white-hot psychosis mode. And that’s really just the start of it. So much of the spectacle in these films is so over the top that it serves as its own context and raison d'etre; the details of the story, plot and overarching theme are largely irrelevant to whether or not the film succeeds as entertainment. That may not be truly good moviemaking, but it undoubtedly delivers a high quotient of entertainment. Shakespeare it’s not, but a good way to kill a couple of hours and enjoy oneself? Most emphatically, yes.

Mission: Impossible-III

Specializing in absurd bravado. Arguably, no one but Tom Cruise could pull off the combination of cheeky fun and audacious action that is the hallmark of the M:I series. This is highly professional blockbuster moviemaking, and regardless of who the director is—de Palma, or Woo, or in this case J.J. Abrams—the credit for the quality of this franchise must largely go to Cruise (who is both star and above the title producer throughout this series). It’s almost impossible not to enjoy these flicks, even considering their sometimes silly story lines or out of left field plot points or even an almost total lack of continuity between episodes (Ving Rhames is about the only commonality in the series besides Cruise himself). This is all about the spectacle, and Tom and his team never fail to deliver the goods, whether it’s jaw-dropping stunt work or moments of laugh out loud humor mixed into the mayhem. Don’t make the mistake I originally did in dismissing these films as lowest common denominator multiplex fodder; this is really the state of the art in movie-for-the-masses filmmaking. Accept the mission and give this and the rest of the series a look.

Mission: Impossible-2

It is itself, only more so. This second outing in the series takes the template--one is tempted to call this work formulaic, but that would be too negative--formed by the first and magnifies it. Credit for that must go to having John Woo as the director, or at least to the decision to bring the Hong Kong action master in to helm the production. His  touch shows throughout the proceedings, in a building pattern that eventually reaches a point where, at the climax, the movie achieves maximum John Woo-ness, with set pieces, stunts and visuals that are so over the top that certain moments are laugh out loud funny. Other parts of the production are uneven yet entertaining. The story runs from simple and straightforward to a growing complexity, where at at least one point it’s hard to follow who is doing what. The propensity of the characters to wear flawless disguises assists in creating certain confusion, though at one point the ploy is used so obviously that there’s humor in what should otherwise be a serious confrontation scene. Then again, this flick never really takes itself too seriously, except perhaps for its through line of ogling Thandie Newton, a pastime that gets devoted attention almost from start to finish. Overall, this movie delivers decent popcorn entertainment; if you don’t expect brilliance--and clearly, many moviegoers have not over the franchise’s lifetime--you will be mostly satisfied with your investment here.

Mission: Impossible

I missed out on this one for some 27 years. That seems...highly improbable. Especially considering how prominent this film and its sequels became. In truth, the old TV show came across (to me, at least) as not particularly fertile ground for growing a whole film franchise, and in this first entry in what became a series, it doesn't always look that promising. As a stand alone piece, this is mostly entertaining work, with some decent action sequences, though hardly knock-your-socks-off stuff. Perhaps that’s the product of watching this flick so many years after its first arrival; action filmdom has largely--in every sense of the word--moved on to bigger and better things since the mid ‘90s.  The story here is relatively straightforward, unlike many a spy movie; perhaps that is a key to how this film and its sequels have had such broad appeal. Then again, Tom Cruise's charisma contributes tremendously to that success, too. His inherent confidence--the key trait that he brings to his every role--shines through throughout the proceedings, giving the viewer the sense that he’s being guided all the way through by the surest of leaders. You never really doubt that the hero is going to come out on top, whatever obstacles are placed in his way, and thus the climax and conclusion prove satisfying. Ultimately, it’s not the greatest thing ever, but it’s a good way to kill a couple of idle hours, and sometimes that’s what watching a movie is all about. 

Top Gun: Maverick

Yeah. That’s cool. So when does the great movie begin? ... What? This is it? Come on, now. The idea that this flick deserves its "best movie ever" plaudits--if not ecstatic shrieks--is downright risible. This piece is enjoyable, for sure, but the reputation it has acquired since release seems to be largely the product of the affection audiences feel for the original film’s characters. One scene in this outing in particular cashes in that chip to great affect, and probably stands as the most authentic part of this entire experience. Beyond that, everything in this script is so obvious that even I could have written it. Mostly, this is an exercise in self-congratulation writ large--though one that is easy enough to watch, if you’re looking for big, loud, dumb entertainment and nothing more. There’s no shame in that--so long as everyone maintains perspective. Just fly level and straight and you’ll do fine with this one. Try to take it to Icarian heights--let alone the "danger zone"--and it will surely crash and burn.

The Mummy (2017)

Yeah, sure--if CBS can drag Magnum P.I. out of its grave, why shouldn't Universal resurrect this beastie? At this point the classic monsters in the studio's stable are less corpse-like than Selleck's old character. The problem with this outing, specifically, is twofold--one aspect looking backward, the other looking forward. Backwards, this installment suffers from comparison to the Brendan Fraser flick, which at this point is damn near a classic and a model of a revival done right. On the forward side, it's clear that too much thought was put into setting up the new "Dark Universe" franchise and not enough into the work immediately at hand. This movie has problems as a consequence, up to and including a climax and an ending that make little sense. But it's not awful, it delivers a fair amount of entertainment, and Tom Cruise is so professional at being a movie star that he simply won't let a film he's in be a total disaster. It could have been a lot better, but the brave new world of gods and monsters that this one hopes to spawn may yet produce something great. You never know.

American Made

You're being glib, filmmakers. There is, no doubt, an interesting story embedded in this work, though here the dots connect a bit too directly. There's too little development from point to point for everything not to feel rushed and incomplete. One suspects that those behind this flick decided to rely a little too heavily on Tom Cruise's charisma, which is still there but is not quite forceful enough to overcome this movie's defects. And it engenders no goodwill when the director insists upon using the utterly hackneyed technique of the shaky, hand-held camera to impart faux energy. That decision alone tells you that everything was not quite well thought out here. The MEOW is precarious; it could be a HISS, but there's just enough entertainment value here to keep the Cat in a relatively good mood. But one suspects this could have been a lot better.

Rock of Ages

Everyone probably should be more upset that this movie was a bust than everyone actually is. The music herein, even at its worst, is still miles ahead of the drek that winds up hitting the charts these days; it’s a very bad sign for society at large that more people weren’t on board with this film and its homage to '80s metal. There’s also the highly entertaining pleasure of watching a really good cast frequently make fools of themselves. (Which does not include Tom Cruise; his performance is spot-on amazing all the way through.) On the other hand, the movie does lose a lot of momentum about halfway through, and it never really recovers all of its early drive even at its feel-good climax. So it's about half of a really good movie--in some ways, the epitome of that so-so label. Enjoy as much of it as you can.

Oblivion

This one seems to be a near miss. There’s a lot to like here: Cruise is good (he never isn’t, really), the look of the thing is wonderful, the twist is pretty good as movie twists go, and there’s even some good science that’s important to the movie’s reality (i.e., the presumed effects on Earth if our Moon were destroyed). But there’s one bit of dumbness that cancels out that good science: the story relies on the by-now well-worn clone fallacy (that clones would somehow share memories with the original organism). Probably not a bad rental, now that it’s out of theaters, certainly worth watching for free. But no surprise this wasn’t a big hit at the googolplex.

Valkyrie

A good story, a great cast giving fine, professional performances, and some artful storytelling make this worth the ride. Oh, yeah, and it also offers everybody's favorite movie stars: Nazis! Enjoy.

Collateral

An enjoyable thriller, made that much more watchable by Michael Mann's usual stylish vision. The intriguing set-up, and good interplay between Cruise and Foxx, combine with that stylishness to craft a movie that's better than it would be in lesser hands.

War Of The Worlds

I knock Spielberg around sometimes, but I can't deny credit where it's due: the strength of this movie, the action set pieces, are phenomenal works of direction. The chaos of the alien attacks is realized to an astounding degree, creating scenes that are emotionally gripping and downright scary. It helps that the alien tripods (a bit of throwback fidelity to Wells's original story) are genuinely alien and creepy. So visually, the film is most impressive. On the down side, the character relationships are just about unbelievable (no kids, no matter how alienated from their father, would be that snotty when all that shit was going down), and there's at least one major story discontinuity. But this one really isn't a thinking movie; it's there to be seen, and you get what you want in that regard.