Mission: Impossible - Fallout

… Or, as I like to call it, Mad Tom: Impossible Road.

I have seen many comparisons being made between Mission: Impossible – Fallout and 2015’s action masterpiece Mad Max: Fury Road. Here’s what I’ll say; Fallout is the best, no-holds-barred, jaw-on-the floor action blockbuster since Fury Road roared onto the screen three years ago. Writer-director Christopher McQuarrie (the first director to return for a second film in the Mission: Impossible series after 2015’s terrific Rogue Nation), the stunt team and an insanely talented technical crew orchestrate some of the most gasp-inducing action sequences to grace the silver screen, a variety of combat and chase sequences which stagger with their ferocity, velocity and frequency. Add to that an ensnaring espionage tale throughout which the action is weaved, a magnetic supporting ensemble and one of star Tom Cruise’s best performances (both physical and emotional), and Fallout is the rare sixth instalment in the series to become the crown jewel, the peak achievement which sets a near-impossible bar for all chapters to follow.

The plot relies too heavily on twists and turns to be fully surmised in this review, but here are the basics; three containers of plutonium are loose in the world, and the Apostles (remnants of the villainous Syndicate from Rogue Nation) are hoping to cause massive devastation with them. Ethan Hunt (Cruise) and the IMF (Impossible Mission Force) team naturally want to stop this, and a race against time ensues between both parties to get the plutonium first. Complicating matters are the arrival of CIA Agent Walker (Henry Cavill), tasked with keeping an eye on Ethan and co., and the return of Ilsa Faust (Rebcca Ferguson), who has her own mission and agenda…

While there is a lot more to appreciate, Fallout’s main bread-and-butter is the action. And what action it is, with McQuarrie and his team delivering stunning sequence after stunning sequence. The use of practical stunt-work, wherever possible, lends a visceral punch to proceedings (an early sequence in a bathroom is like similar brawls from 1994’s True Lies and 2006’s Casino Royale amped up to eleven, with every blow landing like a hammer). There are two of the most breath-taking vehicular chases ever put to film; you are always aware of the danger from the incoming traffic and the sheer speed of the cars and motorcycles as they whip past building after building (the sound design is masterful throughout, but the sound during those motorcycle chases is glorious). I won’t dare say anything about the finale, but it is easily one of the most magnificent conclusions to an action film. Moving from exceptional spectacle to desperately ferocious one-on-one fights, these final 20 minutes go above and beyond in delivering thrills I honestly haven’t felt for a long time. That’s not even exploring half of the world-class action in this film, but it’s only right that most of it be left for the viewer to discover. Cinematographer Rob Hardy and composer Lorne Balfe deserve special applause for their stellar work in crafting the endless excitement. Meetings in the shadows and glamorous events are typical spy tropes given new-found style and flair by Hardy’s command of the lens, and his long-take shots of action whether grand or intimate, occurring over vistas either huge and expansive or claustrophobic, are visually captivating. Balfe’s score, shifting between brooding dread and unexpected tenderness, kicks into high gear whenever the feet, fists and/or bullets start flying. It’s impossible (pun intended) to over-state how well-wed Balfe’s score is to the onscreen action. The use of snare drums and bongos is particularly inspired, powering the action with a primal surge of energy.

Before we get to the star of the show, there is a superb supporting cast which brings vivid life and personality to the array of characters surrounding Ethan. Simon Pegg and Ving Rhames are as reliable as ever; Pegg’s Benji provides much of the film’s comic relief whilst truly coming into his own as a field agent. The film’s use of humour throughout is pitched perfectly, landing effectively without leeching the danger or threat. Rhames, on the other hand, is typically likeable and hits his more emotional scenes out of the park. As the only other character besides Ethan to have appeared in all Mission: Impossible films, Luthor perhaps has the deepest connection with Ethan, which really makes those moments land. Whilst not stealing this film in quite the same way she did Rogue Nation, Ferguson is still a spell-binding presence. Oozing grace and vivacity, the chemistry between Ferguson and Cruise is palpable without being overstated. Becoming the first villain to make a return in the series, Sean Harris is just as calmly insidious as he was in Rogue Nation; Solomon Lane is the yin to Ethan’s yang, and Harris embodies the cold, psychotic evil to Ethan’s raging, human hope perfectly. Vanessa Kirby brings a playful, slinking wit to the White Widow, an arms dealer who has an important part to play. Alec Baldwin and Angela Bassett both make strong impressions as the heads of the IMF and the CIA, respectively. And then there’s Henry Cavill. Perhaps more famous for the ‘moustache drama’ (with his facial hair here leading to his moustache being digitally erased from 2017’s Justice League to hilarious, rubber-faced results), Cavill’s performance easily exceeds that “controversy”. Cavill’s muscular intensity matches Cruise’s commitment beat-for-beat, Walker’s single-minded determination coming in stark contrast to Ethan’s more optimistic world-view and creating an intriguing rapport between both characters. Cavill exudes a sense of calm force just waiting to be unleashed, and that controlled power makes Walker a consistently towering and intriguing presence.

But the powerhouse here is easily the Cruiser. This is perhaps one of Cruise’s quintessential performances; he puts his body on the line through some of the most jaw-dropping stunts a Hollywood actor has ever performed (even breaking his ankle and somehow keeping his composure long enough to finish the shot), he lends a world-weariness to the action which humanizes Ethan more than any other entry and he (with a wonderful assist from McQuarrie) delves deep into the legacy Ethan has forged and the pain he has endured in his on-going mission to keep the world safe. This is brought home beautifully by the consistent ties to Ethan’s past throughout the narrative, some of which are expected and one which comes right out of left-field but which will likely bring a big smile to the faces of any long-time fans of the series. Cruise is easily one of the most passionate movie stars on the planet, putting everything he has into delivering a truly extraordinary experience for audiences. The most credit I can offer Cruise here is that Ethan Hunt has never seemed more superhuman or more human before, and I mean that with the greatest respect.

If you want to look for issues here, you’ll probably find them. My biggest issue was how one particular plot point seemed too telegraphed, but the more I look at it, that might have been the point. The writing, direction and acting seems too controlled and aware to have given that detail away without a good reason, and in a knowing way, I think it might actually help the narrative. And, even though I saw that moment coming, there are still a flurry of twists and turns which I didn’t expect. These show great self-awareness for the formula of this series, either in a highly fun way or in a way which raises the stakes for the characters both on a personal and potentially global level.

It’s difficult to state how tremendous an accomplishment Mission: Impossible – Fallout is, particularly in the action genre. Not a single person is here simply for the pay cheque; these are all highly dedicated artists doing what they love and doing it so much better than all but a few of the competitors. After a exposition-heavy but necessary beginning, the world-class action starts and almost never lets up. The beauty of McQuarrie’s screenplay and direction, combined with the exceptional cast, is that characters are still constantly flourishing and developing in the middle of the magnificent chaos; the characters don’t feel like constructs, but real people putting their lives on the line for what they believe in. Mission: Impossible – Fallout is both a modern action classic and one of the best espionage thrillers put to screen, joining the likes of Mad Max: Fury Road, 2007’s The Bourne Ultimatum and Casino Royale. I’m aware that’s high praise, but everyone involved deserves it. Achievements like this don’t happen often, and when they do, it’s nigh-on impossible for a movie lover like me to use understatements.    

By the time the credits roll, only one question remains; if this series continues, who will choose to accept the mission of making a follow-up to Fallout? It may just prove to be what the series prides itself on; Impossible. Go and see this on the biggest screen possible; this message will self-destruct in 5 seconds.

Actually, one more question; how did they do… BANG!

Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again - Film Review

July 11^th, 2008. Going into the cinema to watch Mamma Mia with my dad, I had no idea what to expect. Upon leaving, I had just gone through one of my best cinema-going experiences. Ten years later, I feel the same way. I know Mamma Mia is necessarily ‘good’ film-making. I knew that back in 2008; Mamma Mia came out in the same month as The Dark Knight and Wall-E (in the UK, anyway, which I think are vastly superior films. Mamma Mia was simply meant to be a cheerily cheesy love letter to the music of ABBA, performed by actors (particularly the more experienced cast members) who knew exactly what tone to go for. And, from the enthused response from both my cinema viewings of the film (the former with my dad and the latter with my grandma), I’d say that it wildly succeeded. Cinema, much like life itself, has a vast fluidity and variety which enables different people to find satisfaction. Mamma Mia delivered that for many people, becoming a worldwide hit in the process. That makes a sequel both understandable and slightly worrying; after all, Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again could have easily been nothing more than a cash-grab. Thankfully, that’s not the case. Now I’m sure the studio executives are hoping for this to be a huge hit. But Here We Go Again doesn’t feel designed solely for that purpose. From early on, the film introduces an unexpected layer of pathos and, aside from another giddily cheerful trip through ABBA’s oeuvre, has a beautiful message about the passage of time (and both the pain and joy inherent in that) which makes the existence of this sequel both earnt and welcome.

Picking up five years after the original, Sophie (Amanda Seyfried) is having a crisis. Trying to honour her absent mother Donna (Meryl Streep), she finds her relationship with her husband Sky (Dominic Cooper) under strain while struggling to decide which direction to take. Intercut with Sophie’s story is the tale of young Donna (Lily James) as she decides to travel the world for new exciting experiences. Her journey leads her to the Greek Island of Kalokairi, as well as encounters with Sophie’s three potential fathers; Harry (Hugh Skinner in flashbacks, Colin Firth in present), Sam (Jeremy Irvine in flashbacks, Pierce Brosnan in present) and Bill (Josh Dylan in flashbacks, Stellan Skarsgard in present).

Writer-director Ol Parker, taking over from original director Phyllida Lloyd and writer Catherine Johnson, seems to be making his own mark on the material. This is sometimes detrimental to the events of the original; the encounters Donna has with her three suitors don’t match up to the order as established in the first film, and the timeline for both films is made even more difficult to decipher (the flashbacks take place in 1979, but if Here We Go Again is set in the very present, that would make Sophie 38 years old, which doesn’t quite add up). However, with those noticeable flaws set aside, Parker shows much more confidence and welcome self-awareness in both his dialogue and choreography than his predecessors. This immensely helps his actors, all of whom imbue their performances with either cheerful abandon and/or surprising poignancy. Firth and Skarsgard especially embrace the silliness and make wonderful fools of themselves; their entrance into the ‘Dancing Queen’ number, despite being a gesture parodied multiple times, still got a huge laugh from the audience. Both Skinner and Dylan do a terrific job playing the younger versions of those characters, too; Skinner captures Firth’s upper-class charm and almost-panicked energy to a tee (his duet of ‘Waterloo’ with Lily James is a highlight), and Dylan is a dead-ringer for Skarsgard’s self-assurance and down-to-earth likeability.

Other show-stealing turns come from Julie Walters and Christine Baranski, both offering warmly hilarious support as Donna’s friends Rosie and Tanya; their shared rendition of Angel Eyes is a thing of comic beauty, especially Walters’ somewhat unsure choreography. Alexa Davies and Jessica Keenan Wynn are just as good in playing younger Rosie and Tanya respectively; it’s almost uncanny how much Wynn, in particular, resembles Baranski in both appearance, speech and behaviour. Jeremy Irvine is also solid in capturing younger Pierce Brosnan, even though his performance doesn’t leave quite as big an impression as his flashback co-stars. Speaking of Brosnan, he’s surprisingly effective here. After the original Mamma Mia, Brosnan was criticized (rather brutally, actually) for his limited singing abilities. Parker, recognizing this limitation, strips Brosnan of any big, belt-‘em-out numbers and instead makes him sing mainly as part of the ensemble. The only time Brosnan sings solo is very restrained and sorrowful, and even if his voice isn’t great on its own, the emotion he puts into the song creates an unforced sadness. Seyfried delivers an improved performance over her work in the original, coming across as more mature and uncertain. It doesn’t hurt that her singing voice is still very nice to listen to. Joining the original cast in the present-day scenes are Andy Garcia as the new manager of Donna’s hotel and Cher as Sophie’s elusive grandmother. Both these actors lend a professional grace and confidence to their scenes, and when Cher starts to belt out ‘Fernando’, you’re reminded why she’s truly one of the greats with that booming yet tender and gorgeous voice. Brilliantly judged comic turns from Omid Djalili as a perplexingly ageless customs officer and Panos Mouzourakis as an energized singer on Kalokairi round out the fantastic cast. Even the weakest of the principal cast, Dominic Cooper, is passable enough to avoid too much scrutiny. 

But the star of this film, without a doubt in my mind, is Lily James. While I’ve been impressed with her work before (most recently in last year’s Baby Driver), she takes this starring role and knocks it out of the park. She is a force of nature, both in her portrayal of the care-free and vivacious Donna and in her song numbers. She gets the most song/dance time out of all the cast, and James is mesmerizing to watch and to listen to. All of her numbers are strong, but the stand-outs are her introduction number ‘When I Kissed the Teacher’, that aforementioned ‘Waterloo’ duet, her teasing duet of ‘Why Did It Have to Be Me’ with Josh Dylan and her serenely vulnerable performance of ‘Andante, Andante’; I have been listening to the latter as much as possible over the past couple of days. Donna is the thorough-line for the film, and James’s star presence is nothing less than a gift.

Technically, the choreography of the numbers is much-improved over the original. Also, the settings are more unique; the ‘Dancing Queen’ sequence in this film eclipses that in the first mainly for how and where the sequence plays out, and the framing of the lovelorn duet ‘One of Us’ uses simple but effective framing to emphasise how close yet how far Sophie and Sky are from each other. Meanwhile, the Croatian Island of Vis makes a stunning stand-in for the Island of Kalokairi, and the cinematography once again basks in the glorious sunshine as much as possible.            

Time... It is a beautiful yet terrible thing, offering us the chance to grow, live and create new lives in the process all with the knowledge that our own moments are fleeting. It is a cyclical process, with every ending coming in close proximity to a new beginning. In the ten years between the original and the sequel, I personally have learnt both great and harsh lessons about life, and I have lost loved ones along the way. For all of the bubbly energy and fun on display here (the older members of the cast have an amusing yet relatable reaction to a certain lyric from ‘Dancing Queen’), the acknowledgement of life’s pleasures, pains and their impending closure lends the film a bitterly poignant sting. Proving an underlying fixture for much of the run-time, the emotional punch comes full circle in an epilogue which had me fighting back tears.

Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again has stronger production values, a more on-point cast, a slew of hilarious moments and a much more defined sense of confidence when compared to its predecessor. But it’s in the painfully identifiable acknowledgement of life’s fallibility, and the drive to live as passionately fulfilling an existence as possible until the day our time has been spent, that this initially-thought unnecessary project becomes one of the most surprisingly delightful and moving sequels for quite some time.  

On a final note, stay until after the credits. There’s a small but priceless moment which is worth catching.

Final Rating: 4 out of 5

Super Troopers 2

The original Super Troopers, despite making a relatively small impact during its theatrical run back in 2002, gathered a cult audience on home media. It will be interesting to see if Super Troopers 2 gains the same cult appeal, but I wouldn't be surprised; despite its often amateurish, low-brow and unfocused approach, there is a certain chemistry between the lead actors which makes the film intermittently entertaining to watch, despite the lack of laugh-out-loud moments and the occasional jokes which fall flat.










The Vermont Highway Patrol - Arcot "Thorny" Ramathorn (Jay Chandrasekhar, who also directs), Jeff Foster (Paul Soter), MacIntyre "Mac" Womack (Steve Lemme), Robert "Rabbit" Rota (Eric Stolhanske), Rodney "Rod" Farva (Kevin Heffernan) and Captain John O'Hagen (Brian Cox) - return from forced retirement when a border dispute results in Canadian land possibly being on American soil. Being chosen as the border force to phase out the current Canadian Mounties, the troopers try to adjust to the Canadian way of life... With typically unprofessional results.









Let's make one thing clear; the majority of the humour in Super Troopers 2 goes for one level and stays there. There is a lot of broad stereo-typing when it comes to both the Americans and the Canadians; the jokes aimed at the Canadians, in particular, can't help but feel a little tried and tired (if you've never heard a joke about Canadian pronunciation or their love of hockey, get ready to have your mind blown). There are more than a few moments when the lack of variation on these old stereotypes gets irritating, but the goofy camaraderie of Hayes MacArthur, Tyler Labine and Will Sasso as the Canadian Mounties, along with Rob Lowe's scenery-devouring turn as local mayor Guy Le Franc and Emmanuelle Chriqui's game support as cultural attaché Genevieve Aubois, paradoxically lends some charm to their scenes no matter how long in the tooth their characterisation may be.










The actors portraying the Vermont Highway Patrol (this group of actors are also known as the 'Broken Lizard' comedy group) have solid interplay between each other; you can tell that they're worked together for a while, which actually helps to inform their characters and their relationships. This history makes certain scenes work better, and comes across more effectively through the cast's on-screen antics than through the lazy screenplay (the group wrote the script together; when five comedians come together to write a script, you'd hope for better and more consistent jokes). Out of all the Troopers, though, easily the stand-out is Brian Cox. Cox is often seen as such a serious, Shakespearean actor that it's a real joy to watch him cut loose like this, and whether the Captain is berating his men or joining in on their wacky antics, Cox is a very funny screen presence.










As a director, Jay Chandrasekhar doesn't really do much; his choice of camera techniques are fairly standard, and he fails to lend much flair to proceedings. Granted, Super Troopers 2 isn't the kind of film where you might expect to see top-tier filmmaking, but I still like to see directors do something interesting with their material. Chandrasekhar makes two wise moves, though. The first is to give everyone in the cast a chance to put their own spin on proceedings; if he hadn't done this, the film might have been downright insufferable. The second is not to make audiences feel like they must have seen the first film. I'm not saying that he doesn't copy jokes from the first film (there's a cameo which focuses on highlighting one of the first film's signature jokes), but Chandrasekhar doesn't go the route of, say, The Hangover Part 2, where so many of the jokes and story beats hang on the audience's experience with the first film ("it happened again").










There isn't much to make Super Troopers 2 a worthwhile trek to the cinema. The jokes are mostly tired, the technical credits are pretty basic in quality and neither the script or direction do much to add any flavour. But, as I said before, the cast all have a likeability and an enjoyable way of playing off each other, which makes some of the jokes land and even makes the ones that don't a little more bearable. There are also a few colourful cameos (easily the best comes during the end credits). My advice: Wait 'til the film comes out on home media, get a few friends together, have a couple of drinks and lower your expectations. Those are probably the best conditions under which to watch Super Troopers 2.










My Final Rating - 2.5 out of 5 

Mini-Reviews: Tomb Raider and Pacific Rim: Uprising

Seeing as these are two films which have been out for a while now and are probably either on the way out or already out of most cinemas, I thought I’d do quick mini-reviews for both. So, here we go…

Tomb Raider

Alicia Vikander brilliantly takes on the famous role of Lara Croft in this franchise reboot. While I do have more affection for the 2001 film featuring Angelina Jolie at her bad-ass best, this iteration is still an intermittently entertaining, albeit grittier, take on the character. Director Roar Uthaug starts off strong with an exciting and surprisingly interesting opening act before things become more standard with the introduction of the villain (portrayed by a disappointingly lacklustre Walton Goggins). The action following the introduction, while competently constructed, pales in comparison to similar adventure films. Throughout it all, though, Vikander shines. She makes Lara into a fun and authentic character, aided by engaging support from Dominic West as Lara’s father and Daniel Wu as her travel companion Lu Ren, with fun appearances from the likes of Kristen Scott Thomas, Derek Jacobi and Nick Frost. This is likely one of the better video game adaptations, even though that isn’t saying much. While I love Vikander and hope to see more of her as this character, there’ll hopefully be something more fresh and energised to further emphasise and reward the efforts of its leading lady in any possible future instalments. 

Rating: 2.5 out of 5

Pacific Rim: Uprising

Giant robots once again fight giant monsters in this fitfully enjoyable, but mostly uninspired, sequel to 2013’s Pacific Rim. John Boyega (better known as Finn from Star Wars) proves to be a quirkily enjoyable lead, and his chemistry with the equally interesting Cailee Spaeny leads to some likeable banter. It’s a shame that none of the other characters go beyond either thinly-written, pure stereotype or both; Tian Jing (who made such a strong impression in last year’s The Great Wall) continues to be under-used, Scott Eastwood still fails to leave much of an impact as an actor and the returning trio of Rinko Kikuchi, Charlie Day and Burn Gorman are either treated poorly, given too prominent a role or left to struggle with the tone (I really can’t emphasise how misjudged Day’s expanded role is here). The bread and butter of the film, the visual effects and the action, are still colourful enough to offer some eye candy. Director Steven S. DeKnight does adequate work in his feature debut, but he seems like more of a man-for-hire when compared with the affection and giddy attention to detail apparent in Guillermo del Toro’s direction of the original. del Toro seemed to genuinely care about making a visually memorable and exciting film the first time around. Here, it overbearingly feels like a studio-mandated affair. There’s also the baggage of too much exposition, one of the most awkwardly half-baked romantic triangles in recent memory (if you could even call it that) and an ending which screams of sequel begging. Altogether, Pacific Rim: Uprising feels like a forced imitation of everything that made the original such an energetically large-scale yet oddly personal affair. 

Rating: 2 out of 5