Showing posts with label tom cruise. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tom cruise. Show all posts

August 13, 2014

Edge of Tomorrow (2014)


4.9/5

Edge of Tomorrow is one of the smartest action movies I've seen in a very long time. Tom Cruise stars as an unwilling businessman-turned-foot soldier in the midst of a global battle against an alien invasion. He gets killed quickly in the trenches, only to discover that he must relive that fateful day over and over again. He finds out that this same phenomenon happened to another soldier (Blunt) earlier in the war, so he seeks her out in the hopes that they can join forces and defeat the aliens.

Battle scenes have a jarring, chaotic feel, reminiscent of Saving Private Ryan during the beachfront invasion. In the midst of the violence, the cinematography remains smooth and crisp, with sharp editing and clear shots. But director Doug Liman also does a lot with the repeating day premise. The day resets sometimes quickly, for comic effect, sometimes slowly, for an agonizing emotional hit. Despite the repetition, every time feels interesting and exciting, new and worthwhile. It builds on the Groundhog Day framework instead of stealing from it.

There is an unexpected chemistry on screen between Cruise and Blunt, adding a tender human element to the exciting sci-fi backstory. It's not particularly fresh, but it feels genuine. And it makes watching the movie so much more rewarding. I highly recommend Edge of Tomorrow: it's genre-defying in the best way possible, straddling diverse moods expertly, appealing to the comic, romantic, action junkie, time travel nerd in all of us.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1631867/

December 28, 2011

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (2011)

3/5

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol is standard summer blockbuster fare that, like Sherlock Holmes, came out 5 months too late. The plot follows IMF Agent Ethan Hunt (Cruise) on a mission to stop a madman (Nyqvist) from starting a nuclear war. It's a movie trope we're all too familiar with, and the only thing this particular movie brings to the table is lots and lots of exciting action (and little else). It's not so much that there are plot holes, it's more that the filmmakers just didn't care about the plot. Nor did they care about the acting, as Paula Patton is clearly just a pretty face and nothing more.


Ah, but the action. The stunts on the Burj Khalifa are truly breathtaking and the chase through the sandstorm is inventive and thrilling. The climax in the motorized parking garage is truly edge-of-your-seat entertainment. But unfortunately that's about it. If you're the type of person who enjoys this kind of action and doesn't mind the nonsensical, unbelievable plot, then you will clearly enjoy it. If you were excited by the enormous number of positive reviews and thought this movie might be somehow different from every other action movie you've seen before, start rethinking. This is nothing more than a simple action movie, but at least it's a decent one at that.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1229238/

December 28, 2008

Valkyrie (2008)

4/5

Bryan Singer's Valkyrie is a superbly-made thriller based on the true story of Operation Valkyrie, an attempt by German officers to assassinate Hitler and stage a coup against the SS/Gestapo. As we all know, the operation failed, but I had no idea how close it was to succeeding. If only this one small thing had been different, if only that one person had done something else, and the entire course of human history could have been so dramatically altered. Watching this movie, I felt that tension, that what-if, that hope that the past could be rewritten. Singer has not only crafted an exhilarating thriller, but has also managed to make us forget what actually happened, if only for a moment.

I have no idea how historically accurate this movie is, and can only assume it is more inaccurate than accurate. That doesn't bother me. Some people may have come into the movie expecting a historical drama, and it may bother those people, but the movie is no such thing. It is a first-rate thriller, and knowing that will help you appreciate the elements that add to the suspense and forgive any poetic license or lack of characterization. The movie did what it set out to do expertly. Of all Singer's direction, what stands out most is the pacing and mood. We are drawn in so intimately to the plot, to every minuscule victory and defeat, that we fail to realize our knuckles getting whiter from clenching our fists so tightly in anticipation of the events to come. Every other facet of the film is either above average or at the very least adequate. Despite being much-maligned in a number of scathingly negative reviews, I found Cruise's performance to be "perfectly satisfactory," to quote Ebert's review. I was a bit perplexed by the inclusion of certain unnecessary scenes, but they were few and far between and easily forgivable. All in all, this delivered on every expectation I had going in. Any World War II buffs looking to learn more about Operation Valkyrie might want to stick to the History Channel and pass on this movie. But if you're a fan of suspense and were intrigued by the trailer, I highly recommend you check this out.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0985699/

July 27, 2008

Eyes Wide Shut (1999)

5/5

When I first saw Eyes Wide Shut, as a capstone to a semester's work analytically examining Stanley Kubrick's entire oeuvre, I thought it was the embodiment of everything he had strived for as a filmmaker. A fantastic, flawless finale to an already exemplary career. This time, however, after forgetting a lot of our classroom discussions of his works, I failed to see the same brilliance I originally found so evident. Not to say it wasn't there, just that it wasn't obvious. Instead, I found a powerful, engaging, ambiguous, intellectual foray into the nature of men and women, the masks and labels we wear, the fears and uncertainties we experience, and our deepest dreams and desires. The depth of thematics, matched with the depth of technical expertise, convince me more now than ever that this movie is deserving of a 5 star rating.

The plot follows Dr. Bill Harford (Tom Cruise) and his wife Alice (Nicole Kidman) as a seemingly happily-married couple in the luxurious areas of New York City. After they attend an opulent cocktail party with tantalizing hints of infidelity, Alice reveals a moment of sexual weakness a year prior. Jealous, Bill experiences a number of dream-like events that push him to the limits of sexual infidelity, but never past it. Everyone he interacts with reacts to him as a sexual object, to such an unrealistic level as to appear wholly impossible and fabricated. Is it all in his head? Not only does the film examine the human psyche, but in so doing it analyzes the difference between lust and love and the need for sex in marriage. It additionally tackles the concepts of social standing and money as valuations, identities, and reasons for remorse and guilt. Indeed, there is little this film does not cover.

The one complaint I had with the movie was its slow pacing. Most of the time I found it fluid and natural, but there was one scene in particular that I found unbearably slow. The editing itself was not to blame--the dissolves were used as perfectly as they were in The Godfather and every scene itself was necessary--but rather the delivery of the painfully banal dialogue. The characters talked very deliberately, which is not a bad thing, but it can be a bit much to take in for 2 hours and 45 minutes. The script as a whole is a mixed bag; nothing interesting ever occurred in the dialogue, but the overarching story itself and the introspection it forces us to consider are worth every minute. The acting was phenomenal, managing a lot on the screen from very little on the page. Cruise and Kidman fleshed their characters into complex human beings with subtleties and mistakes we recognize exist outside of the film. The music was an integral part of this movie, as necessary and unforgettable as it was in 2001. The cinematography was just as beautiful as all his previous films, especially his use of repetition and symmetry to match with his thematic exploration.

This film remains poorly criticized as a result of bad marketing, but it is not a film to be missed. Even if you disagree with its message or with its methods, it brings to light issues that should be discussed openly instead of kept in the dark. Maybe not at cocktail parties, but perhaps between partners. And lucky for us, if there's a topic that makes you uncomfortable, there are a million others you can talk about.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120663/

April 29, 2008

Interview with the Vampire (1994)

2/5

I was pretty disappointed by Neil Jordan's Interview with the Vampire. It might be that I just don't like vampire movies, but I think the bigger reason is that I just don't like bad movies. Apparently the movie's sympathetic vision of vampires was revolutionary ... or something. It didn't seem that novel or interesting to me. It follows the story of Louis (Brad Pitt) over the past 200+ years after being turned by Lestat (Tom Cruise). Kirsten Dunst plays an angsty and needy teenage vampire and Antonio Banderas plays a suave yet flamboyant vampire. All of them are orgiastically homoerotic towards each other.

I'm sure there's a lot about vampire culture I don't understand, but the stuff I did understand wasn't very good. The story plodded along, the wooden dialogue stumbled forward, the actors didn't complement each other. The camera focused on meaningless gestures, the editing lacked purpose, and the movie felt like it took three hours. I had to stand up and walk around to stay awake, which annoyed every one else I saw it with. But as soon as I stopped walking around and sat down, I fell right back asleep. The positives: some interesting ideas and cool special effects. I'm sorry to say it, but don't bother with this movie unless your a vampirophile.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110148/