#its only with tom cruise and this character in this sequel to this movie that a seet design like this actually holds | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

ohmygodtheywereparabatai · 22 days

Text

i wanted to invite a conversation about this because it’s genuinely been bothering me for a long time. and i in fact wasn’t immune to it either and am just now realizing this is the power of cinematic brainwashing.

but like, tgm is so many bad things. sexist, racist, ageist, to scratch the tip of the iceberg. token characters that meet the bare minimum for diversity, and sidelined women - i’d even say exploited women. a narrative that is so egocentric that it’s miraculous that some characters manage to hold their own instead of being swept under the charismatic magnetism of the reckless bad boy character who can get away with murder because deep down, he’s regretful, and he has a good heart.

what a shallow representation of the military, and what a disservice to those who were inspired to join because they thought the real life experience would mirror even a fraction of what is presented on screen. the reality is that there was never a competition to win a top gun trophy, and in fact today you have to pay 5$ at the top gun school if you even mention the film. that speaks for itself.

tom cruise being a huge part of the production process has made it impossible for me not to hold him responsible for the choices that have been made. to even subtitle the sequel movie with “Maverick”, the same protagonist as in the first one, comes across as insanely egotistical - and honestly a testament to how mav’s story manages to drown out the autonomy and validity of other characters. i’ll explain this terms of ice, penny, carole, and charlie. you’ll notice how i’m gonna be bringing up three women.

ice-

i don’t care that val kilmer gave the okay on using his cancer as a plot point. i care that cancer was not only used as a plot point, but treated like this ^

“i’m dying. you have bigger problems.”

the original script seems to peel back the layers of tgm’s intended messaging, so i’m using several examples. this is what is being communicated. i honestly don’t know what else to add. in or out of context, this is incredibly disturbing - and that it’s played as a self-aware quip from ice, even more so. the bond of wingmen goes both ways, and i just didn’t see that… if anything, that aspect leaned so heavily on the first film (the photo of them smiling at each other) that it just proves my point. it took ice’s death for mav to get up off his ass and do something to keep his career afloat besides get a cop-out from the compacflt. ice in the first movie was a compelling antagonist and voice of reason - now he’s mostly relegated to the role of babysitter, denying mav’s character the growth of accountability by simply erasing his poor choices with a phone call.

it’s why the darkstar scene pisses me off. to stop at mach 10 would have been fine, but to push it just for the sake of it is ridiculous. the fact that earlier mav states “i know what happens to everyone else if i don’t” in regards to his decision only makes this screw-up more laughable, because to me it’s the very contradiction of maverick: his intentions do not balance with his actions. costing the military millions of dollars in a few seconds somehow balances with his heartfelt desire to protect the interests of its workforce.

penny-

shortly before, during, and after this screenshot, i counted a total of 6 times that penny made it clear she would not appreciate mav’s advances. regardless, mav goes on to say “you look good”. this flirtation happens before mav is even aware of her marital status, as he asks amelia “where’s your dad?” in a later scene… which… dear god.

penny also says “it always ends the same with us, so let’s not start this time”, indicating this is a repeated pattern in which her boundaries weren’t respected and moreover, the relationship ended up failing. yet this is framed as the main romance of tgm, a wonderful and nostalgic callback to the original that ends as stereotypically as possible.

i love penny. she’s witty, caring, independent, and of course stunning. so i find her treatment in tgm a disservice to what started out as a rich and compelling character. she later ends up mav’s shoulder to cry on, more or less, comforting him after losing his wingman and his position as instructor. the song “hold my hand” is thematically suited for penny, playing in the background at the bar and in the notes of the score during her scenes - even musically, she is turned into a source of consolation first, and her own woman second. she’s his prize at the end of the film, falling for the promise “i’m never gonna leave you again”, which i don’t buy for a second. they fly into the sunset, presumably signifying a new horizon for their relationship - but i feel so dissatisfied with this arc for her and think she deserved much better.

that mav gets away with this behavior is something i’d like to see more people reflect on. it seems to be a pattern with male protagonists, in which case the function of male and protagonist in hollywood cinema needs an examination.

carole-

top gun (1986):

this is an especially crude exploitation to me. not only is carole the one consoling a young maverick (if a full-fledged 24 year old can be called young, in light of the tendency people have to dismiss his choices in ‘86) after his mistake costs her own husband his life… but her stance, even following a tragedy of that magnitude, didn’t change. goose would have flown anyway, and she knows that well enough - on top of that, it’s easy to see she would have supported him.

it came as a surprise to me that she wouldn’t in turn support her own son, who is clearly committed to a career as a pilot. in the end, i see a cheap narrative device that contradicts carole’s character, undermines her strength as a wife and mother, both in order to serve the interests of the plot. maverick in tgm needs a viable reason to hide a secret, to be tortured by his own consequences, to put further strain on his tension with bradley. there were plenty of other ways to do it, but the fact that it was this leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

charlie-

it’s my understanding that tom cruise’s personal reason (his excuse) for not bringing back charlie was that he didn’t like how their relationship ended. if there’s any source confirming or denying this, i’d appreciate a link.

anyways. yeah. this is… a huge problem with hollywood at large, which kelly mcgillis understands, but i’ll break it down. there’s a simpler reason this pisses me off more than anything. tgm’s entire subject matter is about repairing relationships. penny benjamin was dredged out of obscurity to do it. maverick and rooster’s grudge of 30+ years was used to do it. iceman’s character, as warped as he feels, is another way the film made this its theme. but charlie is out of the question?

that val kilmer could be asked to return, and make an insane amount of money for each second he’s on screen, but such an opportunity is never given to kelly mcgillis, who herself centers on the 1986 poster, speaks volumes to me. tom cruise even planted his foot when it came to reprising iceman, saying he wouldn’t do this movie without val in it.

it’s worth mentioning that viper and slider were also present at ice’s funeral, but this scene was cut out. for a film that’s quite heavy-handed with its nostalgic callbacks, this was an odd decision. until realizing, as my friend put it, that even ice’s death couldn’t be about him, whether it had brought in his own teacher or his rio - his goose. it had to revolve around mav, to catalyze a turning point for him in the plot.

also… a shoutout to the erasure of sarah kazansky, pretty much everywhere. that also tells me a lot.

…

this was just a dissection of the various character portrayals (or absences) in tgm that have bothered me since forever. this isn’t even going into how tgm accomplishes everything that propaganda sets out to do. combinations of stunning visuals, soaring music composed by masters like hans zimmer, the charismatic power of a cast packed with stars… all play a role in the blinding awesomeness of tgm, which has taken me this long to break away from.

consider the white/poc duos in the film: maverick and hondo, hangman and coyote, cyclone and warlock. who has more lines? who plays a greater role? why is that?

i don’t see this as real diversity. it masquerades as inclusion, which i find worse. and to cast an actor of asian descent, and give him the callsign yale? … wow.

framing is powerful. its influence in cinematography is unmatched. a story is being constructed and told not only through dialogue, but sound, visuals, editing… really, nothing can be dismissed as insignificant. i’m not asking for a scholarly interrogation of all media you consume, though, that would be so excellent, and so healthy… but i am trying to raise these questions in the community, of what gets lost when a main character is so overwhelmingly main. when someone like tc has so much control over the decision-making process, since it’s sort of a running joke that maverick is a tc self-insert. my focus isn’t the inclusions, but the exclusions.

and finally, since i’ve unfortunately spent a lot of life writing this post… it’s interesting to me that many viewers in hindsight seem to see top gun 1986 so differently. as kids, they sided with mav over the antagonist. an older audience returning to the first film now seem to side with iceman, seeing him as the rational one attempting to raise important points. i wonder if this will be the case with top gun: maverick in the future. in which case, i’m excited to see more cyclone fans. he’s my favorite character… unsurprisingly.

oh. one last thing.

“the man, the myth, the legend” … the word myth has two meanings:

…

happy reading.

36 notes · View notes

compacflt · 4 months

Note

tbh it's all speculation and every source says that they HOPE cruise will return. considering cruise just announced he's moving to warner bros i think they're doing damage control and really hope they can do it because he's their cash cow. until cruise himself confirms it i don't believe it.

yeah im with you on this, a lot of people have been saying this which is good.

I actually believe a top gun 3 will never be made because you CANNOT reasonably convince people the f-35 is a bad plane for two movies in a row. So they have to use the f-35, but tom cruise will never agree to make the movie because there are no two-seater f-35s so they'd have to use CGI lol

*I wanna stress I'm not like Anti-topgun3... im just anti- creative bankruptcy for the sake of a profit incentive... which a lot of Hollywood seems to be engaging in these days. endless sequels & prequels to profit off people's nostalgia for inarguably better movies of the past.

I've tried to keep my criticism of TGM to a minimum on this blog bc it really is a good movie &I hate to be Such a Crank All the Time, but its exactly my criticism of TGM too. As a story, it literally just reuses the same themes and motifs of the first movie with a few character tweaks & modern-warfare set dressing. rebellious kid (only rooster goes slow and not fast) who got shut out of the Navy (which for recruiting propaganda purposes is the Most Desirable Place To Be) needs to connect with a father figure to get over the ghosts of his past and reach his full potential. okay. it's the same story. it's literally A New Hope versus The Force Awakens levels of "we've seen this all before."

like im racking my brain trying to figure out how they would possibly write a third movie with the available threads left to pick up... I hope tom cruise says "no thank you" and top gun 3 languishes in development hell because my only answer is "I think the story is gonna suck shit"

#so I am anti top gun 3 actually.#like... they're not writing a third movie because they have another good story to tell. that's what's insulting about it.#they're writing it bc its gonna make a lotta money. just like tgm.#you guys are right in that it may just be incentive for cruise to stay which is understandable because he's tom cruise 😍#but from a creative perspective it just makes me :(((((((#like regardless of if the movie actually gets made or not it just feels like a sad hail mary move on behalf of these giant studios #luckily the movie will never be made bc of the f-35 thing #unless... Lockheed releases the NGAD...#top gun 3 becomes an advertisement for 6th gen air defense #?

30 notes · View notes

steampunkforever · 1 year

Text

Finally got around to it and watched Glass Onion just as it faded out of the required viewing cultural zeitgeist enough to be judged on its own. It was enjoyable, sometimes in spite of itself, but overall not Rian’s best film either.

I’ll preface this with the admission that if literally anyone else tried to make a pandemic film like this I’d do my best to hurt them physically, but Rian Johnson pulls it off with overall charm and grace. I’ll extend that grace to Rian as well and note that the pandemic era had everyone acting like caricatures of themselves, so the cartoonish figures in the movie can be explained if not totally pardoned.

This is really the greatest flaw in the movie. The characters were jarringly 2D compared to some of Rian’s previous character work, if you note the writing in Brick or Looper or even parts of that one Star Wars movie we like to forget about. Every character in Brick is wacky and unnatural, but it works and we get the idea that these people aren’t just hollow puppets for furthering the plot. They’re weird but somehow still real. Glass Onion, on the other hand, did not ring true.

Knives Out had this problem to a lesser degree, but you still could feel that the Conservakiddie twitter/4chan troll cousin was more of a strawman than a real exploration of what drives this new generation Ben Shapiro wannabes. That said, the fantastic cast balances out Knives Out, while only some of the players in Glass Onion are saved by all-star talent. I digress.

As a sequel, Glass Onion was nigh perfect. This Knives Out trilogy (?) is setting up to be distinctly enjoyable in the tradition of Columbo or Matlock, where a quirky detective solves crimes around a cast of weirdos and each installment has very little impact on the next. This of course means that all the development from sequel to sequel takes place outside of plot and deep character development, because those things reset for a functional audience once the credits roll.

Glass Onion does this for us by developing a world where the crazy rich people from the first movie are extrapolated out to crazier rich people who display 1 of 1 Porsche 918 Spyders on the roofs of their mansions because their private islands don’t have roads. It gives clues into our favorite detective’s love life, but establishes it outside any certain continuity so that you can watch them in reverse order and the only thing that changes are the political views of the stawmen that only the most disingenuous Adam-McKay types will actually enjoy dunking on.

It’s a really tricky tightrope to walk, and even as it has its wobbles, Glass Onion makes it across. Sure, it lacked the novelty of the first one, and now that a pattern’s established some of the shine is taken from the first as well when you can see the thematic bones of a series, but it was perfectly serviceable and furthermore made me have fun even when I went to it truly jaded by bad tumblr analysis.

The second act 2 twist, where things heat up significantly from the first, is what saved the movie for me. Sure, I basically had the plot solved in my head by the time we got to the second discussion by the pool, but the extra, semi-red herring (pink herring?) twist took a mystery I’d already solved, let me still keep it solved, and then let me continue to wonder where it was going even as I knew how it ended. Only Rian could do this and also make it an enjoyable pandemic film.

Then they put Ed Norton in the Tom Cruise costume from Magnolia and the movie was sealed. Not Rian’s best, but not bad either.

#glass onion #filmposting

16 notes · View notes

thenightling · 6 months

Text

Top 10 Halloween Mascots

Here is a list of my top ten favorite Halloween Mascots. Christmas only really has Santa Claus but Halloween has attempted several mascots over the years.

10. The Sanderson Sisters:

The Sanderson Sisters are the three stooges-esque bungling evil witches from Disney's Hocus Pocus franchise. They are loosely based on the traditional Maiden, Mother, and Crone concept and more directly may have been inspired by the three witches from DC's The Witching Hour comics (which later became the Hecateae in Neil Gaiman's The Sandman.) There are currently two Hocus Pocus movies, a Disney parks stage show and a Broadway musical in development. They have all sorts of merchandise including throw blankets, dolls, and action figures. There are even Hallmark ornaments of them now. Unfortunately these characters are NOT in the public domain so only Disney is allowed to make up new stories involving them.

9. The Headless Horseman

This one is another localized figure the way Lestat is for New Orleans. The Headless Horseman is the mascot for the town of Sleepy Hollow New York (Formerly known as Terry Town but renamed for tourism purposes since Sleepy Hollow was its nickname and the basis for the Washington Irving Legend of Sleepy Hollow).

The Headless Horseman doesn't just exist in Washington Irving's The Legend of Sleepy Hollow. In fact Headless Horsemen are so common in Irish folklore that they have a name for them. Dullahan.

8. The Wicked Witch of the West

The Wicked Witch of the West from the Wizard of Oz (particularly the movie version) has become the classic idea of the "Halloween witch." The Halloween special "The Halloween that almost wasn't" also suggested that Halloween cannot officially start until she flies her broom across the moon. Depictions of her or witches like her are everywhere in pop culture and not just around Halloween.

A version of her even appears in the fantasy soap opera, Once Upon a Time. She's the sort of character often taken for granted and she is in the public domain though MGM claims to own the rights to a particular shade of green for her skin tone. There's currently a highly successful Broadway musical telling her side of the story called Wicked (loosely based on the novel of the same name.) Wicked is currently being adapted into two movies.

7. Frankenstein's Monster.

I, myself, would not have added Frankenstein's Monster to this list but every year new costumes and decorations are made that depict him. He is in the public domain (meaning anyone can use him) and he is a well-loved character. Unfortunately few people know what the Frankenstein monster of the novel actually looked like so most of the merchandise is a zeitgeist creation resembling the version played by Boris Karloff.

6. Lestat

Owned by the estate of the recently deceased Anne Rice, Lestat was her favorite creation, the fictional French vampire brat prince. Lestat became the hero of her Vampire Chronicles book series after initially serving as an antagonist in Interview With The vampire. Lestat became the mascot for her annual New Orleans costume ball and is still the most popular Halloween costume in New Orleans.

Lestat was played by Tom Cruise in the 1994 film Interview with The vampire, which earned the low budget sequel, Queen of the damned and later a Broadway musical. Currently Lestat is played by Sam Reid for the Interview with The vampire TV series.

5. Elvira

Elvira was a TV horror host in the 1980s. She also released some music as the character. The character's creator is Cassandra Peterson. Elvira even got her own movie and several comic book series, including ones where she took on Dracula and Faust. She even hosted The House of Mystery for a while.

4. Count Dracula.

Though not originally invented for Halloween, Count Dracula has become something of a fixture around Halloween. There are Halloween costumes and decorations of him along with other public domain monsters.

Since Dracula IS in the public domain that means anyone can use him without having to worry about copyright infringement. And so Dracula has been a character in many Halloween specials including The Halloween that almost wasn't (also known as The Night Dracula saved the World). Monster High, Monster High 2, Scooby Doo and the Reluctant werewolf, Scooby Doo and the Ghoul School and Dear Dracula.

Not bad for a vampire that supposedly was the prince of Wallachia who, as a mortal, died in fourteen seventies and according to the fiction became a vampire after that.

Universal Studios claims to own the version of him with the red lined cape and widow's peak hairline and that is why the version in Hotel Transylvania (by Sony) does not have these details, which is odd since many other depictions of Dracula not from Universal, have used these particular traits. I think Universal was just giving Sony a hard them when they found out about Hotel Transylvania. 3. Stingy Jack.

Stingy Jack is the public domain folkloric figure who we get Jack-o-lanterns from.

A very short version of the story is this. A man named Jack cheats The Devil out of his soul but is not welcome into Heaven. So when he dies he is doomed to wander. He attempts to enter Hell just to find a place to race but The Devil turns him away. Mocking him, demons toss out an ember from Hell-fire that Jack places inside a lantern to light his way.

Now a ghost Jack wanders the world but he is also something of a coward. And similar carved lanterns- he would mistake as other wandering, damned souls, and these would drive him away. These lanterns are Jack-o-lanterns.

Over time the legend evolved to suggest that Jack-o-lanterns could ward off all wandering spirits. The earliest Jack-o-lanterns were carved from turnips but Irish immigrants North America found that Pumpkins were easier to carve. (And taste better too.)

Today it is considered good luck if you can keep your jack-o-lantern burning all Halloween night. And bad luck if it burns out before midnight because that invites the spirits into your home, that the Jack-o-lantern was protecting you against.

2. Sam / Samhain.

There are two versions of Sam.

The first is Sam Haim (deliberate mispronunciation of the Gaelic Samhain = "Sow-in"). He was the very spirit of Halloween from The Real Ghostbusters Halloween special "When Halloween was forever." He is a robed figure with a pumpkin-like head obsessed with honoring the rules of Halloween and punishing those that violate those rules...

Then we have Sam from Trick r. Treat. A child-like figure with a Pumpkin-skull head under his sack-like Halloween mask. This anthropomorphic personification of Halloween is obsessed with honoring the rules of Halloween and punishing those that violate those rules...

1. Jack Skellington.

This was probably obvious. Jack Skellington has the disadventage of NOT being in the public domain. Anyone can use Santa Claus but Jack is owned by Disney. They have owned him since the early 1980s when a young animator named Tim Burton wrote his original poem / children's book that ultimately became the 1993 stop motion animated movie.

It's easy to dismiss Jack because he is owned by Disney. And that means other people don't have the freedom to play with him the way they do with other characters like Santa or even Count Dracula.

Now the modern depictions of Santa Claus (at least here in the US) have him wearing red and white and and a lot of people take for granted that he always dressed this way but if you go backward to as recently as the nineteenth century, you'll find his robes used to be long and were many colors, from white, to blue, to green, to black. The main reason we're so used to Santa in his red suit with white trim is actually because of early twentieth century Coca-Cola advertisements.

So even Santa has been influenced pop culture and corporations.

Disregarding the limitations caused by being owned by Disney, Jack Skellington has become very iconic in the last thirty-years. The popularity of Nightmare before Christmas helped spread "American style" Halloween to Germany and other parts of Europe. So for them Jack has always been a fixture of Halloween, and not some 90s novelty.

Nightmare before Christmas was something of a sleeper hit. Disney did not realize how popular it was until about a decade after its original release. (Similar would also happen with the Box office flop, Hocus Pocus, now considered a Halloween classic.)

New stories are being published involving Jack Skellington and his Pumpkin Queen, Sally, and new merchandise is sold every year. This year a Mattel's Monster High / Disney collaboration lead to the release of a limited edition Monster High style Jack and Sally doll set. Upon release date the dolls sold out in less than nine minutes, proving that Jack is still very much The King of Halloween.

Also Jack Skellington has song numbers, which, if you know Christmas specials, has a way of preserving a character indefinitely in pop culture.

Jack Skelington has appeared in Nightmare before Christmas, the Kingdom hearts video games, Nightmare before Chrsitmas: Oogie's revenge video game. The novel All Hail the Pumpkin Queen, and the graphic novel Battle for The Pumpkin King.

#Halloween

2 notes · View notes

aleplayz · 8 months

Text

Mission: Impossible Dead Reckoning Part One | Review I guess

OK so when M:I 7 released my dad asked me "hey you wanna go watch the new Mission: Impossible movie?" and i was like "i'd like to but ive not watched any of the movies" and then we spent 3 weeks watching the previous 6 movies so i could catch up

and now here i am after watching Mission: Impossible 7 AND I LOVED IT

I'll start by just talking about the first 6 M:I movies: THEY'RE ALL GREAT. They're just fun Action-Spy movies that can keep you entertained for 2 hours (well except M:I 2, its not the best... but still enjoyable if you shut your brain off!).

So I went into Dead Reckoning with very clear expectations: "It's Mission: Impossible again, but better" and yeah yup it definitely delivered

I'll start by saying (in case you don't know) that Mission: Impossible Dead Reckoning is a Two Parter. But unlike other two parters (*cough cough* Spider-Verse) this movie actually feels like a completed story! It doesn't just suddenly end on an insane cliffhanger after some insane lore drop, the movie just naturally ends and this is definitely watchable on it's own I think.

Anywho, THE ACTION. I don't think it's some of the best action in the series but it's still great regardless, there's some really fun sequences in it. The last 20ish minutes were extremely stressing but fun, it's definitely been the one thing I remember the best from the movie it was so crazy

I find it crazy that Tom Cruise is in his 60s and he's still pulling off crazy stunts in every single movie he makes. Who learns to jump off cliffs with a motorcycle then deploy a parachute midair afterwards? Absolutely INSANE dedication to realism.

One thing I didn't like a bit is how the "main villain" is very vague and we still know very little about them. They're obviously saving it for Part Two but it wouldn't have hurt to tells us a bit more.

AND ALSO another thing I didn't like is a certain character death that I REALLY hope is a fake out and gets resolved in the sequel. It made no sense and felt unearned. That's my only real complaint about the entire movie.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TL;DR: I really liked it and it's my favorite Mission: Impossible Movie so far. It's fun, exciting, funny and it looks amazing. I'm pretty excited for Part Two and I hope the writers strike doesn't do any more damage to the release (currently its set to release in June 2024!) and I hope that they end it off perfectly with the final part.

9/10

#ale reviews #ale reviews movies #i will definitely post a couple more reviews of some other movies that have come out this year #or maybe movies that are even older we'll figure it out #mission impossible #mi7 #mission: impossible #dead reckoning #dead reckoning part 1 #tom cruise #mission: impossible dead reckoning

3 notes · View notes

heartsick-honeybee · 1 year

Text

@skye707 tagged me! Hopefully that means I'll catch a stray Riddler..

CMON Arkhamverse, fingers crossed! Jkjk.

Ten of my favorite movies in no particular order!

This was hard af actually because as soon as I read it I forgot every movie ive ever seen. Suddenly, all cinema ceased to exist. Thanks brain.

That being said I did my best as-per my recollection and am probably missing things I quite love. Woopsie.

Rules: post 10 of your favorite movies and tag 10 people.

#1: Fantasia (1941)

This one has been my favorite since I was 2 years old. Beautiful art, Disney, and Classical music. It's just a win.

#2: The Phantom of the Opera (2005)

This is all of nothing like the book and my 15 year old emo ass really wanted Christine to go with the phantom despite all the red flags.

Now that I'm an adult I think they'd have been a lovely poly couple, and Erik needs counselling. That being said it's still one of my top favorite movies ever.. Who knew Emmy Rossom and Gerard Butler could SING?

I still love to play it and sing every word, the absolute chagrin of my daughter.

#3: Queen of the Damned (2002):

Anne Rice, Vampires, a soundtrack that quite possibly shaped my entire music taste for life--

This movie is honestly terrible, but in a SO bad its GOOD way. Cult classic 100%.

For an emo 12 year old in the early 2000's this was the best shit EVER, right there beside MCR.

#4: Pride and Prejudice (2005):

SOMETHING ABOUT ME: I love books. I love THIS book. and I love this movie based on this book. -- Mr. Darcy, you are a charmer.

#5: Yellow Submarine (1968):

Another one that's been a top favorite since I was only 2 years old.

I grew up on Beatles, and before I was emo (Around 9 years old) I had a hippy phase where I only wore tie-die and listened to 60s music, with Beatles being my top. This throws me back to them days every time.

#6: Minority Report (2002)

Let's get this out of the way first: Tom Cruise is batshit crazy as a person. I completely acknowledge this. That being said I think this movie is very well done and has a very valid moral that can forever apply to society and social justice as a whole.

It also had a very short run TV Mini series in 2015 (Without Cruise) that was a continuation/sequel of the movie, which I ABSOLUTELY loved just as much. There is only 10 episodes and I was SO sad it was cancelled

#7: Encanto (2021)

By far the newest one on this list.

Good music.

I'm in love with a 50yr old RAT man.

What else can I say?

#8: Much Ado About Nothing (1993)

Another book turned movie,

ANYTHING Shakespeare is always iconic, but I think this version is absolutely my favorite. Perfect casting, perfect acting, and Dr. Willson from House is one of the main characters! (You may also recognize Professor Trelawney and Professor Lockhart from Harry Potter as your two main characters. <3 When HP first came out I can tell you I was SO excited for something different than what everyone else was because It was awesome to see them together in the same movie again, for me, since I loved this farrrrr first.

#9: 10 Things I Hate About You (1999)

a 90s classic, and ALSO a modern adaptation of another Shakespeare story: The Taming of the Shrew.

It's was very well done, modernizing (For the time) while still sticking to the story. Great cast, great acting, and an icon of the 1990s despite being a story of the 1590s.

I think this movie hit home in a way that other modern Shakespeare adaptations (Such as Romeo + Juliet (1996) and She's the Man 2006)) Missed the mark on. (Although, did you remember Channing Tatum was in that? I didn't! Haha.)

#10: Digimon: The Movie (2000)

Why? I can't tell you why. When this came out was at the height of me being super into Digimon. The art is different from the show in a way that I just vibe with. The entire movie just has a VIBE to it and it brings back good memories. ALL THE GOOD VIBES.

Honorable Mentions:

Counting these as ONE:

Batman (1989) Batman Returns(1992) Batman Forever (1995) Batman & Robin (1997)

SO despite having 3 different Batmans and only two being directed by Tim Burton, these movies ARE supposed to go together.

They are hokey, and for the most part I consider them a comedic AU, HOWEVER, that will never override a few things:

Firstly, these movies are what got me into Batman and Batverse originally, before the animated series came out.

Secondly, the animated series came out BECAUSE of these movies, and was at least loosely based on them (Which is why Selina was blonde in TAS, to tie in, though they later rectified that in TNBA)

And three, the ENTIRE aesthetic of the movie AND the musical scores being by Danny Elfman are their own works of absolute art that I will ALWAYS appreciate.

@caesariawrites @pharoahkittylover @arttimeoccasionallyimtired @just-an-enby-lemon @finzphoenix @geislieb @coffeeandconundrums @ednyxmatic @sh4pes-4nd-colors @spookyvoid

4 notes · View notes

eowynn-bagels · 2 years

Text

Top Gun, Propaganda, and Art

Can propaganda be good art?

As of the time of writing, Top Gun: Maverick recently rose to the 6th highest grossing movie of all time, knocking out Avengers: Infinity War. It has been praised for its cinematography, writing, direction, and performances. Tom Cruise once again takes to the skies, this time in an F-16 fighter jet with his (dead) friend’s son to gun down faceless enemies while quipping and laughing the whole way through. When I went to see it on opening night, every joke, every emotional beat, every story beat resonated with the audience. They were cheering when Rooster came back for Maverick, they were cheering when they hit the target, the list goes on and one.

Top Gun: Maverick is a crowd-pleaser. And it’s also the most expensive piece of US Air Force propaganda ever created.

From the Washington Post’s article about How the US Military made ‘Top Gun’, quote “Top Gun: Maverick received support from the Department of Defense (DOD) in the form of equipment — including jets and aircraft carriers — personnel and technical expertise.” And, in the original film “In exchange for DOD backing, the producers agreed to let the department make changes to the script. Maverick’s buddy, Goose, no longer perished in a midair collision because, according to the Navy, “too many pilots were crashing.” Meanwhile, Maverick’s love interest, Charlie, went being a service member to a civilian because Navy regulations forbid officers and enlisted personnel from having relationships.”

The US military directly funded both Top Gun and its sequel. They knew these movies would become hits, and took advantage of that fact to advertise the USAF to the people who watched it. Heroic pilots fight faceless enemies and always win, only the non-important side characters die. When a character actually dies, it isn’t from lack of training. The movie is made as palatable as possible to the average consumer, and at the same time, as much as an advertisement as a movie.

Oh, and that isn’t even getting to Lockheed Martin funding the movie and actively promoting it. At the start of the movie, Maverick flies an experimental jet, the SR-72 Darkstar, which does not actually exist in real life. Around the middle of the movie, Maverick describes their mission as a “cakewalk for the F-35″, comparing the newer plane to the F-18s they fly in. However, the F-35 was a trillion-dollar disaster. Overbudget and underperforming, one might question why F-35s are describes in a positive connotation if they’re not that good in reality. Well, that’s because Lockheed Martin, who built the F-35s, also, by total coincidence, funded and provided guidance for this film, and even promoted the film and the SR-72 on their website.

But...

Top Gun: Maverick is the most enthralling films of the year. Some of the best action sequences I’ve ever seen on screen, combined with career-topping performances from both Tom Cruise and (sorry Whiplash), Miles Teller. Once again, Tom Cruise proves his insanity and dedication by flying in real jets and doing his own stunts, along with the rest of the crew. It has topped the action movie lists of 2022 by a wide margin, and is honestly a great, well-rounded movie, if not a little lacking in the story department.

But, once again, Top Gun: Maverick is literal propaganda. So, what is it? Is this movie a wildly expensive, but effective propaganda piece? Or is an adrenaline-filled summer blockbuster for the whole family? Can we separate the message of the art, from the art itself? Is the message of the movie inherent to your enjoyment of said movie? In many ways, Top Gun: Maverick will be remembered. In a few years, maybe it will be the mainstream opinion that it was clearly propaganda, or maybe it will be that despite its underlying message, the movie was still good.

When the meaning, or the message of the art that is being presented to millions of people and raking in billions of dollars at the box office, is it moral to ignore the message of the art for the paint, to miss the forest for the trees? Top Gun: Maverick induces a confusing dilemma. On one hand, it is an incredibly fun movie. On the other, it ignores reality, and paints it heroes and villains into tiny boxes of black and white. Villains are hidden behind dark, black masks, to the point where you can’t make out the creases on their faces, or even what they’re saying. Heroes have their visors lifted up, so you can see the face of the good guys. In the end, our reality is mixed too. 5 star reviews accompanied by a cacophony of people pointing out its flaws, and how propagandist in nature it is.

But, we need to remember that the paint of the art only exists within the confines of the artwork. It is not splattered out onto the showroom floor. Similarly, Top Gun: Maverick’s heroic characters do not exist in the real world. They only exist on our screens, through ones and zeroes. To say that Top Gun: Maverick is a good film would be to also say that its message is a good one, because, in the end, you cannot separate the black from the white, the good from the bad.

The reality of the USAF is the thousands of dead Iraqi and Afghani children. The starving teenagers in the streets of Kabul who live from meal to meal. The children of Vietnamese adults who lived through the Vietnam War who bear the marks of a war they never lived through or asked for.

Because Top Gun: Maverick is a propaganda film. And no amount of fun action scenes or flashy volleyball games will ever change what it is.

Final Rating: 35/100

#top gun #top gun maverick #review #movie review #propaganda #us military #usaf

9 notes · View notes

watching-pictures-move · 2 years

Text

Movie Review | The Color of Money (Scorsese, 1986)

I don't believe most people think of Martin Scorsese as an action director, but one can find plenty of examples that suggest his talents in that area. There's the Rube Goldberg machine of violent comeuppance that closes The Departed, the splatterific climax of Taxi Driver, the bruising boxing matches of Raging Bull, the thunderous final moments of Boxcar Bertha. These aren't exactly intended to deliver the thrills we associate with action movies (except maybe Bertha), but they display a sure sense of how to stage and cut action to generate precise effects. In that sense, The Color of Money offers ample more evidence of such abilities in its numerous pool matches. The best thing about these scenes is the way Scorsese captures their sense of geometry, moving his camera in kinetic bursts along angles that evoke the ricocheting of the balls off each other and the edges of the table. The climax of the movie is a tournament match between Paul Newman and his protege Tom Cruise, the camera snapping along, the editing whipping us back and forth, masterfully capturing the energy of not just the match but the sense of personal conflict between the two characters. Scorsese has delivered us so many great sequences that I wouldn't dare rank this near the top, but in that long, long list, I think we can carve out a well deserved spot for this.

The movie is not regarded as one of his best and I understand it was seen as something of a sellout assignment. Now, I have two perhaps contradictory responses to this. One is: so what? Perhaps I've grown weary of our modern studio environment where big money generally gets thrown only at increasingly bland projects and where actual star power seems harder and harder to come by, but going back a few decades and seeing a mass-marketed commercial movie made with this standard of craft and this level of personality and confident execution of tropes, it's easy to find things to enjoy here. The fact is, Scorsese is a master director, and even a more overtly commercial project by him is going to be extremely well made. I happen to think Cape Fear and the aforementioned Boxcar Bertha are both pretty good too. As far as selling out goes, one could do a lot worse.

My other response is that I don't think he's really selling out here. Yes, there are formulas, but Scorsese finds ways to either subvert them or colour them with additional human interest. The fallout from the big match isn't what we expect, and the resonance of these scenes come from how specifically these characters have been developed. The movie is a long gap sequel to Robert Rossen's The Hustler, and while it initially seems to lack the same psychological claustrophobia as the earlier movie, developments later in the movie wring a sense of trauma from our memories of our earlier movie. One of the best scenes in the movie show astutely how deeply shaken Newman's character is after being conned by a pool hall hustler (an electric Forest Whitaker, threatening to run away with the movie). The tension in his voice is palpable when he asks repeatedly, "Are you a hustler, Amos?"

And Scorsese has a deep appreciation for his actors' star qualities, particularly Newman, who combines his classic Hollywood charm with a sense of fallibility and fraught psychological realism. Probably the greatest thing about Newman's performance is its sense of texture, effortlessly evoking a sense of being at this for too long, and having picked up a certain amount of wisdom but maybe not enough. It's a quality that extends to his wardrobe: Newman is one of the most stylish people to ever grace this planet, and in this movie wears one of the greatest collection of sunglasses I've seen in a movie. (In contrast, Cruise gets an amusingly high pompadour that feels like a joke Scorsese played on him, although it works for the character. Just because he's got a story to tell doesn't mean he can't have some fun.) And it's extends even to his voice, simultaneously smooth and gravelly, aged like the whiskey he's been hawking, and Scorsese complements it with the sense of texture he brings to his direction. This doesn't have the intense B&W look of the original, but from the opening shots, a pan across the bar where you can practically feel the wood underneath your hands, smell the cigarettes in the air, taste the booze in those half-empty glasses, it's quite evocative in its own way. This movie is coloured by a deep love of these milieus and the characters who make their way through them.

#film #movie review #the color of money #martin scorsese

10 notes · View notes

eliceislandent · 1 year

Text

Why Top Gun: Maverick Is The Best Picture Of The Year

And it's not just because as Steven Spielberg said, "Tom Cruise saved Hollywood"

The story of an older man, Pete “Maverick” Mitchell, a US Air Force fight pilot living in an increasingly technologically-driven world that threatens to make him obsolete. He’s bet his whole life on his military career honing his skills and living his principles even when they cost him advancement in his professional career, and the most important relationships in his personal life. Now working as a test pilot flying the fastest aircraft known to man, this is Maverick’s final assignment.

youtube

Outside of his life as a pilot in the Navy he has nothing else in his life. He’s not married. Has no loves in his life besides flying. And the surrogate son from whom he is estranged, a young pilot himself who is the son of Maverick’s best friend and navigator, “Goose,” who died in a plane Maverick was piloting. Maverick blames himself for his death, as does Goose’s son, who has avoided having anything to do with Maverick for several years. Maverick’s future is bleak and at the start of the movie it feels like the end for him.

But, like the wily, courageous, insubordinate pilot he is Maverick pulls off one more successful mission and proves the worth of the experimental high speed plane he is flying, and his worth as a pilot. Avoiding what seems to be the end of his career with high flying bravado, Maverick finds himself with one more mission.

Leave a comment

He is to return to the place where his career began. Fighter Town USA, and the Top Gun school. Maverick has been assigned to teach a team of young untested pilots how to pull off a dangerous mission.

From the moment he arrives Maverick is confronted with the ghosts of his past, many of who still reside in Fighter Town USA, (San Diego). Old girlfriend Penny Benjamin (Jennifer Connelly). Former wingman now Admiral of the Navy, Tom “IceMan” Kazansky, (Val Kilmer), plus a new commander, in the character of Jon Hamm, who does not think much of Maverick’s and what he sees as his antiquated antics.

The reason I believe Top Gun: Maverick is the best picture of the year is because it manages to pack so much of what makes a great story and a great movie into a single film. To begin with, it transcends its legacy as a sequel as does Tom Cruise in his second performance playing “Maverick.” It is reminiscent of Paul Newman reprising his iconic role as “Fast” Eddie Felson in “The Color of Money,” an amazing movie that also surpasses its original film, “The Hustler.” Like The Color of Money “Top Gun Maverick” taken on its own merit is a superb movie. Had there never been a first “Top Gun,” “Maverick” on its own succeeds as a standalone movie.

First and foremost it is a compelling character study of a man contending with the challenges of growing older, professionally and personally.

Secondly, there is an aspect of the movie “Maverick” as a modern fable. The legend of John Henry versus the steam engine. Much like that legend, Maverick’s final mission in the movie sets him up for the ultimate man vs machine showdown. His commanders want to go with drones. Maverick must prove that only skilled pilots such as he and the other Top Gun graduates can pull off this dangerous mission. Complicating thing is that among this squadron of pilots is his One of those pilots is his surrogate son, Rooster, (Miles Teller).

Already bearing the pressure of training men and women for a mission they may not return from, now looming over him is the fear of past tragedy repeating itself. Will Maverick’s actions get Rooster killed the way Maverick still believes they got Goose killed in the past? This infuses the story with so much more stakes than if his responsibility was simply the lives of the other ten pilots.

Maverick must also navigate his rekindled relationship with an old flame, this time learning to check som of his youthful antics in order to make way for a meaningful, connective, relationship with a beautiful woman who’s also been around the block of life enough to know what she wants, and to not waste time on men with whom she has no future. Will Maverick rise to the challenge?

Without giving away too much of the movie — SPOILER ALERT — the movie answers that question with the right mix of charm and thoughtfulness.

As for his final dangerous mission, Maverick and the other pilots pull it off in a nail-biting sequence that doesn’t simply finish with a final decisive victory. Rather, Maverick must make the decision to sacrifice his own life for that of his “son.”

However, as this is a Hollywood movie doing what they do best, Maverick’s still has one life left. Rooster swoops in, and returning the favor, saves Mav. So, the father saves the son and then the son saves the father. And all is forgiven. Unfortunately, their rekindled relationship looks to be short-lived as they’re both stuck behind enemy lines and about to die.

Which sets up the final act of the movie, in which the father and son, old and young, must work together to make a daring escape. The cherry on top is that they do so in one of the now utterly antiquated F-14 fighter planes that Maverick first flew when he was in Top Gun as a student, and his whole life was a ahead of him. The symbolism in this is rich. But, more than that, because this is after all a movie, the final act is a kick ass cinematic thrill ride that sees the good guys win and Maverick and his son, Rooster, win the day.

Everything Everywhere All At Once, is a wonderful delightful movie. “I put my mom in the Matrix” as one of its writer-directors, remarked last night from the podium at the Academy Awards. No doubt, making for a great movie with superb performances and incredible visuals. However, Top Gun Maverick is stuff Hollywood is made of. Not only is it the biggest blockbuster of the year, and a testament to both the appeal of the last true movie star in Tom Cruise, but also to the joy of experiencing a movie in an actual theater.

Modern fable

Compelling character study

Father-son drama

High-octane action thriller

Hollywood blockbuster

Best movie of the year.

#top gun maverick #movies #best picture #academy awards #The Oscars #Hollywood #Tom Cruise #Jerry Bruckheimer #Miles Teller #Jennifer Connelly

3 notes · View notes

renegade-chaos-druid · 2 years

Text

Top Gun Maverick

SPOILER FREE Personal Review Preamble: First off let me say this. I am a DIE HARD fan of the first TG. And when I say that, I mean I used to watch it once or twice a month at least on an old VHS growing up. My dad was in the Navy, stationed on the Air Craft Carrier Constellation, and to say I had a hard on for all things Navy, Naval Aviation and F-14s is an understatement. So understand when I say I WANTED to hate on Top Gun Maverick but can’t, its coming from a deep seated love of the original. That being said, I cannot help but love TGM. So, Pro/Con: Bad out of the way first because there isn’t much CONS -Longer than needed; Yup like every other fucking movie regardless of genre, the studio got this one to extend run time over two hours and some change. So, plenty of long, needless, drawn out talking, staring, more talking, more staring, and slow-mo scenes for no reason other than, gotta hit that time stamp. -The CGI that was used in major scenes....is PAINFULLY obvious. Take a clue from the original movie Paramount, just stick to scenes you can do with practical effects when 98% of the movie is already that and not rush a bunch of CGI for spectacle. -Mav is basically the only character. No seriously, everyone else does great, its just...at the end of the day, couldn’t give a fuck bout any of them as characters. Its all about Tom Cruise and it kinda shows.

Well that’s is, Now on to the fangasming PROs -Excellent loyalty to the Original; In an age of post modernism, bullshit deconstruction, and disloyalty to once great characters/archetypes, TGM is a beacon of light. Mav isn’t some washed out, poor, old, can’t hack it, “wHiTe MaLe” has-been who gets shit on by everyone from his peers to his friends. No, Mav is a badass ace pilot, with the leather jacket and aviators to match and he shows it. And so does the rest of the cast by being right there to learn from and join him.

-Practical/real life effects and stunts: I mean, they put the actors in the damn fighter jets and it shows. What more do you fucking want? Also beautiful stunt work and camera. Unlike the mono-chrome of DUNE or other such films TGM is alive with colorful/realistic sets and fast paced scene production.

-Great acting; Tom brings it, and so does everyone. Yeah there’s some clunky “its an action movie” dialogue and such, but even then you can tell the cast is hamming it up and loving it.

-Interesting close out to the story; I hated the idea of a sequel to a film that was obviously a one and done. But, some how they managed to make this work. With the next gen coming into contact with the old experienced one, but each finding a stride and putting away old wounds in the process while F-18′s roar overhead was honestly engaging and edge of the seat worthy. -Sound/extras/eye candy; See it in Theaters before its gone! Nothing like the sound of a F-18 going Afterburner in surround sound. Great humor sprinkled through out, not fucking MCU “joke a second” dialogue. Also no shortage of eye candy. Boys get to see some girl aviators blow shit up and play beach football. . Girls get to see all the hard body fly boys and chads doing the same thing, just like the Original.

Final Verdict:

9/10. The mid section gets slow and grinding due to the need to hit that hated 2hr+ mark, and yeah you can tell this was Cruise/Bruckheimer's baby as Tom is always front and center at the expense of other people’s character development, but that might have been what saved this from being another Last Jedi. Aside from that, FUCK this movie will fly you up to Mach 10 and light your hair on fire. Go see it, And fly right into the Danger Zone. PS: Val Kilmer is a fucking trooper. So glad he could be in the movie for a cameo. Keep fighting Ice!

#top gun maverick #top gun #movie #review #spoiler free #my review #opinion #mavrick #go see it #fucking awesome #great movie

11 notes · View notes

thecriticalbuck · 2 years

Text

Movie Review - Top Gun: Maverick

Top Gun: Maverick is the long awaited sequel to the 1986 quintessential Americana film Top Gun. Tom Cruise reprises his role as Pete “Maverick” Mitchell, a Navy pilot who returns to the TOPGUN program as an instructor to prepare a new batch of skilled pilots for an incredibly dangerous mission. Miles Teller, Jennifer Connelly, Jon Hamm, Glen Powell, Monica Barbaro, Lewis Pullman and Val Kilmer help round out the cast.

As someone who had no nostalgic attachment to the original movie, Top Gun: Maverick did not have me jumping up and down in anticipation leading up to its release. Quite honestly, in the mess of movie delays throughout the COVID pandemic, I had forgotten that this movie hadn’t released yet until a few months prior to its theatrical debut. While I cannot join the resounding praises with which numerous Top Gun fans have been hailing the film, I can admit that I was pleasantly surprised by Top Gun: Maverick, both in its action set pieces and in its emotionality.

“Highway to the danger zone” is an apt description for the action and stunts demonstrated in this movie. While the original Top Gun clearly had their actors in staged cockpits in front of green screens, Top Gun: Maverick pulls no punches and puts the actors right in the seats of these planes. Many reaction shots are wholeheartedly genuine to the powerful G-forces created by these jets. Combining these with impressive aerial displays of these planes, gorgeous cinematography and seamless CGI integration makes each action scene, in the truest sense of the word, awesome. You almost forget that Tom Cruise is not an actual Naval pilot.

I do feel the sequel falls short in terms of its writing and originality. Comparing this movie to the original, not only do many characters fulfill the same function (i.e. Iceman & Hangman), but also numerous plot points are recycled. Hell, the entire final mission is a total reimagining of the Trench Run from Star Wars: A New Hope. To the movie’s credit, this feels entirely intentional, harkening back to the storytelling of the first movie. The payoff is the emotional resonance throughout the movie, particularly between Cruise and Teller’s characters. Maverick has a massive amount of guilt on him due to the events of the previous movie, and Teller’s character Rooster has a lot to prove to both himself and to Maverick, putting the two frequently at odds. Seeing these two have to come together is the heart of the movie, and everything serves this end. It’s impactful and meaningful, for sure, if not somewhat predictable.

If I possessed the nostalgia for the original movie, I can definitely see Top Gun: Maverick being an absolute perfect film. It surpasses much of what was achieved in 1986 with the original movie, while paying proper homage to its predecessor. For those like me, a casual enjoyer of Top Gun, the sequel still provides tons of thrills and heartfelt moments that are sure to please any crowd, but not much else. Though this trip into the danger zone is a bit safer than the classic theme promises, Top Gun: Maverick is a worthwhile watch nonetheless.

7.5/10

5 notes · View notes

renyen808 · 3 months

Text

2023 Movies You Need to Watch (Part Two)

Hi there, I’m sorry that I lied, I’m back now and everything is okay! I will be posting a review of Percy Jackson this Friday, but today we are going to finish this and get back on schedule.

Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning (Released July 12th)

(Credit: Amazon)

Starring: Tom Cruise, Haley Atwell, Ving Rhames, Simon Pegg

Director: Christopher McQuarrie

I have loved the Mission Impossible series since the beginning, and this is no exception. Tom Cruise still has it as Ethan Hunt. This movie plays around with the real threat of AI, which scared President Biden. This movie is the perfect way to showcase just how terrifying AI can be, while also being a fun action packed movie.

(Credit: IMDb)

This movie will leave you gripping on your arm rest as you watch the intense thriller portions. While I may not be a fan of Haley Atwell’s character (and she is in here a lot), I can overlook that for more Benji (love him) and the other characters. I cannot wait for the sequel to come out, but until then, I’ll be patiently waiting.

Barbie (Released July 21st)

(Credit: Microsoft)

Starring: Margot Robbie, Ryan Gosling, America Ferrera, Kate McKinnon

Director: Greta Gerwig

Now, onto the powerhouses of the summer. First, I want to talk about Barbie, which I watched second after Oppenheimer. Barbie was an amazing movie! I loved everything about it. From the perfect Barbie and Ken castings to the story of Barbie learning about the real world was something I didn't know I needed.

(Credit: Deadline)

I have been a woman studies student for a while, and this movie literally answers everything that we discuss in our classes. I remember taking my boyfriend to watch this during the iMAX rerelease, and he cried during the montage part, and he squeezed my hand. He loves the movie, I love the movie, it’s great.

Oppenheimer (Released July 21st)

(Credit: IMDb)

Starring: Cillian Murphy, Emily Blunt, Matt Damon, Robert Downey Jr.

Director: Christopher Nolan

Oh, Oppenheimer. What a powerhouse. Fun fact, I did a History research project on Oppenheimer with two other classmates. We won our county’s competition. My portion was on the aftermath of the bombings, which included the Strauss’ hearings and the security clearance meetings. This movie was a masterpiece, visually, musically, every aspect was created with such care.

(Credit: The Lantern)

And to everyone who thinks this movie is pro bomb, rewatch it. I promise you it is not. If you rewatch it and still come to that conclusion, I don’t know how much else to tell you than...you're dumb, I don’t know. Another fun fact, the first time I watched this, a guy gave me COVID.

Blue Beetle (Released August 18th)

(Credit: IMDb)

Starring: Xolo Maridueña, Adriana Barraza, Damián Alcázar, Elpidia Carrillo

Director: Angel Manuel Soto

Blue Beetle, the beginning of the James Gunn led DC Universe. Honestly, this is a great one to start on. Sure, it is a little predictable with the plot, what really sells it is Jaime (Xolo Maridueña) and his relationship with his family. This movie would not be what it is if it were not for the supporting casts’ relationship with Maridueña.

(Credit: The Washington Post)

Maridueña also excels in this role as Jaime. I haven’t watched Cobra Kai, which is what he is known for, but I am completely sold on him just from this performance alone. He becomes the hero that not only his family needs, but the DC universe. I am disappointed it didn’t do as well as it deserved, so if you haven’t watched it yet, WATCH IT!

Five Nights at Freddy’s (Released October 27th)

(Credit: Wikipedia)

Starting: Josh Hutcherson, Elizabeth Lail, Piper Rubio, Mary Stuart

Director: Emma Tammi

Oh my gods, Five Nights at Freddy’s. I have loved the series since its release in 2014, which is where I was introduced to Markiplier. So, since I was a big fan of the game, I have been waiting for an adaptation forever. Honestly though, I was concerned as to how they were going to do it, since there wasn’t really a cinematic story when it came to the first game. I mean, the first Game Theory video on Five Nights at Freddy, MatPat linked it to a real Chuck E Cheese Massacre. What they came up with was not what I was expecting in the best way possible.

(Credit: AP News)

This was a crazy ass movie, and it needed to be. Also, love that Living Tombstones had their song in the credits, I still listen to that song to this day. Along with that, Josh Hutcherson is amazing in this movie, carrying it, and my favorite, Matthew Lillard, steals the show. One critique I must say is that I wish they didn’t share that he was Purple Guy, honestly. Seeing the reveal would have been incredible, and with him saying his iconic line, it was a masterpiece.

The Boy and the Heron (Released December 8th)

(Credit: IMDb)

Starting: Luca Padovan, Robert Pattinson, Karen Fukuhara, Gemma Chan

Director: Hayao Miyazaki

The Boy and the Heron is one of, if not, the best animated film of the year. I love it so much, and hope to one day watch the sub version. This is an amazing story that shows the journey of a boy going through life in the wake of his mother’s passing. He ventures into a mysterious realm to save his stepmother. I love Miyazaki films, and this is no exception.

(Credit: IGN)

He brings it in this film, especially casting Robert Pattinson as the titular Heron for the English dub. If nobody told me that it was Pattinson, I would not be able to tell. This movie relies on many different characters and the way they interact with the titular Boy, Mahito. It is honestly a joy to watch, and while it is a little jarring to hear some familiar voices in there, it doesn’t take you out of the movie.

Okay, I have some more movies, but we will do a quick Honorable Mention thing.

Honorable Mention Quick Round

Leave the World Behind

This Netflix movie is a must watch for those who are reliant on technology. This movie shows just what might happen when America falls victim to a cyberattack.

Fast X

This series never ceases to catch my attention. While this installment might be weaker than ones before it, I believe it is still an entertaining movie that will keep you entertained.

The Marvels

The latest movie in the MCU was a fun, action packed film. Iman Vallani is a standout in this movie, carrying it on her shoulders. It was also nice to see Zawe Ashton, Tom Hiddleston’s fiancee, in a role.

Air

This movie based on the Air Jordan shoes is an interesting movie that showed the legacy of the shoe that became one of the best selling shoes in the world. I would give this another watch on a rainy day.

Quiz Lady

This straight to Hulu movie brings Awkwafina and Sandra Oh as sisters trying to get their dog back by going on a quiz show. This is a cute movie, which especially shows just how far siblings are willing to go for one another.

Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny

Indiana Jones’ latest adventure was an action filled, well, adventure. I really enjoyed it, but this movie also suffered from an unlikeable sidekick in the form of Phoebe Waller-Bridges character.

The Iron Claw

A heartbreaking movie that I had known nothing about going in, and I was devastated by the end, crying until I had no more tears to give. Also, Zac Efron is unrecognizable in the role as Kevin Von Erich. Best role he has ever done, in my opinion.

Well, thanks for reading! I’m sorry it took me so long to get this out, but I am back now and I will make sure to meet my deadlines this time. This Friday is Percy Jackson and for the time being, I will be doing Wednesday and Friday releases, and it will literally be whatever I feel like writing about.

#screenandjoystick #movies #mission impossible #barbie 2023 #oppenheimer #blue beetle #fnaf movie #boy and the heron #2023 movies

1 note · View note

influencermagazineuk · 7 months

Text

Mission Impossible: The Unstoppable Rise of a Cinematic Phenomenon

In the realm of action-packed espionage thrillers, one franchise has stood the test of time and consistently pushed the boundaries of cinematic excellence: "Mission: Impossible." What began as a television series in the 1960s transformed into a global cinematic phenomenon, captivating audiences with its adrenaline-pumping stunts, intricate plots, and charismatic lead, Tom Cruise. Origins and Evolution: "Mission: Impossible" found its cinematic footing in 1996 when the first movie hit the screens, directed by Brian De Palma. Based on the 1960s TV series of the same name, the film introduced audiences to Ethan Hunt, a skilled operative of the Impossible Mission Force (IMF). Over the years, the franchise has evolved, introducing new characters, complex narratives, and breathtaking action sequences that have become synonymous with the series. Tom Cruise: The Driving Force: At the heart of the franchise's success is Tom Cruise, who not only portrays Ethan Hunt but also serves as a producer. Cruise's dedication to performing his own stunts, no matter how dangerous, has become a hallmark of the series. His commitment to authenticity has elevated the franchise, earning him respect and admiration from fans and critics alike. Innovation in Action: "Mission: Impossible" is renowned for its jaw-dropping action sequences. From scaling towering skyscrapers to clinging to the exterior of a speeding plane, the franchise continually raises the bar for action cinema. The meticulous planning and execution of these stunts have set new standards, inspiring filmmakers and thrilling audiences worldwide. Global Appeal and Impact: The franchise's appeal knows no bounds, transcending geographical and cultural barriers. Its international settings, diverse cast, and universal themes of heroism and espionage have resonated with audiences from diverse backgrounds. Each installment's box office success and critical acclaim have solidified "Mission: Impossible" as a cinematic powerhouse. Legacy and Future: With multiple sequels, including the highly anticipated "Mission: Impossible 7" and "Mission: Impossible 8," in the pipeline, the franchise shows no signs of slowing down. Its ability to reinvent itself with each installment, coupled with the unwavering commitment of its star and crew, ensures that the legacy of "Mission: Impossible" will continue to thrive in the years to come. The rise of "Mission: Impossible" represents more than just a successful film series; it embodies the spirit of innovation, dedication, and timeless storytelling. As the franchise continues to captivate audiences with its audacious missions and charismatic characters, it cements its place in cinematic history, leaving an indelible mark on the action genre and inspiring generations of filmmakers and fans alike. Read the full article

0 notes

evco-productions · 10 months

Text

The Golden Trio

The “Golden Trio” is the Harry Potter fandom’s nickname for the series’ three central heroes: Harry Potter, Ron Weasley, and Hermione Granger. You’ll notice a particular dynamic there: two guys and one girl. You may or may not know that what I’ll call the “Golden Trio trope” is hardly limited to Harry Potter. Here are just a few other examples of movies featuring a central guy-guy-girl relationship*…

Ferris Bueller’s Day Off (Ferris, Cameron, and Sloane)

Pirates of the Caribbean (Jack Sparrow, Will Turner, and Elizabeth Swann)

Jurassic Park (Sam Neill, Jeff Goldblum, and Laura Dern)

Iron Man (Tony Stark, James Rhodes, and Pepper Potts)

Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice (Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman)

The Perks of Being a Wallflower (Charlie, Patrick, and Sam)

Smokey & the Bandit (Burt Reynolds, Jerry Reed, and Sally Field)

A Few Good Men (Tom Cruise, Kevin Pollack, and Demi Moore)

Shaun of the Dead (Shaun, Ed, and Liz)

Weird Science (Anthony Michael Hall, Ilan Mitchell-Smith, and Kelly LeBrock)

Lethal Weapon 3 (Martin Riggs, Roger Murtaugh, and Lorna Cole)

Me & Earl & the Dying Girl (Thomas Mann, RJ Cyler, and Olivia Cooke)

Garden State (Zach Braff, Peter Sarsgaard, and Natalie Portman)

Sahara (Matthew McConaughey, Steve Zahn, and Penelope Cruz)

License to Drive (Corey Haim, Corey Feldman, and Heather Graham)

Shallow Grave (Kerry Fox, Christopher Eccleston, Ewan McGregor)

And, of course, Star Wars, which features this dynamic in nearly every one of its iterations:

The Original Trilogy (Luke, Han, and Leia)

The Prequel Trilogy (Anakin, Obi-Wan, and Padme)

The Sequel Trilogy (Rey, Finn, and Poe)

The Clone Wars (Anakin, Ahsoka, and Obi-Wan or Rex, depending on the episode)

Rogue One (Jyn, Cassian, and K-2SO—debatable, since K is a droid, but he is voiced by a male actor and is present with the two humans long before the rest of the crew enters the picture)

I could go on for longer, but we’d be here all day. The point is, this happens a lot, and the list above is limited to the live-action films I could come up with off the top of my head. There are many more live-action instances of this trope and, as I understand it, a near-infinite supply within anime/manga stories.

I have written thirteen short stories over the last few years, but the only existing “thru-line” was a particular duology featuring this exact trope. Because I spent a decent amount of time with the three characters in question (Brad, Cory, and Leah are their names), I’m particularly interested in this trope. I cannot recall when their story began to reveal itself to me, but one thing was never in question: these three characters are the endgame. Their friendship is the heart and soul of the piece. This might have come from the source material that inspired the story; I’ve not been shy about admitting how willing I was to rip off my favorite movies in my early years of writing, and there isn’t much difference between Brad/Cory/Leah and Corey/Corey/Heather or Ferris/Cameron/Sloane. But that’s sort of the key here: this trope felt so natural to write because, apparently, it felt natural for a bazillion other writers before me.

To begin interrogating this trope, I considered what my golden trio is “like.” Brad is the hero of the story: we see everything through his eyes and there’s a Richie Cunningham-like demeanor about him in that he has boyish good looks, is a bit of a nerd, and will bravely stand up for his friends if the situation calls for it. Cory, on the other hand, is almost a coward, certainly insecure, is constantly acting like a jackass to hide his insecurity, and is desperately in love with Leah. Leah, for her part, is very clearly the creation of the nineteen-year-old loner I used to be: she’s beautiful, something of a sister figure to Brad, and is secretly just as horny for Cory as he is for her.

Maybe it’s a bit of writer’s guilt for creating such a one-dimensional female character, but in sitting here thinking about this, I have convinced myself that the secret to interrogating this trope really comes down to interrogating the female character’s role within the trope.

Brad, Cory, and Leah’s dynamic is not too different from what one finds in mainstream entertainment instances of the trope. Sometimes the girl is related to one of the guys (Luke and Leia are siblings, as are Patrick and Sam in Perks). Oftentimes she is romantically involved with one of them (Ferris and Sloane, Anakin and Padme, Sam Neill and Laura Dern in Jurassic, etc.). Most crucially of all, she is not romantically involved with the other of the two guys, and even if she’s unrelated to both, it doesn’t seem to make a difference. When watching Sahara, there is no question in the characters’ nor the audience’s minds that Penelope Cruz is going to kiss Matthew McConaughey at the end of the movie. Steve Zahn is there to make us laugh; Cruz has no sexual interest in him and, in fact, says maybe ten words to him over the course of the entire story.

Leah talks to Brad more often in that within my stories, but while she is very affectionate, it’s clear she only has eyes for Cory (maybe something about his jackassery turns her on, or maybe Cory just looks and talks a lot like me). Aside from her romantic feelings for the “sidekick” of the two boys, her role as a friend to both of them is something of a mediator; being the girl, she is of course more mature and therefore more likely not to engage in any immature activity that the two boys might instigate. One sees this sort of behavior in Iron Man 2, for example: a drunken Tony Stark and an angry Rhodey duke it out in their super-suits while an irate Pepper Potts stands on the sidelines rolling her eyes.

But why is the golden trio such a common trope? A couple interesting theories I found online…

From Rocketman on superherohype.com: “You’ll see this trope mostly in fantasy and sci-fi because these genres aren’t as accessible and relatable to people since you’re dealing with far-out, abstract concepts, so you need a trinity of characters to bring things to a human level. And with fantasy and sci-fi, more often than not, more guys will be drawn to these genres than girls. Or, two-thirds of guys will be. In simpler terms, two guys and a girl. For every two guys in the theater, there will probably be one girl (one girl was dragged along with her boyfriend, while another guy is seeing it by himself).”

A concurrence from Gray_Walker on Reddit: “Marketing concerns. Three characters is a common number of focal characters for a story because it keeps the cast small and easy to keep track of. Male/Male/Female keeps the cast male-dominated, since the target demographic for these series is almost always male, but they don’t want to totally miss out on the female market, so the idea is to make one of the leads female so that demographic has something to identify with. When a group becomes female-dominated, it tends to indicate the series is targeted at women.”

This theory sounds plausible up until one realizes that Harry Potter, for example, appears to have a lot more female fans than male, despite the Male/Male/Female dynamic. If guys (supposedly) respond to this trope because there is one more male character to identify with than female, maybe girls respond to it (if they do) because it provides the one female character with two potential love interests? Ladies, tell me if I’m talking out of my ass here.

At any rate, the hole in the above marketing theory is maybe the only reason I let this mystical explanation catch and hold my attention…

From Brandon Bennett on Quora: “This dynamic is actually a secret symbolism of the Trinity of Consciousness. The older male = Thought Expression, the older female = Emotional Expression, and the young male = Action Expression. This character triad goes back much further than mainstream movies. It’s even in ancient religious scriptures from thousands of years ago.”

A couple interesting things to note here. One, there is a very limited number of plot and character types in the world. Even if Bennett’s explanation isn’t completely accurate (it might be), it stands to reason that every plot and character trope we can name has its roots in ancient literature. Two, the Trinity as he describes it here can easily be fit into, to use one ancient example, the Christian Trinity: God the Father (older male), Jesus Christ the Son (younger male), and the Holy Spirit (generally understood by Christians to be what nonbelievers would simply call one’s conscious or guilt, or, if you will, emotions, or at least the expression of certain emotions/feelings).

I guess what strikes me as funny about all this, the thing that set me off to write this entry in the first place, is that my three characters fit (more or less) into these categories, but I did not intend it to happen that way. I decided that Brad was a relatively calm, smart, reserved person (Thought Expression) but did not consciously decide that, as a result of this, Cory would need to be an energetic, foolish, outgoing person (Action Expression). This happened of its own accord.

Well, is this interesting only to me? Do you have a favorite character trope, specifically a favorite three-person character trope?

*Note that I am not including romance-centric movies in which this relationship is a love triangle. I am interested only in this dynamic insofar as it represents three friends; maybe two of them are lovers, but there is no central rivalry between the two guys over the one girl a la Twilight.

#golden trio #the golden trio #harry potter #star wars #character trope #just admit it #evco productions

1 note · View note

frontproofmedia · 10 months

Text

Ranking The Mission: Impossible Films (Including Dead Reckoning Part 1)

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

By Hector Franco

Follow @MrHector_Franco !function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id))(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs'); Follow @Frontproofmedia!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d. getElementById(id))(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');

Published: July 13, 2023

Ranking The Mission: Impossible Films

For more than 20 years, the Mission: Impossible franchise has been a gift to moviegoers that has become more popular and even maintained a high-quality level. Critically and financially, the film series has only increased its stature over the last decade and could be ranked as the greatest action franchise of all time.

What started as a television series created by Bruce Geller that began in 1966 and ran for seven seasons until its end in 1973 has now become, in the streaming era, a legitimate reason for audiences to head to their local movie theatre.

Headed by one of the last remaining movie stars, Tom Cruise, as IMF (Impossible Missions Force) agent Ethan Hunt, the Mission: Impossible films lend themselves to sequels since they rely on the missions just as much as the characters themselves. Unlike most movies, Hunt is an active protagonist that pushes the narrative forward rather than waiting on the sidelines for the plot.

The films are known for their usage of ticking clocks, double agents, hacking, espionage, mission expositions, agents going rogue and being disavowed, plot twists, numerous MacGuffins to chase after, various locations, and of course, face mask disguises. And the now classic theme by Argentine composer Lalo Schifrin who did the scores for films like Dirty Harry, Bullit, and Enter the Dragon, is prevalent throughout each film.

Due to the excellent execution in which these plot devices are used on a continual basis, the series has kept audiences engaged and coming back for me.

With the recent release of Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning, Part 1, the seventh installment in the series, which will be the first of two films, it could be one of the last times we see this series with Tom Cruise at the helm. However, box office returns may keep more movies rolling down the line for years.

Reminiscing back through all the Mission: Impossible entries, five of the seven films leave little between them in terms of quality. How they are viewed and in which order you would place them is based on personal preference.

Looking at them through a recent lens, the films in this ranking could change yearly, and the one you would call your favorite could be on an everlasting rotation.

We will look at all seven films in the series and rank them on the worst-to-best scale, but all the movies on this list warrant multiple viewings.

"Mr. Hunt, this isn't mission difficult; it's mission impossible. "Difficult" should be a walk in the park for you." -- Mission Commander Swanbeck (Anthony Hopkins)

Mission: Impossible 2

May 2000

Box Office: $546.4 million

Mission: Impossible 2 will usually find itself at the bottom of most rankings. And while it does so here as well, it has more to do with the quality of the other films on the list. Despite where it landed, MI 2 highlights one of the aspects that has made the series stand the test of time. Almost every entry has a different director, and thus its own voice and style. It wasn’t until the sixth film in the franchise did the same director return for Mission: Impossible.

Hong Kong action movie director John Woo, best known for movies like The Killer, A Better Tomorrow, Hard Target, Broken Arrow, and Face/Off, brought his style and uniqueness to the series. While some of the other films in the series have taken some elements of other entries and expanded on them, Woo’s MI 2 sets itself apart by doing almost the opposite.

MI 2 is the only film in the series where Ethan Hunt hasn’t gone rogue or been disavowed by the IMF. A story that has Hunt trading wits with fellow IMF agent Sean Ambrose, who disguises himself as the main character on two occasions, makes him one of the more dangerous antagonists in the series.

Woo’s signature slow motion, snap zooms, and usage of doves are found throughout MI 2. The film’s MacGuffin is a virus called Chimera, and Ambrose attempts to gain the virus and sell it to a pharmaceutical company that will profit off a cure.

Another element that gives MI 2 an individual touch is the score by Hans Zimmer and the divisive use of rock band Limp Bizkit’s cover of the Mission Impossible theme.

What holds MI 2 back in comparison to the other films in the series is its relative lack of heists and mission scenes. There are some, such as at a horse racing event where female lead Nyah (Thandie Newton) uses her professional thief skills. But, a stronger focus on stylized action and less on plot and mission heists holds the film back from being one of the best in the franchise.

"You hung me out of a plane. You can tell a lot about a persons character by how they treat people they don't have to treat well." -- PHILIP SEYMOUR HOFFMAN - Owen Davian

Mission: Impossible 3

May 2006

Box Office: $398.5 million

Up until this point, the stakes have never been higher for Ethan Hunt and his team. Making his directorial debut, J.J. Abrams added a personal touch to the series by delving into the private life of its main character. At the beginning of the movie, Hunt is now retired and has a fiance and then wife, Julia Meade (Michelle Monaghan).

Hunt is brought back into the IMF fold by assistant IMF director John Musgrave (Billy Crudup) to save Lindsey Farris (Keri Russell), an agent he helped train that has been held captive in Berlin. An explosive implanted in Farris’ head leads to her death before Hunt can save her. A chase for this film’s MacGuffin, a biological weapon codenamed the “Rabbit’s Foot,” begins between Hunt’s team and arms dealer Owen Davian.

For some, the third installment ranks high due to the performance of Philip Seymour Hoffman as Owen Davian. Arguably, he is the franchise’s most memorable and menacing villain. Many sequences throughout show his calm and deadly demeanor. The opening scene shows Davian (Hoffman) threatening Hunt with a gun to his wife, asking for the location of the Rabbit’s Foot.

Starting at this point gives the film a sense of dread that there will be significant consequences for Hunt in this mission. Davian is a villain that is able to stay one step ahead of Hunt at almost every turn. During one interrogation scene on an airplane, he forces the IMF agent to lose his composure to the point of nearly killing him.

Besides Hoffman’s performance, MI 3 also has a solid team dynamic with Zhen Lei (Maggie Q), Declan Gormey (Jonathan Rhys Meyers), and the returning Luther Stickel (Ving Rhames). Rhames is one of the few characters that has returned for more than one film, being featured in all seven entries thus far.

Perhaps its greatest contribution to the franchise is the introduction of IMF agent and computer technician Benji Dunn (Simon Pegg). Bringing levity and perfectly placed comedic timing to the fold, Pegg’s inclusion has seen him in every film since. And he is always one of the highlights.

In many ways, MI 3 laid the foundation for the success of future installments in the series. Abrams brought a new level of action to the franchise, and it would take a substantial amount of effort and execution to surpass it.

"Kittridge, you've never seen me very upset." -- Tom Cruise - Ethan Hunt

Mission: Impossible

May 1996

Box Office: 457.7 million

The one that started it all arguably deserves the most credit for the series' continued substantial success. After all, if it had been a financial and critical failure, there wouldn't have been any sequels to follow.

In the director's chair sat the legendary Brian De Palma. The director has a resume that includes classics in a vast array of genres, including films like Carrie, Dressed To Kill, Scarface, Casualties of War, The Untouchables, and Carlito's Way. De Palma's signature style is felt throughout with his Dutch camera tilts, split diopter shots, close-ups, and his knowledge of when to use and not to use sound.

In some respects, this is the simplest of all the movies from a story perspective, but it does have all of the plot devices that the series would become known for. Face mask reveals, betrayals, and ticking clocks are found in the first Mission: Impossible, with the CIA's NOC list being the film's MacGuffin. Due to keeping the majority of the stunts and action practical, the action still holds up. Even the usage of an explosive stick of gum doesn't come off as too over the top due to the way it's used.

Possibly the scene and what the series itself is best known for is its heist mission. Hunt and the team infiltrate CIA headquarters to steal the NOC list from a secure area deep in the building. De Palma's expertise makes it to where a drop of sweat can feel heart pounding.

The first Mission: Impossible is the gold standard for a generation of audiences. It delivers over-the-top action while keeping the film grounded with its espionage heists. At this point, the margin of difference between this film and the others is slim, as for many, this entry could still find itself right on top.

The Mission: Impossible Franchise is one of the most consistent in film history.

"Our lives are the sum of our choices. And we cannot escape the past." -- Eugene Kittridge - Henry Czerny

Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning, Part 1 (7)

July 2023

The latest entry in the series is arguably it's boldest and most extensive in both scope and action. Over the last decade, what has separated Mission: Impossible films from franchises like Fast and the Furious or movies in the superhero genre is that it balanced its usage of visual effects and practical stunts, never going too far. Dead Reckoning continues that trend producing another perfect summer blockbuster.

The latest installment unbelievably ups the level of action to another plateau with multiple locations and jaw-dropping set pieces that are awe-inspiring to behold. Starting with an exploding submarine and an airport chase that somehow holds together evading IMF agents, disarming a nuclear bomb, and introducing a new character in Grace (Hayley Atwell) while attempting to get a hold of the film's MacGuffin is all balanced and well executed. A car chase through Rome followed by a confrontation in Venice continues the nonstop bombardment of Dead Reckoning's action set pieces.

Dead Reckoning also brings forth some new elements by giving hints of a backstory for Ethan Hunt before his time in the IMF. The plot features an AI that has gone rogue, and in today's world, with technology like Chat GPT, it will be relatable to modern audiences. Surprisingly, the film brings back Eugene Kittridge (Henry Czerny) from the original Mission: Impossible, giving the most insight into the inner working of the IMF since MI 3.

Hayley Atwell's performance as Grace is the most memorable of the movie, as anytime she is on screen with Cruise, she takes over a scene with her energy. She is another welcomed new addition to the franchise.

Dead Reckoning also deserves credit for being the first of a two-part story without leaving on a cliffhanger or in a manner that felt incomplete. There is more to come, but there is a level of satisfaction to the ending of Dead Reckoning that will leave audiences anticipating its sequel while enjoying what they were given here.

Lorne Balfe, who also composed the score for Mission: Impossible - Fallout, must be acknowledged for producing another fantastic composition that is, along with Fallout, the best in the series.

Where Dead Reckoning falters is surprising. Typically, Mission: Impossible is known for providing exposition that doesn't feel forced, only adding to the plot at hand. Dead Reckoning tends to over-explain and doesn't slow down enough to give the characters more time together other than to explain the next part of the mission. The audience doesn't need to have its hand held this much as showing is always more effective than telling.

Ilsa Faust (Rebecca Ferguson) suffers the most from the abundance of exposition. Her character has been vital to the plot and characters over the previous two installments, and she deserved more time as a fan favorite.

There is a beautiful quiet scene between Hunt and Faust as they look over the balcony at Venice and embrace. More of these scenes should have taken place. Ultimately, when her character finally meets her end, it isn't treated with the gravitas it deserves.

Overall, Dead Reckoning, Part 1, continues to exceed the expectations of a franchise that has delivered only high-quality sequels. It's almost difficult to quantify just how much is stuffed into the film without it being crushed by its own weight.

"You should've stayed out of the game- You should've come with me." -- Ethan Hunt and Ilsa Faust

Mission: Impossible - Fallout (6)

July 2018

Box Office: $791.7 million

The following two entries are essentially tied for the same spot. There is little between them, and only personal preference will one film be put over the other.

The sixth installment in the Mission: Impossible franchise feels like the magnum opus for Tom Cruise. It's the film he always wanted to make and will go down as one of the greatest action films of all time.

There is a darker tone for Fallout that ranges from the film's score by Lorne Balfe to the theme of the value of one life versus all life. The score from Balfe can't be understated, as it's unquestionably the finest in the franchise.

Christopher McQuarrie is the first director to return for more than one installment of Mission: Impossible, and as the dual role of writer, he amps up the stakes in his sequel.

At the beginning of the film, Hunt has to choose between saving the life of his longtime friend, Luther (Ving Rhames), and completing his mission, gathering three plutonium cores. This decision to determine the value of one life is throughout the movie, with multiple instances where Hunt has to take immediate action.

One scene, in particular, where a patrol officer happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, witnesses Hunt and his team completing a mission. Hunt then chooses to either let the officer be killed or blow his cover.

Fallout is filled with a plethora of memorable stunts and action scenes, including halo plane jumps, motorcycle chases through Paris, and Tom Cruise legitimately flying a helicopter. The practical stuntwork at one point led to Cruise breaking his ankle, delaying filming for about seven weeks.

Fallout, at almost 150 minutes, wastes no time moving at a rapid pace but never feeling like it's rushing.

Becoming the first female lead to return is Ilsa Faust (Rebecca Ferguson), who is just as great as she was in Rogue Nation. Also returning is the villain Solomon Lane (Sean Harris), whose former Syndicate group has evolved into the Apostles headed by John Lark (Henry Cavill) and his infamous mustache.

Fallout succeeds at all levels pulling in the best aspects of all the previous entries. It has memorable car and motorcycle chases, heists, and face mask reveals that not only fool characters but also the audience.

Fallout's finale may be the most dramatic of any in the series, using a ticking clock and multiple fight scene's down to the wire. There are very few flaws in Fallout, and it firmly establishes what an American action film can be at its best.

"Sir, Hunt is the living manifestation of destiny - and he has made you his mission." -- Alan Hunley - Alex Baldwin

Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation (5)

July 2015

Box Office: $682.7 million

The first entry of writer/director Christopher McQuarrie's Mission: Impossible films is still arguably his best. McQuarrie and Cruise worked together beforehand in 2008s Valkyrie, 2012s Jack Reacher, and 2014s Edge of Tomorrow.

The team dynamic is at one of the series' best, and this is the most comedic of all the films. Simon Pegg and Tom Cruise have a chemistry that provides levity to action scenes without undercutting any serious notions. They are placed at the right time.

But what Rogue Nation brings to the table that gives it an edge over other entries is the introduction of MI6 Agent Ilsa Faust (Rebecca Ferguson). Adding another agent on Ethan Hunt's level increases the level of intensity in the action set pieces. Ferguson's performance steals the show anytime she is on screen.

The plot involves an organization of former elite government agents that were thought of as dead called The Syndicate. The primary villain, Solomon Lane (Sean Harris), is a mix of MI 2's Sean Ambrose, an experienced agent that can anticipate Hunt's next move, and MI 3's Owen Davian, with a calm and frightening demeanor.

At this point, it's almost redundant to continually praise the stunts in Mission: Impossible. But Rogue Nation has quite a few that are still a marvel to watch. The highly publicized airplane stunt where Cruise is hanging from the side of an airplane is a wonder to behold at the beginning of the film, and incredibly it only elevates from there.

The hand-to-hand combat scenes, specifically with Faust, are arguably at the highest level the series has showcased thus far. The water diving sequence in a power plant retrieving a MacGuffin that identifies members of The Syndicate keeps the audience in the palm of their hands, believing that this could be the end of Ethan Hunt. A thrilling motorcycle sequence follows through Casablanca that emphasizes Faust's agent skillset.

One of the highlight set pieces takes place at an Opera in Vienna, where there are multiple shooters in the area, leaving a sense of uncertainty about where certain characters stand.

Lastly, Rogue Nation has one of the finest third-act face masks reveals vindicating Hunt as he finally proves to the Director of the CIA, Alan Hunley (Alec Baldwin), that the Syndicate is indeed real.

Rogue Nation began a partnership between Cruise and McQuarrie that has paid dividends. This one is likely to continue to find more fans as time passes.

"Mission accomplished!" -- Ethan Hunt - Tom Cruise

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (4)

December 2011

Box Office: $694.7 million

For as much credit as Brian De Palma receives and deserves for putting Mission: Impossible back in the entertainment zeitgeist, 2011s Ghost Protocol not only revived the franchise while re-establishing Tom Cruise as a movie star, it was the beginning of a new age for the series—almost a reboot in a sense without rebooting.

Brad Bird, who primarily directed animated films like The Iron Giant, The Incredibles, and Ratatouille, directed the series' fourth installment. But what is it about Ghost Protocol that has it settling at the top of my list?

The most significant factor is the team dynamic and chemistry. Somehow even with a mostly absent Luther (Ving Rhames), the foursome of Benji Dunn(Simon Pegg), Jane Carter (Paula Patton), William Brandt (Jeremy Renner), along with Hunt, is quite possibly the best in the series. They have a chemistry that allows their actions to be fully explained without an abundance of exposition and generate genuine laughs.

Dunn, who is now a field agent, is in an outstanding heist sequence along with Hunt, where they infiltrate the Russian Kremlin using a digital mirror that has the ability to look like a hallway. It's almost cartoonish, but it keeps a newer field agent out of danger and gives the audience time with both characters.

Possibly, what the film is most notorious for is the sequence at the Burj Khalifa building in Dubai. Undoubtedly, this entire portion of the film is done to perfection from beginning to end. The improvisation used when their technology stops working and the way the heist exchange is still pulled off.

Cruise's insane stunt of swinging off a building that is the tallest skyscraper in the world looks just as dangerous as you can imagine. Even the sandstorm chase, following the events at the Burj Khalifa, is shot in a way that allows the audience to follow along with Hunt as he chases down the stolen MacGuffin of nuclear codes.

Admittingly, the film does falter, with the main antagonist being somewhat forgettable. The film only gives him a little time other than videos of his speeches. He is a man who wants to blow up the world just to do so. Michael Nyqvist gives an acceptable performance whenever he is put on screen but is given little to work with.

What lands Ghost Protocol here are the bookends.

The film has arguably the best opening sequence in the franchise. Hunt's extraction out of a Moscow prison leads to a stellar usage of the Mission: Impossible theme.

Finally, the ending isn't abrupt. It pulls us closer, letting the audience know that there are repercussions for the life Ethan Hunt has chosen. There are things he had to sacrifice. And while more than almost any other installment aside from the first, you don't need to have seen previous installments to enjoy Ghost Protocol; it remembers them.

Hunt looks from across a small harbor at his former wife Julia, who now lives an everyday life away from him. A smile is exchanged between the two letting him know that she is okay before he disappears into the fog for his next mission.

It's difficult to tell if Ghost Protocol will remain in this position. Five of the seven films in this Mission: Impossible series are as good as action filmmaking can be. When the second part of Dead Reckoning enters theaters in 2024, we'll take another look.

(Featured Photo: Paramount Pictures)

#HF #Mission Impossible #Tom Cruise #Lalo Schifrin #Brian De Palma #Christopher McQuarrie

0 notes