|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation (2015)
|
Sam Graham
AKA: "The Evil Sam Graham". Wackiness ensues.
Posts: 1431
From: Waukee, IA
Registered: Dec 2004
|
posted 08-03-2015 11:05 PM
CINEMA: Cinemark Movies 12, Ames, IA
AUDITORIUM: 7
PRESENTATION: Barco Digital
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: None ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
RATING: Three stars (out of four)
THE PLOT: A car dealer plots to force everyone in the country to exclusively drive Nissan Rogues. Wackiness ensues.
The funny part of the marketing push for this movie is having Tom Cruise talking up his self-stunted scene where he's hanging from the airplane. It's funny because this is how the movie opens and, as far as I can tell, the scene has absolutely nothing to do with the primary plot. I can hear the director snickering as he says "Let's do another take! The whole movie revolves around this!"
The dumb part of the movie is chasing a group called "The Syndicate". That's the most original name you could come up with? Seriously?
Having said that, this is a fun ride with a 70's Bond-level flair, a killer (and hilarious) car chase, and quite possibly my favorite bad guy ending ever. But like all Mission: Impossible movies before it, my entire memory of it will self-destruct in five seconds.
Seriously, I've seen all of them and couldn't tell you a thing about them.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 08-03-2015 11:16 PM
I am the same way -- I know they were out to find / get / destroy / eradicate or whatever the Syndicate, but I have no idea why they had to hang Tom off a plane, have a huge motorcycle/car chase, travel to several exotic locations around the world, etc. to pull it off.
I have just about given up on modern action movies because I can't figure out the freaking stories. Within about 30 minutes I'm lost. It's happened over and over again, especially with the superhero and Marvel movies. Usually I read the plot summary on Wikipedia and even after that, I am confused. Even "Spy" had one of these twisting, turning, shifting narratives. I have no memory of that movie either.
I would like to interview a dozen people who saw this movie and ask them to describe the story. I'll bet I'd hear 12 completely different answers.
It was fun to watch - I loved the plane sequence and the chase scenes, and the part where Tom had to go underwater to swap out a glorified USB stick was great. And the sound was dynamite. I also liked the score -- that theme is one of the best movie themes ever. But storywise? I have no clue what I saw.
I would think it was "just me" but my wife (who is 4 years younger than me) had the exact same reaction -- liked the movie, but had no idea what it was about.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 08-10-2015 03:50 AM
The Atmos mix was indeed great, probably one of the better mixes up until now.
There was plenty of action, but also big stretches of boredom. Those big stretches of boredom came from the simple fact that the story itself is bland, far fetched, implausible and just utterly stupid.
Did those wannabe terrorists check the news lately? The power of encryption apparently never emerged in their collective super-brains? You could store your super-secret ledger encrypted in a page filling ad in the New York Times using proper encryption. No need to construct elaborate data vaults in some exotic location with impossible cooling infrastructure.
Also, am I the only one who thinks Simon Pegg was totally miscast for this movie? Many of his performances are hilarious, but in this one, the jokes didn't connect, they felt like unnecessary, forced and misplaced comic relief.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 08-10-2015 12:59 PM
We watched it again yesterday afternoon and I have to say, I enjoyed it a LOT more the second time. Probably because I knew what the "objective" was and all that. I still don't quite understand a few things.
What was the deal with the chase scene? I loved it, it was the best part of the movie. But -- Tom Cruise was with the girl, right? They were together, in the same building. She leaves the place they were in, gets on a motorcycle surrounded by bad guys who apparently think they have her caught or whatever, and then she trashes all their bikes and the chase is on with Tom and his crew in hot pursuit. Is Tom trying to rescue her or something?
The other thing -- the underwater data card deal... Tom had to remove a huge locked-on covering device to expose that card, but he just tossed it aside. It wasn't necessary? The whole system didn't flash warning screens with that cover gone? Hell, my HP printer won't even think about printing something if the cover is off. And let's not even consider short circuits. Still, I loved that scene - it was the second best part of the show.
Also I have decided not to gripe about the whole beeping computers and screens thing --- idiotic as it is, I've given up on that, figuring it's just a movie thing and there's no way around it. At least this movie didn't have any of those incredibly stupid "see-through" computer screens that have become so popular.
So bottom line, I will give this 3 out of 5 stars. If I was able to COMPLETELY check my brain at the door and forget about the illogical stuff, it might be 4 stars.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 08-11-2015 01:28 AM
It's interesting you call *this* guy "Tom" and you're perfectly fine with it. Actually, I'm also perfectly fine with it because to me, he's jut Tom and not Ethan (yeah, that's how the guy actually is called in those movies).
On the other hand, would you call Han Solo Harry? No, that sounds just stupid, doesn't it?
But go back to George Clooney and imagine any movie with him in it. It's just George and not Frank, Matt or Danny, no, its George...
It just shows how some characters are stronger than their actor, but in many cases it's seemingly just the other way around.
quote: Brad Miller
Would you rather The Syndicate be called The Unobtaneoples? If you want to talk about dumb and lame, let's not forget that blue cat movie.
This more-secret-than-the-coke-formula secret agency which employs Tom... ahum, Ethan calls itself "THE IMF", so it's not just the IMF, but THE IMF. They're actually a bunch of ninja-sword-slinging super-stealth super-bankers who got tired of boring ledgers and decided to make short work of all hidden ledgers of the world.
quote: Mike Blakesley
Also I have decided not to gripe about the whole beeping computers and screens thing --- idiotic as it is, I've given up on that, figuring it's just a movie thing and there's no way around it. At least this movie didn't have any of those incredibly stupid "see-through" computer screens that have become so popular.
MovieOS comes in many shades of usability. It prefers large fonts for stuff which would otherwise be trivial, is often very chatty about selective subjects and has a very graphical intensive hacking interface.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 08-11-2015 04:09 PM
Cinema: Broken Arrow Warren, Broken Arrow, OK.
Screen: Grand Infinity
Format: 2K source, 4K laser projection, THX, Dolby Atmos
Presentation Problems: Deep curved screens are a challenge
Rating 2.5 stars out of 4
The premise and plot details of Mission: Impossible • Rogue Nation had me thinking of a couple different movies, such as Captain America: The Winter Soldier (Hydra infiltrating Shield) and the Spectre organization from the James Bond saga. There are some differences in how M:I:5 handled it, but "The Syndicate" turned out to be far less interesting than originally implied.
While this M:I installment seemed to be a fairly derivative star vehicle for Tom Cruise at least it had some decent action sequences -decent as long as the viewer doesn't think too much about what is happening. Suspension of disbelief? Fuck that. The movie is worth a look, but I think the re-play value is a bit short.
This sequel is a step down from Brad Bird's Ghost Protocol and maybe equal to the third M:I movie by J.J. Abrams. I seem to recall ranting angrily about the stupidity of one of the action sequences in M:I III. Rogue Nation has its own head scratchers. In a modern Hollywood movie, the "star" can crash a motorcycle at high speed, wearing street clothes and no helmet, yet walk away with hardly a scratch. Doing the same thing in real life can get you killed or at least give you a horrible case of road rash.
quote: Brad Miller
It was clear to me the writers decided the stunts and scenarios first, then tried to wrap a movie around it.
It's the same structure as a hardcore porn movie. I suppose if commercial movie theaters disappear and 2-hour movies are only seen at home these "filmmakers" will have to get used to audiences hitting the fast forward button to get to the good part.
Other distractions: the audience always needs obvious reminders on just who is the star of this movie. Tom fucking Cruise, dammit! They even reiterate this emphasis in the end titles. Ethan Hunt (Cruise) and Benji Dunn (Simon Pegg) arrive in Morocco and are walking around some dirt hut village. Cruise looks dressed for a dinner date on the French Riviera while Simon Pegg is dressed for tap beer at Buffalo Wild Wings. What's next? Cruise in a tux and Pegg in a wife-beater and shorts? Meanwhile, real life spies (or "spooks" as some military people call them) dress to avoid attention or even repel it. The overweight, obnoxious stereotype of an American tourist might actually be a spy or a military arms dealer. Unfortunately that kind of thing doesn't make for good cinema. It's acceptable for a 50-something year old guy to hook up on screen with women in their 20's if the guy looks like Tom Cruise. If he looks like most 50 year old guys the audience reaction will be more along the lines of "ewww."
The first Mission: Impossible movie is still my favorite out of the series, despite all the off camera drama between Tom Cruise and director Brian DePalma as well as some audience complaints about Robert Towne's script. It just felt a little more like a spy movie and was good enough to forgive the highly ridiculous, geometrically impossible helicopter in the Chunnel thing at the end.
quote: Mike Blakesley
Also I have decided not to gripe about the whole beeping computers and screens thing --- idiotic as it is, I've given up on that, figuring it's just a movie thing and there's no way around it. At least this movie didn't have any of those incredibly stupid "see-through" computer screens that have become so popular.
I'm at the point now that when I see a movie or TV show throw up a motion graphics sequence that is supposed to pass for a computer screen I not only judge it to be complete technological bullshit, but also laugh at the writers for being lazy and insulting to the audience. The fancy screens are only spoon-feeding the audience plot exposition and doing so with about as much finesse as a car bomb. A freaking teleprompter graphic in an NFL game serves a more legitimate purpose. It has been over 30 years since that plot device has been novel -we're going clear back to War Games when it was actually fresh and impressive.
Image Quality: I was a bit disappointed. My girlfriend and I watched Mission: Impossible • Rogue Nation on Warren Theatre's new Grand Infinity deep curved screen with 4K laser projection. One problem: the movie's DCP was only 2K, despite the movie being shot mostly on 35mm film (Panavision anamorphic). Some portions were shot digitally with the new Arri Alexa 65 and Hasselblad lenses. Why wasn't this movie in at least 4K resolution? Next problem: the projected image didn't map all that well onto the deep curve screen. This was really obvious during previews; the lettering on those Green Bands was curving like a happy face smile on that screen. Focus was uneven too. I don't know if the image warp I saw would have looked any better from the balcony. It really must be a bitch to get even focus and a reasonably un-distorted image projected onto a curved screen like that.
Sound Quality: the Dolby Atmos mix was pretty good, but I'm not sure if the theater's choice of ceiling surround speakers was powerful enough to image properly to the ground floor seats. I didn't hear very much from above. I'm sure the mix probably would have sounded better up in the balcony. I took the gamble of sitting in the ground floor seating section because I thought the projected image might look better there. One note: the new Eclipse trailer made me feel a motion sick for a few seconds. I thought it was funny. That rotating star field on that huge, deep curve screen made my stomach do a flip flop. Another odd note: they played both the Dolby Atmos Unfold trailer and Dolby 7.1 Sphere trailer.
By the way, my girlfriend Cynthia and I got a kick out of the Mission: Impossible themed LED/Spotlight light show before the curtain opened. Very nice. I also liked how the curtain stayed shut until showtime. No TV commercials or other crap on screen. The house music was a mix of movie score material.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic