What makes it:
Action sequences are something one expects in action movies and Mission Impossible delivers with a large number of said sequences, with two (in my opinion) having the most creativity in it [Hint: involves water and/or a plane]. An interesting tidbit to note is that some of the stunts performed are actual stunts performed by the actors without excessive green-screen effects applied (though with precautions in place since hanging onto an actual air-plane without a harness is suicide). The basic stealth breach, car and on-foot chase scenes are in the movie and for the most part, they are entertaining to watch. I cannot divulge the content of said scenes to avoid spoilers so to sum it up, the action sequences are probably where you'd get your money's worth. I was not bored by the sequences and other less critical individuals would probably enjoy it even more.
The actors in this movie were decent for the most part with no significant problems in the acting department, at least when I was watching it. It was not good enough to get me engaged with the characters but to its credit, it was not cringe-worthy and appeared to have gone through proof-reading to ensure that the dialogue is not too absurd (plus the level of acting that is needed to get me engaged with motion picture characters must phenomenal). Out of all the characters, I wound up rooting for Simon Pegg's character the most though this could be a case of personal bias (I really liked Shaun of the Dead - a good flick for a good time).
Entertainment value is something that an action movie should have even if it is lacking intriguing plot elements or thought-provoking themes. If an action movie can provide entertainment in the form of action sequences that are filled with high octane thrills (and not the nightmare-inducing thrills), it can possess entertainment value. Mission Impossible fulfils this quota with action sequences in the right places, humour when required and a lack of excessively cringe-inducing dialogue that ruins the moment. In addition, there is barely any out-of-place romantic development between the main hero and heroine which is refreshing to say the least as these developments tend to be irksome to some due to its effects to the tone and narrative.
What breaks it:
Predictability is something I tend to notice in most forms of fiction as there is some difficulty in innovating as most good ideas have been used or are being used (I could be wrong on this though). Mission Impossible avoids cringe-worthy writing for the most part but has a storyline that is mostly predictable, or at the very least, has predictable story elements. I distinctly recall making predictions throughout the movie on how a scene will unfold, the plans of the protagonists, the individual in disguise, the twist and the dramatic screw up of a plan to create a climax point for the protagonists. During my viewing, I was able to predict most of these things (with the exception of the villain's plans) and whenever they were unveiled, I was left with both a smug satisfaction for having clairvoyance and disappointment that the writing was too predictable. I do enjoy complexity in a movie (and when I don't get it, I go to Wikipedia to get an idea on what was going on before piecing the whole picture myself) and I had some hope that this movie would be more interesting as the whole "nation of spies" concept in the trailers could have been more interesting (a large number of top agents who are almost as competent as the protagonist as the opposition). Sadly, it was not but to be fair, this was never advertised as an espionage thriller.
A weak villain ends up appearing as a result of predictability. While the movie does justify his actions as part of the story, I felt that the villain of the movie was a rather weak villain, or at least, an idiotic one, as he provides the motivation for Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise's character) to hunt him down. I feel that it was a rather dumb move for a spy to make as giving motivation to anyone can backfire (at least in the land of fiction). He does improve a little but as a villain, I never really felt that the individual was truly threatening as he mostly acted as a mastermind rather than a true equal to Hunt. The organisational skills he has when it comes to commandeering a group of spies as a mastermind could be a threat but not the man himself in a straight up fight (unless he has a firearm).
Personal opinion: If you are wondering why I did not explain much about the movie, it is due to the fact that the movie is quite predictable. If I went into detail, I would spoil a lot of scenes and sequences that the reader would want to see for themselves. I would not wish to do this to any reader and as a result, I will simply tell you this: See this movie with a group of friends. Like Jurassic World, Mission Impossible is a flick that only seeks to entertain and the best way to do that is with a group of friends who want to be entertained. This movie is not bad though and for the most part, it is entertaining. Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation is not a bad flick to watch if you want to be entertained (but not enthralled) and it certainly is a way better alternative to Fantastic Four.
What makes it: Action sequences, actors, entertainment value
What breaks it: Predictability, weak villain
No comments:
Post a Comment