Mission: Impossible- Ghost Protocol (2011)

Just when you thought this film series was dead yet again, Tom Cruise comes storming back with a new team of special ops experts to make saving the world look super cool. While there is no shortage of death-defying antics, Mission: Impossible- Ghost Protocol passes on labyrinthine plots for a straight-forward action-heist flick with a few surprises along the way. In what may be an unprecedented turn of events, this- the fourth M:I film- is the best entry to date.

After a botched attempt to intercept top-secret Russian nuclear weapon launch codes, IMF breaks Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) out of a Russian prison to steal files that identify a dangerous person of interest code-named ‘Cobalt.’ Ethan and his team (Simon Pegg and Paula Patton) are outted during the attempt and the Kremlin is bombed, forcing the US government to initiate Ghost Protocol- disavowing any knowledge of IMF agents or operations. Now hot on the trail of Cobalt, Hunt and his team must clear their names, stop Cobalt from launching nuclear weapons, and diffusing the tension the USA and Russia, who blame the US for the Kremlin attack.

This film hearkens back to the original Mission: Impossible film while simultaneously moving the series forward. Just like in the first film, Ethan Hunt is trying to clear his name while also stopping the bad guy. As an added bonus, he gets to save the world too. While some might complain about Ghost Protocol’s straightforward approach, it actually helps to make the film’s spectacle action sequences a little more believable.

The film as a whole is less intelligent than the first and third films but it is also far less confusing. The filmmakers craft a tale that doesn’t need a final-reel exposition dump to explain key twists. We are treated to a complete story develop before our eyes that makes sense and is easy to digest. Perhaps this is why Ghost Protocol became the most popular installment of the franchise.

One of my peeves with the other three M:I films is that they don’t feature dynamic support teams for Ethan Hunt. Through three films, only Ving Rhames appeared more than once, rendering the rest of Hunt’s crews to be throwaway co-stars. Thankfully, M:I-GP features great chemistry between Ethan’s team members. Simon Pegg returns to add just the right touch of quirky awkwardness, Paula Patton is a great femme fatale, and Jeremy Renner’s caught-up-in-it-all character makes a great sidekick capable of standing toe-to-toe with Hunt. For once, everyone involved seems as lethal, smart, and daring as an M:I team ought to be. It would be a mistake not to bring all of these characters back for M:I 5.

Like any action/spy flick, M:I-GP has its moments of outlandishness and even silliness. The bit near the end where Jeremy Renner’s character wears a magnetic suit to access a server room is pretty absurd, and there are probably a number of action sequences that fly in the face of physics. None of this bothers me too much because this film is end-to-end fun. A few minor quibbles aside, M:I-GP has the right balance of danger, excitement, and spectacle to make it an undisputed winner. To watch an action film that doesn’t insult your intelligence and is fun to watch? We’ve been longing for summer flicks like this for quite some time.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5

28 Weeks Later (2007)

Did it feel good to make this film? I only ask because it was borderline painful to watch. I love the predecessor to this idiotic sequel. In fact, 28 Days Later is one of the better horror films ever made. I need to get around to watching it again, because it probably deserves a higher rating. After its international success, they just had to make a follow-up, no matter how complete the original may have been. The end result is a treat for splatter fans and a turn-off for those of us who were captivated by the intelligence of the original.

First we see a clip of a man struggling to barricade his home from an onslaught of the infected masses terrorizing the countryside. (For those who didn’t see the original, animal rights activists break into a research facility and let loose apes infected with a rage inhibitor that is passable to humans.) The man is unable to save his wife but he gets away in a boat on the river running behind their property. As the title suggests, we fast-forward to 28 weeks later. The man, Don (Robert Carlyle), is acting as caretaker in a secure colony in the heart of London.

The colony, being run by American and NATO forces, is slowly bringing people back to Britain in an attempt to rebuild. Don’s children, who were in Spain during the outbreak, join Don in the colony but their curiosity gets the best of them. They sneak out into the countryside to find their old house and retrieve a picture of their mother. Instead, they find their mother alive but a symptomless carrier of the virus. She is brought back to the colony by security forces for observation. Don uses his security clearances to meet with his wife but he becomes fully infected after kissing her. Don goes on a rampage, causing a swift-moving outbreak within the colony, threatening everyone.

Maybe I’m just too sensible and realistic but there are too many gaffes in this film to enjoy it. Critics liked it for the most part but I can’t figure out why. Anyone can shoot enough holes into 28 Weeks Later to render it more fit to be Swiss cheese than cinema. Let’s begin with the easy stuff:

What’s the most common problem with horror movies in general? Bad decisions. This film is rife with them. For starters, what sensible child would even think about attempting to sneak out of a secure compound just to find a picture of their mother? Secondly, why would security forces bring an infected individual into the heart of their secure colony? Do you expect me to believe there are no outlying facilities they could use for observation? Third but probably not lastly, I don’t care how much you love someone; if they are infected with a nation-crushing virus, keep your hands to yourself unless told otherwise!

A problem unique to horror sequels is the ill-conceived notion that you have to up the ante. More often than not, this escalation leads to a higher death toll, more violence and more gore. This appeases hard-core splatter fans because their insatiable thirst for blood-spilling, limb-removing carnage knows no end. For those of us who aren’t trying to build up a tolerance for gratuitous gore, 28 Weeks Later offers plenty of opportunities to ponder what kind of story elements could have been included had we not been subjected to every other infected human vomiting up blood. Perhaps a plot hole could have been filled in or characters defined better. Instead, we get zombie spew. Gee, thanks.

Part of the problem is that the filmmakers lose sight of what made 28 Days Later so riveting. It’s not the blood and guts but the human drama. If people want to see gratuitous violence, let them watch the latest Saw movie or some other torture-porn dreck. Don’t dilute an intelligent film with a populist sequel. What’s shocking is that many of the people involved with the first film helped produce this one. Maybe their quest for ‘bigger and badder’ clouded their eyes to the fact that their story wasn’t up to snuff.

I like the idea of using children in the sequel but they are used in the wrong way. In the first installment, there was a teenage girl as one of the supporting characters. She was innocent and thought like a rational human being. She was also used amidst the human drama of the film quite well. This time around, the two children are even younger and there is little threat to them beyond the infected. There’s a subconscious wiring in our brains that all but forces us to care about kids this young when they are put in danger but 28 Weeks Later left me feeling more manipulated than concerned. The kids are thrown from one perilous situation to another (sometimes via their own poor decisions) but it feels very paint-by-numbers.

The other big switch this time around is the theme of the film. Where the original was all about survival after the collapse of civilization, the sequel covers what the first film skipped over. I’m not sure watching the breakdown of society and seeing men and women turn on each other is as palatable as post-apocalyptic wandering. There’s more intrigue in seeing the aftermath and trying to imagine how things got the way they are. Seeing the world blow up before your eyes with no room for interpretation isn’t as engrossing. If they were trying to emphasize the fragility of building a society, it didn’t work. All I see is chaos being thrown at me.

There are some interesting things going on in the film but they are too few to make up for all the failed logic. The mutation of the virus to be transmittable by saliva is interesting but it was never explained by any scientists and it’s never brought up by anyone after Don goes berserk. His status as an infected person is different too. Unlike the mindless behavior exhibited in the first film, Don seems to retain some intellect and even plans some of his attacks. This also isn’t explained scientifically, which leaves you wondering if it is a mutation in the virus or just something the filmmakers thought would be ‘cool and scary.’

Naturally, the film closes with an open ending, paving the way for another possible sequel. The ending is a clear sign that the surviving characters made further bad decisions or were just plain irresponsible. There is promise in a story involving asymptomatic carriers of the virus and rebuilding society but 28 Weeks Later does not deliver anything close to it.

RATING: 1.75 out of 5

The Hurt Locker** (2008)

For all the clamoring about James Cameron’s Avatar during 2009, there were always audible whispers about this gritty little war film. Critics loved it and lined up in droves to throw their annual society honors at it. Sure enough, The Hurt Locker became something akin to The Little Engine That Could. While war films are by no means strangers to Oscar glory, this eventual Best Picture winner took a long and winding path to playing David to Avatar’s Goliath.

For Sergeant First Class William James (Jeremy Renner), war is a drug. As frustrating as his duties may be, diffusing improvised explosive devices in post-invasion Iraq is what makes the man tick. James takes over as the team leader of a three-man Army Explosive Ordinance Disposal unit after the previous leader was killed in action. His new partners, Sergeant J.T. Sanborn and Specialist Owen Eldridge get more than they bargained for with James. He knows his stuff and is willing to take on risks that his crew views as reckless and a danger to all of their lives.

The rest of the film is a series of vignettes, each one showing a dangerous assignment or encounter that befalls the EOD squad. As Sanborn and Eldridge get closer to the end of their tour of duty they become increasingly frustrated with James’ wildcard antics and tempers flare. From diffusing a number of frighteningly complicated artillery bombs to being ambushed in the middle of nowhere, there is very little rest for this war-weary trio.

To call this film intense is an understatement. Director Kathryn Bigelow and her team of filmmakers pull out all the stops to present an in-your-face experience. The opening segment presents you with the grim reality of war- there are no guarantees that anyone gets out alive. We take this prologue into our journey with James and his new partners. Never are we given the option of taking comfort that all three will make it to the end of their tours. This leaves you with a constant unsettled feeling that is frustrating to no end but also a terrific achievement.

One critical ingredient to The Hurt Locker’s effectiveness is its lack of a Hollywood star on the EOD team. Jeremy Renner became a big deal after this film but he and his co-stars were relative unknowns in the industry, mostly nabbing supporting roles in modestly successful films. This gives the characters an everyman feel. They look, talk and act like regular people, making it easy for audiences to connect with and care for these men. They’re no angels, but how effective would a film about a squeaky-clean bomb squad really be?

The way the film is shot adds to the anxiety and emotion. Rarely does the camera cut away to a safe distance. Instead we are forced to take in all the fear, anger and confusion in an up close and personal way. Time rarely skips ahead in each vignette and when it does it’s never by much. This prolonged exposure to the realities of war is draining and just might leave you as breathless as the soldiers.

We get only the briefest of glimpses into the struggle for soldiers to reintegrate back into society. In this case, war and the skills learned during combat are drugs that cannot be given up. Some may view this as pro-war propaganda but it’s really just a case of ‘old habits die hard.’ Anyone engaging in a specific line of work for a long time will struggle to adjust to a new setting that is fundamentally different. If anything, this should raise awareness for supporting our troops when they return to the States to move on with their lives. While it is certainly frustrating to watch, I think the filmmakers are subtly making valid points for us to pick up on.

Despite laying a few ideas before us, The Hurt Locker does not take any kind of political stance on war. It’s not pro-war even though characters like James enjoy what they do. It is also not anti-war despite all the carnage and frustration we see. This is a rare thing, especially for a film centered on the Iraq war. Several films about the recent conflict have been released but many faltered in their one-sidedness. The Hurt Locker plays out like a polished documentary. The audience is like an embedded reporter, sticking beside the soldiers through all the trials and tribulations. There are no sides to take, no inferences to make; all we can do is digest what befalls us.

Filming on location in Jordan with hundreds of Iraqi refugees as background extras adds an enormous amount of realism to the film. There are no pre-fab sets or obvious special effects to create scenes of desolation and endless sand. The actors aren’t just acting as if they are struggling with their environment; they are living in it. That’s real sweat, real heat fatigue, and real dehydration on the screen. That kind of authenticity can’t be beat.

There are only a few pieces to the puzzle that didn’t fit right for me. There is one scene where James leads his EOD trio on an unauthorized reconnaissance mission during the night. This sort of bold action does not make sense to me. It emphasizes James’ rogue status but it doesn’t feel like anything a real soldier would do. There also aren’t any emotional revelations in dealing with ‘addiction’ to war. The soldiers play it close to the vest and just deal with getting through their assignments. We see growth and development on a team level but not on an individual level.

Perhaps this is what held me back from throwing The Hurt Locker into the upper echelon of my rating scale. It’s expertly filmed, perfectly cast, and the writing flows with spot-on realism. The heat of battle is largely an emotional vacuum (save for aggression and fear) but it would have been nice to see a little more internal struggle. I have not yet seen all of the 2009 nominees for Best Picture but I have little doubt that any of them can compete with the intensity of this very worthy winner.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5

(This film premiered at the Venice Film Festival in 2008 but did not get distribution in America until 2009, allowing it to compete for the 2009 Oscars)