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

Swing Vote (2008)

Every four years, Americans take to the voting booths and elect a President. Some races have been landslide victories while others have been flat-out nail-biters. Candidates and pundits like to tell us that every vote matters and Swing Vote latches onto that election-time mantra. The result is an amusing, thought-provoking, and subtly cynical look at the American electoral process.

Bud Johnson (Kevin Costner) is a single father in New Mexico. He doesn’t strike you as the kind of man who has a lot of ambition. He lives in a trailer, he drinks too much, and he just got fired from his latest blue-collar job. When the Presidential election comes around, Bud’s daughter Molly (Madeline Carroll) tries to get her father excited about his civic duty to ‘help shape the country’s future’ by voting. Bud promises he’ll vote, seeing as it means so much to his little girl. Realizing that her father isn’t going to vote, Molly sneaks into their polling place and attempts to cast a vote for her father. Just as the vote is being registered, the polls close and the machines are unplugged.

The next morning, Bud and Molly wake up to find that the election is down to the wire- a virtual tie! In fact, the whole race comes down to New Mexico and the popular vote was tied as the polls closed. However, authorities learn that when the poll shut down the voting booths, Bud’s vote was in process but not recorded. This means that he needs to re-cast “his” vote, which will determine the outcome of the entire election. Over the next few weeks, Bud is hounded by the Republican and Democratic candidates, courted by campaign advisers, and scrutinized by the media. In the end though, he has to make a choice.

Let’s face it- the likelihood of this scenario playing out in real life is virtually nil. Sure, some elections have come down to a matter of a few thousand votes in the past but it’s a statistical improbability that a state's popular vote would be separated by just one vote. But Swing Vote is not trying to present this as a serious situation; it’s merely asking ‘what if?’ By keeping things light, the filmmakers are able to keep viewers interested and they are also able to get plenty of jabs in at politics and the media.

I loved watching the flip-flopping that the Democrat and Republican vying for Bud’s vote resort to in a shallow attempt to win him over. Republican incumbent Andrew Boone (Kelsey Grammer) and his Democratic challenger Donald Greenleaf (Dennis Hopper) end up switching their stances on ideological issues as the media reports Bud’s casual remarks about several hot-button political issues like abortion, immigration and the environment. It’s funny but it’s also sad because it shows just how shallow politics can be. I highly doubt party big-wigs will ever make such dramatic policy changes but it emphasizes the fact that professional politicians will say and do just about anything to get elected.

I must also take the time to give the filmmakers credit for playing their story out largely right up the middle. Let’s not forget- this is Hollywood we’re talking about here. This film could have easily been critical of just one side of the election. Fortunately, swipes are taken at both Republicans and Democrats. I approve of this equal-opportunity skewering because neither party is faultless or blameless. Ever.

I do feel like the film has a slight bias to the left though. Much of the media scrutiny that Bud is faced with revolves around his fitness to be the one to make such a crucial decision. He’s not the brightest crayon in the box and fits the lower-class bumpkin mold that seems to be a stereotype of Republicans and conservatives of the South and Southwest. The media pundits take aim at the fact that Bud has never shown any enthusiasm towards political decisions. I couldn’t tell if this cynical look at the main character was meant to reinforce how elitist and out of touch the media is or if this was a way for the writers to get their own opinions out in a veiled way.

Swing Vote is critical of everyone to a point. The politicians are obvious targets and the media are rightfully portrayed as vicious and opinionated. But it’s hard to tell where the filmmakers draw the line for calling us, the electorate, out. Because his decision matters the most, Bud is expected by everyone to research the issues and stances of the candidates. It’s only natural for everyone to want the crucial voter to be informed but this also makes a likely majority of the public to be hypocrites.

How many people actually research their choices before voting? How many simply read the propaganda sent in the mail or airing on TV commercials? I certainly hope people seeing this film will come away with it determined to take the civic duty more seriously. The filmmakers probably have this same goal in mind. Perhaps they are not looking at Bud the same way the media does. Lord knows that millions of “Bud Johnson’s” vote every year. Maybe the message here really is apolitical.

Still, Swing Vote leaves a semi-bitter taste in your mouth because it does paint a slightly negative picture of the general public. As a part of the general public, I take some offense. Sure, we’ve got a lot of work to do before everyone in the country can make accurately informed decisions but we’re not all as bad as Bud Johnson. The truth is, though, that every single one of us could be found 'objectionable' by our peers if put in the same situation.

You’ll laugh, you’ll squirm, and you’ll never believe this premise to be possible. In the end though, Swing Vote is worth watching, especially as our election cycles grow ever more contentious.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5