Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation (2015)

Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation (2015)

Director: Christopher McQuarrie

Cast: Tom Cruise, Rebecca Ferguson, Simon Pegg, Ving Rhames, Jeremy Renner, Alec Baldwin, Simon McBurney, Sean Harris

I’ve gone down as saying that writers turned directors don’t always make the best movies which is true a lot of times, but in the case of Christopher McQuarrie this isn’t so. McQuarrie started out writing The Usual Suspects (1995), then he took a stab at writing/directing with The Way of the Gun(2000) which I remember not loving so much the first time I saw it. I haven’t seen it in ages so I might feel differently about it now. His first experience working with Cruise was on Valkyrie (2008), which wasn't a successful movie, yet started their professional relationship which led to McQuarrie writing and directing Jack Reacher (2012), which also starred Tom Cruise. I remember it having an amazing car chase sequence that stood out. Making Jack Reacher with Cruise must have been a good experience because here he is again working with Cruise on his first big budget summer blockbuster; Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation (2015). This is the fifth installment in the still running strong franchise, which is growing in popularity with each picture. In my opinion, each film has been better than the last. So what’s so cool about this fifth installment?

This time around the IMF (the Impossible Mission Force) is being disbanded by the American government because apparently their results are too destructive. But of course, Ethan Hunt and his team aren’t that easy to disband, and so they go on one final mission to try and stop ‘The Syndicate’, a group of terrorists who are out to destroy the Impossible Mission Force, so they can go about their usual villainous plans. Can Ethan and crew clean their name and prove themselves useful to the U.S. government once again? Or will their names remain tarnished for all eternity?

I’ll be honest, I’ve never been a huge fan of the Mission Impossible movies, but from the fourth one on, for some reason I’ve started liking them more. I guess the stunts and the action have gotten way more interesting, even more impossible. And the fact that Tom Cruise is doing a lot of his own stunts makes everything way more fun. I mean, truthfully, screw all the crap that’s been said about Cruise, I’m all for applauding genuine talent, and Cruise has proven himself to be the quintessential action star, unafraid of going out there and really giving us a show. And by going out there, I mean, really literally going out there and doing stunts himself! The man is currently 53 and he still looks like a million bucks! I guess when you're a millionaire film star, when you're not making movies you're in the gym working out with your personal trainers, while a professional cook makes you the healthiest dinners imaginable. The dude looks brand new, healthier and more active than a lot of men at his age, so expect a Cruise that looks like he’s still 30.

The film is none stop action from beginning to end; it starts with an action set piece where Cruise is hanging from a plane…literally! Sure he used wires and harnesses, but still, it’s admirable that he was actually hanging from that plane in a day and age where everything is done with green screen! Tom Cruise, I salute thee! This movie is so gung ho for reality that there’s this underwater sequence in which Tom Cruise has to hold his breath for an extremely long time while switching a computer disk on an underwater computer. It’s an extremely complicated scene that I thought was completely CGI, but upon my investigations of how it was done, I was amazed to learn that it was truly shot underwater. This means they built the actual set, filled it with water and shot the sequence down there. Awesome. Any other filmmaker would have done that whole sequence in CGI, again, my hats down to McQuarrie and crew for choosing to shoot their film in front of their cameras as opposed to the inside of a computer. On this show Cruise even rides motorcycles at high speeds! There’s this moment in which he scratches his knee on the road while taking a curve and I was like whoa! That’s what I’m talking about! So yeah, it’s true, Tom Cruise is the big special effect of this franchise. Similar to how Jackie Chan was on his films, Cruise is an actor and a stunt man all in one.

It was good seeing the Mission Impossible Force together once again. Here we get Ving Rhames, Simon Pegg, Jeremy Renner and heeelloooo, Rebecca Ferguson! Holy Moly, this actress looks stunning on this movie! You might remember her as ‘Ergenia’, the bow and arrow specialist in Brett Rattner’s Hercules (2014). I mean, this lady is a show stopper. Not only does she look amazingly beautiful, the epitome of sensuality, she also kicks major ass on this movie! She has this fight sequence where she’s saving Tom Cruise’s life that is a wonder to behold, she has great physical ability that’s for sure! Then we have Simon Pegg with the comedy relief, he reminded me of the obligatory comic relief guy from 80’s action films, where the big action star always had a ‘funny’ guy tagging along saying one liners and jokes throughout the whole movie, only Simon Pegg is actually likable and funny. So all in all, I’d say that this Mission Impossible is a sure fire winner. Even better then Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol (2011), and that’s saying a lot because Ghost Protocol was tons of fun, however simple it was. The good thing about the action on this film is that the action sequences are intricate, extensive and aren't throw aways, they really go out of their way to do something that will entertain, that will sustain our attention for a long period of time. Don’t even think so hard about the story or if you’re getting it or not, remember everything will be explained in the climax, just go with the flow. By the time it’s all over you’ll be a satisfied moviegoer, that’s a guarantee!

Rating: 4 out of 5

Oblivion (2013)

Title: Oblivion (2013)

Director: Joseph Kosinski

Cast: Tom Cruise, Morgan Freeman, Olga Kurylenko, Andrea Riseborough

Review:

Joseph Kosinski proved himself to be a very stylish director with great command over the look and design of a film with TRON: Legacy (2010) a film that at first I wasn’t a big fan of, but has sense grown on me. There’s just no denying its visual splendor and the awesomeness of the designs involved in that picture. The look of the sets, the vehicles…the wardrobe, there’s no denying it all looks very slick, very avant garde. So of course, I was extremely curious for his sophomore project, the sci-fi film Oblivion, a film that first started out as a graphic novel written by Kosinski that never got printed. Still, he used that unprinted graphic novel as a sales pitch to studios. Disney didn't bite (they wanted the film to be PG) but Universal did. So as you  can see, we’re talking about an extremely talented individual here. This Kosinski guy isn’t just any run of the mill director, he not only writes graphic novels, and directs films, he’s also got a background in 3-D architectural design, which probably explains why the sets on his films look so freaking awesome and futuristic. It’s pretty obvious that Kosinski siphons all that knowledge into the look of his films. What worries some people is that his films might be stronger on the visual department then on the story or depth department, is this true?

Well, if TRON: Legacy and Oblivion are any indications, Kosinski’s films are solid on both counts, visual and thematic. TRON: Legacywas a film that criticized oppressive governments that want to turn everyone into a robot in their attempts at creating a “perfect society”. This is no light subject matter; in fact, films of this nature have a strong subversive tone to them. I included TRON: Legacy in an article I wrote about SubversiveCinema a while back. Actually TRON even went as far as commenting on how the system controls the media, the entertainment of the people in order to send out a certain message or point of view. Oblivion is the same type of subversive film, it hits on the system and the way things are set in our way of life. So if you ask me, Kosinski is setting a patter as a subversive filmmaker, which is something I love. You gotta have guts to stand up to the system and tell it like it is in this world. Too often people prefer to live life ignoring the realities of the world we live in and “not asking too many questions”. So this isn’t just an empty special effects heavy film that looks pretty. Nope, this is the kind of film that says hell yeah ask questions! In fact, ask as many as you have to and get to the truth. Look at the other side of the coin, not just the side “they” show you.   

First up we meet Jack and Victoria, a couple which typifies the American marriage. Victoria for all intents and purposes is the house wife who stays at home while the man, played by Tom Cruise, goes out to get the job done. Their purpose is to be “an effective team” in service to the system so they can retire and go on to live in paradise, enjoy the good life. This couple has all the comforts of modern technology, but no connection with nature or the planet they live in. In this way Kosinski comments on how technology has distanced us from the finer, simpler pleasures that our world offers us like sitting on a field of grass, basking in the sun, listening to good music, reading a good book. Jack is a character who longs for these things in a world that denies them to him. The system wants to keep him busy, producing, being “effective”, while truthfully, Jack longs for baseball games and a homey, warm cabin by the lake. He wants to live life next to his loved one. In this sense, Oblivion really connected with me and my personal view of life. I, like Jack, and many of you out there I’m sure, long for a life with less buildings, less cars, less machines and more contact with nature, more freedom to enjoy the wonders this world holds for us. But getting the “job done” and surviving in this world always gets in the way.

But there are lies in this world. This is one of those films in which the main character is not who he thinks he is, his entire life is a lie. There’s a bunch of these movies out there that have a main character whose whole life is a lie. I’m doing an article on these types of films so keep an eye out for that, but basically, the message is that you are being lied to by the system, and when I say the system, I mean the powers that be, the media, the government, the big companies that rule everything, big money, the man, you know what I’m talking about. It’s the idea that we’ve been taught one thing, when in reality, things are entirely another way. Take for example the idea of god, as the being who created us, religion as a whole. Is it all real, the idea of an old man floating up in heaven, sitting on a golden throne room with a bunch of angels flying around singing songs to him? The film also addresses this issue, and blasts it into Oblivion. This is a film that is tired of the lies, and wants to unmask them, it longs to unmask the powers that be and show them for what they are.

Take for example war, and the way the media will immediately make you think that people from a certain country are evil or your enemies. I’ve never agreed with this because there is a distinct difference that we as people need to realize, governments are not the same as the people they rule. Sometimes a government will do something which its people do not agree with, but we cannot vilify an entire ethnicity, an entire country for the madness that their government commits. Oblivion speaks of these themes saying if we look at things closer, if we search for the details, for the truth, we’ll realize that we are them, and they are us. Like that scene in Stanley Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket (1987) where two enemies at war with each other, end up in close hand to hand combat and end up looking at each other in the eyes and suddenly realize: what are we doing here? Why are we killing each other? Who has programmed us and put us here?  Most of the time, soldiers go to a war and they don’t even know why they are there, same as the character of Jack in Oblivion, who does his job, but doesn’t even know for what purpose. He’s just here to get the job done. Like a soldier who simply follows orders, without knowing why he's doing what he's doing.

As you can see, Oblivion is a pretty deep movie. Yet, its strength in design is not to be ignored. I mean, visually, conceptually, the film is a wonder. Hell, yes, this movie is cool looking! I personally enjoyed these robot drones that appear on the film, they look so robotic, and the sounds these robots emit make them come off as so evil, so cold and inhuman! I’m pretty sure this is exactly what they aimed to project with these drones and in my book they achieved it. True, Oblivion does have themes and situations that will remind you of other sci-fi films you have seen. Some moments reminded me of The Matrix (1999) and The Terminator (1984) others of Wall-E (2008) and Independence Day (1996). It even pays homage to 2001: A Space Odyssey (1969) in some points, but at the same time, Oblivion is a film that gives you lot’s of surprises, new ideas and twists keep popping up all the time, so while it does have similarities with older films, it keeps things interesting and flowing. This was a well made movie, it’s brainy, intelligent sci-fi, with great effects, great moments of action, and heavy themes. A grade A sci-fi film with a rebellious streak to it and lot’s to say, highly recommended.

Rating:  4 out of 5   

Jack Reacher (2012)

Title: Jack Reacher (2013)

Director: Christopher McQuarrie

Cast: Tom Cruise, Rosamund Pike, Werner Herzog, Robert Duvall, Richard Jenkins

Review:

Jack Reacher is Tom Cruise starting up yet another franchise, this time aiming to make a film that’s a bit more realistic in nature, less fantastic then say the Mission Impossible films, which are films that give us the action, but not the believability factor. The Mission Impossible films present us with situations that are way too incredible, way too out there and way too CGI even for a film that’s called Mission Impossible. I’m not saying I don’t enjoy that type of film, but I saw Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol (2011) and after seeing it couldn’t bring myself to write a review for it because it was empty calories, a film with nothing much to say. This is the reason why every once in a while it’s good to get one of these action films that aims for realism and plausibility. Jack Reacher aims to capture the level of credibility see in films like Skyfall (2012) or The Bourne Identity films; not a bad thing to go for when we consider how incredibly cartoonish action films have become in the recent years. I miss those films where the action used to happen right in front of the camera. I’m talking about films like William Friedkin’s The French Connection (1971), John Frankenheimer’s Ronin (1998) or Don Siegel’s Dirty Harry (1971), you know, films that went through the trouble of actually making things happen on camera as opposed to the inside of a computer. Jack Reacher hearkens back to those days of filmmaking, and I liked that about it.      

Jack Reacher is the ultimate bad ass ex-military, the kind of guy who lives off the grid, no one knows where he is, where he’s going or where he’s been. He’s a ghost. But he’s a do gooder and if you do something wrong, as the tag line for the film says “you’re gonna get it”. In this case, there’s a sniper terrifying the city. He’s killing people randomly off the streets, the government seems to think that he is doing this to inflict terror on society; others think he has a more sinister plan. Jack Reacher decides to use his military skills and detective skills in conjunction with the district attorneys daughter to get to the bottom of things.

This attempt at realism is something that is dominating films nowadays. Films and franchises that were once known for being ultra fantastic and unbelievable, cartoony even, are now changing their ways and directing themselves towards more realistic situations and premises. A good example of this are Nolan’s Batman films, when compared to Burton’s or Schumacher’s take on the character, those films seem like child’s play when compared to Nolan’s three films. Daniel Craig’s run on James Bond is another good example. Once Bond was a comic book character with lazers coming out of his watch, now he doesn’t rely so much on gadgets like these, now he’s all depressed and out of shape, now he’s got real issues to deal with, he’s not so indestructible. These are just some examples of films that have changed their ways because audiences nowadays have requested it.  In my opinion, we have the Bourne movies to thank for that shift. As soon as the Bourne films became huge hits, suddenly every other movie was copying their ultra realistic style, so in this sense, we can see the importance of the Bourne franchise, it was a trend setter, from these films onward, action films have never been the same. And in my opinion, it’s the series of films that Jack Reacher borrows a lot of its style and tone from, heck, even the posters are similar in style. 

But to be honest, Jack Reacher isn’t really an action film the way that the trailers might lead you to believe. There’s not much in the way of action perse, this is more of a detective/crime film, a thriller, a whodunnit.  There’s one awesome car chase sequence in the film, which I have to say was quite good, but other than that, this film is more about  Reacher snooping around, asking questions, punching some faces until he finds the answers he wants. The real strength in this film is the story, which plays with current themes of terrorism. Remember that case back in 2002? The one with the sniper that killed ten people in Washington? His name was John Allen Muhammad and he, along with his 17 year old partner kept a nation in terror for various days, I remember the people of Washington were so terrified that they didn’t even want to walk the streets. This crazy sniper was caught and sentenced to death; he was executed and his partner in crime was given life imprisonment. Jack Reacher plays with a similar premise of a sniper shooting people on the streets in an apparently random manner.  The Jack Reacher character comes from a series of books written by author Lee Childs, who has written 17 Jack Reacher novels so far. The particular one that the film is based on is called ‘One Shot’. Considering how the whole John Allen Muhammad sniper deal happened in 2002, and the novel was released in 2005, I think it’s safe to say that Lee Child’s was partially inspired by these real life events.  

Director Christopher McQuarrie has only one other directing credit to his name, The Way of the Gun (2000), a film that slipped through cinemas practically unseen. I remember renting it and watching it, but not being impressed by it much. Haven’t seen it in such a long while that I think it requires a re-watch, maybe my older, Film Connoisseur eyes will find some redeeming qualities in it. McQuarrie did a good job of directing Jack Reacher, my favorite scene is the car chase, there’s some good camera work there and I hear Tom Cruise did all actual stunt driving himself. One look at McQuarries resume and you can see that he’s more of a writer than a director. He has a couple of really good ones in there, starting with the Academy Award winning screenplay for The Usual Suspects (1995). He is currently working on Mission Impossible 5, which he is also trying to direct. I’m guessing that gig will depend a lot on Jack Reacher’s success, and if box office numbers are any indication, Jack Reacher is gonna make it. It’s not the greatest film in the world and it doesn't exactly succeed at being 'serious' because some of the dialog comes off as cheesy at times, in fact, there's this one scene where Cruise is talking over the phone to the bad guys and telling them how he is going to make them pay that felt like Cruise was trying to be Liam Neeson in Taken (2008). But the film does have a solid cast that makes the film more than it could have been. Hell, we even get famed German director Werner Herzog playing a gangster! We get the always awesome Robert Duvall as an ex-sniper that’s still has a kill or two in him. Final words? It’s a film that’s trying to bring things a bit more down to earth, it’s not trying to get too fantastical, this is a film with a firm grasp on reality and hey, that’s a breath of fresh air in this CGI infested world.  

Rating: 3 1/2 out of 5

Knight and Day (2010)

Title: Knight and Day (2010)

Director: James Mangold

Cast: Cameron Diaz, Tom Cruise, Peter Saarsgard, Paul Dano

Review:

Watching Knight and Day was the cinematic equivalent of going to a Rolling Stone’s concert where you see a bunch of aging rock stars that for all intents and purposes are still trying their best to rock. Though they still “got it” they’ve also lost that vitality, that craziness and unpredictability of their youth. In Knight and Day the stars that are still trying their best to rock in their old age are: Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz. Though Cruise is just about to hit 50 and Diaz is only 38, they look really beat for some reason. Maybe its because we remember them more for the roles they played in their youth. It’s funny how we as movie watchers freeze an actors image in our mind, and think that they will look like that forever. I mean, don’t you sometimes think that Tom Cruise will always be that young strapping dude you saw in Top Gun? Or that Cameron Diaz’s hotness will be the same as when she first appeared in The Mask all those years ago? It’s when you see these actors getting old on screen that you realize they are just as human as us. And they wont remain young forver. But these actors are not ready to give up their younger action packed years, they want to go down fighting the good cinematic fight, and so we get a film like Knight and Day, where Cruise is still playing the indestructible super agent, killing the bad guys and saving the girl.  How did it go?

In Knight and Day, Tom Cruise plays Roy Miller a rogue FBI agent who is out to protect a young genius who has just invented a power source that supposedly never wears down. The FBI wants to stop Roy and get the battery. Meanwhile, as he runs away from the government Roy stumbles upon June Havens (Cameron Diaz) your every day regular girl on her way to her sisters wedding. Unfortunately, she stumbles upon the whole pursuit and becomes an accomplice to Roy. Roy tells her he is doing good, trying to do the right thing, that if she sticks to him that she will have a better chance to stay alive. While the government tells her that Cruise is a nut, a government agent whose gone rogue, and that they need their help to stop him. Who will she believe? And will Roy manage to save the everlasting battery from falling in the wrong hands?

The way I saw this movie, I got the vibe that they were trying to duplicate the enormous success of films like Mr. and Mrs. Smith (2005), where they pared two huge actors of both genders in one bombastic big budget action adventure film. It’s one of those movies that wants to cover it all. Problem is that Cameron Diaz isnt exactly a huge box office draw; and Tom Cruise, well, some people prefer to make fun of him nowadays. Though I will say that Cruise has retaliated that situation very intelligently by making fun of himself in comedies like Tropic Thunder (2008), where he showed to the world that yeah, he’s got a funny bone too. He is taking this route of getting on audiences good side by playing funny/happy go lucky characters. This is the case with of Knight and Day, where he is this crazy unpredictable character who has the solution for everything he is always 50 steps ahead of you. He has been trained to do everything and anything, no one can trap him, he is always on the run, and he is that much more clever than the bad guys. Buty at the end of the day, his objectives noble.

"Please save me Mr. Secret Agent Man!"

My main problem with the film was that they played the female character in an extremely clichéd way. Knight and Day reminded me of films like Romancing the Stone (1985) and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984) where the guy is this loose cannon with the answers to everything, and the girl basically screams, shouts, cries and fucks everything up through out the whole film. She’s only there for the guy to rescue her. I would have thought that the portrayal of women in films would have been past that by now, but apparently not. Cameron Diaz’s June, is that walking cliché of a female character every step of the way. Roy does all the smart moves, she stumbles trips and generally “cant cope well with a situation” unless she is drugged. She does some good at the end of the film, but by then, she’s already walked through every step of the female cliché book. The supporting cast was made up of Paul Dano who plays Simon, the genius who is working on the everlasting battery thingy. If you ask me he was completely wasted on this movie, having very little to do, they could have given that role to a lesser actor. Same goes for Peter Sarsgaard. They guy is a solid actor, but here he plays a luke warm half assed villain. I mean that’s another rule this movie broke for me. It had a weak ass villain. A pity, because they had such a good actor to play him.

As for the action adventure side in the film, it’s non stop. There was a lot of CGI involved on this movie, but I did notice that Tom Cruise was doing a lot of his own stunts, I'll give him that! I mean, sure, he's harnessed up the wazoo, but at least the guy is doing it himself. Kudos to him for that. We go from a plane crash, to a car chase, to a motorcycle chase, to a boat chase, to a train, after a while, you feel like cashing in your frequent flyer mileage. We go from Austria to Spain, to Mexico to U.S.A. and back again. Its one of those movies where the characters fly all over the world in the span of an hour and a half. You feel like a ping pong ball half way through the movie. The action sequences are complex and entertaining just don’t expect any level of reality to them. People jump from moving cars while shooting their guns. There are spectacular car crashes in this extended freeway chase sequence. A plane crashes in a corn field, in fact every conceivable vehicle you can think of crashes. But a word of warning, none of it feels believable. This is the kind of film where you have to just give in to the action adventure fantasy. Take that disbelief and suspend it before hitting play.

"Theres this really cool new church called Church of Scientology, ever heard of it?"

The plot is paper thin, which is kind of weird because the film was written by 14 different people! I have a rule when watching movies, if the film is written by more then two writers, it’s bound to be crap. There are a few exceptions, but generally, for some reason, it’s always been true. The more writers the film has, the shittier the film is gonna be. Usually this type of deal applies to big budget movies, where studios can’t freaking make up their minds as to what kind of movie they want to make. I have to admit, the films story is a mess. The good guys are the bad guys and suddenly everything changes and they are the good guys again and everything is alright? The ending made no point to me, really, the story was a big old mess, sweeping everything up to make everything alright at the end, sacrificing logic along the way. That’s they kind of movie this is, a big budget blunder. At one point the film was going to star Chris Tucker next to Eva Mendez! Even Gerard Butler was slated to star on this one! Actually, I’m kind of curious myself as to how that version of the movie would have turned out! Butler was born to play big action; sadly, he opted to make The Bounty Hunter (2010) with Jennifer Aniston. So what we got here ladies and gents, is an attempt to make a big budget action adventure comedy, that didn’t exactly work out at the box office. Toy Story 3 made sure of that! But honestly? I had some fun with it. It’s that kind of a movie that isn’t brainy or intelligent, but it is light, entertaining and fun.

Rating: 3 out 5

 

Tom Cruise and director James Mangold

Born in the Fourth of July (1989)

Title: Born on the Fourth of July (1989)

Director: Oliver Stone

Writers: Oliver Stone, Ron Kovic

Cast: Tom Cruise, Willem Defoe

Review:

The other day I was walking around town, just hanging out on a beautiful sunny day and I came upon this group of American tourists. For those of you who don’t know, I live in Puerto Rico, an island of the Caribbean. We are territory of the U.S., but we have our own government, it’s what is commonly referred to in our island as a commonwealth. We can’t vote for the president of the U.S., but we can go to war for the U.S. The United States has military bases stationed all over the island because our position on the map is strategic, for military purposes. So the other day I’m walking around town and I see this group of about four Americans, looking like they’d been partying for days on end. You know, they had that partied out look. Actually, to be honest, they looked like a group of either drunks or junkies, I couldn’t decide which. Maybe both. So there I am, smoking a cigarette with a friend of mine and I walk up to one of them and I ask “where you guys from?” the guy says: “Texas” and I go “You guys came to Puerto Rico to party huh?” And he went on to tell me how he was a soldier who’d been stationed in Irak and how war had fucked him up beyond repair. His words were “it changes you”.

Now, I’ve personally never been to war and I don’t think I ever will be. Don’t know about you guys, but it’s not in me to kill somebody else; especially not for political reasons. My only references to war come from movies. The guy tells me that he wants to go back to war, because he can’t function properly in regular society anymore. Immediately, The Hurt Locker (2008) , First Blood (1982) and Platoon (1986) popped to mind and I asked him if he’d seen them. He said he didn’t know what I was talking about. I felt like an idiot because this guy has probably been through hell, seen lots of death and destruction first hand, and there I was talking about movies. I never saw those guys again; don’t know if they were court marshaled or if they ever got back on their boat or if they ever went back to war or what. But his words after that conversation stayed with me. “It changes a man” and at certain point in the conversation the words “I don’t like to talk about it” turned up as well. Now, when a person says that, you know they have been deeply wounded. Which brings me to my review for today: Oliver Stone’s Born on the Fourth of July.

Born on the Fourth of July is the story of an American boy named Ron. Ron likes playing war with his friends from school, he loves going to the 4th of July parade, and he loves America! His family is the kind of family who goes to Church on Sundays and believes in the American Dream. They love their country, love God, so when Ron decides that after high school he is going to enlist, mom gives the O.K.! In fact, she fully supports her sons’ desires to go to the Army and fight against ‘The Reds’. She simply tells her son “Ronnie, you’re doing the right thing! Communism has to be stopped! It’s God’s will that you go and I’m proud of you!” This was during the time when Americans hated the Russians and saw them as public enemy #1, the evil communist plague that was going to take over the world. Everyone thought the Russians where going to bomb us with their nukes. Ron wants to do what he thinks is right so he goes to fight for his country. Unfortunately for him, he ends up going to Vietnam. Will he survive the war and its psychological aftermath? Will he be the same when he returns?

Innocense before it is lost

Oliver Stone’s films often times fall under the category of ‘subversive’ or anti-government, and Born on the Fourth of July is one of those. The word subversive can be seen as a negative by many, specially those who love their government, but the fact of the matter is that sometimes, you have to call things for what they are, and lets face it, the U.S. Government hasn’t always been squeaky clean. In fact, they have played quite dirty over the course of American history. Oliver Stone simply points his finger at these moments in which the government has failed its people. In his own words, and this is a point that is hammered across in Born on the 4th of July quite often, Oliver Stone does not hate America, he simply does not agree with the way that the government behaves itself sometimes. On this film, he focuses on the way the system will raise you up in believing that God wants you to go and fight for your country, that this is the right thing to do. And then after you risk and sacrifice your life and your psychological well being, they spit you out, and treat you like crap. They give you a shinny medal to hang on your wall. Which serves you for absolutely nothing; except to remind you of the hell you went through.

One last moment of love before going to war

Ron Kovic, this films main character is played by Tom Cruise. I’ll just jump right here and say that this is without a doubt in my mind Tom Cruises’s finest day as an actor. He was trying to present himself as a serious actor, not just a commercial one. He’d done only two dramatic roles before this one. The Color of Money () for Martin Scorcese and Rain Man (1988) acting side by side with Dustin Hoffman. So he was on the up and up, trying to be taken seriously in Hollywood instead of being just another pretty face. I have to say he achieved his goal to perfection. This is a solid performance from Cruise; he goes deep in the insanity, in the grime, into the suffering. There are some really heartfelt moments on this film. One moment has Ron Kovic in a hospital, trying to recuperate from a nearly fatal injury, yet he is treated with neglect by the hospital. In one particularly desperate moment Kovic emphatically requests: “All I’m saying is that I want to be treated like a human being! I fought for my country! I am a Vietnam veteran! I fought for my country!” Unfortunately, once you have served your purpose, your country doesn’t care much about you. They may give you some money, but they can’t give you your lost limbs back can they? They can’t give you your sanity back either. Or a decent nights sleep, without the night terrors.

Oliver Stone

Like many war movies, this one focuses on how a veteran will have a hard time adjusting to regular every day life after going through war. Little things don’t seem to matter much, and the noises of war will forever echo inside your head. Ron tries living with his family, but somehow, the war and Vietnam always pops up, suddenly, Kovic is a very bitter person. He gets to the point where he can no longer live in peace with his own family. Mother and Son now hate each other! We get to see a family destroyed and betrayed by their own beliefs. The differences are so big now between Ron and his family that he simply has to leave, so he ends up going to Mexico to live in this resort where a bunch of Vietnam veterans go to pass their last days. There he meets Willem Defoe, who plays a character that mirrors Ron in a way. Ron sees similarities between himself and this guy. But he thinks ‘I don’t want to become this guy’. By the way, we get yet another memorable performance from the always great Defoe. I mean, I don’t think I’ve seen a film of his where I have been disappointed.

Escaping to Mexico to try and forget the madness of war

Born on the Fourth of July takes place during the late 60’s and early 70’s when the American people were more then fed up with the Vietnam war, there were lots of revolts on the streets, public out cries against the war. One pivotal scene takes place in a University Campus in which the police starts hitting the protesters. My question is this: what ever happened to freedom of speech during those days? Did it disappear? This part of the film got me sad, because this is currently happening where I live. There’s a population in revolt against the current government, and when people complain here, the government answers with pepper spray, and an army of police men ready to rip you a new asshole. Literally! I have seen it personally, people exercise their right to freedom of speech, and all they get is hit on the face by a club. Oppression is a sad thing, especially when it happens in a country where there is supposed to be none. Worse part is that during the 60’s people were speaking up for peace! For and end to war, and what they get in return is more violence.

Students vs. Police Men. Cops with Guns, Students with Flowers. This picture was taking a couple of months ago, during a protest in the University of Puerto Rico

Technically speaking this is one of Oliver Stone’s most beautiful looking films. The first 20 minutes of the film, where we see the Ron’s picket fence all American neighborhood is a beautiful way to open the movie. Stone really captured this sort of suburban way of living, with the suburban neighborhoods, the friends you grow up with, the backwoods where you played your games as a kid. Your first girlfriends, you high school dance, all these moments that capture your typical American up bringing, and its all done in such a colorful, bright and shinny fashion. As if to clash with the horror that is to come in the second half of the film, after Ron returns from Vietnam. The beauty of ‘normal’ life vs. the horrors of a war torn life. The second half of the film is darker in tone, fiercer somehow, it captures that aura of desperation, of rebellion and of chaos that permeated the America of the late 60’s and 70’s. The time of Nixon’s reign of terror as I like to call it.

Real life Kovic vs. Tom Cruises portrayal of him

So ladies and gentlemen don’t know how many of you have seen this film, but it’s an amazing movie. It’s the true definition of an ‘emotional rollercoaster ride’. It is epic in scope, and it speaks of realities that none of us should ever ignore. There is something I like about Oliver Stone’s films, many of them are based on real life stories, so the result is a film that rings very true, very genuine and this was definitely the case with Born on the Fourth of July, its based on the real life experiences of Ron Kovic, the all American boy who wanted to be a war hero. He wanted to be the best damn soldier to ever serve his country, and then reality kicked in. By the way, Kovic himself wrote the script along with Oliver Stone, so I guess that makes the film that much more accurate. Another cool thing about this movie: it has tons of cameos! If you look closely you’ll see a lot of familiar faces peppered out through out the whole film, you gotta keep your eyes open though. I recently acquired an Oliver Stone Boxed Set, so Ill continue my reviews for Stone’s films for the next couple of days, be on the look out for that!

Rating: 5 out of 5

Eyes Wide Shut (1999)

Title: Eyes Wide Shut (1999)

Director: Stanley Kubrick

Starring: Nicole Kidman, Tom Cruise

Review:

Stanley Kubrick’s Eyes Wide Shut is a film that explores what happens when a relationship becomes stale. This is something that can happen when two people have been living together for so long, that the spark that was once there when the couple first met is gone. There is none of that thrill and excitement that the couple might have felt in the early stages of their relationship. So they start considering infidelity, they start looking outside of their established relationship for that thrill. The question that the film asks is: are you sure you want to do that?

On this film we meet a couple who has reached success in their lives. They each excel on their respective fields, they have a daughter, and they have an enviable apartment. This wealthy couple has wealthy friends who invite them to expensive parties where the rich and powerful mingle. But, even though this couple has everything they could hope for in terms of material things, their relationship is in shambles. The routine and hassle of their daily lives has destroyed a once fruitful relationship. So much so, that they both toy with the idea of betraying their matrimonial vows. They even have an extensive conversation about it while smoking a joint. Nicole Kidman’s character goes into this whole monologue about how she was mentally unfaithful to him years ago, how she desired this other man. One day Tom Cruise’s character meets up with an old college buddy of his who ends up giving him the address to a secret gathering. He doesn’t give him details as to what goes on in these gatherings, but Cruise is intrigued. What does this exclusive group of people get together to do? And should he even be considering going there?

On this film Kubrick was exploring various themes. One of them is how the rich and powerful can numb themselves with every possible sensation and experience money can buy. And then they get bored. They have it all, they’ve seen it all, so now they feel compelled to look for new thrilling experiences to entertain themselves with. This is a theme I saw played out in an old Hammer film called Taste the Blood of Dracula (1970), a film in which four rich dudes are so bored with everything that they accept the invitation to participate in a black mass to resurrect Dracula himself. Of course, they end up regretting they ever accepted the invitation and end up paying dearly for their lust for excitement. On Eyes Wide Shut, the rich protagonist is looking for new ways to entertain himself as well. He is bored with his married life, so he is looking for outside entertainment; something new to liven up his sexual life. But instead of participating in Black Mass like the aforementioned Hammer film, Cruise decides to join a group of rich people who like to participate in all sorts of sexual escapades. By sexual escapades I mean of course orgies.

The group behaves in many ways like a religious cult. Their religion being sex. They gather in a secret temple, they perform ritualistic dances and ceremonies before indulging in their sexual acts. They wear ceremonial garments which include these awesome looking masks. By the way, whoever was responsible for making the beautiful masks in this movie deserve some sort of mask making award. But I don’t think Kubrick was necessarily trying to comment on the nature of cults and religion. He was talking more about sexual behavior. The question the film asks is, are you sure you want to venture out into the world in search of a more intense sexual experience? On the one hand, Cruise tries to have sex with a prostitute, in search of this new excitement, but the film shows us that that kind of search can lead to all sorts of dangers, of the venereal kind. So in this way Kubrick is saying: you go out looking for sex in the streets you might catch something you don’t want to catch! It is a dangerous game to play, with way too many risks.

The other comment Kubrick makes is on how much aberrant sexual behavior there is in the world. There is one moment in the film in which Cruise is walking down the street, he walks past a bunch of porn shops, a porn theater, and he walks by a group of teenagers which hurl sexual insults at him. This scene encapsulates how sexually charged the world is, in a way expressing what Freud said about humans being entirely sexual creatures. Sexual desires can lead one down dark paths, if you don’t think so then you should watch the first ten minutes of a film called Irreversible (2002), where a character walks into a night club for people who enjoy the truly twisted and downright sick part of sex. There are a couple of characters in Eyes Wide Shut that represent this type of behavior; Kubrick is obviously warning us with this film about the dangers of choosing to go down these perverted paths.

Visually and technically speaking, Eyes Wide Shut is flawless, as is the norm with a Kubrick film. But I noticed one thing was different with this movie: the colors. Kubrick is known for the use of whites and blacks in his films; white being the color that dominates most of his works. But on Eyes Wide Shut things were a little different. Warm colors dominate the films palette. I thought this was very adequate because of the films sexual themes. Another interesting aspect of this film is how it contrasts these warm colors (mostly different shades of yellow) with blue, a color that can be considered cold. Was Kubrick contrasting the warmth of sex with the coldness in the main couple’s relationship? I thought so.

I’m going to wrap this review up now, sorry if I stretched things out too long, but when a film is this good, reviews just flow out of me and I can’t seem to stop typing! Eyes Wide Shut was made in 1999, yet the film felt timeless. In contrast with other Kubrick films which obviously reflect the times they were made in, when I re-watched Eyes Wide Shut the film felt like it could have been made yesterday. Another interesting aspect of Eyes Wide Shut is that it was made while Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman were still married, which of course makes the intimacy between the characters that much more legitimate and genuine. But I’ll warn you, if you are expecting an explicit or graphic sex scene between Kidman and Cruise’s characters, you will be disappointed. This never really comes to be. Strange how a couple of years after this film -a film which tries to reinforce the importance of strengthening the marital bond- Cruise and Kidman split up. Maybe the themes they explored while making this film touched them in a deeper way than they expected? That being said, I think a great job was done by all. Kidman and Cruise gave stand out performances, and Kubrick delivered his last great film.

Rating: 5 out of 5