Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One - Cheap Thoughts

What does Ethan Hunt believe in? He’s been a secret agent for over 25 years, we know very little of his backstory or motivations or morals. What drives him to be who he is? I imagine these are all questions Tom Cruise has asked while making this picture. He dedicates so much of himself to the craft and over the past 20 years has built up his own team of talented and trustworthy people to help make the best films possible, he is the best and he works with the best to make the best. Yet there has been such a focus on the technical side of filmmaking that here in the winter years of this franchise Cruise & Co have begun to look inwards. They know how to construct the perfect spy movie featuring Ethan Hunt, but why does Hunt do it apart from simply because he is the protagonist of a spy movie?

Ethan has people he cares about but almost seems like he doesn’t want to, because in his field to love people is to eventually lose people. The first Mission: Impossible sees Hunt lose his entire team and for a while there he was on a rotating cast of squadmates. He tried to have a normal life in Mission: Impossible III and all that did was put an ordinary person in danger. It wasn’t until Rogue Nation that he realised though he closed himself off to others, they didn’t do the same. His teammates trust him and care for him and to block them off only puts them in more danger. Ethan caring for people drives him, it makes him work harder and makes him do insane things in the name of protecting others.

“I can promise you, that your life will always matter to me more than my own”.

Ethan doesn’t view the world as binary, as one way or another, save this person or that person. He always finds a way, he does the unexpected, when told to go left or right, he goes straight ahead. So what could his ultimate enemy be? An algorithm that predicts what you’re going to do based on what’s been done before, and a person who knows the only way to beat Ethan is to hurt those closest to him. He’s pushed into a corner and is left swinging wildly hoping for an escape, which is not uncommon of Hunt to go in with no plan, just hope, but when someone is able to predict even the unpredictable what do you do then?

Mission: Impossible II had a villain who was able to predict every move Ethan would make, no matter how absurd, and that always sat wrong with me. No man should be able to predict Ethan’s next move. But an all-knowing pseudo-god artificial intelligence? That could crack it. The biggest threat to the future of filmmaking is also the biggest threat in the text of the film. They’re left without relying on technology for cheats and shortcuts, they only have each other and their natural talent, yet Cruise/Hunt will never ask others to risk more for the job than he will himself.

-Danny

Nimona - Cheap Thoughts

It’s no wonder that Disney were so easy and willing to kill this picture off. A film so openly Queer in its characters and storytelling, while also presenting the story in unique animation? I suppose it’s far too radical a film for the Mouse^tm even when tempered with a simple narrative. After the purchase of Fox and thus Blue Sky Studios, the initial company producing the film, Nimona was one of the many projects cancelled in the merger, however they were fortunately enough saved by Annapurna Pictures & Netflix who would continue to produce the film and distribute it respectively.

Nimona is a sci-fi/fantasy blend set in a world with Medival Britain aesthetics combined with futuristic technology and modern behaviours. Ballister Boldheart (Riz Ahmed) and his plucky-yet unwanted-sidekick Nimona (Chloe Grace Moretz) are viewed as villains in the eyes of society despite being innocent people, one of whom framed for a crime they didn’t commit and the other simply presenting as a villain is enough to determine them so. Together the two will prove their innocence, expose the true evil of the society they live in and hopefully make the world and each other better along the way.

The titular Nimona is very much deserving of that title, being incredibly entertaining, extroverted, and exaggerated in all of the right ways. While most of the characters are humbler in their animations, her expressions & movements are very traditionally cartoony, taking full advantage of their medium in a way many 3D Animated films seem embarrassed to do so. Though where the subtly lies is with her thematic resonance. Her abilities to shape shift, to change her body in ways that make her more comfortable very much has a subtext of gender identity, very clearly described by her creator ND Stevenson a non-binary/bigender writer & artist saying this was an intentional decision on his part. While the more overt queer representation comes from the second protagonist Ballister who within his first scene is shown to be in a homosexual relationship that gets torn apart by the events of the film, and the two now see their relationship shunned by society.

Some would complain that Nimona does have a basic narrative, which is does, many of the beats can be seen coming from a mile away from even the youngest of audiences. Though truly that doesn’t lead to major issues until the climax of the film, which doesn’t feel all too impactful with how predictable the film has been up until then. Though a complex plot is clearly not what the film is going for. Their goals were to express interesting characters and their queer stories through unique animation and that is something they have achieved with ease.

-Danny

Transformers: Rise of the Beasts - Cheap Thoughts

We certainly live in an odd time for Blockbuster Movies, or some would say a straight up bad time for them. Many would say the problem lies within the production. Overblown budgets, tight deadlines, a thousand rewrites and IP mining nostalgia-bait. Others would say the problem is external factors such as the simple quantity of them ruins the magic as we used to only get several a year and now its one a week, and with the prices of cinema tickets they hardly seem worth going to as they’re less special yet treated more like a commodity. Naturally the problem is of course both.

There is an irony that a property like Transformers which is heaped in nostalgia-bait as a long running IP, as the newest film has some yearning for the live-action films of the past, which they themselves were lampooned as the lesser blockbusters of their time. On one hand Transformers: Rise of the Beasts is a much simpler, crisper and functional film, it has a basic narrative and working character arcs that would pass an introductory screenwriting class, and it is even aware of the praises and shortcomings of prior Transformers films and attempts to offer something new. Instead of Bumblebee being the leading Autobot we now have Mirage (Pete Davidson), instead of Optimus Prime (Peter Cullen) being a noble altruistic leader he is a desperate soldier who must overcome his flaws, instead of 2000’s Linkin Park we have 90s hip-hop…to each their own.

Are the comparisons justified or even fair? The short answer is yes; the film is very aware of what came before it, and is trying to avoid replicating it entirely, which comes with its own hills & valleys, by avoiding the bad, you also avoid the good. Michael Bay’s Transformers films, specifically the first one is a very polarising film, it has many flaws such as Bay’s reliance on stereotypes, pro-military propaganda and incoherent theming. Yet it is also visually dynamic, memorable characters (not necessarily good, but memorable) and has a very underrated score from Steve Jablonksy.

Rise of the Beasts in comparison feels hollow. It has better theming, but a story just as basic as before, yet the visuals, the action and the effects are all hollow and basic. The Transformers seemingly have no weight to them, you’d never believe these trucks with legs were walking around you, the fight scenes are shot from a distance with little impact and there is no gravitas to the events happening. For all its issues, 2007’s Transformers made it feel epic, like an event, and that the action meant something instead of just being the film equivalent of a seat filler.

In an attempt to avoid having any major lows the film has failed to try for any highs and is left a hollow and forgettable film. It is perfectly serviceable and is far from the worst Transformers film but it is unlikely anyone will feel something while watching it or even remember what happened the day after.

-Danny

Spider-Man: Across The Spider-Verse - Cheap Thoughts

It’s hard to imagine the pressure this team must have been under to produce this film. The original Spider-Man: Into The Spider-Verse is (with no exaggeration) one of the seminal works of animation the film industry has ever scene. It changed the game in a way we haven’t seen since the original Toy Story in 1995, its influence can be seen in the world of animation with the likes of The Mitchells vs The Machines, Puss In Boots: The Last Wish and the upcoming Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem; and in the world of superhero films with the MCU’s next saga being centred on the multiverse. Even the character of Miles Morales has been permanently shaped by this film, just look at Insomniac’s Spider-Man videogames and see the difference in Miles’ writing & presentation from the first game to his spin-off. So with such a legacy created, how much pressure must have been felt internally? To live up to creating a modern masterpiece and duplicate that while going bigger.

Spider-Man: Across The Spider-Verse has gone bigger in every regard. We spent the last movie observing fragments of other universes. Well now we travel to half a dozen of them. We had 6 Spider-Folk in the first film. Now we have 600. Production wise there were 240 animators in the prior instalment. Now the staff is over 1000. Bigger budget, bigger crew and it all shows on screen. Across The Spider-Verse offers a maximalist bricolage of styles clashing with each other in this multi-dimensional crossover. From 70s punk rock anarchy zines, to experimental reinterpretations of artist  Robbi Rodriguez’s water-colour designs, to cyberpunk neo-noir darkness contrasting with neon lighting. The visuals are bright and noisy and cover every frame of the film, trying to be as big as possible, everything wants to stand out and from that we get one of the most distinct animated films we’ve ever had.

Yet with in this clutter of style and indulgence of Spider-Man cameos the film never loses focus on its characters and their stories. The film is happy to tease us early on with the potential of Spider-References but this is a tale about people, mainly Miles Morales (Shameik Moore) and Spider-Woman (Hailee Steinfeld), two young Spider-Folk trapped in their home dimensions burdens with the great responsibility of being Spider-Folk and the greater isolation and tragedy you feel from the task at hand. These Spiders are lonely, and they’re young with very little of their journey decided, and so with the introduction of an elite Spider-Force with hundreds of Spider-Folk just like them they find relief in some problems while others just become so much worse.

There is a joy seeing the Spider-Folk effortlessly work together to save the day, to distribute the tasks easily with minimal planning to capture the bad guys, rescue innocent people and save the day. The status of being a Spider Variant means bearing the weight of the world on your shoulders, and now you have endless allies who empathise with you and help lighten the load. Yet with all these Spider-Folk with similar roles come dangerous patterns, a “Canon” to the events that can’t be broken, that they all must experience to truly become Spider-Folk. With Great Power comes Great Responsibility, and also Great Tragedy.

An incredible set up for a narrative that has the unfortunate placement of being the middle-child of a now conceived trilogy, though really it can be better described as a single film, then a sequel split across 2 films. While we don’t have to wait long to see where this story goes, this very much feels like half a film and it’s impossible to say how well the story is told when we don’t have the whole picture just yet, so we’ll just have to wait and see how this one plays out.

This is a path Miles refuses to take, a rebel, a creative, a freethinker but also a family man who loves his parents, his community and his friends. If Spider-Man must choose to save 10 people or 100 people, he’ll find a way to save 110 people. Patterns are not destiny, no one has their story told for them, and Miles will save the day whether it be with 100 Spider-Folk in his corner, or in his way.

-Danny

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 3 – Cheap Thoughts

It’s not going to be too controversial to say that Phase 4 of the Marvel Cinematic Universe has been a bit of a slump, the quality ranging from “Pretty Good” to “Genuinely Awful”. There was a time in the public consciousness when Marvel was shooting nothing but bullseyes, but in a Post-Endgame world where more of the film’s productions become automated, repetitive dull features, audiences are catching on. Leave it to the losers of the universe to steer the ship in the right direction.

James Gunn’s Guardians films have always been outliers in the universe, the broken misfits who find each other and help heal from their trauma of lost or abusive families. An important note to these characters is while they do get better as people, they are arguably never “good people”. Their trauma has damaged them and there is a limit to how much that can get fixed. Sometimes the awful things in your past do define you, but with help it doesn’t have to be the only part of you. Gunn himself comes from a production history of making grotesque, violent and cynical pictures, to now be helming stories of victims of abuse trying to better themselves and the world around them. Even his words and actions of his younger days nearly cost him this film when he was temporarily fired due to old tweets coming back to haunt him. Your past doesn’t have to define you. It’s a message Gunn clearly cares about.

There is no cleaning up the stains on these characters or this film, in order to explore a character’s history you have to show the darkest and most upsetting elements to get a proper picture. In some ways this might be the most upsetting MCU film, it is unafraid to rely on grotesque imagery, violent actions and disturbing visuals (at least, as much as you can get away with for a PG-13 rating) but this film isn’t holding back. You get the big picture, so at least when it returns to kindness, to the bond of this team, to their love for each other you truly appreciate it.

The usual traits of these films are here (Beyond the tragedy), the film still follows a group of rambunctious a-holes travelling from place to place in search of objects to save the day and defeat an egomaniacal monster of destruction with a god-complex whose greatest adversaries are this immature team of sloppy heroes who bicker amongst each other, trading gags and insults and blasting a banging playlist of Earth Music. Also, bright lights and pretty colours.

This review could just be a summary of all the ways the latest Guardian film is better than its MCU contemporaries. It’s so much better looking, has a more coherent plot and clear themes and character progression and balancing these elements so everything gets equal focus. At times Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 3 is a bleak film, filled with violence, heartbreak and loss; but it’s core is one of broken people who may not love themselves, but their love for each other is so strong they will traverse the universe and take on powerful beings of indescribable power to protect one another.

-Danny

The Super Mario Bros. Movie - Cheap Thoughts

It always seems to be the most undeserving of movies for audiences to become champion defenders for against the villainy of critics. These fans believing the delusions that between a combination of two-billion dollar corporations coming together to make a guaranteed blockbuster and individual journalists with opinions on movies, that the former is somehow the underdog. Also this idea that 58% on Rotten Tomatoes is somehow a bomb, and not a sign that the majority of critics enjoyed the movie to some degree. It reeks of insecurity and unfounded arguments such as critics being unable to enjoy movies that aim simply to entertain, as if recent movies Dungeons & Dragons: Honour Among Thieves which is also a family friendly adventure film that aims to entertain didn’t get good reviews, or rival family friendly videogame mascot Sonic the Hedgehog didn’t also get good reviews, or the majority of Pixar, Dreamworks, Ghibli, Sony and Warner Bros animated films don’t also get good reviews. There are people out there who enjoyed The Super Mario Bros Movie and are seemingly so insecure in that opinion that they need to shout at other people who’s job it is to have opinions on movies and scream “No! You’re wrong!”. This is a warning to state that if this is you, this is going to be another negative review of this movie, so you might want to leave now.

Truth be told it’s not even going to be that harshly negative, arguably more positive than the Sonic the Hedgehog movies which I was very critical of (Though we’ll see). The Super Mario Bros movie is the second attempt by the west to adapt the Mario franchise into a feature length movie, the first attempt in 1993 with a live action film that was truly panned by critics and audiences, it’s main criticism being that it is incredibly unfaithful to the source material, and so this film has gone to obscene lengths to be as faithful as possible, in visuals, in tone, in music and even in plot by being paper thin and lacking anything substantive.

Mario videogames can get away with this because they have always been about spectacle. They have fun gameplay, creative worlds and often multiplayer components to make them entertaining experiences. Being adapted into a movie, and thus having their main benefactor removed you would think that they would replace it with something, perhaps give Mario a personality, an arc, anything resembling a character beyond his iconic look? Nope. He is a mascot first, a mascot second, a mascot exclusively.

The film begins with Mario (Chris Pratt) & Luigi (Charlie Day) recently starting their own plumbing business in Brooklyn and everyone seems to be against them, both their former boss and their family members mock them in their attempts to follow their dreams, yet the two brothers ignore them. On their first job they are shown to be perfectly competent plumbers, and it is due to external forces that disaster happens. Shenanigans occur and they are eventually brought into the Mushroom Kingdom, quickly separated, they meet all the staples of the Mario cast and are dragged into the middle of a war as Bowser (Jack Black) wants to kidnap and marry Princess Peach (Anya Taylor-Joy), while all the two care for is reuniting and making their way home.

When people say their enjoyment for this film comes from what if offers them in terms of entertainment it’s easy to see why they view that, it is a bright and colourful films-truth be told it is easily the best looking film Illumination have ever produced-and it has heavy emphasis on comedy and loyalty above all else. It’s rare for people to root for the corporate overlords over any artistic merit but it is very clear Nintendo were breathing down Illumination’s necks to make this a faithful recreation down to the smallest of details and fill it with dozens of easter eggs for audiences to enjoy.

Yet it also relies on incredibly lazy needle-drops to make sure the audience is paying attention, songs that have no relevance to what's happened but they are broadly appealing enough the film hopes it can cheat by passing this off as quality entertainment. Where critics interrupt this is simply asking why not offer more? Don’t you want something other than cotton candy to eat? Don’t you want something of value to be gained from watching the film? As harsh as I was on Sonic the Hedgehog it at least put in the bare effort to try and tell a story, to give Sonic an arc. I ask you, what does Mario do? What does he learn? What does he want? Several times in the film people exclaim “you just don’t know when to quit” but at no point is he given a reason to quit. He’s a good plumber, he’s a good brother, there is no reason for him to change throughout the events of the film. Well okay, that can also work, have him be a flat character and change the world around him, yet he is an outsider in the world of the Mushroom Kingdom and has no direct impact on anyone and has no skills to offer. He wins because of power ups that anyone can wield. He fails as a plumber due to external forces and he succeeds in being a hero due to external forces.

A big marketing factor for this film was it’s star studded A-List cast, and I’m not going to be arguing against what other people are saying. The scene stealer was Jack Black, the runners up are Charlie Day and Keegan-Michael Key, everyone else was fine, even Chris Pratt. Yet them being just fine does further prove they could have just hired professional voice actors who would have been better and cheaper, but they still are willing to spend all that money for the sake of placing a name on a poster.

Part of me wants to be more lenient on the film and offer it the same benefit of the doubt I did Dungeons & Dragons, where that film took the easy route because their main goal was to prove a D&D movie could work, this film clearly had a similar mindset and just wanted to prove that a Mario movie could work. Yet there was still an attempt in the D&D movie to give their characters some emotion and arcs. Watching this film feels like the equivalent of eating a can of whipped cream, it is sugary and sweet yet lacks anything of nutrition or even solid substance to make it worth something.

-Danny

Dungeons & Dragons: Honour Among Thieves - Cheap Thoughts

What do you do for a Dungeons & Dragons movie? This is a legitimate question as while there is certainly lore and logic to the property that makes for good set dressing, it’s not exactly a product with reoccurring characters & stories, that’s for the players to make, Dungeons & Dragons simply offers you a setting to tell that story in. There have been adaptations of Dungeons & Dragons before, most infamously the 2000 film, most famously would be Critical Role’s The Legend of Vox Machina and most nostalgically would be the 80s cartoon also named Dungeons & Dragons. The appeal of the world of D&D is that you get to tell the story you want to tell in a traditional Tolkein-esque fantasy world with characters of your own creation, without that you are simply watching a standard fantasy film that those in references and easter eggs for hardcore fans of the game…So that’s what they went with.

Dungeons & Dragons: Honour Among Thieves is certainly a treat for D&D fans, getting to see certain elements be brought to the big screen and seeing these creatures and magic visualised, I’d be lying if I said I didn’t giggle a bit seeing a Green Flame Blade vs Magic Weapon sword fight, and I’m happy to see some Paladin Propaganda on display. Truly what they captured best from the game is simply the tone, which might sound odd because each game is personalised for your group of players, but most commonly agree the average campaign is a mixture of sincerity and hilarity. We all love to play pretend and do dramatic monologues with our friends but at the same time when your master thief of a Rogue rolls a Nat 1 on unlocking a door, the silly events that are about to play out are going be a comedic delight. While the irony stained comedic senses undercutting dramatic moments are certainly a plague on the majority of comedy/action blockbusters of today, it would honestly be out of character for a Dungeons & Dragons movie of all things to not embrace that tone. There is a character named Jarnathan and I can immediately picture how that would come about in a regular game with the DM failing to prepare a name for a random NPC.

For the non-D&D fans here there is still plenty to enjoy, a fantasy film filled with adventure, laughs and truly impressive practical effects littered everywhere, even with barely present background characters. There is an argument to be made that the film is rather basic, or as the kids say these days “mid”, which is difficult to argue against. The film has a very standard plot, the characters are the most basic interpretations of their respective classes and their cookie cutter arcs offer them little in the way of greater substance. Yet I don’t see this as massive a flaw as I would for other films, simply because when I picture the filmmakers sat down to write this film I don’t imagine they were aiming higher than “Make a good D&D movie” which as history has shown us, is not an easy task, so I don’t blame them for bunting the ball on occasion and going for the less risky options. In a sense I view this film very much how one plans their first D&D character, they often go for something basic and conventional just to get the hang of things, and once they’re comfortable it make something creative and experimental with the second campaign.

-Danny