I will preface this by saying that I enjoyed and own all previous three M:I movies on DVD, though I only saw MI2 (the one directed by John Woo) in the theatre.

If you are a fan of the M:I franchise, you will enjoy MIGP. Brad Bird proves he can totally handle live action, and lively action as well. There are some great action set-pieces, some wonderful fight scenes, and a couple of outstanding visuals. This is a movie that should be seen on the big screen. I will still be getting it and watching it on our widescreen at home, but this movie was undoubtedly built for the theatre.

The team assembled – which of course includes Tom Cruise as Ethan Hunt, but also includes Jeremy “mother-fuckin’ Hawkeye, bitches!” Renner, Simon “how many more awesome movies can I be in?” Pegg, and Paula “I have no idea who she is but she’s hot and kicks ass, so welcome!” Patton. As you may have already surmised from the trailers, the IMF has been shut down, the team are acting without support, and the Jeremy Renner character may, in fact, be the Avenger known as Hawkeye.

That last one is totally untrue, but the character isn’t exactly what he says he is, so there’s that tension as well.

Everyone delivers solid performances. As my wife and I agreed, Tom Cruise may be a total nutjob, but he can really deliver in the right role. We also recently saw him in Bryan Singer’s Valkyrie, in which he also totally delivered the goods.

There’s really nothing negative to say about the movie. I’m sure there are plot holes, but the action was moving along so nicely, I wasn’t tuned in to note them. There’s nothing ground-breaking in this movie. It’s not going to win Best Picture at the Academy Awards (but, then again, the average vote for prom queen is less fraught with social dynamics than the Oscars), but it is a really great actioner.

I’ll say it again, if you dig on M:I, Ghost Protocol will likely feed you what you crave. I give it 4.5 self-destructing messages out of 5.

Find more info on the movie at it’s IMDB Page or at Wikipedia.

Excuse me while I sit here with minimal excitement. After I get the details, maybe I’ll get excited. Right now, too much can go wrong and Hollywood has shat upon source material too often for me to get hopes up. Still, this movie is likely from Marvel, so perhaps there is reason for optimism?

Nah. I’ll keep my expectations low and be excited if they are exceeded.

I watched the Limey on the wonderful TV Ontario “Saturday Night at the Movies.” I own the DVD, but the presentation began with interviews of some of the principals, including Peter Fonda. It was interesting and informative.

My wife asked me, as we watched, if that’s what I would do if someone hurt one of our daughters. I would love to say yes. I would love to believe that, like Wilson, I would basically surrender my life to the quest for revenge. Of course, unlike Wilson, I would have another daughter and a wife to think about. I also don’t have his skill set. I’m pretty sure I couldn’t go into a warehouse with a 9 mil and execute ever last motherfuckin’ one of ‘em (yes, quote from another movie—doesn’t matter, is apt).

This movie is both artistically adept and tense. It also has some insanely good performances, especially from its lead, Terence Stamp. The man is phenomenal. I highly recommend this movie to anyone who likes movies. This means you.

You can find information on the Limey here.

You can find TVO’s Saturday Night at the Movies here.

You can find Terence “God Among Men” Stamp’s IMDB listing here.

I’m pretty optimistic about the Avengers movies. That’s mainly because my expectations are low. Those expectations are low not because I don’t like Joss Whedon—I do—nor because I think the film doesn’t have enough impressive actors in it—it certainly does—but because even Kenneth Brannagh didn’t totally crush Thor.

Listen, I like Joss Whedon, and I enjoyed Serenity, but it wasn’t a great movie. It was a good movie. A good movie is enough. It is not a bad movie nor a mediocre movie, but a good movie.

Thor was a good movie. I wouldn’t call it a great movie, though I enjoyed it. It was a good movie, it did its job. It—like the Avengers—had a pretty stellar cast. The character development, even for its main character, fell a little flat and the fight scenes didn’t have much energy. I’m not going to complain, though, because I got to see Thor on the big screen.

I expect the same from the Avengers. The photos that I’ve seen so far have been great. The trailer—I am certain—will be awesome. It will look spectacular. And, in the end, it will be good. I’m fairly certain of that. I don’t think, though, that it will great.

Ironclad

The positives of this movie include most of the actors, the fighting, the style of film, and the period.

James Purefoy, the hero of the movie, is consistently awesome in everything in which I have seen him. Having him as the brooding Templar with the dark past is of course going to win. The dude is built for that kind of role. I totally believed he could physically handle himself in the manner displayed on the screen. Kate Mara as the love interest was suitably attractive and delivered her lines with sincerity. Derek Jacobi is Derek Fucking Jacobi and Brian Cox is Brian Motherfucking Cox, so of course they were brilliant as the simpering and warlike barons respectively. I’m always happy to see Jason Flemyng, and he doesn’t disappoint. Paul Giamatti is another actor who dominates any scene he is in, and I think it was a masterstroke to have him portray a bitter and angry King John, spouting both saliva and divine right rhetoric. And it’s got Vladimir Kulich—that’s right, Buliwyf from the 13th Warrior—as the oddly named Danish mercenary captain Tiberius.

The fighting, while it used the god-awful shakey-cam technique that I absolutely fucking hate, pulled back often enough to get the feel for the tempo and flow of the battle. Seriously, though, how much does it cost to get a half-decent fight choreographer on set? Probably less than craft services, so please do it more often. If they can do it in South Korea, they should be able to do it in England and Hollywood.

The concept of the team of individuals with individual specialties protecting a focal point from the attack of an overwhelming force is a favourite of mine. I mean, the movie that I might consider one of my top picks for best movie ever is the Seven Samurai. My go-to Dungeons & Dragons movie is the 13th Warrior. Are you seeing a pattern? I love this particular style of movie, so I bought into this early.

And it’s a medieval actioner, set in the early 13th century, no less. Of course I’m in! Bring it on.

But then there is the extreme illogic, the occasional stupid character moment, and the ignorance of history that is set out as fundamental to the story.

Like I said, I love the Seven Samurai style of movie, which this is, but in the Seven Samurai and in the 13th Warrior—unquestionably a far lesser work, yet one of my particular favourites—the deaths of the defenders have impact because they make sense. They are logical. What fucking idiot allows the superior force to reach the top of the wall of the castle one is defending? Especially when they are on ladders and the heroes keep brandishing poles used for pushing ladders away from walls? When you are defending a tight, spiral staircase, why would you surrender that position and move to fight in the open? There were so many moments when the absolute stupidity of the castle defence made me cringe. Of course a small number of men can defend a castle from a large number, that’s what it’s built to do, but you actually need to use the defences if you are going to do that.

Just as a warning, we are getting into spoiler territory here, so if you are worried about that, turn back now. Everything you need to know is in this review’s first paragraph up there.

With that out of the way: the characters also act in ways dictated by what the writer (and/or director and/or producer) wanted to happen rather than by what might happen organically. And, yes, we are 21st century people watching a 13th century story, so we have expectations in regards to how people will react, but this can be done within the confines of the story. No 13th century woman is going to lack understanding of religious vows. No Templar is going to allow someone to get away with saying his vows lack love—Templars were supposed to be what they were based on a love of God and protection of the innocent. Having the woman rail against the vows and having the Templar sorely tempted and succumbing to that temptation doesn’t mean he has to hate the vows he took. It’s actually more tragic if he still believes in his vows and must seek to find amends for his weakness.

And finally, for a movie that purports to be about the sieges of Rochester, it doesn’t seem to know shit about the history of the period. King John wasn’t exacting revenge for Magna Carta, neither side had disarmed or demobilized even after its signing. The war in which the siege of Rochester occurred was actually the war Magna Carta was supposed to avoid. Also—and this is kind of a key point—Rochester fell to King John’s forces, as did all of England after it. And finally, there was no French prince, King John’s son became Henry III, and the Plantagenets ruled England until Henry Bolingbroke deposed Richard II to become Henry IV.

And to all this historical fuming, you might answer: it’s a movie. And I agree, but like Braveheart, if you want to ignore history, don’t make a historical movie. Even the Three Musketeers (at least the novels and Richard Lester’s movies) respect the history in which it is set. If you are going to ignore everything about the history of Rochester, why set the film at Rochester? Why tell the story of the siege of Rochester when you obviously don’t want to tell the story of the siege of Rochester? Why not create a fictional castle, perhaps in King Stephen’s time or during Richard III’s reign, in which to set your story? That’s what Pillars of the Earth did. It ain’t the historical and political aspects on which this movie focuses. It is about ass-kickery, and that can be done at any time in any culture. If you want to make some kind of obscure criticism of rulership or law or whatever, do it with subtlety or just don’t do it.

So there are a lot of negatives, but the actors and the exuberance of the movie make it fun to watch. This could work as a renter. If your gaming group is looking for a movie night, I can only recommend this if you have already watched the Seven Samurai, the Magnificent Seven, and the 13th Warrior. Also, if you are ready for a steep decline in cool and logic.

I give this one 2.5 hand-and-a-half swords out of five.

My other movie history rant, The Dreaded History and Braveheart Rant.

Long version? This is pretty much a paint-by-numbers movie. Nothing in it surprised me. This was a collection of tropes dropped into a movie.

But I can live with that. Here’s what worked: the actors, the action, the visual style.

Jang Dong-gun is a Korean actor from my favourite Korean movie ever: Nowhere to Hide. In it, he played kind of a pretty boy cop, yet still being gritty-rough. In Brotherhood, a Korean war movie about the Korean War, he played a kind of pretty boy soldier, yet still being gritty-rough. This was the first time I’ve seen him as just gritty-rough. He did the Chow Yun Fat in the Replacement Killers, in which an Asian actor famed on the other side of the Pacific says very little in his first Hollywood (or at least American) movie.

The rest of the cast, including the always entertaining Geoffrey Rush and the always attractive Kate Bosworth, gave solid performances, making the cookie cutter dialogue much more palatable. I have to say, that this is the first time I’ve actually considered Kate Bosworth exceptionally hot. I also felt she delivered an excellent performance, at least for a kind of a B-movie actioner.

The fight scenes were fun, and there was no BS shakey-cam, get so close into the action that the viewer can’t tell what the heck is going on. The action, like so much else, was not revelatory. It was not ground breaking. It was just good—and very entertaining.

Finally, the visual style, being that so much of this movie is very obviously green-screened, was very arresting. Rather than attempt to hide the nature of the backgrounds, the movie revels in it, providing scenes and settings that grab you by the eyeballs. I really enjoyed it. Frankly, I never forgot  that the setting was mostly green-screened, but I don’t know if I was meant to, because I actually loved the distance that put between me and the movie. It’s almost like the director, Lee Seung-moo, didn’t take the movie seriously, maybe knowing exactly the kind of movie he was making. It just seemed like a licence to enjoy the movie on its merits rather than worry too much about its failings.

Or maybe I just liked it because it looked cool.

In the end, if you aren’t expecting too much, I think there’s lots to enjoy here.

For more about the Warrior’s Way, go here.

Nowhere to Hide is my favourite Korean movie, but be prepared, it’s basically a bunch of cool scenes stitched together with minimal actual story.

Brotherhood was considered Korea’s Saving Private Ryan.

Starring as the young Judy Jets . . . er Robinson was an actress whose name I had heard but knew nothing about. Adrienne Palicki.

And then it turns out she’s going to be the new Wonder Woman for the David E. Kelley NBC series.

Weird how these intersections work.

I can’t say that she looks the part of Wonder Woman, at least not to me. Wonder Woman is the product of a warrior society, and perhaps the finest warrior from that society. She is also a diplomat and a kind of royalty. That’s a pretty tough job. I honestly don’t know who I would want for the role—maybe Gina Torres—but Ms. Palicki certainly isn’t it. Maybe they’ve got her on a massive training regime that is going to buff her up before filming. Who knows.

Also? Everything I’ve read about the Wonder Woman TV series leads me to believe it should suffer the same fate as that Lost in Space revival—disappear for six years only to surface on YouTube—to no acclaim.

If you want to read about the John Woo Lost in Space project, go here.

If you want to read about the new Wonder Woman, go here.

I will not Google image search for you.

I liked Con Air and all, but it seems to have been an anomaly. I found Lara Croft: Tomb Raider pretty pedestrian, actually boring in parts. It totally failed to hold my interest, and that was even with Angelina Jolie in a tight shirt. He’s going to need to really up his game if he’s going to interest me in Red Sonja, which basically has the same assets as Lara Croft . . . well, that and it’s based on a sword & sorcery property that is tangentially linked to Conan.

And the young lady to play Red Sonja? Well, the producer wants Amber Heard, of whom I had not . . . heard. Sorry about that. Google image search tells me she’s an attractive enough young lady, but I don’t really see her as Red Sonja. She’d have to hit the gym a lot to make me believe she’s a warrior-woman.

So yet another “meh” response to big Hollywood news. Get yer shit together, Hollywood.

You can find my review of Lara Croft: Tomb Raider here.

There can be only one.

Thankfully, we can ignore everything that came after, and I have a feeling I’ll be ignoring the next installment as well. This time, it’s not a sequel. Nope, this time they are going for a remake.

Written by the scribe who brought Twilight to the screen.

I shit you not. I wish I did, but I do not.

This is Hollywood, once again, thinking that everything is interchangeable. I mean, it’s young people that went to see Twilight, right? So if we get the same writer on Highlander, we’ll get more of the same. Simple.

Only not so much.

Okay, so Melissa Rosenberg has done much more than just Twilight, including co-producing Birds of Prey for TV and doing all sorts of stuff for Dexter. I haven’t seen any of those, but there’s lots of good buzz about Dexter, and I know enough to know it ain’t about sparkly vampires and such.

I have literally no hopes for this. It’s not that I don’t think Ms. Rosenberg can pull off a good script. I have absolutely no opinion about that one way or the other. It’s just that every single big screen attempt to make another Highlander has flopped. And, let’s face it, it’s not exactly a quality movie. It has its charms, and I thought it was awesome back in the day, but watching it now isn’t the same. It’s a great idea. It had its time. Let’s just leave it lie.

Seriously, Hollywood, have you got no fucking new ideas?

The article at Collider can be found here.