ScreenFish

where faith and film are intertwined

You are here: Home / Editorial

Editorial

Mission Impossible – Fallout: The World Needs Ethan Hunt

by Leave a Comment

The sixth installment of the Mission Impossible films, and the second directed and written by Christopher McQuarrie (Rogue Nation), arrived this weekend with a fat 98% Rotten Tomatoes ratings, the Justice League-impacting Henry Cavill mustache, and the promise of more death-defying stunts by the ageless Tom Cruise. But haven’t we seen it all, already?

Blame Lorne Balfe’s score, the Michelle Monaghan dreams, or the return of Solomon Lane, but this is not the same old thing you’ve seen before. This is the best M:I film to-date.

IMF agent Ethan Hunt (Cruise) teams with Benji (Simon Pegg) and Luther (Ving Rhames) to go after plutonium and The Apostles – the remaining members of the The Syndicate after Hunt arrested Solomon Lane (Sean Harris) previously. [One of the best parts of the film is that it seems to give the sidekicks more meaningful things to do than before – a throwback to the old show.] Complicating matters are Ilsa Faust (Rebecca Ferguson) who might be the love that Hunt has been missing since he separated from his wife (Monaghan) to keep her safe, several movies ago. But things are complicated when the broker, White Widow (Jessica Kirby), demands that Hunt re-acquire Lane from the French government in exchange for missing plutonium.

The storyline is complex, thanks to the meddling of various governmental agencies (led by Alex Baldwin and Angela Bassett), and the presence of CIA watchdog/assassin August Walker (Cavill, who literally towers over Hunt). But the action is kept moving by the best motorcycle pursuit since The Great Escape and the best use of helicopters since Airwolf. [Seriously, I am not inclined to ‘best’ anything, but the film was that entertaining.] I could also point out that it’s as if McQuarrie watched Cliffhanger, Die Hard, the complete Sean Connery 007 collection, and Terminal Velocity while he was daydreaming about what to do to Ethan Hunt next, and stole the best looks of each to Frankenstein the highlight of the 2018 summer season.

And then there’s this: haunted by what he’s lost and what he could lose, Hunt’s emotional reverie about his (ex-) wife counts the cost of a one-man war against terrorism. But throughout the film, people keep seeing more or less the same thing: we all need Ethan Hunt because Hunt cares about the individual, the little person (no pun intended, Tom), the greater good never outweighing the life of the few. Sure, there’s one almost touching interaction with a French Genderarmie, but it’s more than that: Hunt’s morality never replaces his love of neighbor.

Having wrestled with this for the majority of the day, I have to say it: Mission Impossible – Fallout is more wildly entertaining than the sixth film in a chronological series should be and it dares to remind us that we can’t lose sight of the person next to us while in pursuit of the goal. We must remain empathetic, and compassionate, gentle and tender, even while fighting the world’s battles.

Ultimately, Fallout implores us all, to be more like Ethan Hunt.

Special features include commentary tracks by Cruise and director Christopher McQuarrie, McQuarrie and editor Eddie Hamilton, and composer Lorne Balfe. Audiences can also watch the film with score-only, enjoy the making of documentary, and unpack deleted scenes. 

#ROXY: A modern take on an old nose… I mean classic.

by Leave a Comment

A modern take on Cyrano de Bergerac, #Roxy is a movie about Cyrus Nollen (Jake Short), a boy with a big nose who is very tech savvy and feels he can’t be loved because of his physical appearance. He is in love with his best friend, Roxy (Sarah Fisher), one of the more popular girls in school. However, Roxy likes the new boy in school, Christian (Booboo Stewart), the school’s stereotypical ‘dumb jock’ who likes her as well. After finding out that Christian has feelings for Roxy, Cyrus helps his new friend by using his technological skills to pose as Christian to Roxy. Their plan goes well up until Roxy and Christian meet face to face, where Roxy eventually realizes she has to decide if their relationship will survive.

#Roxy is a fairly enjoyable film that speaks about some modern topics, such as self-image and bullying. Throughout the film, Cyrus wants to confess his feelings for Roxy but is too afraid because of the size of his nose. Self-conscious about the way he looks, Cyrus feels like his nose is what is blocking him from finding love. His cousin, Bronwyn, keeps trying to tell him that “girls don’t care” about his nose, but he continues to put up a wall of doubt. In doing so, the film reminds us that, if someone you like judges you based on your physical appearance then it wasn’t meant to be. Your true partner will love you for who you are on the inside.

Another important topic within the film is its exploration of bullying. Although almost everyone in the school is too afraid to speak about Cyrus’ nose, the football team uses his nose to bully and make fun of him, not caring what he will do in return. At one point in the film, Cyrus is mocked in the library because of his appearance. However, instead of cowering, he uses different book genres to make even more j0kes about his own nose. Here, Cyrus turns the table on his attackers and takes the power back for himself. Moments like this serve as a reminder that, the more one can accept their flaws, the less chance others have to bully you.

At the beginning, #Roxy is an entertaining film and draws you in fairly quickly. Although the story and dialogue do become more confusing as it goes on, there are some positive lessons to be learned, especially for today’s teens.

The Sentence: How Do We Discuss Justice?

by Leave a Comment

“This call is from a federal prison.”

In 2001, Cindy Shank was dating a man who began dealing drugs, who was later murdered. Six years later, she was married to a man with whom she’d have three young girls and working as a responsible part of the community when federal prosecutors rang the doorbell at 6:30 in the morning. Shank was arrested, charged and sentenced for conspiracy to her former boyfriend’s crimes, a mandatory minimum sentence of fifteen years.

Rudy Valdez, the cinematographer and documentarian behind The Sentence, wants to use HBO’s feature film to help raise awareness about overcompensatory sentencing, in Shank’s case, “the girlfriend problem.” Those moved by the documentary, which shows the way that Shank’s three young girls and her marriage suffered.

“This call is from a federal prison.”

Like Boyhood, Valdez’s film allows the viewer to see the development of the children and their father, Adam, through the years. The brother-turned-filmmaker refuses to flinch when his own father cries or the girls ask questions that will break your heart. He documents his sister’s divorce from her husband while she’s behind bars, and the way that her daughters anticipate what it will be like when their mom return home. It is heartbreak on heartbreak that can’t help but move the audience.

Is Shank guilty? Maybe. How did her boyfriend die and why? We’re not told. But neither question seems relevant to the narrative that Valdez shares, while the fact remains that six years after a crime someone else committed, Shank was charged and sentenced to fifteen years for non-violent crimes… that she may or may not have had anything to do with. There are no easy answers here, only questions about what justice looks like, about what we do in the evaluation of crime and punishment, and how we might change our perspective to make sure that children don’t grow up without mothers or fathers.

Ocean’s 8: A New Beginning?

by Leave a Comment

Ocean’s 8 steals a play from the Star Wars playbook, setting up a Sandra Bullock-driven standalone story in the world of Danny Ocean (George Clooney) of Ocean’s Eleven, Twelve, and Thirteen. As Debbie Ocean, Bullock’s character sets out to rob the Met Gala in New York City, with a band of enterprising female criminals (and criminals-to-be).

While Danny Ocean is a lovable loser, a crafty criminal, and a leader of men, Debbie proves to be all three … for the first ten minutes of the film. In a sequence that involves her thwarting the Parole Board’s best intentions, and subsequently finds her cleverly ripping off a department store, Bullock’s criminal is every bit what Clooney’s was. But the film’s paint-by-numbers recruitment of first Debbie’s right hand woman, Lou (Cate Blanchett), a la Clooney sucking in Brad Pitt, is immediately followed by the subsequent additions to the team (Mindy Kaling, Rihanna, Sarah Paulson, Helena Bonham Carter, etc.) It’s simply a question of taking a formula that worked with men in the first two movies (the third one is “meh”) and trying to force-feed in these women, checking ‘boxes’ of categories perfunctorily, which is a shame.

Gravity (ironically co-starring Clooney) might be the last big hit Bullock had, five years ago. Eleven was smack in the middle of a run Clooney had that included The Perfect Storm, O Brother Where Art Thou?, and Confessions of a Dangerous Mind. But it’s not just that Clooney was at the height of his starpower – Brad Pitt was on a run that included Fight Club, Troy, Mr. & Mrs. Smith, and Snatch; Matt Damon was in the midst of The Talented Mr. Ripley, The Departed, and the Jason Bourne films. This isn’t the same thing – three actors at the top of their game – when it’s Bullock, the more artsy Blanchett, and then a significant drop. (Nevermind that Gary Ross is no Steven Soderbergh, or that the original had a budget of $85 million and seventeen years later, that 8 had a budget of $70 million.)

Instead of the attempt at Ghostbusters-like remake (which at least had ghosts and looked like it belonged in the same universe), the film would have benefitted from a lack of pressure in name only. Adding in a Tina Fey, Melissa McCarthy, Amy Poehler, Amy Schumer, Kristen Wiig, Sarah Silverman – or getting the whole crew a la Bridesmaids, would have given the film the panache it needed to stand on its own … with a funnier script. Those original movies were clever and slick, and the men looked they were having fun.

By the close, I half-expected Bullock to hide behind a yawn, when pouring the celebratory bubbly that never felt in danger. Next time, here’s hoping they have more fun, we feel more tension, and it becomes more than just a very naked shot at revenge. Somehow, I doubt this was equality we are fighting for in Hollywood.

These women deserved more. But maybe they’re just getting started.

Special features on the Blu-ray combo pack include “A Heist in Heels,” “Ocean’s Team 3.0,” “Reimagining the Met Gala,” and deleted scenes. 

 

Why I Love (and Fear) Jordan Peterson & Russell Brand

by Leave a Comment

Jordan Peterson and Russell Brand

tldr version

Jordan Peterson
and Russell Brand
both see a
current crisis
and both see it as
primarily “spiritual”

however, for each,
there are issues
when it comes to how
*truth*
and “spirituality” relate

and how they relate
is vital

bit longer version

fanboying

i love me some
Peterson and Brand

always generally dug
Brand’s flicks
and standup,
and have been a
fan of his podcast/YouTube
for a year plus

(fun fact:
the pic above is
from once when
Peterson went
on said podcast;
and don’t they look
smashing together?
🙂 )

Peterson came to
my attention
more gradually,
but then like a
hurricane recently –
seriously:
give him a Google
and marvel at the
moment he’s been having

i have Recovery and
12 Rules for Life
on my bedside table
(along with some more
explicitly Christiany books
and a tablet, upon which
i theoretically read,
but mainly just
obsess over guitar gear
i don’t really need)

both are excellent texts
and both feel
supremely plugged in
to a zeitgeisty sense
that something’s amiss,
in general,
with ppl rn

(i agree)

both also,
and both men
in their public lives,
propose something
like a
spiritual cause
for this
“something amiss” –
what might be called a
“spiritual crisis of meaning”
stemming from
God
(or something like God;
more on this later)
no longer holding
significant sway
for so many

(i agree for sure)

caveating

please note here
that these gentlemen
are obv far more complex
than i’m making
them seem, as is
this whole topic
(and i’m not
even addressing
their politics);
i’m attempting to
essentialize here;
i considered deep diving,
but am refraining
for the sake of brevity
and also because i’m
kind of lazy

in any case, here are
some decent articles
related to this post;
go ahead and Google –
there’s plenty more:

“Jordan Peterson vs. Russell Brand”

“The religious hunger that drives Jordan Peterson’s fandom”

“Is Dr. Jordan Peterson A Gateway Drug to Christianity, Or Just A Highbrow Joel Osteen?”

here are two of my own,
also related:

“Get Re-Enchanted: Stranger Things 2, Pop Culture & God”

“What IT Means (and How *Any* Good Story “Means”)”

problematizing

but here’s the problem:
as much as i *love*
Peterson and Brand’s
respective approaches
to the significance
of the spiritual,
i *fear* that
neither approaches
*truth* sufficiently

what do i mean?

well, with Brand,
the issue appears to be
lack of specificity –
many manifestations
of spirituality
might address the
problems he sees
(note that his book
is based on the 12-steps,
which speaks of “God,
as we understand him”)

and while this is
well and good to a point,
of course,
in the end,
truth commonly understood
is *specific* and *exclusive*
by its nature,
and not addressing this,
it seems to me,
is a problem

for Peterson,
the issue is confusing
*truth*
with something like
“what works”

he tells us to live by a
certain ethic
and seek a certain meaning
grounded in
certain Jungian archetypes,
not because it is true
or because the
archetypes are –
at least not in
the usual
historical/correspondence
way generally meant –
but because it
just happens to reflect
how things have gone
re: humans
when it comes to
our psychology
from an
evolutionary perspective;
it is what is and
therefore what “works”
and therefore “true”

again, all well and good
to attach some
functionality to truth,
of course,
perhaps,
but conflating the two,
it seems to me,
is a problem

also, this is why
Peterson kind of
dodges/ducks/complicates
the question he’s
often asked:
“do you believe in God;”
he may or may not,
but he definitely
does not think of
that question primarily
as it relates to *truth*
commonly understood

finning

and so:
when it comes to
Peterson and Brand,
i love them,
but i also fear them

i find them both
engaging and articulate
and brilliant, etc.,
and *correct;*
but, concerningly,
on this point,
only to a point

i want people to
hear their message(s) –
i know good can come
of it –
but i fear ill may too

i see them as
important,
*prophetic* even
in this current moment –
both have
cut through the mix
in a way that’s so
unusual anymore,
given the noise –
but probably only
“part way down the path”
to the true destination
they both seem to
have glimpsed
(or, better,
which has glimpsed them):

not God
“as we understand him,”
not a “God” that
simply works,
but the *true* God

the true God
as He really is