The Jungle Book(2016) first trailer Impressions

I guess to any person who is wary of the movie news, probably knows the buzz this new live action adaptation of a Disney classic generated at D23 to which it received a standing applause. Well today the general viewer gets the chance to see for themselves, what appears to be Jon Favreau's triumphant return to large-scale productions. 

The first thing I noticed that how it presents its world, the Forest in a very haunting way, which is very good. And it does so in a way that is also captivating with its large luscious trees and environments, which is brilliant. Obviously if you directly compare it to the animated classic, it does have a more muted colour palette, or so it seems from the trailer. However, in this case it sort of works in the haunting aspect of the movie. So I won't judge too soon.  

My opinion on Disney live-action adaptations has been rather mixed so far. Though what definitely gets my hopes up for Jungle Book is that it isn't trying to be the animated version or anywhere near it, stylistically speaking and actually embraces the live-action medium. Shere Khan actually looks a real Bengal Tiger and the added realism actually makes him more scary. Bagheera and Baloo also looks like a real Panther and a Bear respectively. Even though there are realistic looking animals, they match their designs well enough to elude to the classic characterisations to not make them totally unfamiliar. The animals will also be voiced by some serious talent such as Ben Kingsley, Idris Elba, Bill Murray, Lupita Nyong'o, and Christopher Walken. Though the only animal we hear in this trailer is Scarlett Johansson as the hypnotic Kaa. It took me a bit getting used to, since for me, the original lisping voice is Kaa. However, I do see where Favreau is coming from in this decision. with her more seductive voice, which I guess works in a more serious tone. I mean let's get serious, the original played Kaa more as a comic relief than a genuine threat. 

During the trailer we get little glimpses of Neel Sethi as Mowgli. I can't say whether the casting is good or not since we barely see him, none of them with dialogue. But from the looks of things, I guess he does fit the role. The trailer also showcases the recreations of classic parts of the story as well such as the incursion with King Louie as well as what seems to me is the climax. We also get a very brief glimpse of the elephants but none of the wolves surprisingly.Though they must be holding their cards for next trailers. It's atmospheric approach is something I am eager to see how it can breathe a new life into the story visually, each scene looks like it has been carefully captured and shows a hint of grandiose and wonder which should be in The Jungle Book. I have never read the original story by Rudyard Kipling, however it intrigues me to see that how this latest interpretation will be influenced by the original book and the animation. 

I have talked for a good while about this movie going towards a more haunting/atmospheric approach and pretty much the last third or so of the trailer features a montage signifying that very thing, that the threat of the Forest is real than ever before. But just as the title card rolls we see Mowgli riding on the belly of Baloo in a river, whistling 'Bare Necessities'. That, I'm sure will be a sigh of joy for the fans of the animation and it reassures us that it hasn't forgotten its playful roots. 

From seeing this trailer, I can definitely see why it achieved its 'anticipated' status. It is a gorgeous looking film brimming with lush environments and an inviting sense of adventure. The Jungle Book is slated for an April 2016 release. And just the next year in 2017, Warner Bros. will also put out their version called Jungle Book:Origins directed by Andy Serkis, so it will be very interesting to see how they will vary in interpretation. 

.

  

HItman and Transporter: Double Feature Impressions (sponsored by Audi...I wish)

When I watched the trailers for Hitman:Agent 47 and Transporter Refueled, they looked very alike tonally and a large majority was pretty much convinced that both would be train-wrecks. In many cases that is true. But after watching both movies, I realise that the similarities do go a bit deeper, such as both are trying to kick off a dormant pre-existing action IPs, both leading men are cherry-picked from hit TV shows, and both are big Audi commercials. So instead of trying to write two reviews, what I will do here is see and sort-of compare both, and find out which one has the edge over the other. But it goes without saying that its better if you catch these on TV if you really feel game enough.

Hitman:Agent 47 revolves around the iconic genetically-enhanced assassin, Agent 47  who is tasked to stop Syndicate International from restarting the program from which he was built as well, to stop any more Agents to form and to do that he must need to find the daughter of the lead scientist who started the program in the first place. While on the other hand Transporter follows illegal goods/getaway driver, Frank Martin, who when his father gets kidnapped, must help a group of Russian prostitutes in France to get enough money to get out of the business.

It is safe to say that neither movie doesn't really focus that much on their respective stories and are mostly there to tie-in the action. However, at least to Transporter's benefit, the trailer doesn't spoil every plot-twist in the movie. Hitman clocks around 96 mins and the story as you can see from the aforementioned description, it is unapologetically convoluted. The plot just sort of happens without the movie giving any sort of clear background or motivation and plainly assumes that everyone is well-versed with the Hitman mythos. And who names their company 'Syndicate', that would be a PR nightmare and what does Syndicate even want with the Agent program, we are not told. In this regard, Transporter, with its more straightforward story is easier to follow, a better pace and with a really well delivered father-son relationship with Frank's father played by Ray Stevenson, is a bit more tolerable in the sense that you have the freedom to ignore the plot and have some plain fun.

However, both movies stab themselves when it comes to being faithful to their source materials. One of them is already starting on the back-foot due to the bad legacy of video-game movies and the flop Hitman movie that came prior to Agent 47. So you would think that the producers for Hitman (who also did the earlier Hitman movie) would put more effort into the movie to be more in-tune with the stealth and tense style of the games. Though in true Hollywood fashion, thy went as far they could from it and make it into a more generic action experience with explosions pretty much devoid of any tension. The closest. It just doesn't feel Hitman, or at least of what I've seen of the games. And add on that a very bad sequel bait/cliffhanger ending sticking out like a sore thumb

Now you may say that Transporter doesn't have near as much legacy as Hitman, but it does not justify completely ignoring the essence of the property. what Luc Besson got right with the first one was that it embraced the over-the-top action with really well choreographed car chases and a decent story about illicit smuggling. Refueled does that for a bit with the prostitutes/human trafficking (no wonder producers of Taken were in this) but loses focus afterwards. And long-gone have the tense and creative car-chases that actually demonstrated driving skill in favour for slow motion and crashes. Though  I wouldn't say they didn't even try. I guess it was the director trying to set a more gritty atmosphere (with generic action music) while doing over-the-top stuff when originally it embraced the over-the-top stuff with a more exaggerated style and tone that made it consistent.

The underlying problem also trickles down to the lead characters as well. As much as Ed Skrein may be a better actor than Jason Statham, but Statham is Frank Martin and no one can take that away from him. One of my main complaints regarding the character ever since I think the second one has been that he has become more of an action hero when originally he was more of a driver character. Even though he is ex-special forces, his main asset had always been his driving ability and his discretion regarding the 'package'. I don't mind the close-combat bits, what I mind is Frank just beating up people for the sake of action, which has got worse in this latest instalment. The mannerisms feel too different from what Frank as a character is. In fact, Ray Stevenson who plays Frank Sr. a better character with more charisma, could have a made a great old Frank Martin, but I assume they wanted someone younger because franchise potential.

As for Rupert Friend as Agent 47,  he definitely doesn't look exactly like the game though I could definitely see little signs of the cold and calculated killer especially in the beginning when he was giving at least 0.1 attention to stealth. I was quite surprised how much I bought Friend as 47 but as the film went somehow the character started to feel a tad one-note. I think that can be attributed to the overall tone of the film seemingly conflicting the inherently darker character, so he becomes rather odd-fitting and underused. That should not be happening when the character in question happens to be your protagonist. As I was saying before, even the previous Hitman starring Timothy Olyphant at least captured some of that grit that I believe was present in the games. I guess what has happened that the film-makers haven't really grasped the essence of the source material and dived head-first to make an action movie first rather than a Hitman movie.

 Both movies are paper-thin for sure. Though what really surprises me is that these two films, both of which coming from very different source materials can result into very similar end-products. These movies seemingly lack in both story and creative action set-pieces and frankly I feel a bit guilty to be just thrashing them like this when they was actual money and human effort behind this. But it is my responsibility to give you an honest opinion. Coming back to the objective at hand, which one of these would I recommend. I would say neither because these also don't necessarily qualify as 'so bad they're good movies'. Though for closure, I will say watch Transporter Refueled its a better told story, has decent locations (via the French Riviera), good character interactions and you can have some mindless fun without pulling you hair out at every turn. I just hope that these producers have learnt their lesson.

Meet the real stars of Hitman and Transporter.....

ps. Why would a stealthy Hitman go for a Blood-Red Audi?

Movie Impressions: The Man from U.N.C.L.E

Fun fact: Did you know Henry Cavill was one of the actors short-listed to play James Bond. However, what comes as a surprise is that his character, Napoleon Solo, a suave american spy in The Man from U.N.C.L.E. was created in part by Ian Fleming, the creator of James bond himself. Joining him is also his KGB partner Ilya Kuryakin, played by Armie Hammer and their love-hate relationship mixed with political tension and Guy Ritchie's direction makes this spy flick a very enjoyable experience indeed.

U.N.C.L.E. introduces our protagonists in a true Guy Ritchie fashion with a nice kinetic car chase innight-time East Berlin in 1963 Cold War and establishes their relationship in great exposition/flashback scenes that are inter-cut in the chase scene. They are trying to fight over a car mechanic named Gaby(Alicia Vikander due to her 'familial ties' which is of interest to each of their countries. Though when the KGB and CIA reluctantly join together,, Solo and Kuryakin must put aside their differences and work with Gaby to infiltrate the rich Vinciguerra family to retrieve designs for a nuclear bomb.

I won't lie, at this point I am pretty tired of plots regarding nuclear bombs. and this story doesn't change my stand as of now. But you don't come to see a Guy Ritchie movie for a very deep and introspective story. The movie will take you to a trip through Europe, exotic villain islands and a shady shipping yard. However, the story definitely starts strong with a great set-up, and is maintained with good fast action as you should expect from a Guy Ritchie movie.

Guy Ritchie's direction is bold in the sense that there is always a big stamp of his style in each film, especially in this. And the story greatly benefits from his fast-paced and stylistic camera-work with unusual angles here and there. It is quite apparent as the film progresses that it is paying some kind of homage to the spy thrillers of the 1960's and it makes sense since the source material is a show from the 1960's (cough* Mission Impossible). Throughout the movie, you will see sprinkles of humour, and they are good jokes to be found here even though some feel a bit forced sometimes, nonetheless it got a few chuckles out of me. The action is stylised and fast sometimes in excess other times balanced, all times enjoyable.

This is definitely a very character-driven experience and at the heart of it all lies the relationship between Cavill's Napoleon Solo and Hammer's Kuryakin as their allegiances to their respective countries makes them sworn enemies, and now have to work as partners. They're constantly trying ot outsmart and outfight each other but overtime learn to respect each other as agents and as distinct personalities almost jeopardizing their duty to their nation. The plot also juggles between the two well each of them as they play both supporting and hero roles relative to each other whenever the plot requires, with nice character moments for each. It also keeps the tension of KGB vs CIA right till the end which I loved and praise this movie for.They try to make a love interest out of Gaby for Kuryakin but it doesn't match their bromance, which is certainly a big reason you should watch this movie. Not many spy movies really have 2 protagaonists take centre stage in this way. 

Special mention should also go to Elizabeth Debicki as Victoria Vinciguerra who pretty much is the main antagonist of the film. Firstly, she looks absolutely stunning and works so great as a villain as (quoting from the movie) a lethal combination of beauty, brains and ambition. Examples like Victoria show us that the spy genre can certainly benefit from more female villains who do take charge of the operations, are merciless and not just be sidelined as femme fatales. I was pretty disappointed that she didn't get enough moments in the movie. 

Towards the end we are introduced to Agent Waverly (Hugh Grant) who is what you can say your typical British head-spy if you will. However, if you remember I had said that the source material was based on a 1960's T.V show. And naturally being 2015, everyone wants to make a franchise out of everything, we get a sequel bait (sort of) with agent Waverly building a 'team'. The thing is that the film introduces us to him way too late so we do not know enough of this guy considering the role he is supposed to play in the future. I would've liked him to be introduced in the beginning or at least somewhere early in the middle so we have a good idea of the                                                                                                   character for later appearances. 

Benefiting from great action, direction,  performances all round and a killer soundtrack, The Man from U.N.C.L.E. is certainly a movie that can be enjoyed as a decent spy-action film and can be taken with a pinch of nostalgia towards a more simpler time of suave spies and defusing nuclear bombs in a secret island hideout. However, if Warner Bros. does plan on making a sequel, in my opinion the story has to get more sophisticated. 

and of course the one screenshot you will find in almost every review....

oh, .the bromance....

Movie Impressions: Jimi: All is by My Side (2013)

Jimi: All is by My Side is an aptly titled film in which writer/director John Ridley attempts to capture the development of an optimistic and eager Jimi Hendrix as he finds his foothold into the rock and roll scene as much he develops a rockstar personality, for better or worse. However, the movie tends to get too cerebral and sombre that it hinders the inherent fun of that time period, especially in its music.

I guess that one of my qualms with the story is that the movie spends too much time on his muses/relationships or discussions with political activists. This could be explained by the fact that the filmmakers couldn't get the rights to Hendrix's songs so you wouldn't any of your favourites here. What pains me is that they already got the solution in the form original arrangements by Waddy Wachtel  which are placed in the story just as normal Jams. And each of these pieces beautifully capture the Hendrix style, my favourite being a blues improv in the film which is played when Jimi plays his first night in the Scotch club. Why not more of that?

I do not mean that every biopic should be generically focused on the big events or people chanting and celebrating whoever's name and or in this case just be a musical. Actually, the relationships are quite interesting, taking us through three women, Linda Keith (Imogen Poots) who discovered Hendrix and ex-flame of Keith Richards, Kathy Etchingham (Hayley Atwell), his first girlfriend in London, and Ida (Ruth Negga) and each of these relationships are very unique to each other and one quite nicely transitions into the next. Even all the actors mentioned have great performances, especially Atwell. Now this would have worked great as a subplot to add a layer of dimension to a central story. But the movie spends too much time on it. 

Alright, enough with the ranting, let's get to the good stuff. First of all, Andre Bejamin (better known as Andre 3000) nails Jimi Hendrix to the way he speaks, to the way he walks and the way he plays the guitar, it is quite amazing actually. Also the character is written beautifully that one can easily relate to him in the way that he doesn't want to care about politics of the world or labels and just wants to inspire people with his music and wants to showcase a voice and make a difference on a personal level, which is resonant to the hippie movement of the time. 

The movie also showcases the more controversial side of him such as his perfectionism that has annoyed both producers and audiences alike and also mistreatment to his girlfriends such as beating up, to which the real Kathy Etchingham dismisses as 100% false, so that deeply lessens the impact in the movie yet is reassuring in the real world.

Another thing that this movie gets right is the whole 60's swinging London, at least aesthetically with its costumes and set design and also captures the music scene that encompassed night clubs of the time really well. I should also mention the sound design, which is adds nice touches to the film such as times where you just hear the pick of the strings but not the amp tone of the guitar and other more subtle things like the sound of the band playing in a club actually has like an environmental echo to it and doesn't feel too much like track recorded in a studio. There are some great moments to be experienced here like when Hendrix completely cut Eric Clapton (which is a true story), I mean these are the moments for which I come into a Jimi Hendrix movie. The movie also also shows a rather enjoyable chemistry with the rest of the Experience. It is always a joy whenever he came up on stage and just played and having a blast.

But again it seems like most of the time its like it doesn't want to have fun with it, to embrace the zaniness of the that culture and bogs down with the relationships. And the thing is, if they could have showed more of that setting and culture in the general sense, it could have served as a nice contrast to the story. In simple words I want more of the swinging london music scene because it was actually good at it.

I feel that a good bio-pic based around a singular figure, shows us the personal side of a person in juxtaposition to the public image of said person that can almost be like a thesis of sorts where how much the person represented in media etc. is true. This movie covers the former very well, giving us a rather intimate insight on the person, or at least his relationships. But it doesn't show us much of the creativity or his musical side that formed much of his public image, since I believe that could have balanced it out really well.

Movie Impressions: Fantastic Four (2015)

Right, a third theatrical attempt and fourth overall attempt (gotta love the 60's version) to make a Fantastic Four movie work. From what I have heard, every single one of these attempts was made in order for FOX to retain the movie right to the property. So already this has started on the back foot. After which came a smorgasbord of backlash and other problems of which Mr Sunday Movies even prepared a whole list of them. Though, after seeing Chroncicle, I was confident in Josh Trank's direction that even through all the studio hodgepodge some good might come out. I guess I was wrong. 

Since childhood, Reed Richards has a wish to be the first person to crack teleportation but inadvertently cracks inter-dimensional travel. But an ill-timed accident gives him, his best friend Ben Grimm, Johnny Storm and her adopted sister Susan Storm as well as Victor Von Doom(yes not Domshev anymore) radical powers. Hence they are taken into government custody to be trained and used as weapons. It is up to them to team up together to either fix themselves or to use their powers for something greater.

The first thing you might notice is where is the space and solar rays, well this origin story follows the Ultimate Fantastic Four version. Personally I prefer the original space travel origins however, this does add a new sci-fi element to the mix. I also appreciate the filmmakers going for a sci-fi horror vibe which the Fantastic Four has in its reception of their powers as something horrific rather than awesome at first. Mind you this version has some great concepts going for it here such as it actually took time to explore and set-up a conflict in the friendship between Richards and Grimm (even though it ignores development since), and also the Four being used as weapons of the government, which can prove to be the catalyst for their public image, of which the comics are renowned for.

However, the story is too rushed for any of these set-ups to ever come to fruition since it decides to skip parts of the second-act which could be used to show them getting used to their powers and you know, actual development. Which also points me to say that we live in a post-Avengers world where we have already seen more than 4 superheroes sharing the screen with each of them having their moments and arcs. Yet, this doesn't take the effort to show us character growth, or team dynamics, in a Fantastic Four movie. As a result, the movie starts to become drab very fast. One often gets the sense that the movie wants to skip story to reach to the climax as fast as possible. The only problem is that the entire third act is criminally abrupt and anti-climactic.

Anyhow this movie actually has good acting talent behind it with Miles Teller(fresh from Whiplash fame) as Reed Richards, Kate Mara as Susan Storm , Michael B.Jordan as Johnny Storm and Ian Bell as Ben Grimm. You can see their performances trying to come out like a butterfly out of a cocoon but the script (or at least the story we ended up with) doesn't want to explore these characters so it also hinders their performances. One of the truly tragic cases here is Tony Kebbel as Victor Von Doom, Of course he isn't the megalomaniac King of Latveria (even though the movie refers the place) I actually kinda was liking the enigmatic personality he seemed to be. But oh no! we have to make him Doom in under 99 mins, so just slap on a motive of which we couldn't find traces anywhere before, give him a crappy look, vague powers and fight!

Oh, and by the way, the fighting is dismal. Since the movie never took the time to build-up to something or to make us root for the characters, we don't care for any of the 5 mins of action the movie gives us. To add insult to injury, the special effects do not seem up to par where the simulation effects on Johnny Storm doesn't even look like realistic fire at times. And they under- utilised Reed Richards stretching powers where the most creative use there was him changes his facial muscles to hide his real face. That is cool on paper but the effects botch it up bad. There is also a production rumour surrounding a special effects guy being fired without the knowledge of Trank. Though I must say I really liked the sound effect they used for Susan Storm's forcefields. 

In closing, It seems that this iteration is one of those cases of self-fulling prophecies and an utter production disaster. It is such a spaghetti we don't even know who exactly to blame for this, both FOX and Trank have made good superhero movies with the X-Men franchise and Chronicle respectively. Although if I be honest, I am ready to forgive all of this, and ignore this film to the best of my ability. Just please FOX make a good sequel to this. There is actual potential in here, in its sci-fi premise, to explore other dimensions and finally to see the Fantastic Four become the great public heroes they are. Till then, I would suggest any aspiring filmmaker or screenwriter to watch this movie as it does highlight how improper development and pacing can break your movie. 

  

The Hateful Eight: Trailer Impressions

It is a really nice coincidence that The Hateful Eight is also Quentin Tarantino's eighth feature. Or is it ? I don't know. What I do know that this trailer has got me seriously hyped into the movie that must be already high on many people's 'Most Anticipated' lists. 

You leave it to a guy like Tarantino to create what perhaps could be one of the most awkward hotel situation. John 'The Hangman' Ruth (Kurt Russel) brings his bounty Daisy Domergue (Jennifer Jason Leigh) with Major Marquis Warren (Samuel L.Jackson) to a stagecoach stepover, which I think is a tavern of sorts filled with other nefarious people who seek refuge from a blizzard. Tarantino I believe sums up the direction of this movie aptly, "just a bunch of nefarious guys in a room, all telling backstories that may or may not be true. Trap them together in a room with a blizzard outside, give them guns and see what happens." And I am sure excited to see that. The set-up is brilliant and brimming with potential. 

One of the first things that struck me when watching this trailer was how this was going to be a different type of western especially from its setting in the snowy mountains of Wyoming, which in itself is a big departure from desert-towns more traditionally found in westerns. The blizzard lends itself to a new look of the western. And with cinematographer, Robert Richardson, who has worked with Tarantino previously since Kill Bill, I know that he can prove to be the visual counterpoint to Tarantino's dialogues, which I love. This movie will be released in 70mm film theatres on Christmas before the worldwide release on 8th January 2016. Unfortunately I do not have access to a nearby 70mm theatre, although, with the cinematography I see in this trailer, if you happen to get a chance  to see it in 70mm, I will strongly suggest beforehand to catch it. I really do think it would be an experience. The trailer also gives us a very little taste of what I believe is Ennio Morricone's soundtrack right at the end and again while it is decidedly western, it is also fresh and new. 

When you hear the titles of these characters like 'The Hangman" and "The Cow Puncher" etc. It gives me a good sense of how colourful these characters may very well be as the writer/director's characters are. This is a movie with no heroes and it makes it apparent. There is also some strong acting power in its support too. Personally I am really looking forward to Kurt Russell rocking the screen again and Samuel L. Jackson because who doesn't look forward to Samuel L.Jackson. Though when I saw Tim Roth in this trailer, who plays Oswaldo Mobray or "The Little Man", I don't know why but he seemed eerily to me like he was a Christoph Waltz replacement, I don't know, I'm just putting it out there, even though I'm quite certain that's not the case and I have just lost my mind. 

This is a very preliminary look of the film, but like any good first trailer it gives us the tone, the set-up and introduces us to the characters. From the looks of things it takes a big departure from a traditional western, where there are no deserts and the characters seemingly are not even anti-heroes than just people with questionable histories if you will. It kinda makes them feel real in a way and I look forward to explore these characters. I believe that this trailer is enough we need to see before I watch the movie for myself but since its only a teaser, we shall see what the future lies for us. But the movie overall looks really good which to most people shouldn't come as a surprise. 

Movie Impressions: Mission:Impossible Rogue Nation

Whatever you may say about the Mission:Impossible franchise, it is undeniable that when you watch these movies each of them feel uniquely distant to each other yet similar enough to work organically in the franchise. The stylistic changes throughout can be attributed to the regular change in directors. I think with each of the opening 'fuse' intros of these movies lies its directorial stamp for example John Woo's over-stylistic approach, or Brad Bird's more slow and suspenseful take among others. So what does Christopher McQuarrie's take look like. Well, it feels tighter, more fluid and a bit more gritty and it is fair to say this comes up to one of the best this series has offered yet.

The story follows IMF agent Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) is tracking down a shadow organisation comprising of ex-spies known as the Syndicate. The catch here is that there is no IMF since it has been absorbed into the CIA by the efforts of its director Alan Hunley (Alec Bladwin), and has made a point to hunt Hunt (lol) down. So Hunt and his team are against the system and against a clock. As Benji says "Difficult, but not impossible". 

An 'anti-IMF' seems a bit un-imaginative to some in the way superheroes battling villains with the exact same powers. However, in this case it really adds a breath of fresh air from chasing nuclear codes and bio-weapons and also uses it to justify the existence of the IMF. I for one did find the story a bit better than its prequel. This one added more intrigue and political espionage. McQuarrie has done a great job with the pacing of the movie where everything feels has been given its deserved time/development. My only nitpick with the story is that they could have explored more with the vastness of the Syndicate network since the story focuses on very few characters than what you might expect from such a large organisation. Although its not that bad of a thing since it keeps the story tight. The film also adds a pinch of humour here and there and is well balanced overall. 

The action is up to the standard one would expect from M:I. Nothing really mind-blowing like Dubai, but still awesome. The action takes influence from the more gritty direction of the film so I felt it to be much more grounded and fluid than before. One example that comes to mind is Hunt trying to stop 2 snipers shooting a political figure in a opera house. Do not get me wrong though, there are some big action scenes here such as the motorcycle chase scene (calling back to M:I 2 in ways), infiltrating an underwater data bank and of course the A-400 plane trailer shot. But it balances between the two quite brilliantly. Of course all the stunts and action is real which is complete insanity. However insanity is commonplace in M:I. Also, the movie boasts some stellar sound design to levels where in the aforementioned underwater sequence it managed to create a sonic vacuum of sorts that I actually felt my ears closing up like water pressure but it didn't actually happen to me.

There has been a natural progression to Ethan Hunt where he gradually has become an enigmatic and heartfelt personality and trusting of his team which is a nice overall arc considering the beginnings. Tom Cruise is really the glue that holds all these films together both on screen and off-screen with his duties as producer. The guy is committed I tell you, he performs all the stunts for real at the age of 53 is quite mind-blowing and he certainly keeps that trend going here with a strong performance.

The rest of team includes Benji (Simon Pegg), the bumbling tech-guy who plays Halo 3 on his 3 monitor set-up at his office at CIA and he and Hunt work together (illegally) to root out the Syndicate. It is also good to see Benji's increasing experience in field-work. The other part of the team is Jeremy Renner as IMF agent William Brandt and Ving Rhames as Luther Stickell, the cool tech-guy work together under the CIA's nose to find Hunt before them. There was a nice dynamic between the two as the old friend of Hunt working together and getting to know the new friend and vice-versa. Series fans must have noticed that this is the first all-men team (for the most part) in the series and all of them have previously appeared. This pays dividends to both performance and character development. All the four really play off with each other add a sense of camaraderie and friendship that I think we haven't seen before.

As for the additions to the cast, Rebecca Ferguson as Ilsa Faust, an Mi-6 agent is a great character whose true allegiance is not entirely known. She is sort of like the female Ethan Hunt in their motivations and expertise. Plus they do share a good chemistry. Her story does maintain mystery throughout the movie which keeps things interesting. Even the villain Solomon Lane  (Sean Harris) is one of the better ones in the series. Alec Baldwin as Alan Hunley as the determined CIA director bent on shutting the IMF down for good was a source of constant threat and his arc is also well done. 

Of the reviews I had read, many of them state this one as a 'Greatest hits' version, combining the best elements of all the previous 4 movies into one. Even though I do agree with that I wouldn't say that it was unoriginal cherry-picking because it did contribute to the franchise in a whole lot of ways. And as for the Ghost Protocol being the best of the franchise, it still probably is the better movie with more layered characters, better humour, more suspenseful action and more accessible than the rest. But considering the premise and all, I just liked Rogue Nation a wee bit better.