One of my goals this year is to spend less time watching things I know I’ll hate because they’re new, or highly acclaimed, or will be “good for me” somehow, and more time watching things I’ll actually enjoy. Time is too precious to waste it on movies that make me cringe or depressed. I want art that’s uplifting more than edifying. Maybe someday that will change, but given the place in which I presently find myself, I know what I need.
I need uplifting stories.
Something I’ve done from time to time is Spy Movie Sunday, where I watch (you guessed it) a movie with a theme of espionage. On Sunday. With yet another Mission: Impossible movie on the horizon (with one of my favorite trailers in recent memory), I’ve accepted my mission to revisit the franchise. For the past three Sundays I’ve watched an M:I movie, and it’s been a blast.
[Imagine a fuse running to a bomb here]
I don’t remember the first time I saw the original Mission: Impossible, but it was well after the fourth movie came out. Back in 1996 I was 16 and didn’t go to the movies very often. There were a lot of old TV shows being remade into movies at the time, and since the internet was still fairly new, film discussion was in the mainstream. Even with Bill Clinton mucking around the White House, there was still time for the movies on the news without making political.
Those were the days.
Even my dad knew what they were saying about the movie. He explained to me that a conceit of the old show was that everything was at least plausible and the movie didn’t follow the rule. That was enough for me to discount it. Why make a movie if you weren’t going to be true to the source? Later I learned fans were more upset about other changes to the show’s history. But watching it now, having seen very little of the show but many more movies, I think I can see it clearly.
Brian de Palma is usually a hack.
Don’t get me wrong, I love The Untouchables (also a quasi-remake of a TV series). I don’t love the way he tries to be Hitchcock without purpose. Hitch set his cameras at certain angles for a reason, but de Palma sets his cameras the way he does because Hitchcock once did. Sometimes it works. More often it’s distracting. But when the cinematography is good (like when Ethan comes to the realization in the diner that he’s been setup and his whole world is thrown off balance), it’s very good.
And that final chase is great, implausible or not.
I probably first saw Mission: Impossible II on Netflix. First impression: not as bad as I’d been led to believe. Not great, and I got bored with the over-the-top, over-dramatic action. But not bad. In one of my film school textbooks the author had gone to great pains to prove from a financial standpoint that Cruise couldn’t have done all his own stunts, so I came to it with a little cynicism. Some of that bad attitude has faded, and I still found myself rolling my eyes, but even the worst M:I movie is better than many current action movies.
Maybe the only goal was to make Cruise look cool. But to be fair, in 2000 he was at peak coolness.
The first movie was an ensemble, like the TV series. This is the movie that leans most heavily on Cruise’s star power and draw. Maybe that’s the problem. Ethan Hunt wasn’t built to be James Bond, and making him the focal point throws everything askew. I have to wonder if a better version once existed, and how after The Matrix the studio didn’t give John Woo more freedom. They clearly didn’t think the American audience was ready for anything with such a strong Asian cinema flavor.
But Cruise came out looking cooler than ever.
Mission: Impossible III was actually the first one I saw. My roommate’s buddy had advance tickets and couldn’t find anyone else to go with him and made it pretty clear I was his last resort. Nothing personal. We weren’t friends, so I didn’t take it personally and just enjoyed the movie. This was before film school, and I wasn’t even aware that Cruise purportedly did his own stunts, so there was nothing to get in my way of liking the movie. But I was distracted.
I’d been binging Alias, also written and directed by J.J. Abrams.
The only thing I remember about my first time seeing M:I III was that it felt like an episode of Alias with a male lead. All the rhythms are the same, the plot is the same, only the character is different. Oh, and I also remember it being the first time I saw Filipino stick fighting in movie, and since I was training in that in the time, that was pretty cool. I liked the movie well enough, but not so much that I wanted to search out the rest of series and see them anytime soon.
I still get that.
The third movie is fun while you’re watching it, but doesn’t leave much of an impression. Abrams, in his film directing debut, does a serviceable job, but lacks style. Back in 2006 it was all about the shaky cam, and Abrams submits to it to his detriment. It jars the visuals right out of your head. Even though I just watched the movie yesterday and liked it, I’m struggling to say much about it now.
Cruise’s coolness is dialed back. I can say that much.
If anything, the attempt seems to be humanizing Ethan Hunt. The guy’s getting married and for the first time we see him at home, pretending to be suburban. A plan goes wrong, and he gets sucked out a window in a moment that’s as funny as it is thrilling. I don’t remember anything more uncool happening to him in the last movie. It’s probably the sort of thing that works better on a TV show, though, and M:I III just seems like TV script with a blockbuster budget, and ultimately just as forgettable.
Next Sunday I get to the really good stuff.
