MISSION IMPOSSIBLE (includes trailer)
June 10th 2010 13:48
Not bad, but not great either, this one is sure to divide audiences.
By the time A Few Good Men, The Firm and Interview With A Vampire came out, Tom Cruise was possibly the biggest star in Hollywood. He was clearly looking for an action vehicle for himself and decided to produce a film version of the 60’s TV series Mission Impossible. His choice in hiring David Koepp (Panic Room, Jurassic Park, Carlito’s Way) and Robert Towne (The Last Detail, China Town, Shampoo) to write the script was a sound decision and his choice in director Brian DePalma was a smart move, however it’s the star himself who hamper’s this film from being as good as it could’ve been and also the director too, to a lesser degree.
Tom Cruise is Ethan Hunt, an American secret agent who has been sent on a mission to recover a stolen list of all secret agent’s true identities. He’s sent out with a team of other hot shot agents played by Jon Voight (The Champ, Coming Home, Midnight Cowboy), Kristin Scott Thomas (Gosford Park, The Walker, Easy Virtue) and Emilio Estevez (Bobby, Young Guns, Repo Man). After everything suddenly turns horribly wrong during the mission, all his fellow agents are assassinated and Ethan Hunt is framed for the death of his team. Hunt begins looking for the people behind this all, working his way to the truth. He hires a team of fellow disavowed agents played by Jean Reno (The Professional, Ronin, The Crimson Rivers), and Ving Rhames (Pulp Fiction, Out Of Sight, Jacob’s Ladder).
It’s all cloak and dagger type stuff here, all in the name of fun, complete with hidden weapons and disguises and for the most part, it all has been pulled off in a suspenseful and stylish way, with plenty of action and thrills. Mission Impossible has some fantastic scenes in it but it’s also got a couple of really poor ones too. The set up is engaging, as a feeling of suspense and paranoia fills the film. The score by Danny Elfman is catchy and cool, capturing the essence of the film’s self aware, tongue in cheek, ‘spy vs. spy’ flavour. The directing by Brian DePalma adds an air of class to the film even if it is a bit uneven at times and the script by David Koepp and Robert Towne is well conceived and tightly structured.
At the time, when the film was produced in 1996, Tom Cruise had major pull at the box office but still had a knack for being thoroughly irritating to watch on screen. His inability to express any human emotion with out dialogue results in him either doing that thing where he tries to force the emotion out and lands up looking constipated, and that vein in his head swells up, or he just barks out dialogue, like a little Chihuahua that can’t get what it wants – and that vein in his head goes and swells up again.
There’ve been three Mission Impossible films and this is the best one of the bunch, in my opinion, while the film is competently made and has some good qualities to it and some impressively over the top, inspired action feats, it hasn’t aged too well. Cruise looks more out of place than ever in this role, seeming far too effeminate too pull off the kind of James Bond role that he seems to be going for. When this was made Pierce Brosnan was playing James Bond and there wasn’t much of a comparison, but since we’ve been able to see Daniel Craig as Bond, or even Matt Damon as Jason Bourne, watching Cruise in this part irrevocably reveals an emperor with out clothing. He’s completely wrong for the part and is the most damaging of all to the film. He has an interesting physicality for the part but his acting is useless.
One other actor who also hurts the film is Ving Rhames, who floats in and out of character and for the most part seems to be casually riding the ‘Pulp Fiction wave’. Most of the actors don’t seem particularly interested in anything here, except for just cruising along, even Jean Reno, an actor who really is impressive a lot of the time, is quite dull here. One aspect that is worth mentioning though is that the character of Ethan Hunt has a caring side to him that in the other Mission Impossible films have seemed completely improbable, but in the first Mission Impossible this doesn’t seem to be too glaring of a fault, especially not in the way it does in the third instalment. This of course had to have been in here as it’s a PG-13 film, trying to appeal to as wide an audience as possible.
What’s interesting about Brian DePalma helming this particular film is that Mission Impossible was made in between possibly his best film ever, Carlito’s Way and his worst film ever, which came afterwards, Snake Eyes. It seems that Mission Impossible gave Depalma a taste for overblown, over complicated story lines and Depalma’s own gaudy, editorialising, heavy handed style is a bad mix when it comes to stories with too many twist and turns in them. Depalma is a little bit more restrained here and he has created a couple of knock out high action scenes which are worth noting, centre pieces if you will, which really follow through on this set up’s promise of exciting action and thrilling suspense.
DePalma’s fascination with hoax and fakery are well suited to the film, they’re up right at the front of Mission Impossible, with some vintage DePalma images. Right from the get go, he shows us a world that is filled with smoke and mirrors, this emphasis on deception and trickery allows some of the really far fetched elements of the story to play out quite smoothly. He also does a good job of distracting you from some of the weaker scenes and in general gives the whole film a touch of sophistication, as well as sleek cinematography and punchy editing. DePalma is a master of the set up, his understanding of how to visually exploit the geography of the set and production design in to his stories and use this to create tension, is his biggest strength and he does this brilliantly, even on the huge scale that this film finds it self in.
DePalma executes some truly memorable scenes that make the film recommendable on these alone. It’s a film with a fairly intricate plot, the kind that is so improbable that it can be hard to buy into, but we do. It’s not a fantastic film, but has some impressive moments. Eventually DePalma’s bag of tricks become transparent and anyone well versed in story structure and technique will see what’s coming a mile away, but it’s a still a lot better than most block buster’s you could think of off the top of your head and if your looking for some popcorn entertainment, this is sure to do the trick. If you can withstand Tom Cruise, then you could do far worse than this well made but flawed action film.
| 146 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Deni
Abstract Magick
Cinema Herald
When I first saw this one, I didn't like it at all. Some of the plot points were hard to follow and the moment I get lost in a movie, it's downhill from there...but seeing it again, 10 years later - I enjoyed it a little more than the first viewing. I thought Cruise and Rhames (IMO) did a decent job.
I think Cruise is a good actor but he just as too much baggage now for people to take him seriously and that's a shame. Collateral and Magnolia are my two favorite films.
MI1 is still not great but I found it a little bit better than good this time
Cheers,
Deni
Comment by Matt Shea
You're absolutely right - they drop the ball in a couple of spots, and the final scene (helo, train, tunnel) is way too much, but a guilty pleasure nonetheless and totally superior to the sequels.
Comment by David O'Connell
20/20 Filmsight
Screen Fanatic
Glad you mentioned the Elfman score - definitely one of his more atypical and inventive, remarkably so considering he wrote it in double-quick time after Alan Silvestri's score was given the old heave-ho.
There's no doubt that MI looks better and better in one sense, i.e. when you directly compare it with the sequel which is easily one of the worst action blockbusters of all time, especially considering Robert Towne's name on the credits. (Although then again The A-Team has set a brand new benchmark for pointless stupidity in that arena!)
Comment by ShaunK
Screen Adventure
Comment by ShaunK
Screen Adventure
Hey Deni,
I liked Mission Impossible and do agree that you have to stay with the film before it's convoluted plot floats away from you.
I'm actually gonna challenge you on that statement about Cruise being a good actor, he's had his moments in a handful of films but I would say that Tom Cruise is incapable of acting with out dialogue and is unable to express any emotion during a silence. I actually did a review for Eyes Wide Shut a while back where I basically explain why Cruise and Kidman single handedly ruined the entire film. What have you to say....
Thanks for reading
Comment by Deni
Abstract Magick
Cinema Herald
I didn't like Eyes Wide Shut...I still think he's a good actor but he missed the boat in that one. Every good actor has a stinker(s) somewhere under their belt.
Magnolia and Collateral are two of his best performances IMO and in Collateral he did a great job in acting without dialogue.
Comment by ShaunK
Screen Adventure
Comment by Anonymous
Tom Cruise did an excellent job, and I have enjoyed all of the "Mission Impossible" movies.
He always puts his all into his films.
Enjoyed seeing the trailer once again. His good looks, talent, and perseverance has made him what he is today - a "Superstar."
Comment by JohnDoe
Film & TV on DVD
Totally agree that this is the only worthwhile Mission Impossible film in the franchise, largely due to DePalma's flair.
We have discussed Tom (Not a natural bone in my body) Cruise more than he deserves. That he thinks he can act like an action star is the height of hubris IMO.
Comment by Michaelie
Flick Wit
Bahahaha!
I haven't ever watched it all the way through, it may well have some merit but just looking at the pictures makes me feel irritated.