Warning, I'm going to talk about Mission: Impossible III. I won't divulge any more than a typical trailer does, but if you do want to watch the film then read this afterwards!
Mission: Impossible III delivers what you'd expect, but after watching it i'm left pondering if such expectations - the action, the central protagonist, the explosions and plot twists - have strayed from the core brilliance of the Mission: Impossible heritage. Parts of this film were superb, but much was frustrating. Not because it was bad, but just because it was straying from what it should be.
Mission: Impossible is built on several unique pillars, and it's these things that separate it from it's rivals. Most importantly, is the teamwork, based upon a collection of individuals who all have specific talents. This comes together in a mission - a well-planned and complex attempt to achieve a known objective. Finally comes the secret nature of the entire operation. This isn't a bureaucracy at work, it's an elite force.
The best sequence in the film is vintage Mission: Impossible - an elaborate plan, multiple agents, meticulously planned and executed. Brought to the big screen with a phenomenal setting (the film is worth seeing for Tom Cruise's Lowry moment alone) and an emphatic and spectacular finale. My only concern was that the Vatican setting seemed to be cashing into The Da Vinci Code, a concern about originality that deepened with every passing scene.
The air attack upon the bridge (pictured) was surprisingly powerful and made you realise that the cinematography was raw and rapid. It worked very well, culminating in a genuinely chilling escape by the baddie, but the highlight was Cruise's frantic attempts to prevent the inevitable getaway. He was bewildered and under attack - a carbon copy of North by Northwest. But I forgave that, because it felt more like a cutting edge homage than plagiarism. (I also forgave the "face mask escape in the lift "homage" to Silence of the Lambs). It was what Pinewood studios used to produce with James Bond, a franchise that appears to be following Batman's journey to a dark beginning. Mission: Impossible, by contrast, is simply mimicking 24.
For a kick off, there was the entire pathetic plot where the secret agent puts love before his mission. What bollocks. But at least when Jack Bauer lets his emotions cloud his judgement it's built upon a character that begins as a family man. Here we had to endure an opening fabrication of domestic bliss to learn that Ethan Hunt's gone soft on us. Give over. Then there's the time-dependency of the mission itself - Ethan's given 48 hours to find "the rabbit foot" and even sets his watch. We might as well have had a ticking clock. The events in the field are almost upstaged by the plot twists occuring back at HQ, where a CTU-type office oversees the action. There's even a cameo for Simon Pegg to act as Hunt's trusted source. In a scene straight out of 24 he goes against his orders to accept a phonecall from Hunt, and then uses his technical savvy to guide him to his target. When Ethan Hunt gets fierce on the plane he's just 'doing a Jack Bauer'.
So this presents a predicament for me, because I don't want to choose between Jack Bauer and Ethan Hunt. They are (or at least should be) two very different characters, operating in very different situations. It's a great shame that Mission: Impossible III tries to cash in on the 24 style of gung-ho action hero and betrays it's roots as an intelligent cold war spy drama. The plot twist is disgraceful, since the film doesn't invest enough time in a plot to make a twist possible. It just feels as if the audience is being duped with a cheap script.
A film series that is far truer, in this regard, to the original Mission: Impossible series is the Jason Bourne series. He doesn't have a team, but it at least feels like a geniunely intelligent film. I'd even rather watch the X-Men series, since they have a group of indivduals with alternative (and complementary) skills.
If I was involved in Mission: Impossible 4 (which i'm already looking forward to) I'd forget about 24 and play to my own strengths. The selection of the IMF team shouldn't be something that's glossed over - I want to see innovative recruitment and Jim Phelps sat in a leather chair with a glass of scotch and a pile of CVs. I want to see a geniune team in a geniune mission - and for that mission to be the central story line. By all means Tom Cruise can pursue his desire to jump off tall buildings, and I want guns, explosions, and a fucking hero. But the Mission: Impossible films should take a few steps backward, resurrect the intelligence of the first film, concentrate on the team and the mission, and leave Jack Bauer to do what he does best.
Recent Comments