FWIW, I am re-posting this here. Originally written for Thomas Rucki's
great M:I group on Yahoo groups, which is here:
http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/Mission_Impossible_1966/
----------------------------------------------------
Let's start with a quick summary for those who simply deny any connection
(other than name) to the Cruise films.
This one is better than M:I 2, which seems to be establishing itself as
the
concept's all-time low-point. Many have noticed that the first, from
1996,
gets better with a repeat viewing, and I agree, though you must
purposefully
ignore the obscene plot development from that film which is just outright
offensive and should never have been done.
So M:I 3 stacks up as better than the second film, but it retains
virtually
all of the negatives that began once the concept was transferred to the
Silver Screen.
If you hated the first two films, you'll hate this one, and if you found
yourself mildly entertained, and/or simply can't get enough of this
overall
concept and franchise (like me,) you may find this one the best of the
film
series so far, which, of course, is not saying much.
For those of us devoted to the original series (and even the 1988 revival
was far superior to the Cruise movies,) there's not a whole lot to
recommend
here. There's three "capers" packed into this single film, and even at
just
over two hours, there's simply no time to do them justice.
They just sort of pop out of nowhere, unlike the tantalizing pre- mission
conferences that were a crucial aspect of the original show. And since
the
focus is solely on the execution, it gives the filmmakers license to show
wall-to-wall action scenes, some of them a little absurd even for this
genre.
Another inherent problem with the film series is that each one always
involves something completely outside mission parameters. Some of the
best
original shows were episodes where something went wrong, or the matter was
unexpected, as in "The Town" or the wrenching gone-wrong tension from "The
Carriers."
In the film series, of necessity, there's always something "gone wrong,"
and
this was way over the top in the first film where the whole team is
immediately killed and the obscene plot twist at the end assaulted us all.
There's also an absurd plot point or two which you just have to ignore.
One
is copied from James Cameron's TRUE LIES, but played without humor. And
whatever you do, don't try to analyze the film's logic too carefully, just
go with the flow.
Is there any good news here at all? Yes. Dialogue and situations are a
bit
better than in past films. Also, at least one of the capers gets the real
feel of the original show with its style and complexity (the one in the
Vatican.)
The assembled team is pretty cohesive and interesting, though not very
developed in terms of the characters. There simply isn't time. But it's
nice that they don't all get killed after ten minutes.
I also thought parts of the film were fairly gripping, but this concept of
a
"mole" in the IMF was obviously bad in the first film, and when it turns
up
again here, it really just looks like a plot device, and an annoying one.
In point of fact, there is no IMF in these films; it's really always all
about Cruise's character, often acting alone, or with poorly developed
anonymous teammates, or trying to decide who's betrayed him. The films
are
one-man gigs, not ensemble plays.
In short, the film is much more similar to a modern thriller, such as the
BOURNE films, than it is in any way connected to the original "MISSION"
concepts. (And note, the BOURNE films are far better, even as what they
are.)
As noted with the first film, don't go looking for an updated MISSION:
IMPOSSIBLE since you really won't find it. The movie, actually all three,
can be enjoyed only on their own terms, as modern action-packed
thriller-intrigue movies.
The emphasis is squarely on brute force and Jackie Chan type skill, not
brains, careful plotting, or the classic qualities, such as getting the
villain to prepare his own noose. As the first film made clear, Cruise
bought the name and the franchise, but he's a poor caretaker thereof, and
he
certainly pays no homage to the stunning
breakthrough that was the TV show.
It's actually a moderately entertaining action film and if you like that
sort of thing, I'd give it a go. But as a continuation of the magnificent
original concept, which I found survived even the 1988 series, forget
about
it.
|
