The summer movie season is upon us, since it starts in May, although Summer doesn't technically start until June 21st. I guess there isn't a point to nit picking with Hollywood. As we all know the summer movie season is generally dedicated to mindless popcorn action flicks. This year is no different, coming right out of the gate with Mission: Impossible III. Forgive me for a bit of history and no doubt a misrepresenting of the argument but a poet of the early twentieth century named Vachel Lindsay wrote a book in 1915 called The Art Of the Moving Picture, in one chapter on action films, he argues that they are supposed to be mindless with poor character development, because its about the chase scene or the fight scene.
I find this to be flawed in our current world, because I've seen movies that do both. Michael Mann is pretty good at developed characters and chase scenes. John Frankenheimer did wonders in Ronin (1998). If we accept a crappy action filled two hour movie with no character development then we will get exactly that. Okay I'll try to stop moralizing about film now. So when I went to see Mission: Impossible III, I tried as best I could to not let the absurd at times incoherent plot get to me. This was very hard for me to do. But I think I managed okay. So I'll attempt to leave any criticism of the plot out of this review.
Tom Cruise has returned as Ethan Hunt, who is now engaged to a woman, who thinks he is a traffic pattern specialist in a DOT. I've found lies are the best way to cultivate a caring, loving relationship and apparently so does Ethan Hunt. He's asked to do one more mission, despite not doing that stuff anymore and eventually gets caught up in a bigger mission, going head to head with Owen Davian (Philip Seymour Hoffman). There are twists and turns and lots of really intense looks. And in the end we have a happy ending. Sorry if I ruined that for you, but then again if you didn't know that all would be right with the world in the end, then you really don't pay attention in these types of movies.
Okay, I've summarized the movie as much as I can without criticizing it endlessly. Did this movie have anything to speak to its being good? Philip Seymour Hoffman is the answer. He was a villain in the way you want a villain in a movie like this. Cold blooded and unfazed by anything the hero could threaten. Hoffman is delightful for most of the movie. It got a little disappointing in the end, when his character was suddenly doing things that seemed unlikely for the development they had established, but he was still fun to watch.
By contrast there was Tom Cruise. At times I think Tom Cruise is really good. He was amazing as a misogynistic help guru in Magnolia (1999). He was even great as a ruthless assassin in Collateral (2004). But most of the time Cruise is pretty boring. Here he fumes and huffs and puffs and really got on my nerves. He's supposed to be this bad-ass special agent, and his temper boils over faster than water on the surface of the sun. I'm not sure that last metaphor makes sense. Regardless, Cruise is boring and just not convincing as this super spy.
In fact most of the people in this film are unconvincing as super spies. Keri Russell has a small role as one of Hunt's trainees who was recommended for field duty. TV's Felicity for crying out loud! I'm sorry but, no, I don't buy it. What else did we get in this film? Jonathan Rhys Meyers, really well cast in Match Point (2005), really poorly cast in this. He didn't even do anything that couldn't have been done by another side character. Ving Rhames, I like Ving Rhames, but he isn't exactly a good actor. He does his cool guy routine the whole movie, its gotten tired after three movies.
Now the biggest casualties in the realm of actors. Laurence Fishburne plays John Brassel, a by the book, do your job right pain in the ass, who ironically is right most of the time in the movie. He does what he can with the role and it works, except that he is so methodical and strict that it doesn't make any sense when he is lenient on the very things he is critical about, if they succeed. Also in the position of upper management in this film is Billy Crudup. Poor, poor Billy Crudup. Poor development and a twist, a twist that makes absolutely no logical sense. Really I just found it silly.
I should note that early in the movie I saw a scene where Tom Cruise rides a motorcycle to an airfield to go on a mission. Two thoughts entered my head. One, wow that seems oddly reminiscent of Top Gun (1986), eerily so. Two, Why is he not wearing a helmet? I would guess its illegal to drive his bike without one and its common sense. What Super Agents don't have to worry about massive head trauma? This guy is an idiot.
I thought the Top Gun thing might be a fluke, but then later there was a scene when ol Tom has to get out of the country without the sophisticated gadgetry (he's gone rogue you see and can only use what is freely available). So he puts on a wig, a mustache and a skull cap. He now looks early like his character from Born On The Fourth Of July (1989). Apparently despite a warrant out for his arrest and presumably pictures of him posted at all major ports of exit from the country, trained security can be fooled by a disguise that makes him look exactly like him, except for a mustache and a wig. Oh well, que sera sera.
Back to the plot, sort of. In the first film, there was an elaborate amount of detail applied to the big set piece of the film, breaking into the CIA headquarters. There was explanations of the traps and security and it is pulled off cleverly. By this film, they can barely be bothered to explain why stuff is so hard to get into and often the skip actually showing you anything of the sort. They break into like four or five secure locations, it meant nothing by the end. They literally don't even show the last break in. It was absurd. A character actually says at one point that breaking into this one building will be harder than Langley. Its good to know that there are buildings out there in the private sector that are more difficult to break into than the headquarters of the CIA. Apparenlty the CIA is a cake walk in the world of b and e.
Well in conclusion, this movie was ridiculous. Of course the reality is, if you want to see this movie, nothing I say will change your mind, and if you had no intention of seeing it, then you didn't need my two cents worth. Still I felt the need to get it off my chest as it were. Here's hoping for no future Mission: Impossibles or would it be Missions: Impossible?
No comments:
Post a Comment