On Mission: Impossible III
The latest instalment of the Mission: Impossible franchise sees Ethan Hunt, once again played by Tom Cruise, take on his riskiest mission thus far – to steal a government secret weapon for the bad guys in order to save his fiancé from certain death while on the run from his own covert agency. Phew!
This instalment is directed by J.J. Abrams, the man who is now known for single-handedly breathing new life into television dramas with his hit show, Lost (Abram also created two other hit TV shows – Felicity (Abrams reunites with the show’s star, Keri Russell, in this film) and Alias). Before Abrams was handpicked by Cruise, who also serves as a producer of the film, to direct this film, two other directors were already in the running to direct M: I III. They were David Fincher and Joe Carnahan. Both went through a series of pre-production meetings and such, but the both dropped out because of creative differences with Mr. Cruise. It’s a shame because a Mission: Impossible film by either of those two directors would have been very interesting; especially Fincher because he has yet to do a straight-out action film and it would be exciting to see how his gritty visual style and nihilistic themes translate to an action film (perhaps something along the lines of the under-rated Running Scared by Wayne Kramer).
With Abrams, what we have here is a film that is more character-based compared to the previous two instalments. Mission: Impossible was a film that was all about style and suspense, pure Brian de Palma. The characters were undeveloped and the plot was a loose as a granny’s teat. But as usual in a de Palma film, he sucks us in with his boisterous showmanship, creating such suspenseful sequences that we don’t realise any of its faults until the movie is over. M: I II was directed by John Woo, the revered Hong Kong action director, and was widely considered a flop. Sure, the action scenes were amazing, but the characters still weren’t there and much of the film was just a bore. What Abrams has succeeded in doing is to take the excitement and energy of the action in the first two films and meld it with character-based drama.
However, as much as Abrams is successful in melding action with character, he also displays great showmanship in playing with the conventions of action films, taking situations and circumstances to places we would not have expected. This is not necessarily a good thing as some of the action scenes are downright preposterous such as the fulcrum-swing sequence near the end of the film. The crazed absurdity of the action sometimes resembles one of those old Warner Bros. cartoons. Sure, the audiences flipped. The loved it. Abrams very well have revitalized a formerly stillborn franchise. But besides the problem I’ve just stated, the film has many other problems as well. The film is a bit too much like a TV episode. The characters are caricatures with purpose and attitude but do not involve us in the story because of their lack of personality. Relationships are also sorely lacking in plausible chemistry and the filmmakers seem to expect us to feel for Hunt and his fiancé when they’ve hardly established a real relationship, but only one that involves sweet looks and sexual hunger.
There are times when action movies successfully blend great drama with great action, such as Cruise’s other movie, Minority Report. This isn’t one of them though Abrams tries his best to make it seem that way. The film wants to be about the dangers and consequences of a covert agent’s way of life. It even goes so far as to strip away every little shred of pretence in the plot, including its concealing of whatever the hell the sought-after government weapon, the ‘Rabbit’s Foot’, is. The film seems to be convinced that we don’t have to know because, as Abrams insists, “What’s important is the characters!” There is even a sequence in the film where Ethan is fighting for the Rabbit’s Foot but this is kept entirely off-screen. We see him struggle to get to an impossibly well-guarded government building, only to not know what happens when goes inside to get the damn thing. Instead, it cuts to two minor characters talking about how one of them has a special way of praying for luck. Come on! When you say you’re going to pull a rabbit out of your hat, don’t just tell us! Pull the damn rabbit out of the friggin’ hat!
This is an action movie, but it wants so much to be considered as a film about the characters, and how they’re all just normal people even when they’re working for the government and killing the bad guys, blah blah blah... I have a sneaking suspicion that Abrams is trying to deceive himself into thinking that he actually wants to tell an involving story. He shows such expertise in crafting such suspenseful action sequences, but yet he short-changes both us as the audience and himself by trying to make the film a character piece when the characters aren’t even all that interesting. The whole film plays like how a teenager would think a mature action movie (kind of a paradox, but bear with me) would play out. It wants to be about something deeper than just guns and explosions, but the filmmakers are just too caught up with making sure that the wall on that side of the room blows up juuuuuuust right.
Oh yeah, and the presence of Maggie Q and Jonathan Rhys Meyers doesn’t make anything easier. Both are terrible actors (though Rhys Meyers was supremely entertaining in Woody Allen’s morality thriller, Match Point. That the producers brought them in for bit parts is laughable. I can almost hear them say, “Hmmm... these characters. They don’t do much. Let’s get some pretty faces to fill them up.”
Now, the good stuff. Philip Seymour Hoffman is, as usual, a joy to watch as he takes on Owen Davian, the villain of the film, a first in his illustrious career. With the wonderful performance he gave in Capote, and now this seething, blistering performance, Hoffman may finally get the attention he deserves with his chameleon-like talents. His measured and intense performance gives the film the only plausibility it has. Having both Ving Rhames and Laurence Fishburne in your film is never a bad thing either.
This instalment of the Mission: Impossible franchise may be an improvement over the second film, but I do not see a future for Ethan Hunt as a lasting film character. He’s an uninteresting fellow with hardly any distinct qualities beside his wonderful ability to pose in every frame. At least James Bond is a misogynistic asshole with class.
Written by: Lim Lung Chieh
|
