Mission: Impossible III

I never really expected to watch any of the Mission: Impossible series. Action movies don't do too much for me unless they feature some rad car chases (I'm a sucker for those). Also, I have a rather strong distaste for Tom Cruise as an actor and as a person (or more appropriately, how he's represented as a person). A growing appreciation for Brian de Palma in conjunction with a desire to see Brad Bird's entry into the franchise prompted me to catch up and I've been (mostly) pleasantly surprised by the first two. There are massive amounts of ridiculousness in the series, which is what I can't stand about action movies in general, but they are a lot of fun and watching them plan and pull off missions is always exciting.

I'm no J.J. Abrams fanboy, but I like what he seems to be about (don't ask me what that is). If there's one thing the M:I franchise has done well, it's attached interesting directors with their own style. It's a little surprising that Tom Cruise capacity as producer didn't compromise that, but maybe I've always been too hard on Cruise. Sure, John Woo's "operatic" gun fights (read: slow-motion and doves) is excessive, but it's distinctive. in M:I III, Abrams uses lots of colorful lighting and lens flares (or at least saturates the screen with the light), which is unmistakably a staple of his. One can't help but wonder how long some of the scenes took to light.

As for the plot, it's just as convoluted and twisty as one would expect and the surprise turn at the end isn't much of a surprise. Ethan Hunt and his crew are out to catch Owen Davian who is selling weapons and whatnot to terrorist groups. However, an inside operative frees Davian who captures Hunt's wife in order to make Hunt get "the rabbit's foot" for him. The story is pretty interesting and takes the viewer to some fun and impressive locations, but since the film starts out with Hunt captured and his wife tied up with a gun to her head, we know basically where it's headed. Not only do we know that nothing bad can happen to Hunt until he gets to that point, we already know his wife is in danger. Even worse, though, is that we know that what we are seeing at the beginning isn't going to be exactly what it seems. I really hate the device of showing a later event at the beginning of a film because it saps drama and makes the viewer skeptical of what they are seeing. It's the difference between "how do we get there?" and "where are we going?" I find the latter much more exciting.

The other major issue with M:I III is that Philip Seymour Hoffman is so good as Davian that one wishes he was featured more prominently. He's easily the best and most terrifying villain thus far in the series and he's really only featured for about ten to fifteen minutes. He's casual, disinterested menace that's far more intimidating than the generally over-the-top bad guys in action movies. He steals the movie every time he's on screen. I would totally watch a film about his rise to power and affluence. Simon Pegg is another welcome addition to the M:I world, but of course he is. He's Simon Pegg!

There haven't been many regrets in catching up with the M:I films. At their worst, they're still fun ways to spend two hours as long as you don't mind random acts of masterful marksmanship while, say, sliding down the roof of a building but convenient lapses in said aim at other points or the fact that putting on a Philip Seymour Hoffman mask suddenly gives one his gut as well. Those are silly gripes in the face of a franchise that is based around completing impossible missions that are apparently not so impossible.