DVD, Mission: Impossible 3 (2006) film
The third, and what might have been final, film in the series based on the sixties TV spy drama, starts with a clever sequence that leaves you wondering what is going on and why. It also illustrates the much more brutal feel of this film compared to the other two. Not to say they weren't violent and action-packed, because they were, but this one trades off of the Bourne style that made 'realism' the desire of all action film makers. No longer content to give us the balletic, 'Matrix'-like stunt action, where everything was incredible and seen in minute detail and slow-motion, now we always have to be in the thick of the action, even in the midst of it, so we can 'be there'.
But that isn't the point of films. They aren't interactive like computer games, they are telling a story and/or trying to wow us with spectacles, and while 'M:I3' partially succeeds on both fronts, it never does it in such an impressive way as the previous two films did, although it isn't as bad in the visuals department as 'Quantum of Solace', the worst offender of shaky-cam and millisecond cuts, so far (but there's sure to be worse). That is one of the inherent problems of this film - they are using the Bourne 'realism'-ometer of style, but still trying to do unreal things. Bourne was always based in reality, 'Mission: Impossible', at least the films, were always based on hairsbreadth escapes and completely unbelieveable, but hair-raising and brilliant to watch, stunts. The two ideaologies conflict, making the film seem like a cartoon.
The other problem is in the directorial decisions and the plot. Instead of the grand visual opening of 'M:I2' as Ethan scales a rocky peak in a free-climbing extravaganza, we are treated to a mundane engagement party, and while it is clever how the passage of time in the party is shown, as viewers we have no attachment to any of the new characters at all, and some come across as just annoying. You can say the scene contrasts with the shock and simmering violence of the opening, and it does, but these films work best when real life doesn't interfere, and it's so obvious how they were trying to ape the success of Bourne when they should have been playing up their own attributes, that Bourne couldn't get away with.
This is why we feel rushed into the first action scene. We haven't had any, so we need to get to something before people wonder if this is what they thought it was, or they've wandered into a soap. I also failed to get excited by the mundane real world location for his mission briefing. 'M:I2': puts on shades on top of a mountain top. 'M:I3': meets his boss at a convenience store and gets his mission from a disposable camera. See the difference in style? Subsequently, because of the strange insistence on the real world, when I first saw this film I became confused. First he's at home, then he's off with the familiar gang hanging around some old warehouse or factory. Was this a training facility where they would work out how they were going to rescue Farris?
I assumed the film as a whole was going to be about this rescue, and add to that they seemed to be calmly setting up some massive guns right in front of the building. If it was a base for the baddies then surely it would have better eyes and ears around the place? But no, it soon transpires that this is the real thing, and degenerates into explosions and half-seen shootouts. It's fast and frantic, but there's no grace to it, and it seems too easy. The only positive is that Luther Stickell is brought back - it wouldn't be 'Mission: Impossible' without him and Ethan working together. Unfortunately the other two assigned to the team don't have the charisma or interest of previous team members. The Irish guy seems to gripe or be laddish, and the asian woman is just there to look pretty. She probably gets the better of the limelight with her red dress and bright orange car.
That middle sequence was by far the most riveting and shows the team at their best. From the scaling of the Vatican wall up to the shock plane attack and rescue of Davian on the bridge, has to be the best part of the film with plenty of split second escapes and attachment to the action on several levels, something the early raid to get Farris didn't have. And to go back to that, I was also disappointed with the wind farm helicopter chase sequence. For one thing it takes place at night, perhaps to disguise the CGI, and the camera jerks all over the place. So from such a superb concept as helicopters firing at each other and a daredevil race through a field of rotating blades, it gets watered down to a barely viewable sequence that you feel caught up in, but can't connect with. True, it was about Farris dying, but a better director would have skillfully brought the concept to life and provided something never seen before.
The story was the other problem. All the films have unbelievable plots and moments, but perhaps because of the realism and mundanity quotient they are more obvious and become more contrasting scenes. I never really warmed to Julia (and again, on first viewing I didn't get who was who because Farris had the same length hair, and Julia looks quite different to the opening scene when she's tied to a chair), or the bosses. It's Morpheus! To be fair Lawrence Fishburne was fine, and I never had the problem of identifying him with 'The Matrix' because he's very different here. It doesn't help the film that he's much more sympathetic in those other films.
Musgrave, I'm not sure how early I knew that he was the villain, but it's usually the nice one who turns out bad, and the unpleasant one, the opposite. Perhaps they've run their course in having the baddies be part of IMF. It begins to make the personnel manager look a complete fool after hiring so many bad apples! In the first one it was Jim Phelps himself who was the bad guy. In 2 it was an agent who'd decided to work for himself. And in this one it's the director! Who's next, the office cleaner?
Owen Davian was quite a good villain, and was the best role aside from Ethan and Luther. Phillip Seymour Hoffman exudes self-assurant evil from every pore, and little things such as how he gets information out of Hunt when he's tied to the aeroplane chair, is chilling. Perhaps the only negative for him was that you hardly ever see him do anything bad. He doesn't get his hands dirty often, and it's mostly all talk about what he has done, what he could do, what he plans to do. Aside from killing his security advisor and beating Ethan, of course. Then again, maybe that helps his mystique and power. He uses words to hurt, knowing he has the resources to achieve whatever he wants, making a more thoughtful villain. He also has that air of world-weariness and understanding all the cliches so well that he has a kind of blunt non-humour, and a self-satisfied, unflappable air. Even when he's just been held outside of an aeroplane.
The film at least manages to use CGI to it's fullest and give us things we'd never seen before in the 'M:I' mythos. It's a huge crowd-pleaser to see how they make the face masks, and the intensely dexterous visual of turning Ethan into Davian on camera! Well, it shows the kind of heights they could reach. The way Hoffman moves when he's supposed to be Ethan in disguise - athletically climbing through the rafters, and his whole bearing shows that it's not the real thing. Okay, so maybe it was a body double for some of the more kinetic scenes, but the body work and timing is very good. Also very good is Benjie, played by Simon Pegg, who imbues such a tiny role with huge quality and makes you want him back for the next one. Every syllable is perfectly played, it's no wonder JJ Abrams brought him back for the role of Scotty in 'Star Trek'.
I'm conflicted about the score. Michael Giacchino sometimes gives great tension to scenes, and strong emotional tones to others, but his big crime is in not using the 'Mission: Impossible' theme enough, or creating a new variation worthy of what's gone before. Both previous films made a unique recreation of the title music and used it, especially number 2, amidst the action. The beats would pound out and it raised your adrenalin, and reminded you that this is 'M:I' and nothing else. The theme was somewhat lost, relegated to a short opener and a bit in the end credits, and nothing made it unique. It helped to erode the identity of this film as compared with other action films, and I didn't like more 'silly' tunes such as when Ethan escapes from IMF and holds down the transmit button so Brassel can't give orders to stop him. I suppose that kind of music suited the more casual and humourous tone.
They've always had humour, but the situations are so dire that it's not always as evident as in this film. Little lines started to bother me: "Humpty dumpty sat on a wall," Ethan says as he looks into camera. I felt sometimes that the dips back into stylistic behaviour didn't suit the hard-edge of this film, and played up to the dumb action hero image. In fact Ethan's image itself has lost something that it did have in common with Bourne. They were both, to some degree, pacifists. If they could get by without killing or harming, they would, but here, Ethan has no qualms about gunning all the time. Yes, the tone is different, and the stakes are personal, but it seems odd that something the film had in common with it's Bourne inspiration is less in evidence now.
I will say this for it. It ends on a high, with a good old-fashioned happy ending. I wondered if they would have the guts to kill Ethan off, and make such a daring move permanent, but I'm glad that they didn't, and that another film is on the way. When I first saw it I assumed it would probably be the last, but I suppose Bourne's success has paid off, and it did pretty well. Unfortunately, it's likely to be made by the same team as this one, and I can only hope they try to take it back to being it's own thing and not trying to be Bourne. The thing is, each film has been directed and made by a different director, writers, and so on, and that was in the spirit of the TV series. It's supposed to have a different look, a different sensibility, a different style. Can JJ Abrams do something radically different? I'm not sure.
I just hope Ethan, Luther, and now Benjie, all make their comebacks, and that the camera will learn stillness, and that the score will be rejuvenated, and that their won't be something so obviously a gimmick as the maguffin of the Rabbit's Foot. That was one of my biggest disappointments - that the film's story rests on an unexplained, vague item, the size of a flask of tea, that is never built up or used except as a motivation for action without reasoning. It felt like the writers realised they didn't have an idea for something new that could motivate the story and simply decided not to come up with one and to have a non-entity instead. Bad writing.
Six years is too long to wait for a story that is a little bit by-the-numbers. Hopefully something more intelligent, or more action-packed, to paper over the cracks, will be in order next time. It seemed a little too much 'True Lies', the rubbish Schwartzenegger film where he's a spy and his wife gets dragged into it. I would have preferred it if Ethan had been married to Nyah from 'M:I2' and I can only assume she died somehow, as they were a perfect match. If not, bring her back for number 4, please. And more references to the other films (like they mentioned Langley being a cakewalk), and Ethan must once again drop from a descender wire. It wouldn't be 'Mission: Impossible' if he didn't!
***
