Mission: Impossible (1996)

reviewed by
Mark R. Leeper


                            MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE
                      A film review by Mark R. Leeper
                       Copyright 1996 Mark R. Leeper
               Capsule: Calling it MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE
          implies a certain quality of writing, and with a
          story by Stephen Zallian we might almost expect we
          would get it.  However, the script lets us down.
          This is a film that is more like a Harry Palmer
          film crossed with TOPKAPI and a James Bond finale
          slapped on.  The style is definitely not that of
          MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE, with its slowly and
          mysteriously built sting operations.  This is just
          a mediocre espionage/mystery story transparently
          forced into the MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE world.  Rating:
          low +1 (-4 to +4)

For seven years, from September 1966 to September 1973, perhaps the best-written program on television was "Mission: Impossible." The program leveraged off the popularity of the James Bond films, but in fact, the writing and style was more like 1973's Best Picture, THE STING. Virtually every episode was of the same format. The Impossible Mission Force would be given some task to perform. The instructions would come on perhaps the most famous television prop of those years, the self-destructing tape found in some mysterious location. The team leader would thoughtfully dig through a stack of dossiers of possible candidates for the mission though, with the exception of the occasional guest star, the team he chose would almost always be identical to the team he chose the previous week. And then the team would go into action. Most of the program would then be the IMF doing a sequence of mysterious activities, obviously with purposeful intent. Each episode was a puzzle and a mystery. But instead of being a who-done-it, it would be a what's-going-on. Pieces of a sort of Rube Goldberg machine were being assembled. The viewer might have no idea what the pieces added up to and why they solved the initial problem. Then at the end the machine was set in motion. In fascinating detail all the pieces would fall into place. We could use a real MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE movie. We did not get it. Instead we got a second-rate mystery film on an espionage backdrop with one good tense sequence and a tepid James Bond-style finale.

Twenty-three years after we last saw him, Jim Phelps (now played by Jon Voight instead of Peter Graves) is still around running operations for IMF, the Impossible Mission Force. He has a new team featuring the talents of the hard-edged Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise playing an E. Howard Hunt-like character with a few new characterization wrinkles for Cruise). The mission as the film begins is to stymie an attempt to steal a list of agents with the code-names and real name. This is the kind of mission that the IMF should be able to do with their eyes closed. This time, however, there are unexpected turns for the IMF and Hunt finds he must on his own solve a mystery and face a mission on his own. Even with this basis the puzzle format of the original series could have been honored. The script could have followed a mysterious sequence of preparations for the tasks he has to perform, but that is approach is thrown out. Instead we hear what his objective is--and it does sound very difficult--and then we just follow him as he does it. There are no hints as to how he will perform that task, we just watch has he does it. The only real puzzle for the viewer is to guess who is doing what to whom, and it is not made very difficult. The clue that leads to the solution of the mystery is an extreme contrivance involving a character senselessly giving himself away. Perhaps somebody thought that modern audiences might not take well to being asked to puzzle about something that is not straightforward and simple.

Tom Cruise does get a chance to burn a little in anger and to show a little confusion, but in general his character is internalized and this is not a difficult character to play. This might have been a good role for Kevin Spacey to play. Second billing goes to the Jon Voight whose Jim Phelps overshadows much of the film though he quickly disappears from sight. Somewhat more memorable is Vanessa Redgrave as a mysterious woman from the dark side of the night world. Cruise is teamed with Emmanuelle Beart of MANON OF THE SPRINGS, UN COEUR EN HIVER, and more recently NELLY ET MONSIEUR ARNAUD. Beart is a talented actress, but this is not her kind of role and she brings nothing to it. Danny Elfman does bring something to the musical score, but mostly his touch is not needed. I got a genuine chill down my spine with the spectacular opening rendition of Lalo Schifrin theme done with a full orchestra. For me that was the high point of the film. One of the low-points with the disco version under the closing credits.

In the final analysis, the big fault of MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE is that the title makes promises that the script cannot fulfill. There are better spy films that have come and gone with far less fanfare. Perhaps this would have worked better if Zallian had followed through and written the script. A better script would have gone a long way to improving this film. I rate it a low +1 on the -4 to +4 scale.

                                        Mark R. Leeper
                                        mleeper@lucent.com

The review above was posted to the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due to ASCII to HTML conversion.

Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews