MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE
A film review by Scott Renshaw
Copyright 1996 Scott Renshaw
(Paramount) Starring: Tom Cruise, Jon Voight, Emmanuelle Beart, Henry Czerny, Ving Rhames, Jean Reno. Screenplay: David Koepp, Robert Towne. Director: Brian DePalma. Reviewed by Scott Renshaw.
During one fifteen minute sequence in MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE, I was reminded of what a masterful director of suspense Brian DePalma can be when he is on his game. In that sequence, government undercover operative Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) is attempting to break into a CIA computer facility to steal information which will help him clear his name after he is suspected of being a double-agent, with the assistance of a team of other disavowed agents (Ving Rhames, Emmanuelle Beart and Jean Reno). That facility, however, is filthy with security systems: laser sensors, heat sensors, pressure sensors, sound sensors. As Cruise attempts to download files and get out of the booby-trapped room safely, DePalma creates the kind of suspense that most directors of action only dream about -- you're wondering not only _if_ Cruise will be caught, but which alarm will go off first. The CIA set piece is crisply edited, and set up and executed with skill and flair. For those fifteen minutes, DePalma is a genius again, and MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE is all you could ask a summer adventure-thriller to be.
This had to come as a dream assignment for DePalma, whose career has been a virtual relief map of peaks (THE UNTOUCHABLES) and valleys (THE BONFIRE OF THE VANITIES). It's telling that you won't see DePalma's name anywhere in the advertising campaign for MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE -- he's obviously not considered much of a selling point -- but it's the kind of job that can put a guy back on the A-list. What a shame that with the exception of those furiously tense fifteen minutes, DePalma seems to be spending most of his time on damage control. The film is full of cockeyed angles, extreme close-ups, flashbacks and slow-motion, as DePalma tries to create the illusion that somewhere buried in all the busy detail of plot, something is actually at stake in MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE.
Just to demonstrate that I understand the point of MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE, I will observe that it is a premise, a property, a franchise, an identifiable name to be exploited. It is an espionage thriller which comes conveniently after GOLDENEYE has demonstrated that there is still a market for espionage thrillers, and it is yet another escapist entertainment like TWISTER which treats story and character as luxury items not afforded by budgets in the neighborhood of $70 million (a very comfortable neighborhood). The problem is that MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE carries on as though the story _is_ supposed to matter -- that we're supposed to care enough about Ethan Hunt as a character to want to see him succeed in his quest to vindicate himself, that we're supposed to understand there is a personal, mentor-like relationship between Hunt and his team leader Jim Phelps (Jon Voight), that we're supposed to identify any personal qualities in any of the individuals who comprise Hunt's IMF teams. There are scenes throughout the film which suggest that we're supposed to find the relationships between people relevant in some way, and instead I found myself scratching my head and wondering where, precisely, I was supposed to have picked up that information.
Even DePalma makes several puzzling choices during the film, including an ill-advised sequence which shows us through flashback that Hunt knows someone is lying to him, making a scene which comes later thoroughly anti-climactic. Still, he seems most of the time to be trying his best with a script by David Koepp and Robert Towne (and which featured story assistance from Steven Zaillian) which is both simplistic in premise and ridiculously convoluted and confusing in the execution. There is one extremely well-handled and unexpected development quite early in the film, and it offers the hope that MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE is going to avoid the predictability bug. However, at its heart MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE is about one real question -- who is the real traitor -- and I found myself waiting for the inevitable revelation through a morass of ridiculous leaps of logic.
MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE's two other action set pieces will certainly have their fans, and there are moments of excitement and cleverness in both of them. But I found the opening sequence brutally edited, and if you've seen any trailers or commercials for the film (and how could you miss them), you've seen the best moment in the big high-speed train finale. No, there is only one real reason to see MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE, and that is those fifteen precious minutes when you are reminded that a scene without special effects can be gripping because it was put together by a superb craftsman, a director who can momentarily make you forget about a sloppy script, and make you care about the fate of cardboard cutouts.
On the Renshaw scale of 0 to 10 impossible dreams: 5.
-- Scott Renshaw Stanford University http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~srenshaw
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