Tom Cruise (an actor who I think is there for girls to go crazy over) plays Ethan Hunt, a professional spy whose assignment, which he chooses to accept, is to prevent the theft of a computer file containing the code names and real identities of all of America’s double agents. It’s not enough to simply stop the guy. Cruise and his team (who consists of Jon Voight, Kristen Scott-Thomas and Emmanuelle Beart) are asked to photograph the enemy in the act of stealing the information, and then follow him until it passes along. This process involves a check list of Cold War spycraft and clichés: Eye glasses with built-in TV cameras, concealed microphones, laptop computers, agents in elaborate disguise, exploding cars, knifings, shootings, bodies toppling in the river, etc. Of course the whole sequence centers on a diplomatic reception in Prague.
Because “Mission: Impossible” was directed by the great Brian De Palma, who Ebert describes as “a master of genre thrillers and sly Hitchcockian wit,” it’s actually a nearly impossible mission to take the plot seriously.
He is more concerned with style than story, which is smart because if this movie stopped and took a moment to explain what is going on, it would take too long.
There are a number of double-reverses in the first half hour, where we learn to accept nothing but face value (not even the faces, since they might be a mask). And the momentum of the visuals doesn’t make us ask logical questions, for instance, is physically copying a computer file onto another disc the only way to steal it? “Mission: Impossible” is all superficial surface and technical skill. The characters are not very interesting (except for Vanessa Redgrave, as an information broker, and Jon Voight, who expresses a sad boredom in a film too impatient for exhaustion of any kind). The plot is impossible to follow. The various strategies of Cruise and his allies and foes don’t stand up under inspection. And none of that matters.
This is a movie that exists in the instant, and we must exist in the instant to enjoy it. Any troubling questions from earlier in the film must be tightly withdrawn.
De Palma is an expert at sustained nonverbal action sequences, and there are three in this film: The opening scenario at the diplomatic reception; a delicate act of computer theft; and a chase in which a helicopter follows a high-speed London-Paris train into the Chunnel with Cruise and a bad guy clinging to the top of it.
Ebert said in his review, “The computer theft scene will ring a bell with anyone who has seen "Rififi" (1954) or "Topkapi" (1964), both by Jules Dassin, who became famous for his extended theft sequences done in total silence."Topkapi" also used the device of suspending a thief from a hole in the ceiling, to avoid anti-theft devices on the floor.” This time, De Palma gives us a computer “safe room” rigged so that the alarms will sound at any noise above a certain chatter level, any pressure on the floor, or any change in the temperature. Cruise hangs in a harness while carefully inserting a blank disc and making a copy of the file.
Of course it’s convenient that the chatter level is set high enough that it isn’t triggered by the noise of a computer copying a disc – which is precisely what it should be guarding against. Convenient, too, that the infra-red rays guarding the ceiling hatch can be so conveniently handled with. And very convenient for the audience that the rays are made visible to a normal eye. Ebert recommends, “If you want to see infra-red rays -- really -- exploited in a heist movie, have a look at "Grand Slam"(1968).”
If the heist has been done before, and better, not even the James Bond films have ever given us anything quite like the ending chase sequence, with a bad guy in a helicopter flying into the Chunnel linking Britain to France. Earlier it’s been established that the train through Britain is traveling so fast that Cruise, clinging to it, might easily be blown off. Ebert said in his review, “This will cheer the film’s British viewers, who can forget a moment that the Chunnel train goes that fast only on the French side, since the high-speed tracks on the Britain side have not yet been completed. (Inaugurating the Chunnel, Francois Mitter and wickedly described a traveler "Speeding through France and then enjoying a leisurely view of the British countryside").”
No matter. The train goes fast, and the helicopter follows it right under the Chunnel, and De Palma’s special effects (by Industrial Light and Magic) are clever for obscuring the scale involved, since a helicopter’s blades would obviously not fit into a tunnel – but then why, Ebert asks, “am I quibbling, since the whole stunt is obviously impossible?”
The bottom line on a film like this is, Tom Cruise looks cool and holds our attention while doing neat things that we don’t quite understand – doing them so quickly and with so much style that we put our questions on hold, and go with the flow. When the movie is over, it turns out there wasn’t anything except the flow. Our relief, Ebert guessed, is that we had fun going with it.
If you haven’t seen “Mission: Impossible” yet, I highly recommend you watch it, it’s really good, especially if you’re a fan of Tom Cruise. Stay tuned for I will review the other films in the series for “Mission: Impossible Month.”
No comments:
Post a Comment