"Why are you reviewing a film that's nearly 15 years old that everyone's already seen six billion times?" I hear you ask. Well, the fact is that the decade from 2000 to 2009 heralded a huge change in cinema, especially in terms of the blockbuster and action film. Batman Begins, for example, changed what the term "comic book film" meant. Perhaps a more relevant example to this review is the Bourne trilogy, in particular The Bourne Identity, which heavily contributed to the changes in the way we view spy flicks and as a result altered our expectations of such a film.
Instead of films being remembered for having a plot as an excuse for their action set pieces, suddenly the "spy movie" became more commonly known as the "spy thriller". Plot and suspense became larger focal points, and over the top action was being replaced with something more representative of reality. (On the DVD special features of The Bourne Identity, an actual retired intelligence officer was interviewed and pointed out many of the things Bourne does are similar to what a field agent would need to do in reality to survive.)
So how does a spy film made in the second half of the 1990's and released when blockbusters were arguably at their peak of success stack up to our expectations of the spy film today? Surprisingly well, actually. Even though I started off watching Mission impossible for some mindless fun, I realised that it has more in common with the modern day spy thriller than I remembered it to.
Perhaps we should start with the mindless fun, though, because that's the part of the film that does not stack up against the more modern spy thrillers. The reason it does not stack up against the more moderns spy thrillers is because it is not a thriller. At it's heart it's still an action blockbuster, and that's what we rightly remember it to be. The action scenes are over the top, sometimes ludicrously so, and at times the plot does feel like it's been set up to accommodate the iconic action set pieces. The other major give-away that it's a blockbuster is that it suffered from Bad Sequel Syndrome, the disease that arguably killed off the fun action film genre and brought a golden age of blockbusters to an end.
I don't need to discuss the action in Mission Impossible much more, seeing as we all remember it pretty well, so let's move on to plot. Do you remember that as well? You may remember bits and pieces, but try and remember what the main plot was about. I'll wait. ("Tom Cruise has to do something that involves hanging on a harness," is not an acceptable answer.)
I guess you could sum up the main plot as follows: Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) is framed as being a mole after his team of spies are all killed while on a mission undercover. He decides to steal a list of all undercover agents in order to draw out the real mole and clear his name.
In amongst this plot are plenty of twists and turns until the mole is finally revealed. And here's where the film actually stacks up with it's more modern spy film family: if you're not paying attention, you'll miss the little things. And some of these little things are essential in understanding who did what and when. For example, when Hunt works out who the mole is and is detailing how he did it, if you're not paying attention you'd think he's calling out the mole there and then when in reality he's only thinking it and playing a bit of a bluff. Another neat little example is when Hunt calls CIA Headquarters from a pay phone across from a clock so he can time how long he has before he's traced.
It's the little things like the clock that we remember from the modern spy thrillers. We remember it and think "He/She was pretty clever when they did that." But interestingly, we don't remember all those moments from films like Mission Impossible. It's probably because they're overshadowed by the bigger action pieces, and I think this in turn brings about something much more fundamental.
By toning down the action, we are forced to focus on the plot. And when we do that, we get something that even the golden age blockbusters sometimes failed to deliver: Emotional impact.
Or, by having High Octane Action, we forget that there are bleeding holes in said plot.
ReplyDeleteSometimes, the adage "The loudest mouth speaks the least" holds true... and that probably is the case of blockbuster action.
M:I 2, for example.
I liked it at the cinema. It was big and bold. Loud, action, fun. Some pseudo-science and using historical/mythical names made it sound cool in the cinema when you aren't trying to think about it.
Then I saw it again at home later and realised what crap it was.
It is the sort of thing that works big time on the big screen because it is big... but, when you come back later, you realise that it was actually kinda crap.
This is the point where I say that I was not horribly enraged when I saw Star Wars Episode One and Two at the cinema because there was some pretty interesting action scenes and... well... it was Star Wars. After seeing them at home at my own leisure, however, I nearly gagged.
Anyone see "Law Abiding Citizen"?
The first maybe half hour was quite engrossing... the history and the eventual snapping of the central bad guy as well as the interesting way that everyone seems to be tangled together. After that, however, it devolved in to the obvious and familiar "get bigger and better and involve explosions... and somehow involve the CIA" territory with little relation to earlier incidents, events and, indeed, the whole aspect of being a Law Abiding Citizen.
So... yes. By toning down the action, or by making the action less explosive, you are forced to have some plot... something that appears to be only sporadic or half arsed for many.