Laughable, but not in the funny way.
Today I rented all three Mission Impossible movies. The first one is a really good movie. Maybe not quite the same as the show, but still a good movie. I would say it is a continuation of the show. SPOILER ALERT! The Jon Voight character is the team handler, the same character from the TV show (they had even asked the same acter to reprise his role), and he feels that he has been left behind and ignored and that he has no place in a post cold war world, so he sets a complex plan in motion where he could betray his employer, get ten million dollars and retire. The show was him running his team and performing the tasks, the movie was him having grown tired and jaded and, well, evil. Some purists were unhappy with the treatment, but I think it was a somewhat natural progression, or it at least made sense, even if it was not ideal. And the movie itself was good. Also, interestingly enough, the main character (Tom Cruise) never actually fires a gun in the entire movie. That is somewhat odd for an action movie, but I like it.
I have not watched the third one yet, but I remember it being....meh. Fine but nothing spectacular.
My problem is with the second movie. First, Tom Cruise's hair is too long. I just don't like how it looks.
But my main problem is how much of the plot revolves around his actions relating to the love of his life, his soul mate, his reason d'etre. The woman he met ten minutes before jumping into bed with her. That part I can understand - it's pretty common in movies and for better or for worse, it is not unusual. What bugs me is how much of his action is driven by his deep love for this woman he barely knows. He spends a grand total of two days with her at most and we're supposed to believe that he has such a deep and profound connection with her that they can communicate wordlessly and she is willing to infect herself with a virus that will kill her in twenty hours unless she is given the antidote. It would actually be a very effective story if this was a woman he had loved for a long time, if this was in fact a woman he could have truly loved. It would be a tragic story and quite powerful, but instead it is just irritating. This woman he is willing to risk his life for, that he would do anything for, is not even in the third movie at all. How much of a true love could it really be?
Honestly, it is actually making every scene between Cruise and the girl (Thandie Newton, incidentally) laughable. The passion in his eyes, the burden of the difficult choices he has to make, the emotional connection that is between them all makes me roll my eyes and root for the bad guy to shoot her. Or him. Or both. I'm not terribly fussy. Seriously - two days!!
Plus, the shirt she is wearing is terrible.
Really, the entire movie is laughable and I can't believe it was successful enough that they made a third.
Two DAYS!
2 Comments:
I guess you've never known passionate love, but it's a common theme in John Woo movies. The romantic notion that 2 people know when they're right for each other at the beginning is important to Woo.
Yes, "love at first sight" is a bit out-of-date in our world, but it works in this movie.
Plus Newton is SMOKING HOT in this movie (she really was one of the most beautiful women ever to appear on film in that movie - never has a plain grey t-shirt in jeans looked so sexy) and it's not too hard to believe that someone would fall her quickly.
I would have liked to have seen Newton and Cruise in the 3rd movie together (which IMO was dull and a lifeless cross breed of the first 2 films), but that had more to do with Hollywood politicking than MI:2's storyline.
First, fashion taste is a personal thing. I think the t-shirt and jeans looked terrible, but that's just me.
As for the 'passionate love', that is a concept I don't really agree with, at least as presented in this (and countless other) movie. While there should be passion in love, love that is based solely on passion is a fleeting fancy because eventually that passion will fade. When that happens there must be something remaining for the love to continue. If there is not, then we should call it what it is - passionate lust. I don't necessarily think that two people have to know each other for a long time before they can properly be in love as I have known many people who were engaged within weeks of meeting and have had entirely happy and strong marriages, but they have also worked at love and kept it going beyond the initial feelings.
I guess the final thing to say is that I found M:I-2 to be a very disappointing movie and that I don't think that the 'love at first sight' convention worked in this movie at all.
But hey, that's my opinion.
Post a Comment
<< Home