Retrospective: Mission: Impossible I-III

The “Mission: Impossible” franchise was borne from a television show that ran from 1966 to 1973. Much of the iconography and original theme song were incorporated into the films, and still are. From the original inception of this franchise there has so-far been five films, the most recent of which, “Mission: Impossible: Rogue Nation,” has only just appeared in theatres. Since the release of the fourth film many have heralded it as the beginning of an era of change in the franchise, and that these films are good again. The first three films have been completely separated from these new two, and are now seen as dated and trivial in comparison. As I am a critic who actually values watching a franchise, or series of films, in chronological order, I have recently watched the first three films in succession, and have become enamored and wistful of the progression. Each film has its own pace, its own mood, and I can only imagine the changes that have been made in the newest two. Though I am excited to see those two films, and the already green-lit sixth film, I would like to take this time to talk about the original trilogy and it’s strange progression over ten years (1996-2006).

Mission: Impossible (1996) dir. Brian De Palma

The original film kept in time with the original show in many respects, mostly because it looked modern and sleek, a feat the show accomplished in its heyday by using gadgetry and innovation. Some of the same technology of the show is shown in this film, including self-destructing messages, a repeating device in the other two films. Jon Voight takes over Peter Graves’ iconic role of Jim Phelps in this film, but the reigns are handed to Ethan Hunt (Cruise). Tom Cruise was not a huge action star in 1996. He had done the racing film “Days of Thunder,” but that was the most action he had seen. He was much more famous for dramatic, Oscar bait turns in “The Firm” and “A Few Good Men.” He and producing partner Paula Wagner got this film off the ground, and here we are twenty some years later with an entire franchise.

The film builds tension in the very beginning by killing off Hunt’s team and blaming Hunt, putting him on the run. Hunt is suspected to be a mole within IMF (Impossible Mission Force) and the rest of the film has him hunting down the mole and clearing his name. Hunt’s new team consists of Luther Stickell (Rhames, who appears in the next two films) and Krieger (Reno), who each try to help Hunt track down a list of CIA operatives, bought by one of our villains, Max (Redgrave).

What made the film famous, initially, were the stunts. Tom Cruise, for all society has to say about him, is a terrific actor, and a man who is not afraid to do his own stunts. The most repeated and parodied scene comes during a heist, when Ethan Hunt must propel himself into a vault, and not trigger the motion sensors. A bead of sweat almost derails the entire operation. An also memorable feat comes at the very end, as a badly CGI’d helicopter and train come inches from Hunt’s boyish face. The love interest in this film (as there always must be a love interest) is Phelps’ wife, Claire (Béart), lending to an emotional bond created by loss, which is a much more intellectual choice compared to future films.

This first installment is solid in the original trilogy. The film initially makes us think we’re reliving the show, and then takes a sharp turn to modernize the franchise and cast Hunt as the central character. The rest of the film is pure espionage, and does justice to the idea of a spy thriller, and action film. Cruise gives a daring yet understated performance as Hunt, making a very thoughtful action film that, mostly, still holds up twenty years later. This is the most plot heavy of the original three, and often commands attention. It is iconic, and yet understandably provincial.

Mission: Impossible II (2000) dir. John Woo

It’s really quite surprising that Robert Towne wrote both of these films, but then again the success or failure of a film often lies with its director. What’s interesting is how each of the first three films is flavored by the director, and is its own entity. While De Palma handled the complexities of the script by paying close attention to performance, technology, and subtlety in unmasking plot, Woo is all about spectacle, illusion, and mood, principally sensuality.

Tom Cruise reprises his role in this film, but Ethan Hunt has changed for the worse. The first film has him as a wet behind the ears operative who has to find inner strength after his role model is supposedly killed. In this second film we find Hunt to be almost inhumanly powerful. In the first scene he hangs off a cliffs’ face with ease, then gets a message via helicopter, smirks and throws out a one liner. The performance is for the camera, reminiscent of a preening bird in front of a mirror.

Unlike the first film, that has him rogue because of circumstance, in this instance he mostly works alone, and relies on very little help, casting him in an almost godlike repose. This can be argued against, as he is greatly helped by his female love interest, Nyah (Newton) in her role as an undercover, but she does very little, and then only serves as a plot device in the last third of the film.

The second film is a standalone in the first three, as it has little or nothing to do with the first film’s momentum, and doesn’t tie in with the rest of the franchise. The pure espionage angle of the first film is overshadowed by technology, most of the plot relying on subterfuge via voice replicators and masks (a theme that threads throughout the first three films). Woo’s stylistic choices make this more of a John Woo film than a Mission: Impossible one. It might as well be called “Face/Off 2,” as it has somewhat the same plot: good v evil, trading faces to thwart one another, gun battles, doves etc. While the effects in the first haven’t aged well because of the limitations of CGI in the nineties, this film’s effects don’t age well because they were horrible to begin with.

The ending is pure Hong Kong filmmaking: having the godlike savior take down the main villain in hand to hand combat, only after sneaking through his compound in an almost dreamlike sequence. Nyah is treated as a damsel in distress in the last third, and the film ends in a feel-good way, which it hasn’t earned. Of the original three, this film is obviously the weakest and least celebrated, though it was the highest grossing film of 2000.

Mission: Impossible III (2006) dir. J.J. Abrams

The six year gap between the second and third films had nothing to do with the weakness of the second, as it made a lot at the box office. The third film was in the works as early as 2002, with David Fincher slated to direct. After a lot of turnover, script changes, and unavailability from much of the original cast, the third was finally underway by 2004. J.J. Abrams was recruited by Cruise himself, after he saw “Alias,” and hence we have the best of the original three.

The first was pure spy espionage, the second a Kung Fu action film, and the third is a mix between pure action and spy thriller, relying much more on technology, exotic locales, and emotional transparency. This film is much more beloved by fans because it actually has emotional stakes that go beyond revenge. In this film Hunt has been out of the game for a while, and is now an instructor at IMF. He is engaged to a normal woman, a doctor who cares about thrills and adventure, a somewhat perfect match for damaged Hunt. Their relationship and her safety lend to a much better payoff at the end and actually drives the plot forward, as the opening scene shows a flash forward of her eventual capture and torture.

The villain is much more pronounced in this film. The first film we were kept in the dark until the end, so there wasn’t that tug of war over good versus evil. The second film’s villain was an underwhelming terrorist, played by Dougray Scott. In the third we have Philip Seymour Hoffman as Davian, the best villain thus far. Between his subtle, yet insidious, performance and his penchant for torture, Davian serves as a great baddie, easily comparable to a Bond villain. The action is much more thrilling because of this addition, as well as the amazingly choreographed fight scenes, the daredevil stunts, and the tension created between Hunt’s personal life, his life as trainer, and his life as an agent.

Though the first film is very strong, this newer, more modern take on the spy thriller takes themes from previous films and enhances them. Repeating iconography includes the self-destructing message, masks, breaking through windows, twists that unearth new bad guys, hanging from wires in the ceiling, and repeating team members, principally Luther Stickell. This was the film that critics pointed to as the best in the series, and relaunched the franchise for modern audiences.

There is something great in each of these early films, whether it is a great set piece, a strong female character, or a perfect one-liner. While action films today rely more and more on CGI, Cruise is doing his own stunts, including hanging off an airplane in his newest film. Today Cruise has been putting out action films left and right (“Oblivion,” “Edge of Tomorrow,” and “Jack Reacher.”) even in his fifties. It’s this need for perfection, and care in performance that have spawned my own appreciation for this franchise, which stands out amidst today’s ugly, boneheaded films. I am proud of my newfound love of this franchise, and can only hope to love the two newest.