Movie Review: Mission: Impossible (1996)

[Brian Fein]

Premise: A squad of spies attempts to capture a criminal dealing in classified government information, and gets interrupted by a mission gone awry.

Rating: Convoluted and confusing, but respect for the effort

Warning: may contain spoiler-y information, but if you need a spoiler warning on a 25-year-old movie, then you're doing something wrong.

Movie jumps right in, wasting no time and setting up characters in the process of planning a mission to thwart a bad guy who intends to sell top secret government information to some other bad guy.  But when the mission takes a turn for the worse and some team members start biting the big one, one agent takes it upon himself to finish the job.

I found the big plot twist setup to be predictable, as the "leader" of the team seems to get spooked and calls the mission an ambush without any real motivation.  I assumed that at least one team member who "died" in this opening act would turn up as a double-agent, who set up the mission to fail by design.

But through the convoluted twists and turns of the plot, from Ethan breaking in to a secure government facility to steal top secret information just to set up a meeting with the bad guys, the motivation to go to such extreme lengths seems missing.  He shows up to the "drop" with actual sensitive information and hands it to a bad guy who, due to a luckily-timed technical glitch, can't copy the information in time.  In the process, Ethan bags 10 million dollars.  Convenient.  What if the bad guys actually managed to get away with the goods?

Somewhere in there enters the double-agent, as predicted.  While the viewer is treated to the misdirection of another fellow agent hunting Ethan as the mole, we quickly learn that the plot twists, and suddenly that original pursuit seems to disappear.  Further to that, I didn't necessarily understand the side-switch of the guy that drove the helicopter in the train tunnel.  In one scene he is holding Ethan by a rope from the ceiling so he doesn't set off the alarms, and in the next scene he's trying to kill the guy with a helicopter.

Admittedly, I may have dozed off for less than 10 seconds during 2 specific scenes of chatter, which couldn't hold my attention or my consciousness.  I think that probably caused me to miss a few valuable seconds of critical dialogue.  However, I found the big plot twist to be predictable and the rest of the movie to be uninteresting and confusing.

[EDGECRUSHER]

It's much more enjoyable on repeated viewings. The first time was a bit tough to follow and the twist was predictable, but it was still perfectly fine schlock. The storylines of the later movies are worse but the action is infinitely better because Tom Cruise is an insane person.

[Pappy13]

I really wish that Cruise would drop the whole Mission Impossible gig. I mean I know he's getting rich off it, I just don't think they do him any favors as an actor. He's so much better then this as an actor. I loved him in American Made, Oblivion, Edge of Tomorrow, Jack Reacher, Valkyrie. Maybe the scripts have dried up for him though.

[Dave Gray]

^ I think you're crazy.  Mission Impossible is the best action in cinema right now and has been for years.  Of the spy/heist films, they're the best, in my opinion.  Better than Bond, Jack Reacher, Jack Ryan, Bourne, Fast & Furious, etc.  

It really ratchets up with Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol (the 4th one), but 5 and 6 are crazy stunts and fun face-masks and all that -- I don't think they're as fun as the humor of the 4th one, though.

MI:1 is a little bit like eating your vegetables.  It sets things up, but the series really does become something bigger.  2 is weird.  It's John Woo, so it's over-the-top stylized action like FACE/OFF.  It's kinda like the Tokyo Drift of the series.  But 3 gets on a good path (like Fast and Furious) and 4 and beyond is where the movies are fully 100% kicking ass.

I hope you stick with it to at least get to 4.  If you're not on board by then, I think you can bail.

This movie has some things I remember: So, in the TV show, the guy who is the betrayer in the film is like...the main dude.  So that was a big surprise at the time.  I remember Tom Cruise blowing some fish tanks up with gum.  And the helicopter was early CG/green-screeny...was big at the time...lame now, probably.  I also remember a diarrhea pen and of course the hanging from wires and not touching stuff, while sweating because the air conditioner was screwed up.  You gotta realize how influential that was.  It was spoofed a bunch and borrowed from in later films, but that was a pretty tense moment that was new at the time.

The movie also uses a cool technique called split diopter, which is where you use two different half/lenses with different focus....it allows you to have things that aren't next to each other both appear in focus at the same time rather than shifting focus back and forth.  MI uses it a few times, but one of the cooler shots is here:

[Pappy13]

^ I think you're crazy.  Mission Impossible is the best action in cinema right now and has been for years.  Of the spy/heist films, they're the best, in my opinion.  Better than Bond, Jack Reacher, Jack Ryan, Bourne, Fast & Furious, etc. 

You're the crazy one. Daniel Craig is the best bond ever. The first Jack Reacher is better than any of the mission impossible films. The mission impossible films are so over the top it's not even funny, they have a jump the shark moment in every movie. Jack Reacher is a much more believable movie with real characters rather then just cookie cutouts of "good" and "bad" guys. While I'm not a huge fan of the Bourne films I did really like the first couple and I prefer them over the mission impossible films as well. If I had to rank them...

1) Jack Reacher series
2) Daniel Craig as bond series
3) Jason Bourne series
4) Mission Impossible series
5) Fast and the Furious series.

[Dave Gray]

I haven't seen Jack Reacher, so I actually shouldn't comment.

I also love Craig as Bond, but I think they're hit and miss.  MI (especially the modern ones) bring it every time.

Right now, I'm at:
1) Mission Impossible
2) 007
3) Fast and Furious
4) Bourne

I find the action scenes in Bourne to be shitty.  It's shaky-cam to cover up.  Say what you will about the Fast and Furious movies, though ridiculous in their concept, the action set-pieces are really good looking.

[Pappy13]

I haven't seen Jack Reacher, so I actually shouldn't comment.

Do yourself a favor and see the first Jack Reacher. The 2nd one isn't as good but it's still not bad if you enjoy the first one.

[pondwater]

You're the crazy one. Daniel Craig is the best bond ever.

I'd have to pick Roger Moore.

[Dave Gray]

Do yourself a favor and see the first Jack Reacher. The 2nd one isn't as good but it's still not bad if you enjoy the first one.

OK.  I'll do that.

[Sunstroke]

The 1st Jack Reacher, imo, is a very good movie. I've seen it at least 5-6 times. The second Reacher? Meh...not so much.

[Pappy13]

The 1st Jack Reacher, imo, is a very good movie. I've seen it at least 5-6 times. The second Reacher? Meh...not so much.

The first one had a good story. It introduces you to the character of Jack Reacher. You get to understand his motivations, the fact that he has an identic memory etc. The 2nd one is just an action movie so it pales in comparision. This is the EXACT problem that I have with the Mission Impossible series, the Bourne series and the Fast and Furious series. The first one of each was ok, introduces you to the characters etc but after that it's just rinse and repeat. If you have seen one you have seen them all. Now if you are JUST looking to watch the action scenes, then I guess you will enjoy the movie, but I need more then that to enjoy a movie. I need a story. I need characters that I feel for or at least am trying to figure out what makes them tick etc. That's what makes a good movie for me, not the action scenes. That's why there's almost no good sequels, the story has been done and it's just rehashing the first movie. There's a few notable exceptions, but they are few and far between.

[Dave Gray]

The first one of each was ok, introduces you to the characters etc but after that it's just rinse and repeat.

I don't agree with the Mission Impossible films.  Especially with 4, where the whole premise is that they're having to operate without resources.  They have a different enough spin. 

The very nature of any movie series is gonna have similarities, but with MI, the cast changes, the settings....maybe give those movies (specifically the latter ones) another shot.  There is more depth there than you're giving it credit for.  And the stunts are REAL, so the setpieces are inherently more interesting than CG action.