CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › Films in Release or On Video › Mission: Impossible (1996)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Mission: Impossible (1996)

post #1 of 35
Thread Starter 
I remember seeing this film opening weekend when I was eleven years old. I knew nothing about the show, but I was a fan of the re-runs of the original TV show. As such the opening section, where the IMF team is just demolished holds up as one of the first times a film really took me by surprise. I loved the movie back then, despite its comparative lack of action, and I still kind of love the movie now.

I like Tom Cruise and I think he's fantastic in this role in the way he isn't in the sequels. I like Ethan Hunt as a character whose 'safety zones' have been destroyed and who is reacting to a situation out of his control, it feels far more real than the super agent Hunt in 2 and 3. Voight is an odd choice, because he's a fascinating actor anyways and he injects a lot of life into a character who is important but not all that present but I feel it's more Voight than Phelps at the end of the day. But whilst Voight can be a convincing intellectual enemy he's just not physically threatening enough to be a threat when the film hit it's action climax. Jean Reno in theory is the muscle behind Voight, but he's kind of detached from the entire climax. It's an interesting take, I'm just not sure it's particularly succesful.

I also feel that aside from the opening, the vault sequence and the ending the film is kind of flabby. There's not enough forward momentum at times and the film is kind of needlessly obtuse for what it is. But that opening and the vault sequence are still my favourite things from all three movies and for all its faults I'd still say it's a damn sight better than 2 or 3 (even if that is damning with faint praise)
post #2 of 35
I like the third the most because I felt it focused on the team dynamic the most of the three movies. I think it's kinda lame how this series is seen as a Tom Cruise action hero vehicle. It's a great surprise, but I always hated how the whole IMF team gets killed at the start of the original. I want to see a movie about an IMF team, how they work together, and see that people have roles that add up to a whole greater then the sum of its parts.

Decent action flick though. The second, in my opinion, isn't even worth watching. Awful.
post #3 of 35
This was one of the first movies I ever figured out the "twist" to during the first act. I loved it when I was 12 and it first came out. I haven't watched it in a while but I remember like Spike said it felt flabby the last time I did. Still I think it's far and away the best film of the series.

I am with Zodiac in saying that I would be way more interested in a Mission Impossible movie that focused more on the team dynamic and less on Cruise.
post #4 of 35
Opinions on which of the three is best might vary (the first's my fave) I can't imagine an argument against this being Cruise's best MI film. He's pretty amazing in it, all paranoid and twitch.
post #5 of 35
It's almost like Ethan Hunt is a different person in each movie. I know there are recurring characters in the series but because of the choice of a new director for each film and how the series tends to bend to that director's style and vision, it almost feels like there is no real continuity between films. Not that that's a bad thing.
post #6 of 35
Well said Andrew. The most interesting aspect of this series is how each film is a self contained adventure in a distinct style. That was a good decision. And, although it didn't pan out each time (Awful II, I'm looking at you), it makes it unique among action franchises. You could throw Bond at me if you want as a comparison, but those were always Broccoli, and the directors were all hired hands.

Of the three, I also prefer JJ Abrams's vision. It's the one that was able to best combine solid action with an engaging storyline and deliver the most satisfying entertainment package.

But I also love the first one. It was one of my favorite movies the year it came out - I remember seeing it like 5 times in theaters. De Palma brought some real style, Danny Elfman's score was great and whatever action it lacked was compensated by one of the great climaxes of the 90's. It still gives me a rush.

RED LIGHT! GREEN LIGHT!
*quizzical expression on Jean Reno's face before he explodes*
post #7 of 35
The first movie also has one of the best trailers I've ever seen.
post #8 of 35
Watching A-Team this weekend, I was happy to see Henry Czerny show up. Too bad he didn't do much. Love the smarm he brought to the first MI movie. Yea, the movie is flabby, but the good stuff is some really good stuff.
post #9 of 35
I loved the team aspect of the first twenty minutes of the first movie. Emilio, Voight, and Cruise seemed to really have chemistry, so it was disappointing to see the team concept killed so early in the movie. Good call on Henry Czerny, his meeting with Cruise in the restaurant with the fish tank was one of my favorite scenes from the first movie.
post #10 of 35
Love how the camera angles get gradually skewed as the Cruise/Czerny scene reaches its conclusion. I feel that EVERY scene between two characters should be shot like that! ESPECIALLY romantic comedies!
post #11 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Moonrocket View Post
This was one of the first movies I ever figured out the "twist" to during the first act.
What tipped you off?
post #12 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by felix View Post
What tipped you off?
The way Voight was acting on the phone with Cruise. The way it was staged seemed kind of odd and I turned to my friend next to me and said that I thought Voight faked it.
post #13 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
Love how the camera angles get gradually skewed as the Cruise/Czerny scene reaches its conclusion. I feel that EVERY scene between two characters should be shot like that! ESPECIALLY romantic comedies!

Then it ends with the "you've never seen me very upset" line before the tank explodes.

DePalma builds the suspense in every shot in that scene.
post #14 of 35
This movie is indelibly linked to Twister in my mind since I saw them both in the theater in the span of a week.

Having rewatched it recently though I did still enjoy it. Every time I watch it though, I hate seeing Emilio Estevez get killed off so quickly. I can definitely actually watch this one though (which is more than I can say for MI2).
post #15 of 35
I can still enjoy MI2 for the way Woo puts sequences together. The movie sucks, but the sequences flow like butter. But I've always hated the way that movie totally turned Ving Rhames' barely-there character into Cruise's bitch. Appreciated the way the Abrams movie painted a much better picture of the two as great friends/partners.
post #16 of 35
I think the train-helicopter sequence is among the top 3 action scenes I've ever seen. It still excites me after all these years. The vault sequence is up there as well. Great stuff.

That said, I agree with Andrew Woods about the rest of the movie.

Btw, this thread made me realise who directored the movie. Amazing...I'd have never guessed.
post #17 of 35
Because of this thread I decided to pop this in to the DVD player. One thing I love about rewatching tech heavy movies from the nineties is the way absolutely adorable way they handle computers. So awesome. Usenet. Floppy discs. Max@job 3:14. 686 supercomputers. The way people in the 90s got tired after conducting 4 or 5 searches.

Just listen to the way Ving Rhames lovingly describes a computer that would pass for a doorstop now.

Ving Rhames, there's a guy that fell off the map. Not a lot of range, I guess.
post #18 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeI View Post
Because of this thread I decided to pop this in to the DVD player. One thing I love about rewatching tech heavy movies from the nineties is the way absolutely adorable way they handle computers. So awesome. Usenet. Floppy discs. Max@job 3:14. 686 supercomputers. The way people in the 90s got tired after conducting 4 or 5 searches.

Just listen to the way Ving Rhames lovingly describes a computer that would pass for a doorstop now.

Ving Rhames, there's a guy that fell off the map. Not a lot of range, I guess.
What do you mean? I see Rhames in shit all of the time. Not a lot of great stuff but he gets pretty steady work.
post #19 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Woods View Post
What do you mean? I see Rhames in shit all of the time. Not a lot of great stuff but he gets pretty steady work.
Coming off of Pulp Fiction, he had full on Next Big Thing status and this role in Mission Impossible was one of the major indicators of that.

Here are his ten most recently released films and TV shows.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IMDB
"Gravity" .... Dogg McFee
Master Harold... and the Boys (2010) .... Sam
Operation Endgame (2010) .... Judgement
Surrogates (2009) .... The Prophet
The Bridge to Nowhere (2009)
The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard (2009) .... Jibby Newsome
Give 'em Hell, Malone (2009) .... Boulder
The Tournament (2009) .... Joshua Harlow
Echelon Conspiracy (2009) .... Agent Dave Grant
Evil Angel (2009) .... Carruthers
Saving God (2008) .... Armstrong Cane
That's fell off the map.

ETA: OR we could just emphasize one word in your sentence and it all makes sense.
post #20 of 35
You're getting confused MikeI.

The guy that was in Pulp Fiction was a fine actor named Bing Ray-Mees (didn't you see the Japanese trailer on the DVD?)

Ving Rhames is the guy that played an African dictator that gets tossed out a window in some dumb action movie with Ice Cube. He then went on to do those stupid movies you listed.

I'm not sure which of the two was in the Mission: Impossible movies. I get them confused sometimes.

I'm sure Ray-Mees was the guy who was brilliant as Don King.

Rhames also had a Kojak revival that no one ever watched.

Glad I could help clear up the confusion.
post #21 of 35
I love M:I and M:I:III but kinda hated M:I 2. When I was young I thought the first one was complicated. It isn't, but it is willing to unleash a lot of information at a breakneck pace in those first few scenes. The action is good, Cruise is good. It's a solid movie.

I feel mostly the same way about M:I:III. I was really disappointed that it got shat on at the box office because Cruise went crazy. People say it's shot like a TV show, but is that the movie becoming more like a television show or television shows becoming more like movies? It's definitely weaker than the first, but I still think the action is pretty damn good. The twist is obvious, Hoffman's sort of wasted, and there are some conveniences, contrivances and cheesiness, but there are also scenes like the bridge scene, in which the heroes feel so fucked I was almost positive Ving Rhames was gonna die. Also, Simon Pegg is a good addition to any movie.

The second one feels like a hot Arizona sunset. I suppose that's Woo's intention, but that sensation makes me think "uncomfortably sweaty and looking for shade", not "passion" the way he intends it to. Something about the way Woo romanticizes everything takes the grittiness out of the movie, and then I can't take the action seriously.
post #22 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
Love how the camera angles get gradually skewed as the Cruise/Czerny scene reaches its conclusion. I feel that EVERY scene between two characters should be shot like that! ESPECIALLY romantic comedies!
I love De Palma for really pushing this kinda almost distracting stuff in his movies. By the end of this sequence, the camera is so Dutch that it's practically on its side & is pitched up at such a steep angle that its looking right up Tom Cruise's nostrils. Genius.
post #23 of 35
It could play as distracting, but DePalma did it so well that it never does.

One moment I do find distracting (in a fun way) is when the bead of sweat drops from Cruise's glasses. He was waaaaaay to low to the floor to swoop his hand down to catch it!
post #24 of 35
Quote:
Hasta lasagna, don't get any on ya
It's a shame how so many films fuck up ensembles (not giving everyone enough to do etc) but this film not only establish everyone and their relationships but then goes about 'killing' everyone in the team bat Cruise.

That Elfman score was such a simple thing. Has he done anything this restrained in the last 15 years?

No love for Vanessa Redgrave's Max?
post #25 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Allen View Post
No love for Vanessa Redgrave's Max?
When I was a kid, I certainly had no love for the way she seemed to be trying to seduce anything that moved.

Now, I think it's awesome.
post #26 of 35
Redgrave & Cruise do an epic of a grin-off in the getaway car from Max's place.

I think building up the team is to sell the devastation that Hunt feels when the plan goes wrong. I guess the writers were figuring that the audience was up to speed that these guys never fail, at least in the TV show. The (arguable) effectiveness of the twist of Phelps being the villain also banks on the audience's knowledge of the property.

I didn't mind trading in the established "team" formula of the show for the super agent assembling his own little team to do his own thing in the first movie as it serves some dramatic beats & motivation for the hero. I hated the lack of participation on the team members in MI2 for no real reason. I welcomed the more active team-centric business in MI3.
post #27 of 35
Thread Starter 
I do love the scene where Phelps and Hunt are discussing the sabotage and whilst Ethan explains what he wants Phelps to think he thought happened, what he actually thinks happened plays out in flashback. Which then gets changed.

It's possibly the most gloriously obtuse piece of exposition ever.
post #28 of 35
That scene, more than anything, is probably why people think the movie is more confusing than it really is.
post #29 of 35
I adore this movie. MI 2 is completely ebarassing barring the action scenes. Action wise I regard it as the best PG-13 action movie ever made. The rest of the film is ebola.

Also feel sorry for Dougray Scott. His villian wasn't very good, but the dude isn't a terrible actor and was supposed to be Wolverine. Poor bastard.
post #30 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Allen View Post
No love for Vanessa Redgrave's Max?
I'll throw some love in her direction. It's an interesting character and she manages to come off as strangely sexual, despite not being played by Helen Mirren.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
That scene, more than anything, is probably why people think the movie is more confusing than it really is.
See? I've never found the movie to be confusing at all. I thought it was a brilliant twist and very accessible in the way it was exposed to the audience. Only a stylist like DePalma could really pull that off. It's pure cinema. Show rather than tell, and it works splendidly.
post #31 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erix View Post

See? I've never found the movie to be confusing at all. I thought it was a brilliant twist and very accessible in the way it was exposed to the audience. Only a stylist like DePalma could really pull that off. It's pure cinema. Show rather than tell, and it works splendidly.
I think it was confusing for about a moment when you first realize the discrepancy between what you're hearing and seeing, but I agree. Even as a kid, I realized what was going on pretty soon. I guess we're just that awesome!
post #32 of 35
Two things that confuse me about the movie, although it may have been too long ago to remember and they are explained. First, where did Hunt get the Bible with the Drake Hotel stamp in the front cover, and how did the presence of that Bible from there make Ethan assume that Phelps was the mole? I remember Phelps mentioning his stay at the hotel, but that seemed a pretty big leap. Second, what exactly was Phelps' motivation in revealing himself to Ethan? Couldn't he have just used his wife to steal the NOC list without compromising his ruse? This thread is making me want to watch it again to clear up some of these confusions.
post #33 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clarence Boddicker View Post
where did Hunt get the Bible with the Drake Hotel stamp in the front cover, and how did the presence of that Bible from there make Ethan assume that Phelps was the mole? I remember Phelps mentioning his stay at the hotel, but that seemed a pretty big leap. Second, what exactly was Phelps' motivation in revealing himself to Ethan?
Hunt gets the bible at the safehouse. Phelps left the bible there, carelessly.

As far as Phelps revealing himself to Hunt, he doesn't. Hunt figures that out. When they're having that conversation at the coffee shop, Phelps still assumes Hunt doesn't know. And Hunt lies and says he suspects Kittridge. When they go to the train, Phelps is already there. And they're already trying to set him up. So it doesn't matter anymore. He can't not reveal himself. Everyone on that train knows that Phelps is the guy behind the whole thing and the purpose of that setup is to reveal him to Kittridge.
post #34 of 35
I think the question is more: Why did Phelps meet Ethan at the Cafe at all?
post #35 of 35

This was the best summer flick of 1996 and I can't believe it's been 15 fucking years since it came out. DePalma's movie is superior in every way to the sequels. The thing I liked most about it was that it had the right balance between Tom Clancy style espionage and Bond style set-piece's. John Woo's sequel just turned it into an outright Bond clone. Abram's movie was on par with a TV movie and totally forgettable. I really wish that Cruise had been able to get Oliver Stone to do Part 2 as was originally intended but script issues and Kubrick kept that from happening. Scorcese would have been ideal for Part 3. Imagine that, a trilogy of flicks Directed by DePalma, Stone and Scorcese?!

 

I've always thought it was strange that Cruise never tried to get Steven Soderbergh to do one of these as the Ocean's flicks are, technically, the best Mission : Impossible movies ever made.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Films in Release or On Video
CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › Films in Release or On Video › Mission: Impossible (1996)