Mission: Impossible III

Franchise films usually are bad films. By franchise films, I mean a series of films that become in effect a brand name, spinning off novelizations, advertising campaigns for non-film related products, sequels, toys, clothing, and so on. The Star Wars films became a franchise. Franchise films must self-perpetuate in order to keep the franchise and the economy that surrounds it alive. Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back were the first and second installments in the Star Wars franchise and the only films in the series worth seeing. (Yes, I know, some would argue for including Revenge of the Sith in the list of worthies). When a film series becomes a franchise, the quality level usually declines. This certainly happened with the Superman and Batman films, though the recent Batman Begins and Superman Returns suggest the possibility of a resurgence. Spiderman is a franchise now: what will part 3 be? The trailers don’t inspire hope.

The Mission: Impossible films give every indication of franchise status. The first film was entertaining if only because it brought the series from the 1960s back to life, and it was good to hear the old musical theme again. The plot of intrigue, deception, and espionage certainly made for a suspenseful and exciting entertainment. Tom Cruise as the lead character Ethan Hunt seemed fully up to the task of filling and updating the old Peter Graves shoes. As the Hollywood Acting Icon, he alone held the power to sustain the franchise. Where it will go now that his star has fallen we will have to see.

The television series (1966-73) was built around the Cold War. By the year 1996, when the first film was made, the Cold War was over, history had ended (according to one scholar, much deluded), and the filmmakers had to turn for their subject to global conspiracies, mega-mafias, and terrorism. It was obvious enough what was at stake in the television series—the free world’s survival. In the three recent Mission: Impossible films, the stakes are always high, but the unifying metaphor of east vs. west, democracy vs. totalitarianism, is absent. In general, the unifying issue is good vs. evil, and almost always some characters who appear to be good in fact hail from the other side.

Mission: Impossible II was a disappointment, and the series gave signs of beginning to imitate and parody itself. My hopes for Mission: Impossible III were not high.

Surprisingly, Mission: Impossible III was an improvement over its predecessor. Two main factors explain why: One was the creation of a love interest for Ethan. He’s about to marry her when the film begins, and complications ensue in which she is ultimately caught up. Therefore it’s not merely Ethan’s success in capturing an evildoer that matters: it’s true love. The second reason is Philip Seymour Hoffman, who plays Owen Davian, the super criminal seeking to sell to terrorists a secret so terrible than no one will even say what it is. Hoffman alone is worth the price of a ticket to this film.

Mission: Impossible III is competently made and entertaining, full of action and thrills. The editing stands out. It’s not a great film, but it does its job. And it’s as superficial, as hollow, as they come.