Mission: Impossible (1996)

I’ve come to find it refreshing to have no connection to certain films’ source material. My only connection to Mission: Impossible is that I know the theme music from the TV show. With no limitations or biases getting in the way of processing this film for what it is, I can say with a clear conscience that this film is convoluted but very entertaining.

Tom Cruise stars as Ethan Hunt, a member of the top secret Impossible Missions Force (IMF), whose team is wiped out during a botched mission to intercept a data file that contains the aliases of many undercover operatives around the world. The job, it turns out, was a setup to draw out a suspected mole. As the lone survivor of his team, the government brands him a traitor and Hunt is thrust into his most difficult mission yet- clearing his name.

If you boil it down to its framework, Mission: Impossible is a spy thriller built around three scenes- the opening job gone wrong, the Langley job (where Cruise dangles in mid-air by a harness), and the climactic train sequence. That’s really all you’re going to remember and for good reason. The job is the only thing that matters; it’s the payoff. All the planning and exposition that comes before each job only exists to help the job itself make sense. The filmmakers may have gone overboard on a few things but it’s all still great fun to watch.

Just like its main character, Mission: Impossible succeeds through a combination of coincidence, luck, and skill. You can debate which ingredient is in greater supply all you want, but all three are in there. Your opinion on this matter depends on your level on cynicism and your ability to not overanalyze a summer popcorn flick.

I liked Vanessa Redgrave’s character. It was a nice twist for a sought-after international criminal to be female. James Bond has the market on egomaniacal men, so kudos to the filmmakers for not being lazy there. Unfortunately, this break from stereotype doesn’t make up for a weak motive by the shadows-lurking villain who’s been trying to frame Ethan Hunt all along.

All things considered, Mission: Impossible is the kind of movie you say ‘sure, why not’ to. It’s nothing to get too excited about but it’s always fun to watch those three tent-pole scenes play out. It will never be considered a classic but it fills the hearts of people my age with nostalgia for the early to mid-90s, when there was still a middle ground between awesome and suck for summer blockbusters.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

Letters to Juliet (2010)

I imagine that the earliest chick flicks probably were not well received because of their kitsch, convenience, and poor storytelling. I don’t know how long ago the first quantifiable chick flick actually came out. Since those early days, however, many chick flicks are met with similar dissatisfaction, not only for the aforementioned qualities but also because those qualities have all but become a caricature of themselves. Such is largely the case with Letters to Juliet.

Sophie (Amanda Seyfried) is a journalism fact-checker on a pre-honeymoon with her fiancé, who uses their trip to Italy more for perfecting recipes than for enjoying his bride-to-be. After wandering around Verona, Sophie stumbles upon a group of women who answer ‘letters to Juliet’ left in a wall in town. After writing a response to a very old letter, Sophie gets recruited by the writer- Claire (Vanessa Redgrave)- to track down a long lost love. Sophie and Claire get along fine, but Claire’s grandson (Christopher Egan) does not approve of the quest.

From that description, keen observers and those exposed to too many chick flicks over the years can probably figure out all they need to know about this film. If you envision plenty of convenient coincidences, an all too likely ‘unlikely’ romance, and a neat and tidy bow of a happy ending, you win a cookie. But wait, there’s more!

As a man, I am not hard-wired to appreciate the clichés and gushing predictability contained in chick flicks in general. Therefore, I take Letters to Juliet for what it is- a candy-coated puff piece for girls. The acting is far from great but both Seyfried and Redgrave are likeable actresses. You can tell they are trying, which I can appreciate. Egan is more or less reading lines. Part of me can’t blame him for being fed such a flimsy character with terrible lines. But another part of me sees the other two stars trying and ponders whether Egan’s performance is a reflection of his apathy to the material or just his acting ability.

While the plot is silly to the extreme (do you really expect us to believe that Claire’s letter went unfound for that long?), Letters to Juliet does not insult your intelligence. In fact, it is genuinely humorous at times. My biggest beef with the film is just how long the first half feels. It just drags on and on before much of anything happens worth noting. To say that about a film that clocks in at an hour forty-five just seems wrong.

As with many chick flicks, this one is mostly harmless (once you get through the first half anyway). I’m willing to call it subpar for the genre but you could easily do far worse.

RATING: 2.25 out of 5