Misson: Impossible III (2006)

After the qualitative dud that was John Woo’s Mission: Impossible II, it’s a wonder that Paramount was even willing to entertain the notion of a third installment. Then again, the sequel put up good numbers at the box office and Tom Cruise was still a force to be reckoned with on the big screen. With director J.J. Abrams bringing his knack for savvy intrigue to the table, the end result is a whirlwind of a film that grips you more than either of its predecessors.

No longer an active field agent, IMF member Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) spends his time training new agents while hiding his job and past from his fiancé. When one of his former pupils is captured, IMF calls on hunt to rescue her. When the mission fails, Hunt is dragged deeper down the rabbit hole and goes full-on active duty again. Hunt and his new team must find a way to prevent a ruthless arms dealer named Owen Davian (Philip Seymour Hoffman) from acquiring a mysterious super weapon, sniff out a mole inside IMF, and keep Hunt’s wife out of danger.

Fans of the TV show Mission: Impossible have long complained about the film series and I am sure that any of those fans who saw M:I 3 did plenty of bellyaching. Perhaps Abrams drew from his work on Alias to form the foundation of the spy antics of this film. Gone is most of the long-winded exposition of how the plan is supposed to go down. In its place is a frantic pace and high-octane set pieces that grip you tight. Some fans of the series will find this approach refreshing while others may feel Abrams sold M:I out and emulates the secret agent mechanics of James Bond, Jason Bourne, and Jack Bauer. While the format does make this film harder to remember, I still found myself refreshed.

Abrams has been unafraid to take an unorthodox approach to his work on television and he is similarly unafraid to be unorthodox here. During what would normally be the key set piece of the film, in which Ethan Hunt breaks into a highly secure Chinese research center at the top of a dizzying skyscraper, the audience sees nothing. Rather than watch the frenzied smash-and-grab sequence, we wait outside with Hunt’s partners wondering what on earth is going on in there. Even the item he is grabbing, the Rabbit’s Foot, is never explained; it is simply something both our protagonist and antagonist want to get their hands on. It’s a total MacGuffin but the spy/thriller genre has always utilized that sort of plot device.

Because Hunt’s team members have been interchangeable over three films, the success or failure of M:I 2 and M:I 3 really lies with the villain. The first film introduced us to the determined and heroic Ethan Hunt, so emphasis on villain was minimal (and we didn’t know who the real villain was for much of the film). The villain in M:I 2 was a clichéd rouge agent. Mission: Impossible III features the most intense villain yet and Philip Seymour Hoffman deserves every word of praise he received for his performance. His character is so intelligent, resourceful, and vicious enough to make audiences feel that no one is safe. The level of ferocity that Hoffman injects into the film raises the stakes and helps make the break-neck pace feel warranted.

The plot itself may be forgettable but I walked away from this film marveling at how exciting it was. It boasts an excellent villain, slick directing, and a flurry of intense action sequences. In short, this is the kind of stuff we should expect from a spy flick. It’s not as convoluted as the original and not bogged down with the silly and intricate choreographed violence of M:I 2. It’s a fine cat-and-mouse game and stands, in my mind, as the best of the three M:I films thus far. It is also easily the most underrated film in the series. If M:I 2 turned you off to the series, do yourself a favor and check this one out. Chances are you won’t be disappointed.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Waitress (2007)

Here is a film that I don’t really know how to react to. The cynic in me could lash out at the fact that this film is brimming with post-Tarantino hipster pretension. The softie in me could go easy on this film because the director was murdered before it was released at Sundance. Somewhere in the middle of all this is a quiet voice asking to see this film re-made so it can better serve the audience and the director’s legacy.

Stuck in a small Southern town and held back by a controlling husband, Jenna (Kerri Russell) searches for a fresh start. She plans to use her baking skills to win a pie contest in a nearby town to win enough money to leave her loser husband (Jeremy Sisto). Rather than hold her back, an unplanned pregnancy gives her added motivation to climb the great chain of being and move on and up in life. She starts an affair with her doctor (Nathan Fillion) and puts her plan to dump her husband into motion.

Am I too moral to enjoy this story? I asked myself this question not long after Waitress concluded. I feel sympathy for Jenna because her lot in life is miserable. I am all for women being treated with respect by their husbands but I also have a hard time supporting someone who decides to have an affair. A woman overcoming her obstacles makes for a good story. Make it a pregnant woman sleeping with her married doctor and it muddies the waters enough to keep me from diving in. Even if the affair was a way for Jenna to experience joy and “love” that are otherwise absent in her life, I don’t think it was a necessary story element.

This film also rubs me the wrong way because of its characters and writing. My beef with the characters stems from what I assume to be the writer-director’s perspective. Adrienne Shelly writes from a woman’s perspective, about a woman’s perspective, for a woman’s perspective. Jenna has a core group of friends who shine with all the spunk and wit in the world, particularly impressive for a dumpy little middle-of-nowhere town.

There are no good male characters in the movie though. By good, I mean round, believable men who do not just serve as a cog in Jenna’s tale of liberation. To keep the film light, Jenna’s husband is extremely dense- almost like Lenny from Of Mice and Men. He doesn’t really want to hurt her but he lacks the common sense to see what he’s doing to her. Jenna’s doctor is handsome but aloof, charming but easily caught off guard. The owner of the restaurant Jenna works at (Andy Griffith) is your typical grouch with a heart of gold.

Perhaps I am reacting to this film the way some women react to the kinds of films that I take for granted as ‘normal.’ There are plenty of great female roles out there but how many great female supporting characters are there in a given year? Maybe Shelly intentionally made her male characters very simple and uninteresting. Maybe it was the indie-quasi-feminist in her. Maybe still she just put so much effort into creating the kind of female characters that she wanted to see in movies that she forgot to throw a bone to those of us with Y-chromosomes.

As for the writing, I have to lay some blame at Quentin Tarantino. Ever since the success of Pulp Fiction, a fair share of independent filmmakers seem to think that their quirky minds have been granted carte blanche when it comes to infusing their projects with all kinds of witty dialogue, no matter how unrealistic it sounds. Pulp Fiction was a breath of fresh air but this trend has made unrealistic but interesting dialogue almost formulaic in indie flicks. Yet, for some reason even obviously trying to be ultra-hip still gets you lauded in Hollywood. Waitress oozes with enough indie-hipster chatter that I cannot in good faith take the film seriously. These are characters that do not and cannot exist in reality. Their situations? Yes. Their conversations? No.

For me, Waitress tries too hard to make a good time out of a fairly straightforward women’s empowerment tale. Feminists will enjoy it up until a deus ex machina ending that truly allows Jenna to break free from her bonds. Adrienne Shelly is not as indulgent as Quentin Tarantino but I still feel like she’s trying too hard here. It’s a good story but the execution is over-engineered. There is enough promise in this film to keep me from dropping it lower on my rating scale, so for now I will take a largely neutral stance on it.

RATING: 2.5 out of 5

Bedtime Stories (2008)

Believe it or not but Adam Sandler can be tamed! Leave it to the family-friendly folks at Disney to put the perennial man-child in his place. Perhaps they had to put him in some sort of decompression device or just severely medicated him during filming. Whatever the cause, the effect is a kinder, gentler Sandler flick that’s safe to show your children without totally diluting his signature goofiness.

Skeeter Bronson (Sandler) grew up helping his father run the family hotel. His father promised to make him manager some day but the hotel was sold to new ownership. They’ve kept Skeeter around as handyman and he is enticed at the prospect of managing a new hotel for the chain. Standing in his way is Kendall (Guy Pearce), the current #2 and major suck-up to the boss.

Skeeter’s sister (Courtney Cox) heads out of town for a job interview and needs him to watch her two children for the week. Her friend (Keri Russell) pitches in to help the kids get to and from school for the week and it’s clear that she is unimpressed by Skeeter. The kids take to his imaginative bedtime stories though. Injecting his own management dreams into the stories (with a few added twists from the kids), Skeeter begins to see parts of his stories coming true. This leads to an escalation in the grandiosity of his tales in an attempt to force his dreams into reality.

In several ways, this film echoes Billy Madison. Sandler plays a supposed heir-to-be for the family business but is blocked by a corporate butt-kisser. Helping Sandler’s character rise to the top are some kids. He teaches them a few things and they return the favor. There is also an unlikely romance that develops for the immature lead. There are enough differences though to avoid being a retread. The resolution pans out in a completely different way, the main character is actually fairly responsible and capable, and the film never goes over the top.

Long-time Adam Sandler fans run the risk of being horribly disappointed with this film. If you come into Bedtime Stories expecting the typical frat house humor Sandler is known for, you will have wasted your time. This is not Billy Madison or Happy Gilmore 10 years later. This is Sandler doing his best impression of (mostly) normal family-oriented comedy. This is PG territory, so brace yourself for a bit of a shock.

If you’re not a Sandler fan, this isn’t a must-see film. If you’re willing to give the man a shot though, this is a decent film to start with. It won’t corrupt your kids either. I for one enjoyed the kinder, gentler Adam Sandler. His zaniness comes out during the bedtime story sequences and that keeps the film fun. They are full of imaginative characters and special effects. Kids will especially get a kick out of these parts because Skeeter’s niece and nephew constantly change elements of the stories, leading to abrupt and humorous changes to the visualizations as they play out.

Bedtime Stories fits the mold of most family-oriented comedies- kids will probably enjoy it more than parents; parts of the film are fairly predictable but there is enough random weirdness in play to keep a few things secret until the end; and most of the humor is aimed at the kids but there are a few one-liners and comments there for the adults in the room to smile at.

The end result is a tame Adam Sandler movie but is that such a bad thing? How much longer can he try to play goofy immature roles? The man is 44 years old for crying out loud. Bedtime Stories didn’t usher in a new era for Sandler’s career but it is nice to know that he can tone it down a few notches. It shows that, while his popularity may wane, he will still be able to take on comedic roles in the future. Few people will be able to remember much about this film but give Sandler some time to hone a new craft and he will probably deliver a zinger or two in time.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5