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

Capote* (2005)

Every year there are a handful of films produced in Hollywood that can be summed up in two words: Oscar bait. In 2005, Capote was one of these films. This biopic, starring the ever wonderful Phillip Seymour Hoffman, is the kind of artful, cold and moody drama that the Academy loves to lift up despite a lack of general popularity at the cineplex.

The story focuses on Truman Capote, an eccentric, homosexual writer, who is at the height of his popularity as the film opens. Capote has just written Breakfast at Tiffany’s and the literary world is in love with him. After reading a short article in The New York Times about a Kansas family’s brutal murder, Capote offers to write an account of the tragedy and the impact it has had on the small community.

At first, covering the story yields little more than the expected somber tones from shocked neighbors and relatives. But Capote and his traveling companion, the soon-to-be-famous Harper Lee, are caught in a whirlwind of events and storylines when the killers are found and arrested. Capote moves in to further flesh out his story by trying to communicate with the killers. He eventually resorts to bribery in order to get past the staunch Mid-West police who otherwise aren’t fond of the quirky little writer.

Along the way, Capote’s reporting turns into a larger project- the novel In Cold Blood that would eventually usher in a new genre of true crime literature. As his ambitions grow larger, so do his sacrifices. Capote becomes transfixed by one of the killers to the point of developing mixed feelings of sympathy and attraction for him. Capote’s struggle to play both sides of the fence causes him serious anguish and would plague him for much of the rest of his life.

If you like biopics, this might be right up your alley. Capote captures a lot the elements that define a great biopic. Phillip Seymour Hoffman devotes himself completely to affecting the vocalizations and mannerisms of Truman Capote. Hoffman has made a career out of perfectly realized supporting characters and it is about time that he is given a meaty leading role. The only possible point of contention with Hoffman’s performance is that he is noticeably heavier than Truman Capote ever was. If you don’t do your research on the movie’s subject though, you’d never know, so this is amenable.

Capote is very much old-school Hollywood drama. There is very little action to speak of in the nearly two-hour film. Instead, we get a slow, methodical building process, layer after intricate layer as we watch Capote become consumed by ambition and get torn apart by his final realizations on the case and his work. The limited color pallet used in costuming and set dressings sets an appropriately bleak tone. Very little inventive camerawork is employed, keeping things straight on and never losing sight of the film’s focus.

Between these two aspects, Capote is a final product that feels more like something to be seen than something to be enjoyed. True crime lovers may just eat it all up and fans of Truman Capote’s work will likely want to see the film for its biographical content. As for the rest of us, well, we’re not exactly left in the dark. Capote is a very well made film that has a lot going for it. Most of these highlights are things that cinephiles will latch onto and the kinds of things that Academy member look for come Oscar season.

Having little to know knowledge of Truman Capote or his legacy before seeing this film may have held me back a little in fully grasping why this film was as important as it was. This did not, however, take away from my ability to recognize good filmmaking, which is exactly what this film is.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Patch Adams (1998)

Robin Williams stars in a charming tale of man versus the establishment that is based on a true story. Williams plays Hunter “Patch” Adams, a determined young man who sets out to become a doctor who really helps people instead of just curing illness and injury.

Fresh off of his Oscar-winning performance in Good Will Hunting, Williams tackled a few serious and semi-serious roles. Patch Adams falls into the latter category but the film doesn’t stray too often into the kind of schmaltz that dramedies often fall victim too. There’s humanity, heart and humor in all the right places in this film and it doesn’t gloss over or condone Patch’s continual defiance too much.

After a botched suicide attempt, Patch Adams is admitted to a psych ward, where he is inspired to become a doctor. Starting medical school years after what is considered the norm, he meets animosity from some of his more pretentious peers and also from the faculty of the Medical College of Virginia faculty. Med students are told that they may have no interaction with real patients until their third year.

Adams, knowing the value of doctor-patient interaction, challenges his superiors’ rules and standards. Numerous times, he sneaks into the campus hospital and works at cheering up patients who are down in the dumps. He is also caught in the act of doing so multiple times and disciplined. He even nearly gets himself kicked out of the school.

Adams has a vision of operating a free clinic that is open to treating people without medical insurance and any way to pay for their care. He seeks to put the compassion back in the medical field and wins over a number of the people he meets along his time at med school.

Williams’ performance is touching and just the right blend of humor and seriousness. The story is written well, though there are a few liberties taken and a few facts fudged from the real life story the film is based on. In the end, it’s a feel –good movie that isn’t a guilty pleasure.

Now and again the pacing got a little too slow for my liking, but the near two hour run time is worth it. We see Patch and his peers grow and feel a range of emotions. There’s a little romance and a little tragedy, but Williams will win you over by the end.

It was frustrating at times to see how brash his defiance against the faculty was and his behavior nearly took me to the point where I felt almost no pity for him when he got in trouble. I was also a little disappointed that the movie ended with Adam’s graduation from medical school. Sure, there was a brief text overlay describing what he accomplished afterwards, which is special, but we never really saw him reconcile with those he stepped on along the way.

Maybe I’m wrong to ask for so much resolution in a film, but that’s the way I look at it. This wasn’t a major sticking point for me though and it didn’t take away from the impact and heart of the film. All in all, this is an inspiring film that will bring a smile to just about anyone’s face.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5

Boogie Nights (1997)

Wildly weird, shamelessly indulgent and intentionally vulgar, Boogie Nights is director Paul Thomas Anderson’s second major motion picture, the first of his films he was truly happy with, and much, much more.

It seems as if it is a combination swan song and memoir for the “glory days” of pornographic films, while also being a dramatic, complex character study. Boogie Nights is first and foremost an ensemble film. Though his next film, Magnolia, would divvy up screen time more evenly among its cast, Boogie Nights remains largely focused on Eddie Adams (played by Mark Wahlberg) and his path in and out and back into the porno scene.

It’s the 70’s and Eddie wants desperately to become a porn star and he knows just the man to see. Burt Reynolds plays a deliciously shifty porn producer in what may be his best acting since Deliverance. In fact, the entire cast turns out tremendous performances. Each character really has depth to them (a testament to Anderson’s craft), experiencing joy, sorrow and anger. The only way to do this for all the major players in an ensemble film though is to make it long. Ticking in at just over 2 and a half hours, Boogie Nights may be more than some people can handle.

The film runs through Eddie’s foray into porn, the creation of his alter ego (Dirk Diggler) and his rise and fall through porn stardom in the 70’s and 80’s. The sleeze of the industry and the indulgence of the time period are expertly crafted and captured, leaving you feeling a little overwhelmed and unsure as to whether or not it’s okay to like the film.

But it is okay to like. A bit heavy handed and providing more detail than you would probably want, but it is certainly okay to like Boogie Nights.

(I will warn those who are on the prudish side that this film, being about porn, contains lots of sex and nudity and a healthy dose of language and violence- not for the faint at heart)

RATING: 3.5 out of 5