Lilo & Stitch (2002)

Modern, real world settings seem to work for Pixar but Disney’s track record with them is spotty. Lilo & Stitch does not improve that assessment at all. While it has a fresh setting for a Disney flick and a few decent elements, the film largely misses the mark.

In another part of the galaxy, a dangerous experimental creature escapes custody and hijacks a spaceship. Crash landing on earth, the creature winds up in an animal shelter and is adopted by Lilo (Daveigh Chase) and her older sister Nani (Tia Carrere). Nani tries hard to take care of her sister but struggles to satisfy the disapproving social worker Cobra Bubbles (Ving Rhames). The creature, now named Stitch, doesn’t make life any easier on anyone between his wild antics and a team of aliens trying to hunt him down.

I don’t come from a broken home or one that was monitored by social services, so I cannot relate at all to Nani’s struggles. While I understand that her role as a caretaker eliminates the need for parents in the film, it’s a bit of a drag. In some ways it feels too modern, as if Disney let in a little too much of the ugly side of the real world into their end product. It certainly helps balance out the ADHD, kid-centric zaniness that erupts whenever Stitch gets going.

Stitch himself is a pretty interesting character and very funny but he alone is not enough to carry a film that features some real downer elements. While the animation is adequate and quite colorful at times, it is pretty much on par with Disney’s TV cartoons of the day. There’s not enough dynamism and magic in all the pretty colors. The same goes for the music. The Hawaiian setting isn’t taken advantage of enough (though I did enjoy Lilo’s affection for Elvis). Just with the animation, there are no memorable original songs or music sequences.

I still maintain that Disney movies live and die by the story, the animation, and the music. While Pixar has had luck with bypassing the movie-musical format, Disney seems to falter when they veer away from it. Heck, they even hit a rough patch with the format in the latter half of the Renaissance. Lilo & Stitch has enough wacky action to keep the kids content for an hour and a half but Disney’s secret sauce is missing. Until they get back that right balance for all members of the family, I will continue to shrug my shoulders. This feels more like Disney spinning the tires and trying to use their past products to score some easy money than an attempt to create something lasting and meaningful.

RATING: 3 out of 5

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

Mission: Impossible II (2000)

After delivering the crowd-pleasing Broken Arrow and Face/Off in the mid-90s, director John Woo was a hot commodity in Hollywood. In many ways, it made sense for him to direct this high-action sequel to 1996’s blockbuster Mission: Impossible. Unfortunately for Woo fans, this dud marked the beginning of the end of the director’s work in America and nearly killed the Mission: Impossible franchise.

Ethan Hunt’s (Tom Cruise) latest mission is recovering a fast-acting super-virus from the clutches of a rogue IMF agent before it is let loose upon the world. With the help of his team, including the rogue agent’s ex-girlfriend (Thandie Newton), Hunt learns the full details of Sean Ambrose’s (Dougray Scott) plan to profit from wreaking untold pestilence upon millions of innocents. The stakes become even higher as Hunt’s growing affection for Ambrose’s ex makes the mission personal.

John Woo’s brand of artful violence may work in Asian cinema, where mythical and larger-than-life heroes accomplish epic feats with supernatural grace and abilities. Here in America, those kinds of things are relegated to comic book movies and science fiction. While Woo doesn’t have his characters levitating, the stunts are intricate and quite often unrealistic. You can make anything look possible in the editing room but when the rest of your story is set firm in reality and normal physics, the human brain can’t help but find such frivolity suspect.

Believe it or not, all this high-flying action slows the film down. Part of this is due to the extended stunt sequences but the story shares a lot of the blame as well. The ‘bad guy threatens the world with a virus’ plot has been done before, rogue agents are nothing new, and enough movies have been made about virus epidemics that very little of M:I-2 feels original. On top of it all, there is more Tom Cruise and less team interaction than in the first film. I understand that Ethan Hunt is the main character, but this is Mission: Impossible, not James Bond.

Another drag on the film is the love triangle set up between Cruise, Newton, and Scott. I think it was crafted to help keep audience interest in an otherwise bland plot. Unfortunately, love triangles are more than a little clichéd by now and it makes the film seem more like the good guy and bad guy are fighting over the girl than the super-virus about to be released.

Where the first Mission: Impossible film was moderately intriguing, M:I-2 is little more than disappointing. It takes a unique concept and boils off the things that make it unique, leaving us with a typical Hollywood action flick with just a little bit of directorial flair. It has all the hallmarks of a John Woo film and not enough of the hallmarks of a Mission: Impossible film. If there is one to skip in the series, this one is it.

RATING: 2.5 out of 5

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