1E*

We are certainly  a long way from Gene Autry’s trick cowboy riding of the movies of the 30’s.  Along with Yakima Canutt, one might argue that they began the combination of purposeful action of stunts in movies.  We would agree that the stunts of Harold Lloyd, most notably, were daring and visually engaging, but his stunts were primarily for the sake of a “oh my”, not to move the action along.  By contrast, the trick riding and shooting of Gene Autrey, particularly in Phantom Empire was part of the plot.  Similarly, the scary vertiginous stunts in Mission Impossible moved the plot along quite well.  They were occasionally too long and not always credible, but why go to the movies if you do not intend to suspend belief in reality anyway. 

Mission Impossible weaves a variety of subplots into a cohesive race to block an atomic warhead.  Geographically, it moves among Russia, Hungary, Dubai, and India.  Each with its own subplot.  The villains and semi-villians are played well.  The true villain is clean cut self-righteous academic, whereas the semi-villians are more typical thugs.  This twist of demeanors makes for great entertainment.  The team surrounding Tom Cruise as Ethan Hunt, provides both physical beauty in the female lead and comic relief in the other two team members.  The lead woman, Agent Carter, while agile, is a little flat as an actress.  Although poised, she fails to demonstrate anything other than standard responses to most situations. 

All of that noted, this is 2 hours of excellent entertainment.  The plot is coherent, the stunts truly spectacular, and the interaction among both the good guys and the bad guys works. 

It is interesting to compare it to the best of the James Bond movies.  And it lacks by comparison.  Why?  Simply stated, Ethan Hunt lacks the savoir fair of Bond.  Hunt also lacks the vulnerability of Bond, lacks his wit, and lacks his intelligence.  Hunt is more of the professional assassin than do-gooder.  He seems to act more as an alpha male, rather than believing in “the cause”. 

Although the movie is excellent, it is not likely a movie that you would watch a second time.  There are no profound themes in it. 

Kind regards,

Steve

G. Stephen DeCherney, MD, MPH
Clinical Professor of Medicine
Division of Endocrinology
University of North Carolina School of Medicine
Chapel Hill, North Carolina

Movies are rated 0,1,2

0 - don’t see it (5% of all films)
1 - acceptible
2 - destined to become a classic (5%)

Additional designation:

E - the movie was entertaining
I - the movie was intellectually stimulating