I finally got to see MI3 tonight. My comments:
Good points: script is quite good really. The acting is more even than in previous M:I movies, and in fact I would say Cruise and Phillip S Hoffman actually do very good acting, within the limits of this kind of material. Exotic locations are used (although shown very briefly - see my comments below,) and there is very seamless and unintrusive use of computer effects. (You know that certain things can't be being done "for real", but it is almost impossible to tell where the artifice begins. For example, one very cleverly done scene almost makes you believe those super realistic rubber masks could really work. There is also a jumping off a building sequence which - at least initially, before the editing starts cutting it up too much - looks as real as it possibly could.) The movie has some (limited) humour, and some scenes of human warmth, and in that sense is more "realistic" than M:I1. However, its tone is darker, with a genuinely sadistic villain, and as such ends up being not as much fun.
But, there is a lot to like.
Bad or distracting points: the direction. For the last few years, I have seen very few one hour shows on TV. I am therefore unfamiliar with the popular work of JJ Abrams. However, direction of M:I3 is claustrophobic, for want of a better term. It seems he is inordinately fond of close to medium length shots, where it looks like the camera is no more than a few meters from the actors.
This is fine for some sequences, where it can help rack up the tension, especially in the opening scene. But after 30 minutes or so, I really found myself wondering why this movie was shot so tight for so long. Especially during the action sequences, I longed for wider shots to make better sense of what was going on around Cruise.
There is also a quasi-handheld sort of style for all of the action sequences. It's not exactly jittery, but I did start longing for smoother camera movement in many sequences, and less choppy editing.
I hate overly fast editing. It is, to my mind, the major problem with younger action movie directors since the 1990's, and is the special "trademark" of directors who have come from an advertising or music video background. (I especially despise it in dance and musical numbers, where it takes away all sense of the quality of the dancing itself.) M:I3's action sequences are nearly all edited too quickly (especially parts of the Shanghai sequences,) but (fortunately) not so quickly as to ruin the movie.
I mentioned in an earlier post how well I thought Brian De Palma directed the first M:I movie, and it was this more "traditional" style of direction and editing that I missed.
I don't think I have (yet) read any reviewer who has mentioned the "tightness" of so many of the shots, which I find surprising. (To me, it seemed such an obvious and distracting feature of Abram's style.) Slate's review did say: "The action scenes are thrilling in the modern, quick-cut, disorienting way." I can agree with that.
Overall: I have lingered on the downside for too long. Many people don't notice this sort of thing anyway. And overall, I was happy to have seen it and would happily see another M:I installment. Still, M:I 1 stands clearly ahead as my favourite. The less said about M:I 2 the better, although it does help M:I 3 look very good by comparison.
UPDATE: It's not just me. Here's one reviewer (who really didn't like the movie at all):
It's filmed almost entirely in close-ups and medium shots, in extremely shallow focus with no depth of field. (It's something of a sick joke that Abrams elected to use the extra-wide CinemaScope aspect ratio, as he tends to obscure or blur out anything that isn't smack dab in the center of the frame.) There's no oomph to the images, and the monotonous, confusingly edited action scenes just lie there, dead.
I don't agree that the action sequences "lie dead"; I just thought they could have been better with a different director. But certainly, he seems to have almost no interest in the composition of shots.
No comments:
Post a Comment