Reduce, Recycle, Reuse

I watched an oddly compatible pair of movies back to back last night. First, a little history: I love a back to back moviethon. I can only do two in a row at a theater--we all have our limits. But at home, it's entirely possible for me to go through 5 or 6 hours of movies. Or just one, if the movie in question is the A&E miniseries "Pride & Prejudice."

The gold standard, which will probably never be equalled, was the late December viewing of "Elf", followed by "Bad Santa", both at the multiplex down the street from our old apartment in Chicago. And by the way, that's the order in which they have to be viewed--if you've never seen either, you can't start with "Bad Santa" and move onto "Elf." It's like eating Hostess Cupcakes after a 12 hour scotch binge. But somehow, it works the other way around.

Less successful was "The Incredibles" followed by "Shaun of the Dead." Poor Shaun never stood a chance. Also, we miscalculated the running time of "The Incredibles" and were almost 30 minutes late for the second film. But seriously, I'm not sure it's really fair to put any film up against a strong Pixar release. The best double bill is two minor-but-enjoyable features. I imagine "Labrynth" and "Lady Hawke" might make an enjoyable afternoon.

So back to "MI:3" and "Topaz." Both were required viewing for me, and happened to come in the same Netflix drop. And both fell disappointingly short of my expectations.

Right up front, let's face the elephant on screen: I can't identify with Tom Cruise. Maybe at one time I could, but he's like a non-person to me now. You know those tiny ears of corn on trays of crudite? I can't eat those, I don't know anyone who could, I don't know why anyone considers them food. Tom Cruise is a tiny ear of corn to me. He's an actor-like object, but he doesn't successfully register with me as someone I should care about. We can talk about why this is another time, but I think we all know, generally, why this might be. And it's not just 2006 Tom Cruise. It's all Tom Cruises. Even my beloved "A Few Good Men" is hard to take these days.

Surely, though, I can get through "MI:3" relatively unscathed. I was already falling out of like with Cruise in "War of the Worlds" and "Minority Report," and both movies held my interest completely. Answer: No.

Watching "MI:3" I become convinced, like the protagonist of a Phillip K. Dick novel, that something is Wrong with Ethan Hunt. His good guy demeanor is just an act, and deep down, he's an abusive, controlling dick who some rainy Thursday night will pull a "Star 80" on his wife, then conceal his crime by faking her tragic and fiery suicide with a car, a bridge and a big explosion.

So that's a problem. Other problem: Egregious abuse of the MacGuffin. Just because it doesn't MATTER what the MacGuffin is, that doesn't mean you should make a game out of not even VAGUELY referencing its identity for two hours. Take the MacGuffin out, and basically, you have a two hour fist fight, only with bombs and stuff.

That's the third problem: No emotional spine. No, I know, the wife. But I don't buy the wife. I just ... don't. See above, re: nice guy act. J.J. Abrams, I know, is very keen on the 48 hour-plus flashback. Good for him. I'm tired of it, but if it works, great. The problem, I'm afraid, is that seeing Mrs. Hunt tied to a chair with a gun pointed to her head makes me disbelieve that the entire engagement party thing even MEANS anything to Hunt, since clearly he's going to be Dragged Back In very shortly. Maybe it would have smarter to make them meet for the first time, or have their first Serious Date. But something went seriously wrong there, and I just never, never, never cared.

(Which is hilarious, because I first discovered J.J. Abrams through "Felicity," a show which used to grab me by the short hairs so powerfully that I would talk to the television from cold open to final credits.)


Then, I am sorry to say, Michael and I watched "Topaz." Here's a quirky fact: Two movies, almost 40 years apart, share a plot point--the use of microdots in spy craft. Huh.

Anyway, I love Alred Hitchcock. I love his anxious little heart and his devoted craftsmanship and his inventive filmmaking. But it's obvious he was getting tired towards the end--my God, the guy was ticking past 70--and he couldn't bring his A game. Also: The young Hitchcock had an energy and a passion for visual tricks that, because of the film stock and lighting of the time, worked brilliantly. As time went on, the film stock got better, more vivid, more fine-grained, and it betrayed all his old tricks mercilessly. Worse, he didn't have the reserves of energy that outwitting the technical limitations would require.

(I do not often compliment George Lucas, but I will say that he pulled off something quite remarkable with "Star Wars," largely because of a commitment to pushing the limits of the technology as far as it would go--a commitment young Hitch would have admired.)

Don't watch "Topaz." Just don't. Let your mind play over what you think it might be about, or the rumors you've heard about its plot, and let it go at that. And come to that, if you haven't seen "MI:3", skip that too.