J.J. Abrams: the Goldilocks of filmmakers

Looking for the perfect fit
In “Mission: Impossible III,” there isn't enough time, however, to let the audience develop an attachment to the characters — especially not one on the level of episodic television. The same is true of the mystery: although the film ultimately makes it clear that the mystery matters less than the relationships, there's still not enough development in the characters involved to truly draw the audience in.

The villain is the one Abrams device that works here, because Abrams' villains are multilayered people who hide nearly everything from the audience but are played by their actors in a way that suggests we should know what we're dealing with. Much of the credit for this in “M:I3” goes to Philip Seymour Hoffman, who, as usual, allows himself to be completely absorbed into his character, unlike the lead male actor in this film.

Thus, while it's a competent film with a decent arc, “Mission: Impossible III” is nowhere near the best episodes of “Alias,” “Lost,”  or even “Felicity,” which used previously established relationships and plot points to build to climaxes that surprise and satisfy audiences. It's hard to get to know characters in an hour or two, especially not in the same way as when those characters are developed week after week after week for 12 or 22 hours, so Abrams couldn't have produced “Alias: The Movie” if that's what he'd wanted to do.

If television is too open-ended and films are too restrictive for his talents, then what can he do? Abrams apparently has nowhere to go, having yet to find a medium that works perfectly for his strengths.

Because of its economic generosity and constraints, film ultimately seems like the better medium for Abrams, at least until the day when television executives care more about storytelling and the artistry of programming than the advertising dollars it can draw.

Instead of one-off projects like “Mission: Impossible III,” which are too limiting for his talents, Abrams needs to write and film multi-part films, like nine-hour, three-part “Lord of the Rings”-style epics. There he'll find the time to develop his characters but the boundaries to keep the story from spiraling out of control. That's the J.J. Abrams that both his television fans and moviegoers deserve.

MORE FROM MOVIES

Movies Section Front

Could 2010 be the year Oscar goes geek?   Freeman, Eastwood team up for ‘Invictus’   Hollywood depicts shining S. African moment ‘Invictus’ dripping with inspiration ‘The Lovely Bones’ trades soul for spectacle Gervais: Stars in for a teasing at Golden Globes De Niro shines in ‘Everybody’s Fine’ ‘Brothers’ loses something in translation ‘Up in the Air’ flies straight and true Board of Review calls ‘Up in the Air’ year’s best Movies Section Front   Add Movies headlines to your news reader: