MovieChat Forums > The MissionĀ (1986) Discussion > why this movie isnt more popular

why this movie isnt more popular


plainly put people love action they love blood, sex, drugs thats wat sells movies its a shame that more people dont have an apreciation for inspirational movies such as this one. But its just not practical to make movies like this any more, besides Mel Gibson there has not really been an attempt to make a movie w/a large christian influence or about christianity itself because they will not make money and even if u look at Mel's movie....BLOOD gory scenes idk its just wat the world is comming to so if i were u id buy this movie if u can find it cause there wont be many more like it if any at all

reply

the society is in a constant development and very few things made for 20 years ago whould be just as popular today. take "the terminator" for eksample. the first one had (probably because of limited special effects) not the same speed and action as the last one... which had bigger and louder explotions all just to make a worn out plot more apealing. but an even better examle is "the matrix". i think most people would agree whit me that the first one was the best, and allthoug it had an incredible amounts of special effects, they made every effect new and exiting, and not just big explotions, like we see in allmost every movie now. sadly they did not manage to keep the same exitment in the next movies. probably because they were made in one purpuse only, money.
i would say that all special effects are illusions substituting a boring or old and used story, and trying to make it look new. u see it in most action movies. and in some movies it is necesary, like in most Schwarzenegger movies.
but i think this will change some time soon. just take a look back. in the 60's most movies was pretty slow. 70's managed to make a lot of good classics, maybe a little thanks to violence, which we allmost had never seen in movies before (jaws, the godfather, a clockwork orange). but most of this movies had a message, (maybe not jaws:P) and they did not as much as now follow a pattern, where one year it is popular to make enviremental disasters, and the next the thing is biografies. and so on.. am I the only one bored by this development, where you are served movies that big companies have invested in because they now the majority of the population will more or less like it? and how they hardly make any movies where u have to turn on your brain just for a secound, maninly because they are "to advanced" for average Joe!

reply

Well, in a way I agree with you, but just not in as condescending a way.

Or, I don't think it's because there's something wrong or inferior with most folks that this film isn't as popular as it could be (or we might think would be given the cast). I think it's simply because this film is very unusual in many ways--it's a "difficult" film in many ways. It's long, it's far "slower" than the average film, it has a "jumpy" narrative that feels far more non-linear than it is, viewers often have to more or less guess what's going on plot-wise, partially because there's often very little dialogue, but also because when there is dialogue, it's often not very expository and sometimes the dialogue has more of a Shakespearean formality to it (without quite having the poetry or vocabulary of Shakespeare).

I do like this film a lot (although it's not quite a 10/10 to me, but a 9/10), but I can easily understand why a lot of people would have a difficult time getting into it.


http://www.rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies

reply

There are plenty of these films still around, it's just they found their place in the daytime television, telemovie, direct-to-video market (e.g. 'Fox Faith'). Also, _The Mission_ arrived right before Vatican II stopped being anything fresh and at the height of liberation theology. Hence, a commercial interest in producing it. Audiences certainly weren't any more intellectually gifted.

Did I mention this movie was leaden and banal, like most prestige movies out of Hollywood at any time?

reply

I suppose by popularity you mean "classic" image and timelessness?

Well, first off I don't think that has anything to do with Christianity at all. Numerous timeless films have some regard of religion or Christianity as a theme, even The Godfather.

This film, for me personally, is one I keep looking at the box art and having absolutely no recollection of it. Just now I typed it into YouTube to check out the trailer, and realize I have seen this movie -- twice! The second time I saw the film I had forgotten if I had seen it before, and was annoyed that I completely forgot about it because it is a rather good film. But not even seeing it a second time was enough, for I had forgotten about it again! No film has ever done that to me.

There's something about it that's just so forgettable. For some reason I'm inclined to think it's poor choice of cover art or something.

reply

I've seen this movie twice, and it's a decent movie, but hardly a masterpiece. I watched it mainly because Roland Joffe's debut feature, The Killing Fields, was one of the most powerful and riveting films I've ever seen (a perfect 10/10 and my pick for best drama film of the 80s) and was curious to see how his follow-up film would fare. Unfortunately, I thought The Mission was a huge step backward and it seems like Joffe's just been getting worse and worse over the years.

There are aspects of the film worth mentioning and worthy of praise. I particularly liked Ennio Morricone's score and Chris Menges' cinematography, though the latter is likely due more to the scenery than any actual bit of camerawork by Menges himself.

But I had trouble getting emotionally invested in the film. The Guarini themselves are presented in a rather faceless manner. Acting as our audience surrogate are Jeremy Irons and Robert De Niro, but Irons' performance, while showing passion, is somewhat one-note and not particularly well-developed while De Niro just seems plain miscast. Fascinatingly, I can't help but wonder how much better film the could have been if Liam Neeson had De Niro's role. If anything, Morricone's score generates more emotional response than anything onscreen itself.

The film also never moves smoothly from one act to the next. It begins as a redemption tale for Rodrigo, then turns into a tale of political and moral arguments, and finally ends with a "last stand" battle scene. Each segment of the film is worse than the preceding one.

The climactic battle sequence is really where I felt Joffe began the point of no return in terms of his filmmaking decline. This is a poorly filmed, choreographed, and edited mess of a sequence. It's not as if though there were technological or filmmaking limitations at the time that prevented the filming of convincingly realistic battle scenes. Platoon came out the same year and featured some of the most terrifying battle scenes put to film. This was just a case of a director who was in over his head.

I don't know, the more I write, the more I realize that there's less to this film that I like. I had originally intended to score this film a 6/10 but feel it might be more deserving of a 5/10.

reply

Sjw culture I suppose that can't stomach historical or religious themed films and see it as a white man's burden propaganda film. You'll also find them hating on Spencer Tracy's Boy's Town.

reply