The Mission (Two-Disc Special Edition)

Rating:
Summary: The Moose Hole - Misguided 'Mission'
Review: When it comes to three talented performers as Robert De Niro, Jeremy Irons, and Liam Neeson, each one of us has a specific film role or feature film they have been in that comes automatically to our minds when we hear their names. For De Niro, he has benefited quite profitably from teaming up with director Martin Scorsese decades ago in Raging Bull and Taxi Driver, among others, as well as appearing in the Godfather series, the politically controversial Wag the Dog, and The Deer Hunter. Jeremy Irons is probably best known for his villainous voice role in The Lion King and his role opposite Bruce Willis in Die Hard with a Vengeance. And Liam Neeson's star has risen in part to critical praise of his roles in Steven Spielberg's Schindler's List and Kinsey, as well as more mainstream hits as Star Wars: Episode I and Love Actually. But few would even fathom remembering the film of which all three of these actors share in common - The Mission.

The story for The Mission adheres presently to the historical events of the era and actions that would have taken place during the mid-1700s, specifically around the year 1750 CE, but in doing so the interests of its audience are alienated. Be it either from an unwillingness to take creative chances with the storyline or the lack of serious character development amongst the lead roles, The Mission more often then not bores its public into submission. Unless you happen to be genuinely invested within the time period in which this film is set against then it will be quite difficult to remain concerned for the outcome of the events onscreen. But the purpose of The Mission far exceeds the level of merely expressing to its audience the heart-wrenching tale of the turbulent changes taking root amongst the native Indian populations of Latin America during the mid-1700s but instead uses allegory to connect to after effects caused by the Treaty of Madrid of 1750 and the political turmoil within the same region in the 1980s, something that would hit home with its target audience. In reference back to the historical records of the time, in the year 1750 AD the countries of Spain and Portugal came to an accord in which they signed a document called the Treat of Madrid. The agreement allowed Spain to retain all territory west of modern-day Uruguay and Portugal kept the Amazon, Mato Grosso, Goias, and Rio Grande do Sul.

Robert De Niro's engaging and captivating performance as Rodrigo Mendoza, the former mercenary searching through redemption in the tropical missionary built by the Jesuit order, has to certainly be one of the most surprising and magnificent roles of his exhaustive film career. Glancing back toward Robert De Niro's promising career during the 1980s sincerely demonstrates how far the enduring talent has fallen over the years with roles in such horrid features as Godsend and Hide & Seek. The struggle for the film's audience is that they are directed emotionally to be supportive or sympathetic toward Rodrigo, especially near the end of the film, but clearly do not understand as to why they should feel this way. Seeing as how Rodrigo never expresses exactly, either to himself or to others within the Jesuit order, as to what he true feelings or intentions are toward a particular course of action, it is quite understandable as to why this would an inconvenience to the audience's way of thinking. The lack of character of development, which truthfully is not limited merely to De Niro's character, leaves far too many question unanswered. Beyond being merely family-related, why does Rodrigo feels as horrible as he does about killing his brother having been a mercenary most of his adult life, and thus having inflicted such brutal punishment, or worse, on a regular basis? Why does he agree to Father Gabriel's act of penance to begin with? What reason does he have for joining the Jesuit order? If for spiritual purposes then why does he withdraw back to his former way in the end, be it though for a better cause and purpose.

Jeremy Irons' Father Gabriel is constructed in almost the exact same fashion as De Niro's Rodrigo in that the assumptions made of the character's actions are left pretty opened ended, which does not benefit the audience's understanding the film's spiritual message. In any event though, Irons' solid performance is positively convincing and connects with the film's audience more thoroughly then any other role, a statement truly deserving of praise. But if there was choice as to which character in the film should have been cut from the final reel it would undoubtedly be Liam Neeson's Fielding, a member of the Jesuit missionary order. The dilemma with his character is that he serves no actual purpose, at least none that has any lasting effects on the proceedings of the rest of the film, and contributes little if anything to The Mission's overall thematic atmosphere. Beyond a few albeit brief appearances in the two-hour feature, the role of Fielding should have been designated as nothing more then a mere cameo for Neeson rather then a supporting role as it does nothing of the sort.

The Mission's musical composition, scored and conducted by Ennio Morricone, is truly a sight to be seen, or in this case heard, as it is truly difficult to categorize accurately unless it has been experienced personally. It ranges from purely elevated grandeur, flowing majestically as the swift guided strokes of the native Indian oarsmen convey the Cardinal through the Amazonian jungle to their mission-village, only to dabble into fits of the hysterically, unintentionally of course, awful. There should be no rational excuse for Morricone to have done this seeing as how it goes about distracting the audience from the course of the film, reoccurring every so often out of nowhere that no one can help but be confused when they hear it.

Despite benefiting exceedingly from a well-intentioned, if not an often disconcerted, storyline and proverbial sequences of dialogue, the pacing of the film seems rather off, convincing the audience that it is longer then its actual two hour and fifteen minute time length should suggest. Furthermore, The Mission's numerous obscure, and ultimately unnecessary, uses of particular sequences or character actions should have never found their way into the final version of the film. For example, what was with the little native Indian child tag along after Rodrigo? What particular purpose did he serve within the storyline that the other children did not? And was anyone else confused, or surprised, when his laughter sounded like Alvin and the Chipmunks? This might have more to say about the rather primitive sound innovations, from the modern perspective, of cinema within the 1980s then anything else but still it could have been dealt with differently then it was. And then there was the scene in which, as the Jesuit missionaries paddle their way toward the missionary village, a random tree along the river collapses into the water and then Irons makes a passing comment about it before quickly moving on. Was this truly necessary? The audience may receive somewhat of a chuckle from it but for obviously the wrong reasons, if the director had any for its inclusion.

Overall, The Mission, be it a historically accurate depiction of the imperialistic plunder of South America within that time period, ultimately makes poor use of its genuine storyline and conventional dialogue pieces in part to its rather melancholy pacing and anti-climatic conclusion. Also, the serious lack of character development, specifically concerning Robert De Niro's Rodrigo Mendoza, prevents the audience from making an emotional investment with the actions occurring onscreen, thus eliminating the mood of excitement or intrigue from the finale. Undoubtedly The Mission is an exceptional piece of little known cinema and should be viewed for its breathtaking cinematography and philosophical exchanges of discussion, but its sloppy editing techniques and lapses in scriptural genius within the screenplay ultimately prevent it from achieving the pinnacle of achievement amongst the movie-going public.

Rating:
Summary: Beautiful
Review: Beautifully made film with memorable scenes and music. The vistas and favourable portrayals of simplicity and virtue capture the imagination.

Perhaps overly long and perhaps in need of further character development of de Niro's character. This is nevertheless a worthwhile film which anyone with an affection for the beauty of simplicity and the threat of misguided power will appreciate.

Rating:
Summary: An Old Fashioned Character Epic...
Review: This film is potently uplifting. The scene involving DeNiro's long awaited redemption- the music, his acting, the context, the waterfalls, the color- everything falls into place. I'm a cinematography major and the lens work in this movie is incredible - It reminds you how good an experience a seriously crafted film can be. I've read reviews that think otherwise and I question whether they actually watched it or just skimmed around looking for explosions and war battles. Those who aren't effected are most likely bored with its maturity. DeNiro is a swordsman, Irons is a priest, they both live in a brutal time. Check it out, it will remind you how movies should be made.

Rating:
Summary: EPIC
Review: Amazing movie! shows that not all spaniards were in favor of the colonization of America. This movie is about helping and protecting human rights. Great History.

Rating:
Summary: DeNiro shines in unlikely role in historical film
Review: This is a highly enjoyable epic film. DeNiro is his usual captivating self only this time instead of being an Italian gangster or wise guy in the 20th century, his character lives in 18th century South America.

I enjoyed this film because I am a DeNiro fan and I enjoy his style of acting. It was pleasing to see him attempt a different type of role.

If you're a DeNiro fan, check this one out

Rating:
Summary: Larger than life epic film - the ending is up to you
Review: Welcome to a time when the world was plagued by pirates. Just when you thought that 2004 was horrible, check out the Mission. You are in the 1700s, the expansive raw beauty of Brazil is set before you in vast cinematographic displays layered with Ennio Morricone's entrancing score. The tragic history of the era provokes you to look elsewhere for sanctuary, so you become engrossed in the scenery, the background orchestration when DeNiro compels you to take notice of the drama unfolding and Jeremy Irons as a Jesuit priest reminds us that we all can become victims of false intelligence. This is made clear late in the movie when we learn that all the powers that be are conspiring against us all - the elements, the church, the government, the media (I threw that one in, sorry) and we have been duped into believing the wrong things. We are confronted with the age old human paradox: do we change, fight to correct wrong, or passively choose to die? At the end of the movie you are jolted back to 2004 on the eve of an election.... What will you do?

Rating:
Summary: The Indians had a religion too you know
Review: I love this movie. I'm sure Roger Ebert has his points, even he liked the cinematography though. He should, maybe it's second only to Lawrence of Arabia. There's a scene of clergymen canoeing into a village on a sun sparkling river to a lively joyous music in the background that just lifts you out of yourself with it's exhilaration.
Jeremy Irons is so good as the Jesuit priest explaining to Deniro they don't kill because Christ is love and mercy...
I thought he did that beautifully, and then the scene where Deniro dies as he's seeing Irons walking onto the battlefield holding the cross and leading the villagers to martyrdom and massacre... I mean, these scenes stay with you all your life and change you.
Deniro laughing and crying at the same time because he's finally found peace in the hands of the Jesuits is the sweetest most tender thing I think I've ever seen. This is art. This is why people make and watch movies my friend.
I will never forget this movie. I always tell people to check it out. Check this out!

Rating:
Summary: Prepare to be stunned
Review: If you have a knowledge of the history behind "The Mission" you will have a greater appreciation for the film and what it is portraying. The story line depicts the power struggle between Spain and Portugal which resulted in the line of demarcation in South America. It portrays how Indian villages were put into slavery as a result of human greed. It demonstrates the natives and missionaries attempts to resist slavery and destruction of their villages. While some used passive resistance and a reliance on faith, others used force. Neither method saved them from the slave traders. Evil prevailed. Ironically, had the Indians not embraced "the faith" they may have been able to fight off the slave traders.
The film portrays the struggles that jesuit missionaries endured to foster the faith that ultimately let them down. Here we see the sinister side of the papal chosen-ones. The human element of the Catholic Church and lust for power are clearly portrayed in this film and contribute to the drama, which makes "The Mission" so compelling and thought-provoking.
This film has some scenes which are a bit far fetched, as others have said, however the cinemaphotography is outstanding. The cinemaphotography, alone, is reason to see the film.
I rarely purchase DVD's, but this one deserved to be on my shelf.
If you like this film, "Blackrobe" is another very realistic film about Jesuit missionaries who worked with North American Native Americans.