Skip to main content

M:I Month: Mission: Impossible -Fallout (2018)


“Your mission, should you choose to accept it… I wonder, have you ever chosen not to?”
It’s a good question, posed to Ethan Hunt by Solomon Lane in interrogation. It’s part of a line of reasonings meant to get Hunt and his team to question the authorities they perform their missions for, but it hits Hunt and the audience in a different context, a personal one. Has Ethan Hunt ever declined a mission? Choice is an important part of the prompt, but Hunt doesn’t seem to treat it like it is. The mission is his mandate, he can’t make the choice to turn it down -who would he be otherwise?
Mission: Impossible -Fallout, the latest installment in the series, is generally considered the best from what I’ve seen from the fans and critics who’ve followed it. Certainly on the level of its’ action, I would say it delivers more thrillingly than any of its’ predecessors -and with the highest quantity of daredevil Tom Cruise stunts. It’s plot isn’t so compelling -in some regards the stakes are a mash up of Rogue Nation and Ghost Protocol. But its’ more fascinating feature is the interest it takes in Ethan Hunt’s practices and priorities, which have evolved over the course of six films if little else has stayed consistent.
For Fallout, Christopher McQuarrie returned as writer-director, the first time one has stayed on for a second movie. And it makes sense given what he brought to Rogue Nation. In Fallout he merely extends that scope further, but gets more ambitious with his creative choices too. The movie begins for example in a scene of apparent tranquility -which none of these films have done before. It is a dream sequence recalling Ethan’s wedding to Julia, but where the officiator is Lane who appears to destroy them with an atomic blast. It establishes quickly and efficiently Hunt’s three biggest anxieties: the safety of his ex-wife, the fear of Lane’s power, and the threat of a disaster he cannot prevent. We see that these are renewed in his mind by the fact that in spite of Lane’s capture, the Syndicate has survived and reformed into the Apostles, still with the end goal of toppling the world order, but through the practice of hired terrorism, which they are now doing for a mysterious figure called John Lark. They’re after three plutonium cores to use for nuclear bombs and Hunt’s mission of course is to acquire these before the Apostles.
And he fails. Before the opening credits he fails. At the exchange, the Apostles take Luther hostage and Hunt chooses to save the life of his friend rather than protect the assets -and it results in the plutonium being taken. This almost feels like the natural culmination of the previous couple movies building up Hunt’s bond with his team -and who would he be closer to than Luther? The theme of him making the difficult choice of prioritizing the individual permeates through the movie in a bit of an inconsistent way, though it defines Hunt in a more humane light, which in lieu of his established personal fears makes for the most rounded study of the character in any film thus far.
Because of this failure, his new mission to follow and retrieve the weapons has him saddled with instead of his usual team, a CIA agent August Walker (Henry Cavill), who quickly becomes a pretty decent foil for Hunt. Cavill has had a hard time clicking in most of the roles he’s played since breaking out as Superman (including as Superman), so it’s great to see him here actually give a fun and calculated performance. He’s stern and disciplined, but not uncharismatic; and the part is set up with the action to work to his physical strengths as an actor.
Like Cruise, Cavill takes to the fight scenes and stunt-work really well, and this is nowhere better demonstrated than in the bathroom fight in Paris where the two intensely go up against an extraordinarily capable Apostle agent in one of the most gripping, well-executed action sequences of the entire series. This pair are directly involved in several of the movies’ other major action beats: a shoot-out and on-foot pursuit through London, a helicopter battle in the Himalayas that for Cruise seems to be a trial run for Top Gun: Maverick. This movie doesn’t have a single domineering set-piece for Cruise’s adrenaline, but rather a half dozen, including a real skydive, a leap from one building’s window to another’s roof, and a precarious cling to the side of a mountain. And yet this might be the first Mission: Impossible movie to consciously gloss over a major action scene when Hunt retrieves Lane from an armored convoy that is glimpsed in grim montage, reflecting the mood of Hunt to confronting Lane again.
McQuarrie makes good on these dramatic choices, his script allowing for keener exploration of character. Hunt is of course at the centre of it, but there are also interesting things done with Ilsa, who returns here as an agent with MI6, tasked with bringing Lane in to her own superiors. It’s a good way of once again pitting her against Hunt in some circumstances, allied with him in others. There’s a great scene where they address the seeming inconsistency in this that reveals Ilsa like Hunt is incapable of walking away from this life. They are mirrors, which makes it all the better when they seem to finally join forces permanently –Ilsa officially a part of the team. And I love that she gets to be the one, rather than Hunt, to subdue Lane -given the stakes of their prior relationship. It’s another knockout turn from Rebecca Ferguson, this movie –who still kills it in her action scenes. Bringing back Julia was also a good decision, both as a character and a motivator for Hunt. We finally learn exactly what led to their break-up: a mixture of Hunt’s fear for her life and desperate feeling of obligation when something terrible is happening in the world. Essentially, the marriage ended because of Hunt’s hero complex and though the movie isn’t willing to interrogate it, there’s a tragedy in that. Cruise and Michelle Monaghan play the relationship with its’ lingering affection and on Cruise’s part an ever-so-slight hint of doubt. Covertly, Julia aids Luther in his part of the mission, which involves the simultaneous disarming by the whole team of the three nuclear bombs. It’s certainly a sight better than what she had to work with in Mission: Impossible III.
This movie features some of the best performances of the series. In addition to Cruise and Ferguson and Cavill, Ving Rhames gets probably his best showcase while an added Vanessa Kirby (playing the daughter of Vanessa Redgrave’s Max from the first film) is a delightful new anomaly. Also, Angela Bassett was good casting as the CIA director, and Alec Baldwin gets some good stuff to work with as her IMF counterpart. Specifically, he partakes in a great elaborate ruse in the second act -bested only by the pre-opening credits ruse wherein Hunt, Luther, and Benji trick an Apostle weapons contractor into revealing information about Lark. The identity of Lark by the way, does turn out to be the most obvious candidate, though still a force to be reckoned with. The climax in which he is taken out while everyone works together to save the world and each other may actually be my favourite of the series. Hunt’s methods are easily vindicated, though it certainly feels earned.
Fallout does represent I think a new peak for this series, as Ghost Protocol did before it, but I like that it may not be the last. Over the past month I have come to thoroughly enjoy this series and feel that twinge of regret at having not seen the more recent installments in theatres. But I’m glad that won’t be the case for the final two. The trailer alone for Mission: Impossible -Dead Reckoning Part 1 is immensely exciting (though all of these movies have had pretty great trailers). It promises more Hunt, more Ilsa, more Luther and Benji, more Vanessa Kirby, the return of Henry Czerny’s Kitteridge (still probably the best of the IMF directors), and the addition of Hayley Atwell -which is never not a positive- and of course plenty of insane action.
I’ve been meaning to get around to these movies for some time. I’m glad I finally did, and I can’t wait to be back next summer.
Mission Accomplished!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...