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

Disney's Mulan, Cultural Appropriation, and Exploitation

I’m late on this one I know. I wasn’t willing to spend thirty bucks back in September for a movie experience I knew was going to be far poorer than if I had paid half that at a theatre. So I waited for it to hit streaming for free to give it a shot. In the meantime I heard that it wasn’t very good, but I remained determined not to skip it entirely, partly out of sympathy for director Niki Caro and partly out of morbid curiosity. Disney’s live-action Mulan  I was actually mildly looking forward to early in the year in spite of my well-documented distaste for this series of creative dead zones by the most powerful media conglomerate on earth. Mulan  was never one of Disney’s classics, a movie extremely of its time in its “girl power” gender politics and with a decidedly American take on ancient Chinese mythology. It got by on a couple good songs and a strong lead, but it was a movie that could be improved upon, and this new version looked like it had the potential to do that, em...

The Wizard of Oz: Birth of Imagination

“Somewhere over the rainbow, skies are blue; and the dreams that you dare to dream really do come true.” I don’t think I’ve sat down and watched The Wizard of Oz  in more than fifteen years. Among the first things I noticed doing so now in 2019, nearly eighty years to the day of its original release on August 25th, 1939, was the amount of obvious foreshadowing in the first twenty minutes. The farmhands are each equated with their later analogues through blatant metaphors and personality quirks (Huck’s “head made out of straw” comment), Professor Marvel is clearly a fraud in spite of his good nature, Dorothy at one point straight up calls Miss Gulch a “wicked old witch”. We don’t notice these things watching the film as children, or maybe we do and reason that it doesn’t matter. It still doesn’t matter. Despite being the part of the movie we’re not supposed to care about, the portrait of a dreary Kansas bedighted by one instant icon of a song, those opening sce...

So I Guess Comics Kingdom Sucks Now...

So, I guess Comics Kingdom sucks now. The website run by King Features Syndicate hosting a bunch of their licensed comic strips from classics like Beetle Bailey , Blondie , and Dennis the Menace  to great new strips like Retail , The Pajama Diaries , and Edison Lee  (as well as Sherman’s Lagoon , Zits , On the Fastrack , etc.) underwent a major relaunch early last week that is in just about every way a massive downgrade. The problems are numerous. The layout is distracting and cheap, far more space is allocated for ads so the strips themselves are displayed too small, the banner from which you could formerly browse for other strips is gone (meaning you have to go to the homepage to find other comics you like or discover new ones), the comments section is a joke –not refreshing itself daily so that every comment made on an individual strip remains attached to ALL strips, there’s no more blog or special features on individual comics pages which effectively barricades the ...