Skip to main content

You use a scalpel. I prefer a hammer.

Mission: Impossible - Fallout
(2018)

(SPOILERS) The latest instalment of the impossibly consistent in quality Mission: Impossible franchise has been hailed as the best yet, and with but a single dud among the sextet that’s a considerable accolade. I’m not sure it's entirely deserved – there’s a particular repeated thematic blunder designed to add some weight in a "hero's validation" sense that not only falls flat, but also actively detracts from the whole – but as a piece of action filmmaking, returning director Christopher McQuarrie has done it again. Mission: Impossible – Fallout is an incredible accomplishment, the best of its ilk this side of Mad Max: Fury Road.


But let’s be clear; Fallout doesn't come close to that landmark. We're never in danger of really caring about the characters here, and the attempts to invest such an element are largely in vain. Yet from set piece to set piece this is bold, coherent, energised, enervating, enthralling spectacle. It has the life-and-limb immediacy of grittier '70s-era movie, while retaining the sense of extravagance this sort of multi-$100 million and then some production can afford, and without falling victim to incoherent editing or confused shakycam that these days tends to be a substitute for realism. And Alex Garland regular DP Rob Hardy seems to be working from the Antony Dod Mantle rule book of colour and luminous lighting; the thing pops at you all over the place.


The M:Is have always been masterpieces of the unreconstituted MacGuffin, even more so than the Bonds by having almost exclusively perfunctory villains. The consequence with the Bonds is that we don't often recall the detail of Bond’s mission but we do know the villain he had to take down to complete it. With the M:Is, we don’t usually recall either (Philip Seymour Hoffman being an honourable exception). This may seem like a vital component that ought to matter, but it rarely does; these movies are all about the breathless ride, and it's only when the pictures pause long enough to enable our recollection they are otherwise – M:I-2– that they stumble. Here, the MacGuffin-ness is unapologetically classical and basic; setting off nuclear bombs via black market plutonium cores. Really, though, it's all about Ethan Hunt, just as the Bonds have become all about Bond (in terms of not just the focus of our attention, but the focus of the nefarious plotting). These are ever-smaller worlds.


Much crossing and double-crossing comes as part of the deal, to such frequent and giddy effect, it borders on parody (I half expected the fake-out reveal involving Alec Baldwin to break the fourth wall, so many layers of manipulation have been fabricated by this point). Sean Harris is back, playing both Solomon Lane and Benji – I wish he’d had longer as Benji and a chance to go in for some Simon Pegg shtick – and he’s an ever-formidable presence, injecting life into a fairly vanilla villain (still, he survives, so there’s always an opportunity to make him count next time,  but lines like "The fallout of all your good intentions" are straight out of the Spectre lexicon of shite mischief making). 


Likewise, there isn't much to Henry Cavill's CIA guy August Walker aside from his duplicity, thuggishness and a wicked cool tache. The main highlight here is the clash of imposing Cavill against diminutive Cruise; Supes performs serviceably, but the part doesn't play to his strengths (more than sufficiently exhibited with his Bond dry-run Napoleon Solo). 


More effective are Vanessa Kirby's White Widow (playing the daughter of Vanessa Redgrave's Max from the De Palma original), an arms dealer played for playfully murky motives, and Rebecca Ferguson’s Ilsa. 



Somehow McQuarrie contrives to foster a degree of doubt over the latter’s early motives and succeeds. He won't be able to do that again. Will he? Less successful is the rather redundant attempt to frame Ethan as John Lark, something that feels tiresome rather than an extra string to a bow of thorny dilemmas; likewise, the Widow's repeated moving of the goalposts on bargaining without Ethan calling her bluff (and, since the demand for Ilsa's head on a platter never comes to anything, it seems particularly unnecessary).


Honestly, though, these aren't biggies. Where McQuarrie makes an uncharacteristic meal of things is trying to inject the human component into Ethan's endeavours. Did Tom whisper in his ear that he's never going to play a superhero now, so please could Chris make him Batman? That's effectively the announcement. From the frankly ludicrous – and yeah, I know the IMF is fantasy, but still – repositioning of a taskforce that's supposed to make hard, nay impossible, choices to one that will always put the individual above the many on the basis that hey, if you have a superman (not Cavill) involved, you can pull both off and crack a million-dollar smile at the end? And that accompanied by a beat whereby Angela Bassett (who deserves better) is basically required to stir and repeat the now-full-of-stab-wounds Alec Baldwin’s turnaround of two movies ago. She's actually right first time in her assessment of Ethan being responsible for this shit storm ("If he had held onto the plutonium, we wouldn’t be having this conversation").



On top of that is the disappointingly superfluous inclusion of Michelle Monaghan, who's basically required to deliver – well, actually, of all things, Ving Rhames delivers it for her, which only comes across as a wee bit nonsensical – a speech about how both mutually realised what Ethan needed to do was leave her in order to get on with saving the world (I'm paraphrasing, but not that much, insanely). Julia essentially needs to be there to justify Ethan getting the greenlight to be with Ilsa (but do we want him to be? She's much too cool for Ethan's school).



Also factoring in to this is that Monaghan’s a very sympathetic fit for this series; she and Rhames have an instant rapport. Ferguson's great, but an inherently no-nonsense character, which ultimately makes for too little contrast with Ethan in the long term (Pegg, meanwhile, gets a marvellously out-of-his-depth fight with Harris, but contrastingly, an "I don't believe it" scuba outing to save Lane from a submerged prison van; he's also enough of a plonker that he completely ignores the case full of plutonium in favour of imitating Ethan with a gun).



Still, the deal here is the impossible stunts, scrapes and close shaves, and Tom coming away unscathed, the odd broken leg or two aside. The picture isn't that breakneck to begin with, taking time to set up its above-mentioned (lame) theme, followed by a deft fake-out attack on three religious capitals (while the Apostles/Syndicate seem very dedicated, their ultimate aim is a touch nebulous, nominally bringing down the global system – and one might argue in their favour that they do at least see the broader problem as one of globalism, rather than a particular petty vendetta against a particular petty regime – but only when they aren't distracted by Ethan Hunt).



Why do Ethan and August need to HALO jump into Paris? I can't remember, but it's very cool and sets the tone for what's to follow, which includes an oddly-shaded fundraiser in a (plush) backroom that has the vibe of an Eyes Wide Shut outtake, a superlative fight sequence in a men's room, and a breathlessly giddy breakout sequence extracting Lane but mostly consisting of chasing Ethan on a bike in a manner that out French ConnectionThe French Connection. And then he chases Walker all over London.



The extended third act is similarly relentless, juggling a ticking clock – I say juggling, as McQuarrie doesn’t so much stretch the fifteen-minute countdown as wilfully throw it out the nearest chopper window, but laudably so – of Ethan pursuing the detonator with Luther, Julia, Benji and Ilsa hunting and/or defusing the nuclear devices. This reaches its zenith with Benji being strangled by Lane and Ilsa strapped to a chair, struggling to come to his rescue. On the more hilariously heightened side, the helicopters holding Ethan and Walker plunge down a crevasse as they duke it out.



Cruise is 56 now, but still looking a decade plus younger; either he's got CGI de-aging on his side to a much higher standard than Bradley’s disconcertingly waxy visage in Allied, or he's putting a supercharged clone through its paces. I wouldn't count against him leading the M:I franchise for another decade, given he's already done it ten years beyond what should have been feasible. And Paramount will pull out all the stops to make it so; while there's no doubt the series could work without him (as long as another Jeremy Renner isn't being viewed to take over), it's the desire for dedicated stunt work that has seen these movies find their particular niche, when ever more CGI-assisted feats have become the unremarkable norm elsewhere. Is Mission: Impossible - Fallout the best M:I yet? I’ll get back to you on that, but only because this series is an embarrassment of riches. Next time, though, much as I enjoyed Lorne Balfe's score, can whoever takes the reins leave Lao Schifrin's theme unvarnished? It's so much more effective that way.




Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

They say if we go with them, we'll live forever. And that's good.

Cocoon (1985) Anyone coming across Cocoon cold might reasonably assume the involvement of Steven Spielberg in some capacity. This is a sugary, well-meaning tale of age triumphing over adversity. All thanks to the power of aliens. Substitute the elderly for children and you pretty much have the manner and Spielberg for Ron Howard and you pretty much have the approach taken to Cocoon . Howard is so damn nice, he ends up pulling his punches even on the few occasions where he attempts to introduce conflict to up the stakes. Pauline Kael began her review by expressing the view that consciously life-affirming movies are to be consciously avoided. I wouldn’t go quite that far, but you’re definitely wise to steel yourself for the worst (which, more often than not, transpires). Cocoon is as dramatically inert as the not wholly dissimilar (but much more disagreeable, which is saying something) segment of Twilight Zone: The Movie directed by Spielberg ( Kick the Can ). There