Mission Impossible: Fallout

The Mission Impossible franchise has had quite the impact on the spy genre. It’s true that it’s not the first one to take a crack at the area, with the long running James Bond being more famous in that regard, but it’s capable of holding its own. It debuted with the 1966 tv series that ran until 1973, which was well respected for its time and carries wonderful memories for those who have seen it. Unfortunately I don’t have that luxury since it was before my time, though I can always find it online one day to give it a watch. I’m more familiar with the Tom Cruise led film series that’s adapting the formula from the show: agents of the Impossible Mission Force (IMF) find themselves facing danger after an assignment takes a turn for the worse. Those movies started in 1996 and starting with the fourth one (Ghost Protocol) have only getting stronger, which brings us here to Mission Impossible Fallout, the sixth entry. The marketing campaign appeared pretty intriguing with the events taking place and displaying samples of the chaos awaiting our lead characters. It exploded with very positive critical reviews, citing it as not only the best in the franchise but also as one of the best action films of the decade. I entered the IMAX auditorium excited to see it and left it incredibly stunned/impressed by the effort here while agreeing with those aforementioned critics statements.

My Thoughts on the Mission Impossible Films:

• Mission Impossible (1996): This launched Cruises action career off and it's easy to see why as this holds up much better with age. The acting is very solid, Ving Rhames welcome screen presence, the suspense surrounding the missions is palpable, the ripping off the mask reveals still deliver, and it feels like a procedural in all the right ways. 
• Mission Impossible 2 (2000): If you ever need an example on how weird and experimental the early 2000s were, Cruise's heightened ego and John Woo's quirky direction created what's considered the black sheep of the franchise. Slow-motion, doves, giving a love interest who's not going to be in the follow-up since it was the weakest in the series, an unimpressive villain, but some great moments involved. I couldn't get through this on a rewatch for how bizarre, slow, and boring it was.
• Mission Impossible 3 (2006): The first one I actually saw in the theaters was JJ Abrams directorial debut and unfortunately it doesn't hold up that well. There are great scenes here (notably the hero going through the stages of grief when presented with a deadly situation in front of him), having Philip Seymour Hoffman in a villain role is a win, and introducing Simon Pegg in a minor supporting role before moving him up later. However, the fast pacing disrupts any potential to take a break from the thrills, the late great Philip isn't given direction to emote in an antagonistic manner, and the urgency of the situation loses its sparks throughout.
• Ghost Protocol (2011): This is where the franchise in the effort it took to take the elements of what worked before and refine them to new heights (pun intended to those who have seen it). The action is great, Jeremy Renner and Simon Pegg are welcome additions, some of Tom's line reads at times are kinda funny at times, and the conflict has some tension with how everything is paced. However, the villain is generic/forgettable and Paula Patton's character is uninteresting while not standing out like the others.. 
• Rogue Nation (2015): Another stop forward in getting better, this is the best entry out of these five (before Fallout). Great stunt-work used, solid usage of Rebecca Ferguson and Simon Pegg,  and excellent scenes of tension like the opera and the underwater part. 

The elephant in the room: Let's address this right away before anyone starts wondering due to something that happened last year. During the filming of this project, Henry Cavill grew a mustache for his role here and was dealing with the Justice League reshoots at the time (he portrayed Superman). Warner Bros asked Paramount Pictures to shave it off and offered to pay the money to use CG for the facial hair. However, the latter adamantly refused to let go of the furry asset and, as a result, the former CGI'd it out in their final product of a messy blockbuster that already had bigger issues to begin with. I'm not judging that mustache here the same way I didn't judge Justice League for that specific CGI usage since they aren't necessary to dissect in the grand scheme of things.

Plot: After failing to retrieve plutonium from opposing forces, the protagonists are being monitored by the CIA as they work to prevent the creation of nuclear explosives. This actually acts as a proper sequel in the franchise where it continues storylines from the past (Rogue Nation). Compared to the complicated scripts of the predecessors, this falls in line with the more comprehensible batch, though that doesn't mean you shouldn't be keeping up. It carries on as the consequences (or fallout) from decisions made (here and from before) in how they affect the conflict for the lead protagonist and his dangerous life. Something that's great here that contrast to before is how this feels the most like a team effort where everybody gets their chance to shine (regardless of whether they are a minor supporting role or not) rather than just a highlight on the main hero. The intrigue audiences look forward to in these spy plots certainly delivers as it feels even more refined among these latest entries.

However, there are some valid criticisms to hold against this film's story. It's fair to point out it's faithful to it's formula the series is known for can make this predictable, though an argument against that is how it's not the story you tell but how it's executed. The villain, while being more intimidating with the evil beard, is almost kinda forgettable. And the runtime can feel exhausting at times around the second act where parts could have been slightly trimmed down a bit.

Characters: The people to focus on are Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) and August Walker (Henry Cavill).  Ethan is an IMF agent who's in deep trouble after problem in his assignment with his team. Tom is great in this role as he's more mature this time around with his performance being a result of his characters years of experience and life troubles shaping him. August is a CIA assassin from Special Activities Division who tasked with monitoring Ethan and his team. Henry was solid casting choice here since his tall physical stature over Tom makes him domineering, stoic but stern delivery, and mean bully personality make him a good addition to this film (he might have found his niche as an intimidator rather than as a good guy from other projects). Honorable mentions goes to Benji (Simon Pegg), Faust (Rebecca Ferguson), Luther (Ving Rhames), and White Widow (Vanessa Kirby) with the former three being great returning players having standout moments to shine, while the latter of the four is a surprise performer with her limited screen time.

Action: Now for the big main reason a number of audiences have been tuning in for the recent entries of the franchise: the big blockbuster stunt work. One of the best things about it here compare to action in modern mainstream features is how it's all practical, what you see if what's actually happening. Tom Cruise is always insisting on doing his own stunts and here is no exception. He's making jumps (including one that broke his ankle that was left in this cut of the movie), running a lot (insert jokes about how much he loves to run), piloting vehicles (including one he took 6 weeks of lessons to do, according to the director), getting into crazy battles, etc. Thankfully the marketing only showed clips of the spectacle because they ramp up the stakes. If you're looking for one movie to use for IMAX to amplify the bombastic stunts, this is very much a recommended feature to go with.

Overall Consensus: Mission Impossible: Fallout gives thrilling experiences that's bolstered by great cast performances, excellent practical stunts, an engaging albeit familiar storyline, and intrigue within the spy genre. ⭑⭑⭑⭑1/2🍿🎟 Runtime: 2 hours 24 minutes PG-13

Reasons to watch it: You like any of the aforementioned actors. You love action-thrillers with practical effort put into making sequences feel authentic and exciting. You don't mind predictable plots you've seen within the spy genre. You aren't bother by runtimes that exceed 2 hours.

Reasons to avoid it: You dislike any of the aforementioned actors. You prefer blockbusters CGI battles over authentic chases. You are bored with predictable stories form the spy genre. You hate movie runtimes going over 2 hours.