Mission Impossible: Fallout

It can sometimes seem like only a handful of types of movies can be made for theatrical release these days: low budget horror from the likes of A24, “art” films that have either already won indie awards or are positioned to hopefully win Golden Globes or Oscars, animated movies for kids (mostly, but not exclusively, made by Disney and Pixar), and action franchise films. These franchise films increasingly dominate the box office and while there is plenty to differentiate them there is also plenty about them that feels very similar. They are all “summer blockbusters,” with budgets in the 100s of millions and hoped for returns in the near billions. Mission Impossible: Fallout is one of these movies, undeniably. It is the sixth film in its respective franchise, with a reported budget of $178 million and a box office take of approximately $790 million. However, it somehow avoids feeling like every other summer blockbuster in almost every single way.

For starters, the quality of action is incredible. Like John Wick, the first film specifically, there is a better understanding of what makes for good action that is sorely missing in everything from Captain America: Civil War to Fast 5. Namely, that you need heroes that can fail, that show actual weakness, that face peril and take a beating before they find a way to turn things around. Think Jackie Chan, always getting beat up badly while fighting his way to victory, or Indiana Jones hanging off the side of the tank in Raiders of the Lost Ark, desperately just trying to hold on. In Mission Impossible, Ethan Hunt, played as always by Tom Cruise, and his team often make mistakes or make plans that don’t work out. They get hit and those hits hurt. What makes it compelling is how they pick themselves up and try a different route to victory. This is not only a useful narrative device, it helps create tension and maintain believability. There is something so toothless about the superheroes, both literal and figurative, that populate so much of action cinema these days because you never feel like they are in any actual danger or, in some cases, are even capable of failure.

Another thing the film gets right in its action is its handling of large action set pieces. A part of this blockbuster environment is the prevalence of grandiose spectacles that create dazzling trailer visuals and scintillating watercooler talk. Did you see that bit where Dom Toretto battles a submarine in a muscle car? Fallout has some great moments but none of them are chasing that extreme spectacle the way its peers are. The best scenes in the movie are a fairly grounded martial arts fight in a bathroom and a slightly unhinged but still believable parkour inspired chase sequence on the rooftops of London.

As other films pursue ever more extravagant action pieces, juiced to the gills with CGI, Tom Cruise and his producing partners have insisted that everything they do in Mission Impossible is as close to au naturel as possible. This doesn’t always mean simple and grounded, see Cruise hanging off the side of an airplane in the preceding film as an example, but it does mean that practical effects win out most of the time, as it did even in the aforementioned scene. In Fallout, it does often mean simple and grounded, with the exception of the final helicopter sequence, but more importantly that love of practical effects and highly physical acting leads to a direction that wants you, the audience, to know that they are doing it for real. The film actively calls attention to the ways in which its stunts are practical, often seeming to pick framing based on what best proves a given gag wasn’t done in front of a green screen. This reality is palpable and, in an age of rushed special effects like the rubbery CGI body doubles at the end of Blank Panther or Superman’s uncanny valley of an upper lip in Justice League, that authenticity resonates with an audience on levels both conscious and unconscious.

Speaking of direction, the directing in this movie is sublime. It’s not the kind of shot selection or cinematography that is going to win any awards, but there is a flair to its utilitarian nature that is easy to overlook. The camera always knows how to keep a sense of location, geography, and space in every aspect of the film, but most importantly during the action. The stakes of every sequence are clearly articulated and frequently shown, as well as their established importance to the greater stakes of the story. You know who is where relative to who else and what stands between one or more adversaries or allies at any given time. Whether it is trying to outrun the police on a motorbike or throwing hands in a bathroom stall, the audience is never confused as to the what, where, and why fundamentals of the action. It seems wild to say that this is rare, given these things aren’t rocket science and action films make up such a large part of the cinema these days, but sadly it is and Mission Impossible: Fallout gets right what it seems so many others currently get wrong in this area.

If I were to throw one piece of criticism at the film, and its action, it would be for the ending. The conclusion of the film is split into two, parallel narratives: one on the ground and one in helicopters in the sky. The stuff on the ground is up to the level of anything else in the film. The helicopter stuff is, for my money at least, somewhat disappointing. The actual helicopter work, like so much else in the film, was probably done practically. But that doesn’t save it from still feeling a bit goofy, in ways that aren’t always easy to articulate. This is only amplified when the choppers both crash, as both the crash and the ensuing fight are cartoonish in comparison to the rest of the movie. They feel more like a scene from a lesser competitor, from that other class of spectacle blockbuster, than what is appropriate for the tone and standard Fallout has established for itself. This is, I will acknowledge, a relatively minor complaint. However, since it is part of the climax of the film, and so what will be most top of mind for the audience as the movie ends, it is unfortunate that Fallout doesn’t finish as strongly as it performs for literally the rest of the movie.

Lastly, Fallout also dodges the problem with franchises, especially those based in sprawling cinematic universes, where there is an expectation that everyone watching will have seen all the others beforehand. Marvel, in particular, has run this gambit not only as a way to make their movies seem more lore-rich but also as a sneaky way to stimulate ticket sales. However, it can be tiring, or even alienating, for an audience member who doesn’t watch it all religiously to be lost, asking “who is this?” or “what is that?” to every piece of exposition that is only found in some other movie they haven’t seen. Fallout doesn’t avoid this completely, with the surprise introduction of some characters from previous installments of the franchise, but it does do a good job of keeping it to a minimum and providing plenty of context clues and in-film exposition to allow a savvy viewer to not even need to ask those types of questions.

All in all, this is a great movie. It might honestly be one of the best action films made in ages. It is such a pleasant reminder that through all the bland sameness of empty blockbuster action films, with low to no stakes and seemingly undefeatable superheroes and superhero-esque protagonists, there are still people out there who remember the basics, the fundamentals, of telling a great action story. It is rumored that Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson has a clause in his contract that doesn’t allow his character to be hit too many times, get badly injured, or ever lose a fight. All I can say is: Tom Cruise would never, and his movies are better for it.

Would Recommend: If you are dying for an action film with a hero that doesn’t seem invincible.

Would Not Recommend: If you simply can’t stomach another action spectacle film, no matter how well put together it is.