The eighth film in the Mission Impossible series has arrived in theaters. Thirty years have passed since Tom Cruise began filming this series, based on a popular television series from the sixties, and very quickly he took over not only as the star but also as producer and chief content editor. He cast the best directors Brian De Palma, John Woo, J.J. Abrams (in his first film), Brad Bird (an animation master attempting live action) and in the last four films, Cruise teamed up with Christopher McQuarrie, who proved to be an excellent action director. The wonder of this series is that, unlike the usual in Hollywood, each film was actually bigger, more ambitious, and better than the previous one. Until the eighth film.
A few weeks ago, Kevin Feige, the boss of Marvel, said he admits that some Marvel films in recent years felt like homework. That is, films that require knowing a lot of background to understand who is against whom. This is one of the problems of Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning. Perhaps to reduce the feeling that it is a direct sequel to the seventh film in the series, which was not very successful, Cruise and McQuarrie decided that the eighth film would actually close the plots of all previous films. Exhausting. Each film in the series stood on its own, each contained a complete adventure from beginning to end
And suddenly now they try to explain that this villain is actually the son of the one from the first film, and the object they are looking for is connected to an item Cruise himself obtained in the third film, and somehow all his actions with the IMF over the past thirty years have led the plot to where it is now. First: really? Second: it does not help the plot or its outcomes at all. Just a very forced attempt to thread all the series’ diamonds on a single chain and try to prove that everything was planned in advance to bring us here. Bullshit.
And the essence of the film the team did not manage to solve: on one hand, the new film is supposed to be a kind of final chapter, where Ethan Hunt who for thirty years has been running from his operators understanding that the real villains sit in the government and America’s security forces are chasing him this time agrees to face his bosses and give them an account. On the other hand, it is a chapter with a sense of ending, which certainly leaves room for more sequels, but mainly asks the audience to take a pause to recalculate the course. I smell a reboot on the horizon.
I love Mission Impossible films. And I love that Christopher McQuarrie in his four films continued the path of Brian De Palma from the first film: films about identity tricks, disguised characters, double and fabricated realities, illogical puzzles decorated with action scenes inspired by Hitchcock. These films are basically built like comedies.
Yes, Ethan Hunt, played by Cruise, goes on missions around the world to acquire objects that could destroy the world and prevent them from falling into the hands of villains, and unlike James Bond he does it in disguises with a team of experts.
But in reality, these films are based on puzzles and circus stunts that created legendary action sequences, and because it is clear that nothing bad will happen to the hero, the enjoyment is a combination of tension and humor, and the action is an adrenaline and octane-filled version of slapstick from the days of Buster Keaton.
Over the past thirty years, compared to the James Bond series and Fast & Furious, the best action moments in cinema were provided by Tom Cruise and McQuarrie.
So the big mystery is where are those moments, the reason for the series’ existence, in the current film?
It contains two huge sequences, indeed. Excellent.
But they occupy 40 minutes out of the 167-minute film. Like going to a musical and discovering it has only two songs.
All the previous films were made with great seriousness but intended to provide massive entertainment, perfect escapism.
That tone has completely changed in the new film, which feels as if Cruise cast Christopher Nolan to direct it.
It is like a sequel to Oppenheimer: almost three hours of speeches, with music building to a crescendo that never ends.
This time, Ethan Hunt fights AI. Like in Terminator, it is software gaining consciousness and at a critical moment is expected to take control of all the nuclear weapons in the world and launch them against each other to destroy humanity.
And like in Terminator, there is a message that says “its fate is what we create.” Nothing is predetermined, even if it seems the AI has planned all its moves dozens of steps ahead, humans still have the ability to choose an alternative path.
Strangely and unusually, the current film tries to present Ethan Hunt as a kind of Christian Jesus, walking with a key in the shape of a cross, who must die and then rise again to bring redemption to the world. But McQuarrie did not stop at a Western myth and added an Eastern myth: the final act is some paraphrase of the genie-in-the-bottle legend in Aladdin’s cave. Homework, as mentioned.
To justify the plot move that is supposed to lead to a global nuclear disaster, the AI (called “the Entity,” to add a bit more theological spice) spreads false news on social media and creates disputes, polarization, and hatred.
It does not make sense because why would the AI care if humans riot in the streets if control over nuclear missiles is already in its hands but that no longer matters.
At that point, the plot is not calculated, but the message. In previous films, Cruise came to entertain, in this film he comes concerned.
This is a film with a troubled message.
The eighth film tries to make viewers see that the dystopia of previous high-tech films becomes reality. Factionalism, quarrels, a reality of lies and deception, presidents undermining the foundations of democracy, and death-seeking religious fanaticism.
We did not come to entertain, we came to provoke. And Cruise managed to create an impossible mission: how to make a film that excites and disappoints at the same time.