Directed by:
Christopher McQuarrieScreenplay:
Christopher McQuarrieCinematography:
Rob HardyComposer:
Lorne BalfeCast:
Tom Cruise, Henry Cavill, Rebecca Ferguson, Simon Pegg, Ving Rhames, Vanessa Kirby, Alec Baldwin, Sean Harris, Angela Bassett, Michelle Monaghan, Wes Bentley (more)VOD (4)
Plots(1)
When an IMF operation goes badly wrong, Ethan finds himself isolated and unsure of who to trust as he attempts to complete his original mission. With the CIA questioning his motives and deadly assassin August Walker (Henry Cavill) on his tail, Ethan recruits his old IMF team as they bid to save the world from impending disaster. (Paramount Pictures AU)
(more)Videos (32)
Reviews (15)
Great work, but I am missing a top scene, which was Turandot in part five or Burj Khalifa in part four. Nevertheless, the action component is the best since the Dark Knight Rises, in which Nolan hung a plane on a twine. Cruise is a gambler who, with his courage, fights against time, and the fact that acting stars are dying out. He will do everything to keep the audience gasping for breath and not be afraid to take extreme risks because of it. McQuarrie is able to direct it perfectly onto the screen. It will be over when they say it's over.
()
I felt an orgiastic enthusiasm, spoiled by moments of bitterness that a second or third viewing might or might not mitigate. Nolan himself would have been ashamed to conceive it in such a Dark Knight fashion, because he would be accused of copying himself. In particular, Balfe merely changed a few notes of the Dark Knight scores to give the dialogue tension and lend the storyline a continuously pulsating momentum. However, most of the action mega-scenes, which are almost groundbreaking in the given genre, and the brutal physical fights are not backed with music but – as the current trend dictates – only with raw sound, which gives them realism. These modern elements of deafening musical urgency and epic yet realistic action create a combination that make us pee our collective pants in joy, but it is spoiled by an overly complicated plot with repeated unmasking and changes of identities, where we manage to understand the basic storyline but keep getting lost in the individual plot twists. At least that’s what happened to me. And probably not because I’m stupid, but because of the script and its attempts to make everything dramatic at all costs, even at places where no dramatization is necessary. For this, I give it four stars, and elevate the more moderate and elegantly beautiful Rogue Nation to five. By the way, of all of Fallout’s scenes, I liked the sentimental one with the French woman cop the best. Cruise has some really beautiful women here, prettier than in many Bond movies.
()
SPOILERS AHEAD. I find it a bit paradoxical to blame Fallout for being so reminiscent of Rogue Nation. Isn’t a certain degree of similarity, the certainty that we more or less know what awaits us, the reason that we like movie franchises, whether it’s Bond films, Marvel movies or the Star Wars saga? Besides that, Fallout offers enough specific elements to keep it from being interchangeable with its predecessor and it continuously highlights a certain cyclical nature that Ethan Hunt encounters in his life. ___ Unlike the previous instalments, this one makes greater use of a subjective narrative (dreams, ideas) and more frequently brings up the protagonist’s past, which suddenly began to burden him (similar to Bond in Skyfall). His dilemma – whether to help one beloved person or to save millions – is manifested especially in the female characters (Julie, Ilsa, the French policewoman). The central conflict established by the first scene (including a copy of Homer’s Odyssey, in which the mission is given to Hunt) is based on a desire for harmony, accompanied by concerns that he will irreversibly disrupt it with his actions. In fact, he “only” seeks inner peace (similarly to Ilsa wanting to return home). ___ Two and a half hours of the movie are then filled with various complicated deferrals of this goal (toward which it is necessary to work through several constituent tasks), which at first seems to be within reach (trading in plutonium), but gradually becomes more distant the harder Hunt and his team try to achieve it (basically in accordance with one of the meanings of the subtitle, they fall ever deeper). Hunt unwittingly contributes to the implementation of the villain’s plan and thus to the realisation of his worst fear from the opening scene. ___ The constant uncovering of the identities of double and triple agents who plot against each other (of which we are sometimes aware and sometimes not) shows how difficult it is to recognise reality in an unstable postmodern world of simulacrums (see also the scene in which Benji guides Hunt through a 3D space according to a 2D map) and offers – above all – more and more pretexts for the spectacular action on which this franchise is based and to which the logic of everything else is subordinated. So, yeah, the villain has to leave London from the tower of the Tate Modern gallery, Hunt has to ride around the Arc de Triomphe at full speed in the wrong direction, and he has to skydive into Paris from seven kilometres up, because it looks fantastic and will boost your adrenaline level. Suspension of disbelief. Alfred Hitchcock. If you have a problem with that, you will find it excessive and improbable, any you will unfortunately not fully enjoy Fallout. ___ By giving us the dizzying feeling of straddling the boundary between life and death, Fallout is reminiscent of great grotesques like The General and Safety Last! (though Cruise bases his performances on speed and strength rather than physical acrobatics). With their rhythm, use of deadlines, inventive incorporation of Schifrin’s motif and the way everything smoothly fits together in the end, the action scenes are incredibly intoxicating, while also being sufficiently diverse in terms of vehicles, combat methods, multiple storylines running in parallel (in this regard, the final action scene is very Nolan-esque) and the extent of our awareness of what’s going on, which contributes to the fact that we often do not know with certainty whether we are seeing the fulfilment of a premeditated plan or improvisation. ___ Life supposedly flows in spirals and Fallout is structured accordingly, as it repeats situations that we saw in the first half of the film (a shootout in the London underworld is strikingly reminiscent of the handover in Berlin) or in previous instalments of the series with a slight alteration of forces, which the characters are aware of, knowingly winking at each other (and at us) and making fun of their (again) seemingly zero chance of success and survival. The episodic narrative, composed of several outstanding action sequences with their own patterns of development and breathtaking gradation, is again not only utilised, but also reflected. There is no way for anything to end except with a spectacular cliffhanger. ___ Sure, Fallout could have been shorter, less overloaded with plot twists and more focused on the action than on the characters, but in terms of the development of today's world and the Mission: Impossible franchise, I find its more pronounced melodramatic nature (which contributes significantly to the longer runtime) and greater prevalence of postmodern doubt about what is actually real to be a logical way to raise the stakes without resorting to excesses likes those put out by the creators of Fast & Furious. Of course, it can’t be ruled out that Hunt will race with tanks and submarines next time. He evidently still has the physique for that. 90%
()
(less)
(more)
After watching this Mission: Impossible movie, I had to go back and read my reviews of the previous instalments. I found out that it basically was what it always has been; an incredibly high-quality action thrill ride with Tom Cruise. I think he’s currently the only actor who works this hard for action movies. There’s barely any CGI in the movie. Not only do most of the scenes feel real, they also are. It’s apparent that Tom gave it all he’s got and when you watch him jump off a plane nearly 4 miles above the ground, you can see all of the hundred plus jumps he had to do for this scene to work. He’s a champ. Nobody in Hollywood even compares to him nowadays. Everybody’s hiding behind a green screen and the only extra thing they might do is go to a gym after shooting so that they can show off their muscles. As far as the actual movie goes, I got what I wanted – the best action scenes of this year, Tom in a million different ways and his gang that radiates charisma. And unfortunately maybe a little bit of confusion because of the script, but that’s always the case with Mission Impossible movies. Anyhow, it gets very decent four stars from me and I’m convinced that the name Mission Impossible means more in 2018 than people could have hoped for some 20 years ago.
()
I totally appreciate the craftsmanship, the totally awesome Tom Cruise, the great action scenes and pacing. I'd be bullshitting if I said I was bored, but at the same time I felt all along that most of those things were done a little better by the previous film. Whether it was the chases, the work with the bad guy (it's all too transparent here) or the sort of embellishment that makes a great scene stand out (I missed the opera this time). It's great, but not as great as last time, and I really can't imagine that if I had to choose which of the last two M:I episodes to watch now, I'd reach for the sixth one. Not to sound overly disappointed, but it's like choosing between The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises. I'd give Ledger the edge, but if I can't find him, Hardy certainly won't offend me. It's just... it was just a little more interesting last time. In every way.
()
Ads