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 (3)
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)
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)
A repeat of the essence of ostentatious espionage, which is once again strongest when it goes against the usual rules and boldly builds the whole story on humanity, the strength of characters, on the healing scars of seemingly indestructible experiences. Although there is naturally no shock of a never-before-seen approach, Christopher McQuarrie too cautiously walks his own beaten path and turns Fallout into more of an M:I 5.5, but the combination of additional internal tension among multiple organizations and a grand Bond-like finale fit so perfectly together that when all is said and done nothing bothers me about this approach.
()
The day before, I saw an overstuffed digital coloring book, the new Avengers, and those endless fights didn't breathe any life, the only thing that sweated during them were the computer processors as they rendered the CGI. In Cruise's film, on the other hand, the contact fights oozed animalism, they were raw and you could feel every punch, it was such a relief to see that old-school action flicks are still being made. The charismatic Cavill is a stud, I can imagine him as the new James Bond, even with that fabulous mustache. And Cruise? I don't know how he does it, if eating umbilical cords to prolong his youth, or if he made a deal with the devil, Hubbard, or Ashtar Sheran, whatever, but to look like that at 56 and still perform those stunts, hats off. I'm 11 years younger and when I take my groceries to the 6th floor, by the third floor I'm already putting on an oxygen mask because I feel like I'm going to die :o)
()
The sixth movie has only one weak point, it comes after a perfect fifth movie. And so, unfortunately, it tries be better in the classic way of all Hollywood sequels “more of everything, too much of everything, with old and well-known character and this time it´s all about the saving the world, as always". The result is a much more straightforward (ok, blunt) script, which this time only serves as a link to let Tom jump on the rooftops of London for two and a half hours, drive two kilometers in the opposite direction in streets of Paris or hang hundreds of meters above the Kashmir mountains. So loved nice spy dialogs of the last part are not seen anymore, here is everything about nuclear bombs, cutting colored wires and hundredths of seconds. So much for the shortcoming. Otherwise, it is not about anything; dead adrenaline constantly (but as a matter of fact constantly) graded diverse event based on clarity, choreography and stunts. So, this time it's “only" a phenomenal big-budget real action movie and an average spy movie. Last time this symbiosis worked really well. But not this time. Even so, it is undeniably a genre movie event of the year, that´s for sure.
()
After the fourth episode, Mission Impossible has become one of the best action franchises of our time (Bond and Bourne are not even close), and with the sixth episode the series literally reaches its peak. Tom Cruise, at 56, performs an incredible physical feat, with his iconic running and stunt escapades that cause stuntmen to lose their jobs, literally sweating blood and risking his life for his franchise! Hats off and much admiration. Story-wise it's classically convoluted and nicely twisted, and I liked that, although this time there was no twist that killed me like last time, but still a high standard. As for the action, it's full throttle almost the whole film. The fight in the restroom right at the beginning probably won't be beaten this year, and the adrenaline-packed chase with motorbikes, and the finale itself, which absurd, with the best helicopter chase I've ever seen. Alongside Ethan Hunt, Rebecca Ferguson is wonderful here again, and she definitely deserves more action roles, and then there’s the new surprise of Henry Cavill, who, when he's not comic-book movies, is actually an excellent actor who can handle multiple stances at once and can make a real nuisance of himself in fights. Praise must also go to Rob Hardy for his excellent cinematography, which adds to the authentically intense experience. A proper ride. 95%
()