This time around, Ethan Hunt (Cruise) and the rest of the IMF (which seems comprised entirely of Ving Rhams as Luther Stickell, Simon …show more content…
Pegg as Benji Dunn, and Jeremy Renner as William Brandt) have been disbanded by the head of the CIA (Alec Baldwin). Director Hunley (Baldwin) has deemed the IMF too reckless, and has made it a personal mission to capture Ethan. Ethan, meanwhile, evades capture (the rest of the IMF went quietly into other jobs) and continues to pursue a shadow organization, a “rogue nation” known as the Syndicate, “an anti-IMF.” Of course, Ethan eventually gets the band back together to bring down this notable threat.
As expected for one of these films, the entire cast is good to great. At this point, Tom Cruise simply is Ethan Hunt. It would be challenging to find an actor who more naturally fits a role. Simon Pegg turns in some wonderful work here, bringing the anticipated comic relief and some surprisingly convincing pathos. He and Cruise also possess excellent chemistry. Jeremy Renner’s work is not exactly nuanced (I’d argue he gives the worst performance of any of the leads), but he does exactly what he needs to and actually appears to have fun in this spy role (unlike in a certain 2012 spy movie). Ving Rhames, as much a mainstay of the series as Cruise, proves he can still deliver as Luther. Sean Harris as the villain and head of the Syndicate, Solomon Lane, also gives a fair performance, exuding the right amount of cerebral creepiness.
The real standout amongst the actors, however, is newcomer Rebecca Ferguson as Isla Faust, the duplicitous female lead. Given that description, is should come as no surprise that she has the most to work with, and she does an admirable job of providing her character with nuance. Some of her lines, such as when she asks Hunt to run away with her, are cheesy action movie staples. Even in these sequences, however, she proves more convincing than many actors would be. Not to mention she excels in the scenes where she has good material to work with, too.
Aside from Tom Cruise, fans flock to Mission: Impossible films for the fantastic action set pieces. Knowing this, Mission: Impossible-Rogue Nation delivers on the thrills. McQuarrie has an eye for action, exceling at capturing the antics without disorienting audiences in anyway. The movie also does a superb job of providing a variety of action spectacles. There is the touted sequence early in the movie of Cruise hanging off the side of an airborne plane. But there are also car chases, fistfights, shootouts, and high stakes games of cat-and-mouse. Although none of these will go down in the annals of movie history, they effectively exhilarate audiences.
As good as these scenes are, they do contribute to one of the film’s shortcomings. While writing the screenplay, it seems McQuarrie got a little too enamored with his ideas for excitement. The Mission: Impossible franchise has never been one that has placed much emphasis on plot or character development, but these weaknesses are especially apparent in Mission: Impossible-Rogue Nation. The story is a McGuffin that allows the filmmakers to showcase their ideas for action and the talents of the actors. Essentially, the movie moves from one set piece to another. While this does provide superficial entertainment, it does not contribute to the overall viewing pleasure of audiences since they have less to latch onto and become invested in the story.
McQuarrie’s screenplay also presents another problem, one that has beset the series from its nascent movies: predictability.
By this, I do not mean the twists and turns of the plot itself, but rather the outcome. More than in most action films, Mission: Impossible-Rogue Nation (and its predecessors) never makes viewers wonder, I mean really wonder, if the heroes will triumph. This issue seems more egregious in light of a strong point of McQuarrie’s writing, namely that he attempts to up the realism and stakes by referencing past actions from other movies in the series. This works since actions now have consequences. He also dissolves the IMF (again), in an effort to make the circumstances direr. Moviegoers never believe it, though, because it all feels hollow and non-threatening. Hunt and his crew have easily overcome numerous such threats before. In order to combat this perennial downfall, the series almost needs to kill off a major character to make the audience invest more in the action onscreen. Sadly, since the films return so few characters, Ving Rhames’ Luther represents the best option. Killing Luther would provide some much needed gravitas and emotional attachment to the series, or at least the next
installment.
Although it has its imperfections, Mission: Impossible-Rogue Nation is still my favorite in the series. It’s lighthearted fare, to be sure, and could be improved by a little more seriousness, but it is still fun by any measure. The cast is great (or just short of it). The action is undeniably entertaining. The humor (something I didn’t touch on, but this may be the funniest of the franchise) is amusing. Mission: Impossible-Rogue Nation is basically a typically lightweight summer blockbuster, but an above average one by all counts.