Mission: Impossible - Fallout (2018) (1 Viewer)

[Richard M S]

Oh yes, comeback. Interesting nobody even mentioned (or noticed) Cruise's last film, American Made, which did not even register at the box office but just turned up on HBO.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

And the Jack Reacher sequel. Those have been his two major films since the last M:I and both underperformed.

Yeah, I agree - just still seems funny to regard a movie as a "comeback" when it's not been that long since his last hit.

Feels to me like a "comeback" needs to follow a long dry spell, not two movies!

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I would argue that the Mission: Impossible films aren't completely Tom Cruise solo vehicles though. While he is heavily featured and billed as the top star, they also feature characters and recognizable actors from past adventures in more of an ensemble type of way. Heck, Ving Rhames has made appearances in all six. Cruise was expected to carry The Mummy and Jack Reacher on his own, and I just don't think he's that kind of star anymore. My guess is that if Top Gun is featured as a solo Cruise vehicle it won't do as well as the Mission: Impossible films either.

I think Cruise can carry a movie "all on his own" - if it's the right movie.

The first Reacher was really good - the 2nd one wasn't.

"Mummy" was a mess.

It's about the movies being high quality more than who's in the supporting cast...

 

[Robert Crawford]

I think Cruise can carry a movie "all on his own" - if it's the right movie.

The first Reacher was really good - the 2nd one wasn't.

"Mummy" was a mess.

It's about the movies being high quality more than who's in the supporting cast...

He should have passed on The Mummy movie. American Made was a pretty good film. The second Reacher film was mediocre.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

He should have passed on The Mummy movie. American Made was a pretty good film. The second Reacher film was mediocre.

From what I've heard, part of the problem with "Mummy" was that Cruise interfered with it too much and turned it into a "Tom Cruise Movie" rather than what the filmmakers intended...

 

[Robert Crawford]

From what I've heard, part of the problem with "Mummy" was that Cruise interfered with it too much and turned it into a "Tom Cruise Movie" rather than what the filmmakers intended...

I think that movie had more problems than that, it was simply awful.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I think that movie had more problems than that, it was simply awful.

Maybe - we'll never know what it would've been like if the filmmakers' "original vision" won the day.

I thought it was more mediocre than awful. A definite missed opportunity!

 

[TravisR]

American Made was a pretty good film.

Yeah, American Made was another example of where I found myself wishing that he would concentrate more on being Tom Cruise- Actor rather than being Tom Cruise- Movie Star And Action Hero. I love these Mission: Impossible movies but in my mind, they should be what does into between 'serious' roles.

 

[Mike Frezon]

I remember it was just about a year ago it hit me like a ton of bricks how many Tom Cruise films I have really enjoyed over the years. It's really phenomenal.

 

[TJPC]

I usually enjoy his films and see most of them, but I always say to myself “Too bad he is such an ass hole in real life with the whole Scientology cult”.

 

[TonyD]

I loved the movie, but had a couple really minor nitpicks.

Spoiler

1) What was the point of making the White Widow the daughter of Max from the first film? When they name-dropped her, I thought, "She must've told her daughter about Ethan Hunt at some point," so I figured that that connection would blow his cover. But they never pulled at this thread at all, even though it was available to them. So what was the value of the name drop? She could've been anyone's daughter and it wouldn't have mattered to the execution of the plot as it was handled in the film. It just felt odd to name check this part of the franchise history if they weren't actually going to make it matter.

2) This is kind of an opposite issue to my previous nitpick, but: I understand that Jeremy Renner wasn't available for this film because he was busy filming Avengers 4. However, considering that they went out of their way to make this a sequel to Rogue Nation and had everyone else major from that film come back, it felt a little odd not to have him name-checked at all. They could have had Huntley or someone throw in a small reference to him being on assignment somewhere else or something. Just since he really became a valued part of the team in Ghost Protocol and Rogue Nation and he's the only one missing here, but no one acknowledges his absence at all. So I thought that was odd.

Other than those two teeny tiny things, I absolutely loved the move from beginning to end. This really is the rare series that just gets better with age. Christopher McQuarrie really knows how to use Cruise, and the team and play to their strengths both individually and as a group. I'm so glad he came back for this, and I love that they actually made this a sequel to Rogue Nation rather than a completely new standalone thing. That was a new angle for the franchise and I really appreciated it.

The action was insane and great and terrific. But I really liked that it was grounded in character and that the arcs for these people really mattered, which hasn't always been the case for this franchise. I jumped into the franchise with the release of the third film, and somehow or other hadn't gone back to see the first two until earlier this week. Seeing those compared to these is like night and day. Most of the team members in those films are interchangeable and forgettable, and especially in the case of the ridiculous second film, I found myself forgetting the movie as I was watching it. This one makes the characters matter, so that even if the situation they're put in is extreme and heightened, you have a baseline to care about what they're doing, which elevates the whole enterprise.

More, please and thank you, Paramount!

That first spoiler went right by me. I had no idea about that and it didn’t change the movie for me.

The second one. They could simply have said he is on house arrest.

So saw it today, Moviepass.

Liked it a lot but a little too revengy for me.
Didn’t like that they killed off one particular person.
Stunts are incredible.
Oddly they changed the viewpoint of the stunt when Cruise busted up his ankle to one that’s different from the previews so it was a little harder to see what he did.

The Motorcycle Chase was awesome.
Easy four out of five stars.

 

[TonyD]

I usually enjoy his films and see most of them, but I always say to myself “Too bad he is such an ass hole in real life with the whole Scientology cult”.

I don’t know why it matters.
I go see his movies because they are usually really good.

I don’t read his private life stuff because I don’t care about it.

 

[Jake Lipson]

That first spoiler went right by me. I had no idea about that and it didn’t change the movie for me.

The second one. They could simply have said he is on house arrest.

Spoiler

I noticed it because I had just watched the first Mission: Impossible which it referenced earlier in the same week as I saw Fallout. Otherwise, I probably wouldn't have either. It's obviously an Easter egg for those who want to find it. I'm just surprised they didn't use it more. It's not a problem that they didn't. It's just odd. But it's still a phenomenal movie as-is.

The funny thing is that the actual reason for Renner's absence i a scheduling conflict with Marvel. But as I assume you were referencing, he wasn't in Infinity War either so...that's odd.

Didn’t like that they killed off one particular person.

Spoiler

I assume you must be referring to Huntley? I didn't like it pr se either, but I think it was a very effective motivator for Ethan and the team going into the third act of the movie. I wonder who is going to take over IMF now that he's dead. Presumably with the success of this film, there's going to be another one.

 

[benbess]

My wife and I enjoyed this movie. A solid "B" would be my rating for it. To my surprise, however, I'm not sure it's going to be profitable. I assumed that it had made it to, say, 600 million or so at the box office by now, but instead it hasn't even reached 400 million. It probably will reach 400, but it's not clear it's going to go much more than that unless there's major market where it hasn't opened yet.

The movie had a production budget of about $180 million, and likely had advertising and overhead costs of another $100 million. Against a negative costs of c.$280 million right now it seems like—since studios typically only get c.50% of the worldwide box office—the studio is looking at a return of at most 250 million. You might add another 30 million or so for blu-ray sales and streaming, etc., but then you have to realize that Cruise typically gets 10% or more of first dollar gross for his movies. That's not part of the budget, but it does mean that for a movie that grosses 400 million they have to write him a check for 40 million dollars—which ultimately adds to the negative cost of the film as far as the studio is concerned.

Anyway, I enjoyed the movie a lot, but unless I'm missing something it doesn't look like it's going to be profitable, which makes it seem questionable about whether the studio will continue with the franchise? Perhaps Cruise will have to give up his 10%+ of first dollar gross? Or has he already done that?

 

[Malcolm R]

My wife and I enjoyed this movie. A solid "B" would be my rating for it. To my surprise, however, I'm not sure it's going to be profitable. I assumed that it had made it to, say, 600 million or so at the box office by now, but instead it hasn't even reached 400 million. It probably will reach 400, but it's not clear it's going to go much more than that unless there's major market where it hasn't opened yet.

Not opened in China yet, which is likely to boost it considerably.

The last two films have each approached $700m worldwide, so I don't think there's any panic yet. Domestically, it's currently running $20m ahead of the last film at the same point in release.

 

[Mikael Soderholm]

Got my tickets for tomorrow. Can't wait. Unusually, there were good revies from both major newspapers here, which almost never happens for action movies, wonder if that's a good sign or not ...

 

[Jake Lipson]

wonder if that's a good sign or not ...

Why wouldn't it be a good sign?

The film is fantastic. You'll probably love it.

 

[Mikael Soderholm]

Why wouldn't it be a good sign?

The film is fantastic. You'll probably love it.

Because usually they don't give good reviews to movies like MI, Bond, Bourne etc, not that I care, but if they suddenly like a movie like this, maybe it's because it's different, in a bad way, that journos like ...
But I think it'll be great, Tom Cruise and the MI series hasn't disappointed yet.

 

[TravisR]

Because usually they don't give good reviews to movies like MI, Bond, Bourne etc, not that I care, but if they suddenly like a movie like this, maybe it's because it's different, in a bad way, that journos like ...
But I think it'll be great, Tom Cruise and the MI series hasn't disappointed yet.

I think it's the rare example of an action movie where it's so good that even the stuck up critics are acknowledging how good it is.

 

[DavidJ]

I think it's the rare example of an action movie where it's so good that even the stuck up critics are acknowledging how good it is.

Yep.