Mission: Impossible - The Final Reckoning (2025)

Director: Christopher McQuarrie

Cast: Tom Cruise, Hayley Atwell, Ving Rhames, Simon Pegg*

Have I Seen it Before: Never, and maybe never again?

Did I Like It: Here’s a confession, if I haven’t already made it in previous reviews for the Mission: Impossible films. Most people are never more delighted during these films than when Ethan Hunt (Cruise) dangles off of increasingly precarious things. That’s the brand. That’s why the vast majority posters for this movie show a biplane flying upside down with Cruise holding on by one hand. That will gets butt into seats**.

I, on the other hand, am never more delighted in this series when they make references to the original Mission: Impossible (1996). I have a weird affection for that uneven first entry with the byzantine plot, even when I’m willing to admit that Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (2011) is likely the most satisfying entry, pound for pound. From Alec Baldwin’s muttering about the CIA Black Vault in Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation (2015) through the White Widow (Vanessa Kirby) being the heiress to Max (Vanessa Redgrave), all the way to the return of Eugene Kittridge (Henry Czerny) in Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning (2023), McQuarrie either has the same soft spot for the first film as I do, or had an interest in making the story of Ethan Hunt one where what came before has an impact on what is still to come. A valid ambition in my eyes, either way.

The references to the original film abound here as well. I found the revelations that Jasper Briggs (Shea Whigham) is actually the son of Jim Phelps (Jon Voight) to be a little anemic, especially when it confirms finally and beyond all doubt that these films don’t share a continuity with the original television series.

But then there’s William Donloe (Rolf Saxon). The hapless mark in the aforementioned Black Vault, he was just a guy who knew how to manage a database. A man after my own heart, who go mistreated.

And he’s the secret heroe of the series, and steals every moment he’s in this film.

I am delighted, in that much at least, and that’s more than enough to recommend a movie.

Is this really the end for Ethan Hunt and company? Aside from dispensing with Luther Stickell in the first act, the film doesn’t seem like it wants to commit to a valedictory for the dangling man. This is as close as we’re going to get, and I hope it is the end. If for no other reason than I find it increasingly hard to believe that Scientology can give a man the tools he needs to do his own stunts into his 70s. This would be a good place to stop.

But if they want to do a spinoff series with Donloe, I’ll be the first one there on opening weekend.

*It took me all of my patience not to list Rolf Saxon in the main cast. More on that later. Also learned that he narrated the American broadcasts of Teletubbies. So there’s that.

**Enough butts in seats to cover a $400 million budget? One wonders, but maybe that’s a discussion for a different time.

Tropic Thunder (2008)

Director: Ben Stiller

Cast: Ben Stiller, Jack Black, Robert Downey Jr., Tom Cruise

Have I Seen It Before: Oh, sure. What else was there to do in the summer of 2008 but see whatever Robert Downey Jr. movie was coming down the pike?

Did I Like It: At the core, its a pretty funny comedy that manages to actually channel the scope and energy of the movies—chief among them Apocalypse Now (1979) and Hearts of Darkness (1991) with more than a little bit of Platoon (1986) thrown in—it mocks.

Obviously, there’s going to be some things in the film that don’t age well. The lengths to which Kirk Lazarus (Downey Jr.) tries to get into the head of Lincoln Osiris is not something that would pass the smell test today. Tugg Speedman’s (Stiller) futile attempt to reach for respectability in Simple Jack got a fair amount of guff at the time of release. But both of those elements are more about the foolishness of movie actors blindly reaching for those portrayals without really thinking about the limits of their own believability and good sense.

While whispers still exist that Les Grossman (Cruise) will get his own spin-off film one day (it doesn’t really feel like the kind of film that Cruise could possibly be talked into anymore; then again, it didn’t really feel like that back then, either), I’d submit that his is the character which ages most poorly. He is a riff on Hollywood assholes like Scott Rudin and Harvey Weinstein, but never is he played as a fool. Quite to the contrary, he’s a brash villain one can’t help but wish they were more like. He’s an ugly little man who has commanded every room he’s entered since the 80s. The film loves him in all his reprehensibility, and I admit I even like him.

But I probably shouldn’t.

Eyes Wide Shut (1999)

Director: Stanley Kubrick

Cast: Tom Cruise, Nicole Kidman, Sydney Pollack, Maria Richardson

Have I Seen it Before: Yeah. I was probably in my twenties or even younger, and I felt like how I felt about a lot of Kubrick films on first viewing. I just didn’t get it. I would be a little leery of any teenager or person in their twenties why got anything out of this film other than nudity up to and including Kidman.

I was compelled to come back to the film when my festival screener duties* drifted into an inexplicable new adaptation of Schnitzler’s original novel. All it did was want me to re-visit the Kubrick of it all.

Did I Like It: It’s immaculately made—naturally—and that’s all the more mystifying when one thinks that Kubrick couldn’t possible have been in the best of health when the entire production was going through the Sisyphean task of a year-plus shoot. It’s frank and unblinking in the things it depicts, with several moments legitimately feeling like we got a peak into Cruise and Kidman’s marriage. I can only imagine what putting those moments—both banal and intense—on display did to them.

But we can talk about the sex—also both banal and intense—in the film for days, but it is only a surface reading. The sex is incidental. I’m struck in this viewing by the dynamic between Harford (Cruise) and his old medical school chum Nick Nightingale (Todd Field). You might have one read from their scenes together, but Eyes Wide Shut isn’t about those surface readings. I tend to think that if Bill hadn’t met someone at that party who rejected everything he himself had done to have a comfortable, stable life, he probably wouldn’t have gotten in nearly as much trouble as he did.

You might think I’m reading the movie wrong. I’m not, but then again it’s very hard to read a Kubrick film entirely wrong.

*No, I’m not saying which festival. You just keep submitting.

Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning Part One (2023)

Director: Christopher McQuarrie

Cast: Tom Cruise, Hayley Atwell, Ving Rhames, Simon Pegg

Have I Seen it Before: Nope, but if the one religious figure who takes a clear stand on the vagaries of motion blurring wants me to do something, I do it. Especially when it means coming out to the theater for his nearly 300 million dollar* epic. If he starts making other demands of me, we’re just going to have to take those on a case by case basis.

Did I Like It: I like it when the following things happen to me:

- Spy movies make me feel like I could engage in espionage and intrigue, even though there is a plethora of airtight evidence that I would be absolutely crushed by any job with even slightly higher pressure than the one I currently have.

- I am witness to Tom Cruise proceeding with a series of increasingly preposterous stunts, which will inevitably culminate in what I can only assume is his somewhat hilarious demise.

- I get to sit in a darkened, air conditioned room and eat M & Ms. (Really, this would qualify when I get to sit in a brightly lit room with M & Ms, but they work even better in the dark)

- Mission: Impossible sequels make reference to the first—and for my money, the best—Mission: Impossible (1996).

On those qualifications, the movie is an unparalleled success, especially the last one, where with the inclusion of Eugene Kittridge (Henry Czerny) this feels like—more than any other film in the series—a direct sequel to the original. Sure, the plot may feel a little saggy in the middle and a little convoluted, but the impulse to label that as a complain about the movie should really be redefined as a return to form.

* Studios, if you keep doing that… Forget it. It’s not worth getting into it right now, but one imagines I’m going to have a lot more to same by the time Barbie and Oppenheimer roll into town.

Interview with the Vampire (1994)

Director: Neil Jordan

Cast: Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, Antonio Banderas, Kirsten Dunst

Have I Seen it Before: Sure. My main memory is “Sympathy for the Devil” playing over the film’s last few minutes, which seems like a weird tonal choice. One wonders if several years later it will rise above that memory. I recently read the book, and I found it to be far too mired in an unrelentingly unhealthy fixation with Claudia (Dunst).

Did I Like It: I still think the final needle-drop is a weird tone shift for the movie. It reeks of something added in reshoots at the behest of a studio executive that felt if the movie had to end on a down note, it at least needed one more jump scare to get people out on an adrenaline high. It doesn’t really make sense that Lestat (Cruise, back when he could reasonably be expected to share leading-man status with anyone else in a film) is there in San Francisco, back to something resembling full strength after spending that much time enfeebled by his last encounter with Claudia.

And yet, I did enjoy the movie if I take those last few minutes out of the equation. I’ll admit that I found the novel to be a terrible slog, more interested in navel gazing than in moving along with themes or plot, but Jordan and company have wisely moved things along at a brisk enough pace. I was especially moved by the notion that this is—if even briefly—a movie briefly very in love with movies. Louis finds he does miss the sunlight, and eventually finds as motion pictures develop that he can get that back by taking in a late screening. The characters of Rice’s novel are unconcerned with finding comfort in books, so it was a delight to have a moment where form and theme become one. Honestly, if it was clear that I could still enjoy movies as they are released for the years to come, I might be able to get on board with the whole immortality thing.

Top Gun: Maverick (2022)

Director: Joseph Kosinski

Cast: Tom Cruise, Miles Teller, Jennifer Connelly, Val Kilmer

Have I Seen it Before: Nope. Missed any sort of convenient IMAX screening, and I’ll probably just have to live with that. Drifted into a matinee recently more than a month after the film’s release.

Which felt like a safe thing to do, not just from the COVID side of things, but because this tends to minimize encounters with the absolute dumbest people to emerge from underneath rocks. I’m definitely one of those guys generally less enthralled by seeing a movie with a crowd (although the right crowd—difficult though it is to find—does have its charms), than with seeing bigger movies on the biggest screen possible.

No such luck this time, though. The screening was already crowded when I got my tickets, which should have been my first alarm bell. I was enjoying my popcorn just at the limit of social distancing, and some jabroni takes the seat right next to mine. I’m doing a quick calculation in my head regarding the average vaccination status of a Top Gun audience on a Wednesday afternoon, and at first I think I have three choices. First, slap on my KN95 and abandon all hope of enjoying the rest of my popcorn. Second, just leave before the movie starts.

Both are unacceptable. So, in desperate need of a third option, I broke the social contract of the modern moviegoing experience and moved to a seat for which I had not bought a ticket. It felt simultaneously rebellious and safe, and I got to finish my popcorn. What’s more, I moved to the front row, and that was probably the better way to take in this film anyway.

Did I Like It: Oh, sure. You probably want to hear more about the movie itself. Much has been said about how much better this film is than the original Top Gun (1986). They are right, but I can’t help but wonder if this is because this film is truly that great, or because the original film is not much more than an energetic pageant of the state of masculinity in the mid-80s. This one has an actual story. There are stakes. Several characters go through something resembling an arc. That’s already something. Is the story kind of preposterous and ultimately hinges on the insane idea that an enemy (let’s not name them, because nothing in a film dates it more than identifying the collective bad guy) base has a mostly-ignored, still-in-working-order, retro-bordering-on-antique fighter jet ready for Maverick (Cruise) and Rooster (Teller) to use to make their escape? Yes, but it exists, and there’s a nice little romance between Cruise and Jennifer Connelly to help make the larger preposterousness go down easier.

I think what people are really responding to is the cinematography of the aviation sequences, which are truly an improvement not only for the series, but the idea of aerial photography in general. There were several moments I genuinely wondered how the production obtained the shots they did without just letting Cruise actually pilot priceless warplanes. I don’t think I really want to know.

Top Gun (1986)

Director: Tony Scott

Cast: Tom Cruise, Kelly McGillis, Val Kilmer, Anthony Edwards

Have I Seen it Before: I’m sure I have. All of the “big” lines of the film hit something like a memory, but I can’t say I can point to a moment where I saw the whole film from beginning to end.

Did I Like It: And that’s maybe part of the problem. This is a movie of moments which don’t really hang together as a whole piece. That quality—a collection of pieces which don’t measure up to a complete whole—is endemic of a lot of 80s films. For instance, Rocky IV (1985) might qualify as a short if you take away all of the montage—although I haven’t seen the recent director’s cut.

One can almost feel Cruise aching to take more direct control over the films in which he appears, but for the mean time has to be content with being charming but restrained in films.

And there’s more than enough charm to go around. A Harold Faltermeyer score immediately launches any film into the territory of pure 80s confection, even those he scored outside the decade. The cast is never not charming, including not just supporting turns from Kilmer and Edwards, but also blink-and-you-miss-them performances from actors who would eventually go on to bigger things like Meg Ryan and Tim Robbins. Yes, Robbins hovers around the edges of the film, spending the run time as not much more than a glorified extra.

One wonders how somebody like Robbins drifted (and I assure you, he does drift) into a film with such jingoistic politics. A film treating the essentially inevitable outbreak of World War III as  the feel good turn for the third act would never be made out of the 1980s (at least, I don’t think it would, I’ll let you know when I finally get around to seeing Top Gun: Maverick (2022)) and probably shouldn’t be made by any reasonable person, ever. Maybe if it did try to weave together a more coherent, fuller package of a movie, it would be impossible to have any fun with it at all.

Minority Report (2002)

Director: Steven Spielberg

Cast: Tom Cruise, Colin Farrell, Samantha Morton, Max von Sydow

Have I Seen it Before: Oh, sure.

Did I Like It: When Spielberg dies, this won’t be even in the top ten films mentioned as his most memorable. In any retrospective of the Philip K. Dick adaptations, this film probably won’t be one of the first ones mentioned. Considering Tom Cruise will likely continue reaching for cinematic excellence after he has grown beyond the use of his physical body to await Xenu’s return, there’s a very real possibility this won’t even rank in the top thousand memorably Cruise roles*.

And, for the life of me, I can’t quite figure out why any of those things are true.

It is far and beyond the best adaptation of Dick’s work ever produced, and yes, I count Blade Runner (1982) in that equation (although I don’t care for it, which I understand already renders me suspect) and Total Recall (1990) (which I ultimately kind of like). It takes a kernel of an idea—which is all Dick was ever really good for—and flushes it out into an actual story that sticks with you.

There’s not a genre which Spielberg hasn’t conquered, so it’s almost a tragedy that he hasn’t done more hard-boiled detective stories. He didn’t even need to include any of the Dick-ish trappings present here.

Cruise may still be working through his post-Mission: Impossible II (2000) malaise, but he’s approaching his later day renaissance with the vigor even his detractors must grant him.

*As I type that, I feel like I’m being unfair to Scientology. I might have saved this revelation for my eventual review of Top Gun: Maverick (2022), but I’m struggling to think of any religion not built on a foundation of abuse. Only one religion has its adherents speaking out against the horrors of motion blurring on HD TV sets. So, even though it might not bring me the kind of power of a Cruise or the horrors of a Kirstie Alley, I may need to keep a more open mind.

Mission: Impossible II (2000)

Director: John Woo

Cast: Tom Cruise, Dougray Scott, Thandie Newton, Ving Rhames

Have I Seen it Before: Yeah.

Did I Like It: The Mission: Impossible series is improbably after twenty-five years of featuring Tom Cruise tempting death by jumping and hanging off things. 

But it hasn’t always been that way. I have always had a soft spot for <Mission: Impossible (1996)>, but completely understand when others say the plot is overly complex at best, downright convoluted at worst. Trying to course correct for that criticism, we are then offered this film.

All the ingredients are right. Tom Cruise—for all of his problems—has never appeared disinterested in making good movies. John Woo was at the peak of his action filmmaking, and had even proven his aptitude with more American fare like Hard Target (1993), Broken Arrow (1996), and Face/Off (1997). Certainly not intellectual fare, but crowd pleasing. He may have been the wrong choice for this series, but the thought that he wouldn’t generate some degree of memorable spectacle was a good idea, on paper. 

But nothing quite came together, one assumes in the hopes of offering up counter programming to its predecessor. It probably doesn’t help that the whole film centers around preventing a super flu outbreak, which today feels off, but I don’t think my opinion of the movie has changed much at all in the last twenty years.

Cruise has two modes throughout the film: smirking and concerned smirking. Maybe he was looking for a break after the marathon production that was Eyes Wide Shut (1999), but he’s rusty as a movie star here. The plot is warmed over Hitchcockian jewel thief material. The story is credited to Star Trek scribes Ronald D. Moore and Brannon Braga, but I always seem to remember that eventually credited screenwriter Robert Towne saying he cribbed the whole thing directly from Notorious (1946), but a quick search now indicates they came up with action sequences first, and Towne was later called in to string together a story. Not sure if this is patient zero for this practice, but that kind of screenwriting is happening more and more lately, and for my money it is the key problem in action films today.

This one just didn’t come together in any way, sadly. But don’t worry, the series—nor Cruise—has made a stinker since. One wishes that I could say the same about Woo (he hasn’t made much in the last twenty years), and poor Dougray Scott was right on the precipice of having Hugh Jackman’s life, but for this film.

A Few Good Men (1992)

Director: Rob Reiner

Cast: Tom Cruise, Jack Nicholson, Demi Moore, Kevin Bacon

Have I Seen it Before: Oh, sure.

Did I Like It: Again, sure. I’ve been watching a lot of film adaptations of stage plays lately, and incidentally the film an television work of Aaron Sorkin as well. Now, the Venn diagram collapse in on itself, and I’m thinking it may be the best of both worlds.

Reiner does the needed work to actually adapt the material for the screen. Far too many plays turned into films never rise above their claustrophobic trappings, but I never feel that way watching this film, even in the courtroom scenes, where it all could have been forgiven. I’ve never had the pleasure of seeing a live production of the story, and it’s been several years since I’ve read Sorkin’s original stage play, but my faint memory seems to think there is very little lost in the adaptation, and the scope of the story is somehow increased.

Sorkin’s work here is superlative as well. It’s terrible to say, but I do wonder if the author had ever recovered creatively from gaining sobriety nearly twenty years ago. The TV and movies he has written since then have had a very similar quality, with him even repeating certain turns of phrase as if he’s trying to strike the match of his true genius without poisoning his body at the same time. This effort, however, is Sorkin at his hungriest. While the stage play had enjoyed some positive reviews during its broadway run, he was far from the go-to man for Oscar bait screenplays. He wrote this on cocktail napkins during bar tending stints for La Cage Aux Folles. There was no guarantee of success. No sign of future writing work. He was hungry, and it showed.

It’s probably impossible to make him hungry again. He can run slightly afoul of his glory days in television, but he simply chooses not to write for television anymore. I don’t think he should go back on cocaine, but there’s got to be a better way to harness what he had before.

War of the Worlds (2005)

Director: Steven Spielberg

Cast: Tom Cruise, Dakota Fanning, Miranda Otto, Tim Robbins

Have I Seen it Before: Yes.

Did I Like It: Recently, I’ve been reading up on UFOlogy, for reasons. A chapter in the book I’m looking at currently (which isn’t very good) takes a turn into the War of the Worlds broadcast of 1938. Naturally, I have some thoughts on that subject. However, in this book I was kind of mystified that the incident was only looked at through the prism of its effect on mass hysteria, which is incidentally somewhat disputed in recent discussions of the incident… That doesn’t really have anything to do with UFOlogy, so why are they discussing it?

Then again, that preceding paragraph has nothing to do with the film we’ve come here to discuss. Why am I bringing it up? The author of that book brings up actor Frank Readick, but not Orson Welles? I mean, really?

This film is far more in tune with the most famous adaptation of the original H.G. Wells novel. That’s the connection. Welles put his Martian invaders in the heart of New Jersey, and so does Spielberg. I like that a lot. Otherwise, the film is that interesting beast of being two seemingly disparate things. It is after the original era of Spielberg’s heyday. Let’s call it the true Amblin era. Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977). E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial (1982). Jurassic Park (1993). He now almost exclusive works in prestige drama. Schindler’s List (1993). Amistad (1997). The Post (2017) comes to mind as a recent example. This film, along with his other Tom Cruise collaboration, Minority Report (2002), takes place in that later era, but is still high-concept genre entertainment. 

It’s almost as if this film is the spiritual successor to Close Encounters, now that I think about that. The earlier film featured a man shedding all parental obligation in light of visitors from another world. Every interview I’ve ever seen with Spielberg on the subject of Close Encounters indicates he regretted that move, and this is his atonement*.

*I’m very tempted, but ultimately thought better of ending this review wondering if he will ever atone for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008), especially now that he won’t be directing the next film in the series. It felt too snarky, especially in the context of a review for a film I legitimately enjoyed. Also, that film would be an example of a full-throttle attempt to go back to the Amblin era, and we all know how that worked. So, now it will be a footnote.

Mission: Impossible -- Fallout (2018)

Director: Christopher McQuarrie

Cast: Tom Cruise, Henry Cavill*, Ving Rhames, Rebecca Ferguson

Have I Seen it Before: Certainly.

Did I Like It: I was a little down on Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation (2015) as by that fifth entry in the series, the sameness that plagued the television series was starting to just bubble to the surface. The prospect of the series now settling into a regular cast and a regular director only increased the fear that said sameness would be the order of the day for the foreseeable future.

I’m happy to report that it appears McQuarrie may be just getting warmed up, but at the moment, he is content to make subtle changes to the tried and true format. Giving Hunt and company recurring heavy (Sean Harris) at first blush feels like more descending into monotony, but for this series it is a breath of fresh air. 

Up until this point, Hunt has been presented as an unassailable movie spy. Here, it’s sort of delightful, a measure more realistic, and includes an added dimension of suspense into the final set piece that it appears Hunt has no clue how to fly a helicopter, but must do so anyway. One might spend some spell of time after seeing the film wondering how Hunt could have been in the line of work that he was for as long as he had and not get more expert in the operation of various types of vehicles, but that time would be ill spent, and I don’t recommend it.

Even if the promise of these new elements reverts back to the mean while McQuarrie is at the helm, the hand at the wheel is steady enough that I will still enjoy entries in this series, even if they don’t continue to try and surprise.

*Will it ever be possible to look at Cavill’s mustache in this film and not revel in the reality that it is pointedly one thing that made Justice League (2017) a bizarre, unlovable Frankenstein’s Monster of a film? I think not.

Mission: Impossible -- Rogue Nation (2015)

Director: Christopher McQuarrie

Cast: Tom Cruise, Jeremy Renner, Simon Pegg, Rebecca Ferguson

Have I Seen it Before: Oddly enough, I think this is one film in the series that I somehow missed in the theater, thus I’m remembering it the least upon this screening.

Did I Like It: Yeah…

On that note, I’ve come to some conclusions about the Mission: Impossible series as a whole. Like the television series that begat it, the movies suffer ever so slightly when watched in succession. The format is relatively unchanging, especially after the series fell under the auspices of J.J. Abrams and his company, Bad Robot effective with Mission: Impossible III (2006). There is little variation in these films. Sure, the ubiquitous “your mission, should you choose to accept it” scene in this film harkens back to its televised analog roots, before pulling the rug out from under us and enveloping super spy Ethan Hunt (Cruise) into a web of villainy before the first reel is over. That’s refreshing and does its level headed best to renew interest in this new story.

From there, however, that twist doesn’t hold up. It gives way to yet another survey of internal difficulties in the CIA that Hunt will nullify with his brazenness. What’s more, the proceedings have continued to grow a little pat in other ways. There are masks. Tom Cruise dangles from improbable heights. Ving Rhames shows up. There’s a throwaway reference to the first film that floats in the air for an instant before evaporating just as quickly as it arrived. Incidentally, those scant references are usually my favorite part of one of these movies, Cruise conscientiously defying the forces of gravity be damned.

All of that isn’t even meant as a criticism of this film or the series as a whole, really. This film, too, is a pleasant way to spend two hours. It may be better to do so every couple of years and then not think too much about it afterwards.

At the time of this writing, McQuarrie is hard at work on the seventh and eighth film in the series, his third and fourth. This series once was a showcase for great (or in some cases, potentially great) directors to play around in a tried and true genre. Now that McQuarrie is here to stay, let’s hope he gets bored and decides to throw us a few more curveballs in the process.

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (2011)

Director: Brad Bird

Cast: Tom Cruise, Jeremy Renner, Simon Pegg, Paula Patton

Have I Seen it Before: As my reviews for the other movies in this series have already mentioned, I’m a sucker for Tom Cruise dangling improbably from things. As he ages, he hasn’t slowed down. It may be the single greatest argument for Scientology (or, at least, the elite levels of Scientology) that is out there. One can not argue with results. But, to answer the question, I’ll probably be there opening weekend until Cruise is well into his 70s, or if he becomes completely Clear, whichever happens first.

At it’s most basic, good storytelling is a study in obstacle. Get somebody stuck up in a tree, and show how they get down, and that’s about as tight of a story as one can tell. With that in mind, there may be no better graduate level course in this theory than the Dubai sequence of this film. A typical Mission story would have the IMF under the leadership of Ethan Hunt (Cruise) fooling the assassins and the arms dealers. 

Passing through the prism of Brad Bird’s brain, complications pile onto complications to the point where Hunt is climbing the tallest building ever conceived of by man one handed, while a sand storm looms in the distance, and everything else in the scheme is going completely wrong as well.

Here, we have a filmmaker so thoroughly in command of his craft allowed to work magic in a major motion picture franchise. Brad Bird is a better, more pure filmmaker than J.J. Abrams, and possible even De Palma. Whereas Bird’s worst film,

While the rest of the film might be standard action fare, every shot in that hotel is so thrilling, that the memory of a TV show that was once about occasional freelance spies running operations that were essentially heists disappears. Mission: Impossible has now delivered on the ambition that the series has reached for since the original film. We have an American James Bond, and that American 007’s films are on average far better on average than the output of the thing they were trying to mimic. Maybe that quality will ebb, but if it takes twenty or thirty films, that’s going to be plenty of fun in the meantime.

Mission: Impossible III (2006)

Director: J.J. Abrams

Cast: Tom Cruise, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Ving Rhames, Michelle Monaghan

Have I Seen it Before: Sure. Look, some people are down on Cruise as a person, but for the most part he isn’t interested in making a bad movie, so I’m there when that improbably ageless face is plastered on a movie poster.

Did I Like It: Yes, but at the same time…

I remember thinking after I initially saw this movie in the theater that this is a movie series that has found its perfect calibration. Some have said that the plot of the first Mission: Impossible (1996) was too byzantine (it isn’t, but it may take a viewing or two to fully enjoy), and that Mission: Impossible II (2000) was as insubstantial and dumb as a movie as is likely to ever be made (it is), whereas this one blends the stunt show qualities of the latter with the actual spy fun of the former.

That’s true, but it all feels less somehow after it’s had a decade to simmer in my head. Abrams makes his directorial debut here. There is nary a lens flare to be found, which undercuts a lot of dunderheaded criticism of his cinematic output, even if the lens flares have never bothered me as much as others. He has brought his TV skills to bear here, offering the closest thing to an Alias: The Motion Picture as we are likely to get.

I just wished I liked Alias more. It’s a fine show, but it never lit my imagination on fire, and so it is also with this film. The stunts are here. The intrigue is here. I just wish that the ambition to bring some of the better qualities of the television series to the big screen had stayed. I wish the films were closer to a heist movie, and less an attempt to give the world an American James Bond. I also wish that the IMF team was less an elite team of CIA employees and more of the disparate team of skilled civilian contractors that Phelps and team were. The previous films don’t aim for this, but it struck me more here. What we have here is certainly better than the nadir of the second film, but there is still a lot of material left to be mined. Unfortunately, the success of the this entry and subsequent attempts in a similar mold indicate that that is probably not going to happen any time soon.

Mission: Impossible (1996)

Director: Brian de Palma

Cast: Tom Cruise, Ving Rhames, Jon Voight, Emmanuelle Béart

Have I Seen it Before: The time is May, 1996. Having just escaped the gulag of the 5th grade, I am now facing the indignity of watching the movie from the backseat of my mom’s Volvo, my head contorted to try to piece together what was happening, and only intermittently succeeding. My neck hurts just thinking about the first time I saw the movie. Whatever anyone says, kids, drive-ins are meant to be enjoyed from the front seat.

Did I Like It: I think most of America didn’t need my mother’s sensible station wagon to be left somewhat befuddled by the plot. Modern audience, too, might be lost in the peak-90s tech that moves the plot along. It is truly amazing that a film exists where equal wait and suspense is given to an exploding helicopter as it is to a deep dive into usenet groups.

But for my money, while the series found an interesting groove thanks to later entries (the less said about the flimsy and tonally strange M:I-2 (2000), the better), this first film ages the best. It just needs a few viewings to keep straight the various chess moves that force the aforementioned helicopter into a TGV tunnel.

The original TV show—before Mission: Impossible became synonymous with Tom Cruise improbably hanging from things—was always a cat and mouse game. The show wasn’t always great, as is evidenced by the few times I’ve attempted to binge-watch episodes of the 1966-1973 series—but the true genius behind the film is where the audience is part of the cat and mouse game. Indeed, de Palma may have been the only director who could have pulled off this quality. We’re not sure—aside from Cruise—who we can trust. More often than not, our assumptions are not rewarded. Emilio Estevez is in the picture! He’s a movie star, maybe not on the caliber of Cruise, but he’s a delight in those hockey movies with the ducks in them, surely, he’s going to stick around. Nope. He doesn’t even get the Goose treatment of dying as the set-up to the third act. 

The team is on a mission that goes disastrously in that first reel, but ah ha! The film’s first surprise? The heroes of the piece are the target of an entirely different IMF team. This back and forth goes pretty much up until the last act, when just as it feels as if the bad guys are getting away with the whole thing, Ethan Hunt (Cruise) pulls off one more mask and the plot, mostly comes together. For the most part, is a remarkably thoughtful deconstruction of the source material, especially for a movie that based on a TV show that was content to repeat plots whole-cloth and hope no one would notice.

But that does lead to one interesting question: why does the film work better on repeat viewings? I think the answer may lie in a false attempt at suspense in the the third act. After Hunt and Phelps (Voight) are reunited, it’s absolutely clear that Phelps has been the traitor all along. De Palma takes us through Hunt’s piecing together what happened. And yet, the final scenes on the train try their damndest to obscure the identity of Job. Given that Hunt’s one strategic flaw is not wanting to believe until the last moment that Claire (Béart) has also been playing both sides, had that sequence leaned more into that question, or if the mystery of Job’s identity had been kept obscured until the last possible moment, maybe people wouldn’t have felt so discombobulated by the film on first blush.

Or maybe I just have some issues with my Mom’s late, sainted Volvo that I’m still working through…