Branching out a bit here, as I finally watched this yesterday for the first time and felt moved to comment.
I had deliberately held off as, despite having taken this series to my heart particularly from Ghost Protocol onward, I had immediate reservations about this film. From the off, Hayley Atwell - whom elsewhere I adore - did not seem to be a match for this particular franchise. Even from seeing the posters - where she is the second largest character featured - I just wasn't feeling it. Also, I wasn't enamoured of the central conceit of the main enemy being a disembodied computer intelligence - again, it seemed a total mismatch for this kind of visceral and very human series.
Firstly, make no mistake - I LOVE these films. The Mission series has evolved into one of the very best, and has thoroughly earned its place in my affections. The characters, the stories, the action, the sheer amount of hard graft that goes into them from Tom and all concerned is staggering and greatly appreciated. It's unquestionably one of my all-time favourite film series: the last three films in particular have felt like movie-making perfection. But, having now watched M:I 7, I can see that my initial concerns were not only justified, but they were magnified. There appear to be major scripting and plotting problems, not to mention very underdeveloped characterisation.
Firstly, and in a general sense, one comes away from this film without the sense of charm and likeability that go hand in hand with films 4 through 6. Fallout was a bit too self-important and grandiose at first blush, but due to the high stakes and with the excellent action, characters and storytelling, and particularly that lovely ending featuring a lighter moment between Ilsa and Ethan, I was fully prepared to let that be. Dead Reckoning has less of the self-importance factor, but crucially, there's none of the warmth and humour that make the preceding three films so likeable. Tom has barely any scenes with his castmates from the previous films, let alone any of substance. (Is Cruise doing a Vin Diesel?) The scenes he does have with them are dour and humourless, but this brings me to his scenes with Hayley Atwell.
I'm sorry - I just can't buy Atwell as this notorious, international thief and grand larcenist. She's utterly unconvincing as a master criminal. Not only does she have zero chemistry with Cruise, Grace just seems like some whimsical pickpocket who suddenly gets caught up in something out of her league. And she's an out and out coward - at the first sign of trouble, she runs away from every situation. It just doesn't seem to wash from a practical standpoint - how on earth has she remained at large? Also she doesn't trust Ethan - in crisis situations, she acts liked a frightened animal. I concede that she has a few good moments, but they simply aren't enough to justify her inclusion in the film.
Despite this, they seem to be setting up Grace as the next Ethan Hunt, at one point even dressing her similarly in grey suit vest and pants. They've even brought Pom Klementieff's character into the fold, leaving her alive at the film's end so that she can also be recruited by Kitteridge (as stated on the Wikipedia page for the next film). Are they trying to set up an all female IMF team? If so, they're going about it in the same ham-fisted and inept way we've seen other all-female teams go in recent years.
This brings me however to Pom Klementieff's character, and if anyone deserves to be recruited to the IMF, it's her. She is terrifying in this film; she's relentless, ruthless and a fantastic fighter. She's a nightmare, coming at Ethan in the night in that clown-like makeup in the narrow alley. If anything, the writers should have omitted Hayley Atwell's character completely, given her dialogue, motivation and scenes to Ilsa, and made Paris the one who comes over to the IMF. This would have been so much more satisfying and would have made so much sense as a character arc and from a plot perspective; but as Grace's arc, it pales in comparison to what could have been.
And this is only one aspect of the scripting problems - if the two halves of the key are under the ice of the Arctic shelf, how on earth are they retrieved? Surely the Russians knew where their sub went down, unless of course the Entity fed them false readings. But in that case who exactly retrieved them and how? And how did they then get into the hands of an anonymous courier and indeed Grace? It's never explained.
Anyone who had the resources and knowledge to locate and retrieve the key surely would also have known that this is where the Sevastopol sunk and would simply have then gone on to access the submarine and win the race. Game over. However as this is a two part film, I'm willing to concede that we may get our answers in the next instalment.
Speaking of the Sevastopol, though, this entire sequence should have been told in flashback. We did not need to spend the first 10 minutes or so with characters we're not invested in: we had to wait so many years to see our favourite characters again it should opened with at least one of them, especially considering we will have such little quality interaction between them throughout the film. We could have started with Ilsa acquiring her half of the key and killing the courier (which is shown anyway later in flashback), establishing that the stakes are serious indeed. Ethan's mission scene should have come next, giving an explanation for what we'd just seen. Then, realising something was off with his mission instructions (he is told not to concern himself with the key's purpose but Ethan immediately smells a rat), we then get the US Intelligence briefing scene with the Sevastopol flashback incorporated, and Ethan arrives and gets the real skinny on what's going on.
This movie introduces us to two other new characters - both of whom make their debut in flashback, and in hitherto unwitnessed and unknown events prior to the start of the entire series! We are told basically nothing about Marie, Ethan's apparent love interest from back then, and in the course of the film we're really told not much more about Gabriel. Who is he? What is his background and his motivation in working for the entity? Why does Ilsa refer to him as some "Dark Messiah of Death"? None of this is explained or clarified, and while Esai Morales does a brilliant job with his portrayal of this utterly sadistic and amoral character, and is also a beast of a fighter, his motivations are muddy at best.
I mentioned Ilsa above, and I believe that killing her off will come to be seen as a grave mistake by the writing team. To rewind somewhat - I loved Paula Patton in Ghost Protocol: I thought she brought such a genuine warmth, power and likeability to the series. I was gutted when she wasn't brought back for Rogue Nation. At first, I found Rebecca Ferguson's portrayal in that film to be a bit cold and bordering on pretentious, but I gradually warmed up to her and have taken her to my heart. I am a big Ilsa fan, not to mention Ferguson herself. When you see her in interviews, she is hilarious, an absolute riot. And as I said above, if only she had been the one seeking the key, and the one Ethan was due to intercept at the airport, that would been so much more satisfying from both a narrative and character point of view, rather than having to accept a slew of new unsatisfyingly developed characters.
Even the stunts in this film are somewhat underwhelming. The car chase sequence in Rome is inferior to the Moroccan version in Rogue Nation: there's barely any thrill factor. Ethan being handcuffed to Grace is presumably supposed to be funny, but it falls embarrassingly flat - the humour is microscopically doled out as if with an eyedropper. The scenes with the yellow Fiat is just not funny and not needed.
Even the much-publicised, much vaunted centre-piece cliff jump doesn't read all that well on screen, diluting its effectiveness. I mean, you can tell it's an insane thing for Cruise to have done (eight times over, no less!) and it is spectacular, but overall for some reason it comes across as understated. (Which I know is saying a lot, considering the preparation that went into it and the personal risk to Cruise, but I couldn't help feel this way as a moviegoer.) Having said that, though, the sequence on the train as its carriages fall one by one into the ravine is jaw-droppingly intense, very effective indeed. It's the most credible sequence in the whole film, with the alley fight coming in second.
In summary, overall I enjoyed this film but I am glad I waited, as it left me with some serious concerns and a lot of unanswered questions. It's vexing to have to wait until part 2 to get those answers, assuming they are forthcoming (especially as it's not been delayed until May 2025!). I'm afraid that in common with every other formerly great franchise of late (Who, Trek, Bond, etc), with Fallout we may have seen our last truly great M:I film. Time will tell.
No comments:
Post a Comment