Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation

When the theater lights went up after my viewing of Mission Impossible 5 I was left slightly underwhelmed. It's an extremely entertaining action film that we have come to expect from the franchise, yet it does feel like the slightest of the Mission Impossible films. The cast is great per us (Though Renner and Rhames are severely wasted to sideline roles) and the action is fine. But yet nothing feels original or extremely exciting. No huge huge action scenes or cool toys and the finale mission is rather a letdown lifting scenes directly from part III. This is a shame considering the story itself led to the heavily marketed Anti IMF (Who outside the main villain are mere henchmen taken out by a single bullet or punch by the leads.) The villain actually turned out to be quite effective, though his end is only slightly better than PSH in III.

All in all its rewatchability is where I think it'll take a hit. Pegg and Cruise and the new girl are great though, and there is some really cool mystery in the first half which made me think of the first film. After that it does go pretty by the numbers. A completely solid if unmemorable addition to the series.

A-/ but I think it'll end up in the B+ area.

A

awesome

A

I really enjoyed it, and had a fun time at my showing. I like it better than Ghost Protocol.

Based on the critical response, I know I am in the minority, as I was a few years ago, but my reaction to Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation is similar to my reaction to the prior film, Ghost Protocol: a modestly amused, but otherwise ambivalent...eh? In an objective way, I admire the fluidity and showmanship of the action sequences and stunts, notably a dynamic set piece in a type of underwater security compound, but I rarely cared. As in Ghost Protocol, the antagonist is an astonishing bore, non-intimidating and driven by a generic, opaque motivation. The team dynamic is also poorly modulated: Jeremy Renner, for instance, is on screen a great deal, yet the role almost has a cameo quality. He is given nothing memorable to do, utilized only as an expository scold. Franchise stalwart Ving Rhames is similarly present, yet absent, whereas Simon Pegg, though game, is perhaps a tad too heavily relied upon to fill every in-between beat and pause with nervous humor.

The film trots around the globe with characteristic aggression and rapidity (Casablanca! London! Vienna! Washington, D.C.!), but sheer motion does not always translate into an involving storyline. The enterprise particularly loses steam in a London-set third act full of low-tension, verbose skullduggery; the mediocrity of actual plot rises to the fore once the more flamboyant spectacle subsides. This stretch also contains a single, but vivid moment of embarrassing and tone-deaf screenwriting in which a blustery CIA suit played by Alec Baldwin describes Tom Cruise’s Ethan Hunt as a "living manifestation of destiny." Cringe.

Final observation: despite five films over nearly 20 years, the aforementioned manifestation of destiny has never registered as a deep or distinctive character. He is first and foremost a proxy for Cruise’s admirable athleticism and undeniable movie-star magnetism. Which is fine to a point, but he feels particularly wafer-thin and anonymous in this entry. Not even the no-shame use of Puccini as a love theme can lend any depth or poignancy to the rivalry-verging-on-flirtation he shares with new character Ilsa (Rebecca Ferguson), whose constantly shifting allegiance grows tiresome. I long for the superb third film in this regard, among others. It gave Hunt both a genuine love to protect (Michelle Monaghan as his wife, oddly shoehorned into Ghost Protocol at the very end and entirely forgotten here) and a genuine menace to overcome; as a result, it features quantifiable edge-of-one’s-seat suspense rather than just a fleeting sense of, "Oh, cool. Did he do his own stunts in this scene, too? Where to next?"

C+

It is strange: I am a fan of Cruise, and I love spy movies in general, but the last two (largely acclaimed) Mission: Impossible films leave me cold. They are so safe and high-gloss and eager to please. They seem to me sanded down and streamlined to the point of being devoid of personality.

The third film is comparatively forgotten, but so much more satisfying: it has the daring feats and globetrotting spectacle, but coupled with heart and grit, and the drama is vital versus Ethan Hunt just being the world's coolest dude playing the world's coolest video game. And, of course, it has one of the finest actors of our time (sadly lost now) as the antagonist, a figure exuding real menace and rage. The heavies in Ghost Protocol and Rogue Nation are so boring and interchangeable.

I liked it and found it entertaining (the breathing under water scene is terrific) but as a whole it is rather forgettable unfortunately.

It is fantastic.

Boring. Not much humor. New girl isn't as sexy. Tom Cruise is getting old. Simon Pegg was overused. The only good thing about this movie was the villain.

MI4 was a way better movie than this crapfest.

D

Quite fun, but it's wafer thin. Like GHOST PROTOCOL I forgot ROGUE NATION the moment the credits rolled.

You should see a doctor.

Who are you? What is this place?

Fun. It's a step down from "Ghotocol", but I didn't go in with the expectation that it'd be anywhere near as good.

And they at least tried this time around with the villain even if "Ghotocol" was never about the villain. That does remain the series' achillies heel though. Even though he has a purpose and a plan, I never really saw him as a threat. And how was Hunt able to predict his every move at the end outside of the fact that he's the hero. Hunt says something like (and I'm definitely paraphrasing/getting it wrong), "We'll get him by doing exactly what he expects us to do." Except the film never shows us that, unless we're supposed to think that literally falling into a trap (both illogical and badass all at the same time) is what he means.

But where the movie (and series) truly shines is in the set pieces. I will admit that the best one was in the cold open (though how does he survive the fall back to Earth and how does the gas not explode on impact?) and therefor kind of peaked, but the action scenes that follow are quite well done. From the opera (hi Quantum of Solace!) to the underwater tank (a little too CGI heavy, but still good)/car chase/motorcycle chase, the sequences are well done and the movie never drags, and that's at I'm looking for with the M:I movies. And as proven by the countless images we've seen of him hanging on the plane, Cruise is giving it everything he's got which he's done throughout the series back to the first one when he was 34, now at age 53. Cruise's Ethan Hunt is nowhere near as iconic as Connery's Bond, but unlike Connery he has given each film his all, whereas Connery checked out sometime in the middle of Thundeball.

Speaking of Bond, this did remind me of Bond. Like if you threw all of the Connery's in a blender and sprinkled a little Moonraker (the opening), Brosnan and Craig in there. Not in terms of lead performances, but more in terms of plot and set pieces).

It's no "Ghotocol", but it's a lot of fun.

**** (A-)

This was lots of fun. On par with Ghost Protocol. B+

Was this in a prior Mission: Impossible film (III?) or cut from this one?

That's certainly this movie, with both Renner and Rhames in the shot. It's quite possible that's from ROGUE NATION's original third act.

Oh, right. Didn't even notice Renner.

This franchise should just send Hunt on a mission again. With the exception of the second film, with the fancy flourish of Anthony Hopkins in an M-type role, I believe entry involves Hunt being disavowed and/or fighting an evil within.

Baldwin's speech to the PM about Hunt...was he auditioning for a high rank within the Church of Scientology?

It exceeded my expectations big time. It was so much fun and everyone fit very well together. It reminded me so much of the first one while keeping up with the scale of Ghost Protocol.

A

It's entertaining in the moment and every action sequence is great, but it goes on a little too long and the villain isn't memorable in the slightest. That being said, it's consistently exciting and the cast is great. I was especially impressed by Rebecca Ferguson here and loved her character. B

After Ghost Protocol’s success nobody would have blamed the series for making another film following its formula for the light blockbuster zig to Daniel Craig Bond's angsty zag. But Rogue Nation is a quite different film and perhaps the most serious instalment in the series since the first. The aesthetic is darker and the plot is scaled back to spies manipulating spies often in the shadows. But it’s the casting of Rebecca Ferguson that changes the feel of the film. In addition to her beauty Ferguson is physically imposing enough to be bought killing male spies and plays the role with an intense, emotionally solemn seriousness that helps ground Rogue Nation in reality among the action spectacle and comedy. At times it feels she is the heart of the film. This may be the first major film appearance of a future star.

Sean Harris as the villain Lane is also effective because of a less is more approach. For most of the film we don’t know what his motivation is and the lack of exposition about his character makes him more menacing. All we need to know to legitimize him is he’s succeeding at his goal to thwart Hunt and company.

At the same time, Rogue Nation finds the time for impressive action scenes and comic relief thanks to a quality supporting cast including Simon Pegg, Jeremy Renner, Ving Rhames. In a small role I also enjoyed Tom Hollander as the British Prime Minister.

Ultimately the Mission: Impossible series can be limited by how Ethan Hunt is all but a non-character, but Rogue Nation hits most of the right checkmarks in action scenes, humour and perhaps most of all quality casting. It is my favorite of the four sequels.

The first 2/3rds are great, but I found myself bored with most of the London scenes. I would have preferred if it went Opera -- Plane -- Morocco -- end.

1. Mission: Impossible III - A-
2. Mission: Impossible - A-
3. Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol - B-
4. Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation - C+
5. Mission: Impossible II - C

Average: around a B- or B

Richard Brody of the New Yorker can be a pompous ass, but I dig the turn of phrase he used in the headline of his mixed review of this film: "vacuum-sealed efficiency."

I do not go to this franchise expecting The Spy Who Came in from the Cold or a Costa-Gavras movie, but there is a genuine sense of rough-and-tumble danger in the first and the third. It toughens and deepens the escapism and spectacle. In Ghost Protocol and to even further diminished returns in Rogue Nation, everything is so airtight (airless) and chic and graceful and timed to the second. The films almost congeal into a type of admirable, but boring bauble. Set pieces encased in amber and designed to be admired rather than deeply felt. And this is why they cannot hold a candle to, say, The Bourne Ultimatum or Skyfall or Mad Max: Fury Road.

Yeah, well, each of the M:I-films is superior to The Bourne Ultimatum and I like that film.