Why Mission: Impossible is the best blockbuster franchise right now



[ad_1]


Rebecca Ferguson and Tom Cruise in "Mission: Impossible – Fallout." (Chiabella James / Paramount Pictures)

Here's what you need to know in "Mission: Impossible – Fallout", the sixth entry in the franchise of Tom Cruise 22 years old: absolutely nothing. : Impossible – Rogue Nation. "There is the dangerous band of former spies who have become terrorists, led by the infamous Solomon Lane (Sean Harris)." There is also Ilsa Faust (Rebecca Ferguson), a former MI6 agent whose partnership with Ethan Hunt of Cruise and his Mission Impossible Team (IMF) continues with the same interrogation points and asterisks.

These minor details are the most far gone in the development of the story lines of 39, one movie to the other, and yet that does not matter.If you've never seen a movie "Mission: Impossible" – or, more likely, if you have seen dozens of other movies in the meantime and you have given your mental space to countless other aesthetic and life experiences – there is no need to worry.You will not miss a beat.

For this reason alone, the Mission: Impossible series stands out from the typical blockbuster franchise, which consists of e to build the world and tell dense stories that can take several films to develop. It would be unthinkable, for example, to fall into Harry Potter 's sixth film and to wait to grasp the stakes and emotional complexity of an epic story over a dozen or so years ago. Hours in the story. A team of superheroes like "Avengers: Infinity War" – or one of the movies in the Marvel film universe, from elsewhere – requires knowledge of its predecessors. And what's more, he expects you to remember the details as if you were watching the movies yesterday. It can make summer escape look like homework.

There is a related point that is more important and why Mission: Impossible has been so great for so long. Because there is no interest in a greater mythology, the only real mission of the aftermath is to continue to surpbad their predecessors. "Fallout" and "Rogue Nation" are the first two to share a director, Christopher McQuarrie. But after Brian De Palma set the standard with the first "Mission: Impossible", it was a game of All you can do better than I can do better among some of the most skilled craftsmen in the industry, with inscriptions from John Woo, Hong Kong maestro action behind "Hard Boiled" and "Face / Off"; J.J. Abrams, who created the superb television spy series "Alias" and continued to direct "Star Wars: The Force Awakens"; and Brad Bird, the author-director of The Incredibles Films for Pixar

The plug-and-play adventures of Ethan Hunt, like the James Bond movies, include a handful of mandatory elements – "Your mission, if you choose to Accept it "," This message will self-destruct in five seconds ", the unmasks, among others – and the standard Byzantine plot on terrorist cells, rogue agents and other mischief that are turning to mbad destruction.

But from the burglary at the CIA headquarters in Langley in the first "Mission: Impossible", the films were always built around plays, these discrete units of suspense and derring-do which have steadily increased with each suite. Fans of the series are probably more likely to identify the individual film as "the one where he rides Burj Khalifa" or "the one where he is underwater" or "the one with the helicopters" than by their titles real. You can watch "Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol" half a dozen times and you still do not remember the "ghost protocol", but you will not forget Tom Cruise, who walks in front of the tallest building in the world. world.

the pretext for Ethan Hunt to endanger himself. Hunt scales over 100 floors above Burj Khalifa's skyscraper floor in "Ghost Protocol" – with only one flawed pair of high-tech climbing gloves separating it from disaster – for the common purpose of 39; access a computer server room. Hunt dive into a submarine vault for three minutes (and a bit of change) in "Rogue Nation" in order to exchange a security profile so that a member of the IMF team can access a building. Again, there is the overarching goal of protecting the world from catastrophic dangers – bulk nuclear weapons, viral outbreaks, toxic chemicals, as usual – but all that is needed to float Tom Cruise at 1700 feet above the streets of Dubai. It does not matter.

What matters is the thrill of the moment, like discovering the new attraction of your favorite theme park. And the emphasis on physical stunts and on the clbadic construction of suspense sequences has deepened the niche appeal of movies over time, in stark contrast to a cycle of superheroes who embraced the CGI's plasticity. The first "Mission: Impossible" was produced in the early years of digital effects, when they were ascending but not dominant. The last entries, on the other hand, have been a dazzling respite from the standards of the standard blockbuster, captured in green screen, which recall that the actual places, the blues and the choreographed action scenes have a visceral impact. Zeros can not replicate.

The Mission: Impossible franchise is above all a monument to Tom Cruise – or, more accurately, the Cruise Monument itself, since it was the only engine in the series from the beginning. (Ving Rhames, the IMF's hacker, Luther Stickell, is the only other actor to appear in the six films.) The staging of Cruise's director talents has prevented him from being flawed and embodies a career maintained in the air for decades by great filmmakers like Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, Oliver Stone, Stanley Kubrick, Cameron Crowe and Doug Liman.

Yet seeing the 56-year-old cruise in "Fallout" – where he jumps buildings, abandons his body to choreographed fights and makes his inimitable sprint back straight through the open space – is d & # 39; attend a real artist at work. Cruise's broken ankle during the making of "Fallout", but it seems like it's his pleasure to do it. To keep this endorphin rush from an ongoing series, he would break every bone of his body.

Read more:

Review: Mission: Impossible – Fallout & # 39; is big, complicated and exhausting. It's also good.

[ad_2]
Source link