Mission: Impossible – Fallout (Christopher McQuarrie, 2018) Review

Spoiler Warning: This discussion features some important narrative information that could spoil the text for you. It does not necessarily spell out the film’s conclusion, but it does talk about events in detail.

Rating: 5 out of 5.
"What's done is done when we say it's done."

Did somebody say perfect action film? Mission: Impossible – Fallout, the sixth film of the series, somehow outdoes every other film with the distinguished title. It enters a prestigious league in my books, as undoubtedly one of the most insane yet ingenious pieces of action ever put to film. It is produced to the absolute maximum, and I wouldn’t have it any other way.

Fallout starts a little differently to its two most recent predecessors. Where Bird and McQuarrie opted to open their films with intense action sequences, this opens with a surrealistic dreamscape and some exposition projected from Homer’s Odyssey. As the credits hit, the most action we’ve had is a brief Mexican stand-off. It’s unusual for Cruise not to have thrown himself onto a moving object or to have leapt off one by this point. I must admit it is a tad slow. However, what follows is anything, but.

Enter Henry Cavill as, initially, a new member of the team. Brutally physical but able to hold his own in the comedy chops alongside Cruise and the team. He feels a welcome addition. Harris returns as Solomon Lane, Hunt’s most psychologically imposing opposition in the history of the franchise. Call it what you may; I think genius is the right word for having Cavill switch sides early on. His intimidating physique established fighting capabilities places him in the upper echelons of MI villains. The turn works well narratively, it adds the first real piece of connective tissue between two of these films, and it works an absolute treat.

However, a tight screenplay is not what makes a Mission: Impossible film, a Mission: Impossible film. It’s the action, and this is full of it. A real-time HALO jump with Cruise and Cavill actually plummeting towards the ground? That sounds about right. Is that the most intensive action set piece in the film? It’s genuinely not even close. The following bathroom fight sequence is beautifully choreographed, having the same rhythm and artistic beauty as a dance sequence, but with less delicacy, more tile smashing, and headshots. McQuarrie decides that his bike chase sequence in Rogue Nation wasn’t intricate enough and provides a twenty-minute chase scene throughout Paris. All the while, masterfully crafted story beats are placed at the centre of these sequences, with character relationships and moral decisions punctuating the small breaks of movement.

There’s another chase sequence, this time on foot, where Cruise legitimately breaks his ankle on camera and walks it off for the sake of our entertainment. It brings Ethan’s wife back into things, again proving that the greatest climaxes come when Hunt’s humanity is brought into the equation. Up to this point, it has shaped up as a tidy entry into the series, amongst the best, but without the punch of a Burj Khalifa sequence to really elevate it. The final act would change that.

Once again, Cruise, McQuarrie and the team, not satisfied with a twenty-minute action sequence without a breath, create a forty-minute one instead. Indeed, the entire third act is one action sequence. It’s some of the most incredible filmmaking that I have ever seen. It’s virtually impossible to comment on how breathtaking every moment of it is. It’s perfect. The IMAX helicopter scenes fill out the entire screen, pitting Hunt in his most difficult scenario yet, with so many of his attempted outs failing at each turn. Cruise and Cavill bring out the best in each other here. You’ve never seen something so incredibly outlandish feel so authentic. This is the magic of the franchise in one extensive clip. Forty minutes of balls-to-the-wall, foot-to-the-floor, hard-hitting action. The framing device is simple enough to linger in the back of your mind with every punch thrown, every second ticking by. Cue one of the most satisfying, gnarliest moments in action history, and you’ve got yourself a winner.

Mission: Impossible – Fallout has reaffirmed itself as one of my favourite films on record. It remains one of the best cinema experiences I have ever had, and the thrill persists at home. It is a film I think everyone should see. It encapsulates the genre; it is the landmark of the series. It’s distinctively Mission: Impossible, Cruise’s fingerprints are all over it. However, this entry works so well because it has all the inventiveness of John Wick; all the charm of Bond; and the signature genuine stuntwork that this series has chiselled out for itself. An instant classic.


Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation (Christopher McQuarrie, 2015) Review

Spoiler Warning: This discussion contains some spoilers. It could be an entire gag from a comedy or in-depth conversation concerning events in the second act.

Rating: 4.5 out of 5.
 "Desperate times, desperate measures."

Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation, the fifth instalment of Tom Cruise’s insurance nightmare bucks the director trend. It marks the first Christopher McQuarrie film, the man slated to direct four of these films in total. It’s so clear why, because from the off, it’s an absolute riot.

The film opens on my favourite mission acceptance scene in the entire franchise. The London record shop, the LP, is part of this retro-cool resurgence but is still ancient enough to seem like a wonderful opposition to the hi-tec IMF. It’s also the first to introduce a vile antagonist since Mission: Impossible III. Sean Harris may not be as intimidating as Seymour Hoffmann was, but he’s written incredibly well. The personal connection with Hunt, as he outsmarts him across the globe, is one of my favourite elements of the film. Hunt is such a difficult character to both humanise, to have the odds stacked against him, but McQuarrie manages it here. Pegg continues to get more screentime as the series advances, which is a total joy. Renner and Rhames are great carryovers, and Rebecca Ferguson is a phenomenal new addition.

The stuntwork is, as always, terrific. Cruise hanging off the side of a plane 5000 feet above the ground, holding his breath for six minutes and driving his own cars because “there were no better stunt drivers” is such a monumental part of what makes this franchise special. Like Ghost Protocol, the dedication to the stuntwork allows McQuarrie to effortlessly direct his action sequences. Fluid and vibrant, it features some of the best chases and high-tension climaxes to date.

The narrative is playful, again with memorable comedic sequences, like Hunt and Benji’s erratic car journey through Morocco. The double agent play is nothing new, not just for the spy genre but this franchise. However, this is some of the best execution of it, Faust playing it fast and loose with Ethan, Lane and MI6. It’s never quite clear who is playing who, making it all the more exciting. I love the finale. I love the consistency of the entire film.

Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation is another entry in this franchise that ranks as amongst the greatest in 21st century action cinema. Credit to Cruise and the team of craftsmen behind him for reviving the IP. Totally insane from start to finish, every time one of these ends, I’m eager to put another on. I hope Cruise continues to make these for as long as his body allows him to.


Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol (Brad Bird, 2011) Review

Spoiler Warning: This discussion contains some spoilers. It could be an entire gag from a comedy or in-depth conversation concerning events in the second act.

Rating: 4.5 out of 5.
"Mission accomplished."

Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol marks as the formula change in the Mission: Impossible franchise. Nearing fifty, Cruise decided that his stunt work in the last two entries wasn’t enough and decided to scale the tallest building in the world. It is much to the film’s credit; Bird is not restricted to wides and clever angles. This is one of the finest action films of the 21st century, without a doubt.

The opening twenty minutes of the film is absolutely relentless. After a brief introduction, we find Hunt in a Russian prison in the process of being rescued. The fight sequence that follows is equal parts riveting and playful. There’s another small exposition sequence before we’re right back in the thick of things, infiltrating the Kremlin. That’s another entertaining action sequence that introduces comic elements that tie in perfectly. It’s the perfect pace for the film to set because these action sequences punctuate the entire text. The most notable stunt is Cruise’s infamous trip up the side of Burj Khalifa. It’s a magical bit of film, one that I wish to see on the big screen one day. It remains tense to this very day, really raising the bar for the franchise, arguably one that Cruise is still yet to top.

Ghost Protocol is the most technically accomplished of the series. Bird, in his live-action debut, offers creativity at every turn. He turns a car chase in a sandstorm into a functioning action sequence, despite the struggling geography. He knows when to linger and when to not. The screenplay really allows for the playfulness. The mask machine gives out; the equipment is unreliable; there’s no institution to fall back on. It’s a genius way to make Hunt, a proven master at this point, feel vulnerable. It’s intelligently structured, leaving much characterisation to whispers and myth, before providing some concrete answers in the closing moments.

Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol is one of my favourites in the series, only outdone by its successors. The narrative can fall into some dull habits of the Cold War conflict that the original show played off. But there’s just too much stunning action to not love this piece of art. Cruise owns this role; the supporting cast is memorable (Pegg, Renner, Patton). The only real shame is that the antagonists get lost a little along the way; both Nyqvist and Seydoux are wasted, for the most part. Regardless, there are scenes in here that I could watch on repeat for days.


Crip Camp: A Disability Revolution (Nicole Newnham & James Lebrecht, 2020) Review

Spoiler Warning: This discussion contains some spoilers. It could be an entire gag from a comedy or in-depth conversation concerning events in the second act.

Rating: 4 out of 5.
"I would appreciate it if you would stop shaking your head in agreement when I don’t think you understand what we are talking about.”

Every year, I feel as though the one Oscar category that I never really see much of is Best Documentary. So, I felt persuaded to see Crip Camp after its nomination this year and given the credentials behind it. I’m so glad that I did because I think that this is a monumental doc.

The late 1960s and early 1970s is the era that I have always labelled as my favourite. The political movements, the music, the attitude has resonated with me ever since I found my own taste. This film provides only another reason for me to love this snapshot in cultural history.

Crip Camp captures everything it needs to about that time. It has a killer soundtrack, including much Grateful Dead love and notable tracks from Dylan, Jefferson Airplane and Neil Young. The sonic moment reflects Camp Janed, its occupants and the impending revolution. The archival footage from the camp that occupies much of the documentary’s first half is some of the best it has to offer. The clear impact that the environment, the culture that the camp has on these people is profound. The joy, the love, the comfort seeps through the screen. It is fantastic to watch.

Yet, the documentary goes one further from showing the importance of an institution, like Camp Janed, that allowed teenagers pushed to the periphery to experience love, experiment with drugs and play sports. It delves into the political movement of the 1970s, pushing for equal treatment and humane access to transport and essential business. This civil rights battle is something I was completely unaware of; certainly, the occupation of a federal building for twenty-five days was news to me. Despite being from the UK, I know all about the civil rights movements from 1957 to 1968 regarding race relations. Why don’t I know about this?

Truthfully, I don’t know the answer. But, I am glad that this film was there to put the record straight. It does what film has the strongest ability to do. It allows you to fully empathise with and understand a group that is criminally misunderstood. The filmmaking and editing, in particular, is so slick, the interview pieces are insightful. This is everything a strong documentary should be and more.

Crip Camp is a hearty recommendation. The film is full of inspiring figures, none more so than Judith Heumann, who stands as one of the strongest civil rights figures in history. Don’t miss this one; not only is it a blast, but it’s a history lesson you deserve to know.

Check out the soundtrack here:

Attack the Block (Joe Cornish, 2011) Review

Spoiler Warning: This discussion features some important narrative information that could spoil the text for you. It does not necessarily spell out the film’s conclusion, but it does talk about events in detail.

Rating: 4 out of 5.
"Big alien gorilla wolf motherfuckers. I swear."

British independent production Attack the Block is a wonderful bit of entertainment. The credentials on show indicate as such. John Boyega’s feature film debut, a rare producers credit for Edgar Wright, the cinematographer of You Were Never Really Here. Each of these factors pays its dividends, offering an amusing, gorgeous film with well-rounded performances.

The only real problems I have with this film appear in its first act. Boyega, as Moses, and his group of friends are introduced as muggers, attacking a woman on the streets and stealing her possessions. The intention is clearly to show how they’re scared kids, pushed to the edges because of the environment they live in. This becomes clearer as the film goes on, however for a good section of the first act, it’s not altogether that clear.

I didn’t remember much of this when I turned it on. However, what surprised me most is how well it is shot. This has all the production value of a blockbuster monster movie, but with far more love and craft etched into every detail. There are countless shots in here that belong on an Oscar reel highlight. The Bonfire Night setting allows for some playfulness with smoke and light, which the filmmakers take full advantage of.

The film’s strongest asset is its screenplay. The South-London dialect, the visual exposition, the courage to kill off characters. It’s incredibly clever in its construction, far more intricate than you might expect. Where could be scarier to set a monster movie than the city of London? It smartly scales itself down to one area, provides a narrative reason for it and gives a satisfying pay-off for everything it sets up.

Brilliantly British in every way that it needs to be. This overcomes its first act problematics by offering far more in the way of characterisation than films of a similar ilk would do. It’s easy to see why Boyega became a star from this performance alone.


In Conversation: Black Widow, the Snyder Cut, Streaming, and the Theatre Experience

The news came out last night that Disney would be rotating their entire release schedule again in the face of the ongoing pandemic. Previously, Black Widow was promoted for a release on May 7th, as a theatrical run only. It remained one of the last bastions of hope that major studios would hold out to save the theatrical experience. But alas, the last support structure crumbled and, for the foreseeable future, Disney will be adopting a Mulan approach. The reports read that Cruella will be pushed to May 28th with a theatrical run and a ‘Premier+’ option on Disney+. The same treatment will be given to Black Widow, pushed back as far as July 9th. The same cannot be said for Pixar’s Luca, which has seen its theatrical run totally eradicated and confined to a Disney+ release only. A flurry of other films also saw their release dates pushed back.

The news is not good for anyone interested in the success of cinema chains. There is an immediacy about the decision; without anything to show and no other income, theatre chains are going to run out of money. Disney providing some films in a half-and-half format like Warner before them gives cinemas a reason to open again with enough variety to draw in crowds. But, it also kills them in a way. The £25/$30 fee applied to seeing films early on Disney+ is a family price, no two ways about it. As someone who lives by themselves, I don’t have the means to pay £25 to see Luca in my home. That means I have nowhere to watch it. It’s going to be the same for millions of people across the globe.

The real shame is that it comes from a company that seemed set on keeping the exhibition industry alive. Tenet came too early to revive cinemas. Black Widow, though comes off the back of Avengers: EndgameWandaVision and The Falcon and the Winter Soldier. If there was one film to drive people to theatres again, it was going to be this: a Marvel blockbuster. The simple fact is that people won’t bother, and opt to see a special effects extravaganza for quadruple the price on a screen a quarter of the size. It’s going to kill theatres. I hope this isn’t permanent. I hope studios and artists stand up against it like Legendary has been attempting to with HBO Max.

It’s not the first sign of impending doom for arts centres this week. Zack Snyder’s Justice League, or the SnyderCut, was released to legions of fans calling for the director’s original vision to be released. It’s a landmark film. It’s the most high profile, likely the most expensive, director’s cut ever released to an audience. On the one hand, it’s great. I’m always going to side with an artist, despite my grievances with Snyder as a filmmaker. He was mistreated by the studio, especially given the circumstances of his departure from the first film. However, it’s not all peaches and roses with the film’s success.

First off, the film isn’t available in the UK. So, I can’t judge its quality. I have my suspicions that its widespread acclaim is mostly hyperbole and fan reaction to getting what they wanted. In all honesty, I don’t care. Good for Snyder, good for the fans. What I do care about is what this means for cinematic exhibition. The four-hour-cut is symptomatic of Snyder’s inability to make a concise narrative. The cut, quite simply, wouldn’t have worked at a cinema. People would have become uncomfortable, bored, and it would have ripped apart theatre showtimes. The only place that the SnyderCut works, in its current form, is on a streaming platform.

However, this is so high profile; it’s so popular, that other artists and studios are going to follow suit. The SnyderCut is an anomaly, a culmination of many factors and a cultish following that persisted so hard the studio caved. What other studios are going to see is one of the most talked-about films of the year not having a cinematic release. What are they going to do? They’re going to do what they always do and copy the popular product. Studios copied The Matrix for nigh on a decade. How long is this going to last? Upcoming artists aren’t going to care about films in theatres. It’s going to kill one of the most important industries the art form has; maybe the most important industry.

I, like so many others, don’t want to see the theatrical experience die. I, especially, don’t want it to die because Zack Snyder couldn’t make a three-hour film, or because Disney had no faith in a summer market. Kong vs Godzilla comes out soon, that could do the box office a world of good. You’ve got to hope that film does enormously well, in the hopes that other studios see the light of day and stop announcing ‘Premier’ releases.


Mission: Impossible III (J. J. Abrams, 2006) Review

Spoiler Warning: This discussion features some important narrative information that could spoil the text for you. It does not necessarily spell out the film’s conclusion, but it does talk about events in detail.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5.
"I will bleed on the American flag to make sure those stripes stay red."

Six years after the spectacular failure of Mission: Impossible II, J. J. Abrams would direct this film. Mission: Impossible III is the forgotten entry of the series in my mind. Neither as good as the following three films nor as bad as its predecessor. I think that this film is a solid action film, with some more to offer the franchise, but is hardly an impactful work on the scheme of action cinema.

The first thing to mention is the first moment that the film shows. For some reason, Abrams chooses to slice a section of the film’s climax before the opening credits. It’s a very frustrating pattern that films would take in this period, and I’m glad we evolved past it because it takes away from so much of the narrative tension. There’s never an action sequence you worry about because you know that he’ll eventually make it to this room we see with his wife. It’s cleverly worked around when the moment arises again in the natural progression of the narrative; opting to cut out the moments that we are already aware of and adding some confusion into the moment. It doesn’t change the fact that the film would be better off without it.

The only other complaints are visual-based. Abrams tends to shoot in an erratic fashion as if bumping into the people that would be in the streets of Shanghai. He does, eventually, pull out in many of the sequences, often to Cruise running in the most dramatic fashion known to man. I wish there were a little more restraint when it came to the movement of the camera, but it’s hardly an eyesore. Otherwise, this is pretty tightly shot, and the shootout sequences have a little bit of character in them. The spy sequences are shot with much greater intelligence. The Vatican City mission is a delight.

The third instalment is actually served best by its narrative for the first time in the franchise. Cruise is given the space to make the role more than a master-spy, doing everything he can to make Hunt seem like a normal guy at his house party; or have the ability to love someone. Indeed, giving Hunt a wife provided some much-needed humanity and a love interest that an audience could get behind. Cruise nails the scenes he has to in order to make this work. The plot is simple enough, some double-crosses, some fake-outs, but it all comes down to a rescue mission in reality. Seymour Hoffman’s antagonist, one-dimensional as he may be, works as a perfect opposition to Hunt. He’s freakishly physical, intimidating in every scene. He is perhaps the best villain the franchise ever got, elevating the lack of material he has, creating the best role of the film.

Mission: Impossible III is a strong edition in the franchise. This is worth its weight in gold in making Ethan Hunt a human being with something to live for other than his team or a flimsy love interest. It struggles for a voice in the action scenes, but it’s a handily produced film. There is high production value across the board, fun performances and a reduction of mask usage. Clever screenplay; Cruise is the major player in this one.


Mission: Impossible II (John Woo, 2000) Review

Spoiler Warning: This discussion features some important narrative information that could spoil the text for you. It does not necessarily spell out the film’s conclusion, but it does talk about events in detail.

Rating: 2.5 out of 5.
"Mr Hunt, this isn't mission difficult. It's mission impossible."

2000’s highest-grossing film, Mission: Impossible II is the most flawed in the franchise. For the longest time, I used to say that this was outright awful. I’m not saying it’s great, but I am saying that it has more value than I ever remembered. This is as good as Iron Man 2, and it needs to start being seen that way.

The plot is total nonsense, and it is where it falls apart. Woo blames it on the fact that the R-rated original cut was three and a half hours long (#ReleasetheWooCut). The most mesmerising thing is that the plot is essentially cut and dry, or it should be. Here is a disease; here is a vaccine. If the last twelve months have proved anything, that was never going to be the case. The result is a messy narrative, with tremendous leaps in logic, and far too much time saved for characters repeating what we’ve just watched on-screen. The opening act attempts to establish the world’s fastest evolving relationship in not enough time. The antagonist has a motivation and method more convoluted than the first film’s entire plot. The masks are utilised too often; the dialogue is indefensible in spots. It’s a janky screenplay.

It’s a total shame because Woo has the potential behind the camera, not that he always fulfils it here. It is beyond impressive that Cruise opts to produce an entirely different product here, and choose nothing but inferior choices in the process. The John Woo format doesn’t lend itself to the new Cruise, who wants to do all of his own stunts and make sure the audience knows it’s him. The editing chops him to pieces, and the barrage of images does anything but that. Cruise’s performance is about the only thing that anchors the two films together to let us know this is the same Ethan Hunt as the one in the original. He’s still not quite there in the performance department, with scenes desperately crying for a hint of emotional subtlety and is instead greeted with Cruise screaming empty romances at the top of his lungs.

All this being said, I am a total sucker for the insanity of it all. Discounting the silly opening section on the plane, which is a bit of a slump, the opening act is pedal-to-the-metal action cinema. Tom Cruise hanging in a crucifix on the side of a giant red mountain? Yes, please. The mission delivered via exploding Oakley sunglasses in a missile? I couldn’t think of anything more perfect. Thandie Newton falling in love with Tom Cruise because he spins her car around ten times at high speeds and saves her from an accident that he causes? Maybe not, but absurdly fun to watch.

It’s a shame that the film’s surrogate for the Langley scene is a flat infiltration sequence, followed by a standard shoot-out sequence only slightly redeemed by Cruise leaping out the side of a building. Again, we get a lacklustre effort in an underground base of sorts where Cruise interacts with a few too many doves for my liking. Luckily, this is all followed up by motorbike jousting, a meticulous martial arts fight sequence and Tom Cruise genuinely letting a real knife fall less than an inch from his eye. This is where maniac Tom Cruise started. The surrounding narrative is still in total disorder, not decided on whether the population of Sydney has been infected or not.

Mission: Impossible II is a film that I’m actually glad I came back to. I’ll admit that it’s far from perfect; I’d agree that it’s a bad film. The Brendan Gleeson angle is confusing; the villain is unconvincing. However, Tom Cruise and his best haircut make this a rewarding enough watch. I believe the years have been kinder to this than action films of a similar time. The slow-motion is overbearing, but John Woo knows how to make a final gunshot hit its mark, and Tom Cruise knows how to fire it.


Beyond the Mat (Barry W. Blaustein, 1999) Review

Spoiler Warning: This discussion features some important narrative information that could spoil the text for you. It does not necessarily spell out the film’s conclusion, but it does talk about events in detail.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5.
"I look at wrestling as theatre."

Beyond the Mat, the infamous 90s wrestling documentary has evaded me until now, despite being aware of its prominence. The film is frequently disturbing, but all the same, a remarkable piece of filmmaking. Arguably more important in the wrestling industry than the film one, this changes a few ideas I had about pro wrestling.

Wrestling was a big part of my childhood, but it’s the PG era that I lived through, and so none of the performers in this film ever really impacted me. Nevertheless, I certainly knew a good amount about each of them and knew of the 1999 Rumble match depicted in this doc. A pretty immediate problem that the film has is that it never tells you otherwise. Jake the Snake Roberts and Terry Funk are both vaguely called legends, and Foley is simply left as the guy who takes a lot of punishment. It’s too brief, and it comes from the larger issue that this is bloated.

The documentary moves around from tiny independent wrestling organisations to underground ECW to mainstream WWF. There’s not enough focus on a few ideas and feels like Blaustein focusing enough on WWF to bring in an audience and chasing down his childhood favourites for his own gratification. There are two films within this. Throw in some cheap 90s editing techniques, and the result is a far-from-perfect film.

However, at the time, even now, this is significant. The timeline of a wrestler’s body and mind is turbulent; the pattern is clear. Alcohol, drug dependence, long-lasting physical damage, and an addiction to the thrill. Each of the main focuses, Roberts, Funk, and Foley, all have desperately sad moments in the film. I think that Blaustein, for all his downfalls behind the camera, does a good job of questioning why these guys do what they do. The Foley family footage is genuinely upsetting; Roberts resorting to crack hours after a family reunion, devastating.

Beyond the Mat is sobering. The film is an invigorating exploration of one of the most misunderstood art forms of modern television. The candid interviews and insight into the WWE process are brilliant, just a shame that it loses its way as it goes. However, it’s a desperately upsetting showcase of a life post-fame reality. Worth a watch, for anyone who knows a decent amount about wrestling, otherwise some background research may be required.


Mission: Impossible (Brian De Palma, 1996) Review

Spoiler Review: This discussion features some important narrative information that could spoil the text for you. It does not necessarily spell out the film’s conclusion, but it does talk about events in detail.

Rating: 4 out of 5.
"I'm gonna miss being disreputable."

One of the most formidable action films of the 1990s; Brian De Palma’s revamp of the 1966 TV show, Mission: Impossible, is a fantastic piece of cinema. The vehicle would build Cruise as a bonafide action star, and spawn one of the best action franchises running today.

De Palma is yet to make anything of the same quality again, which is a tremendous shame because he’s an integral part of this film’s success. The original material is a pulpy TV show, and instead of making it hypermasculine or a violent spectacle, the film leans into those origins. Cruise never fires a gun. Shootouts, a 90s action staple, were replaced with cognitive stunt pieces, rubber masks and off-screen deaths. It sets itself apart from anything else in the genre.

Cruise is a little excessive with his performance here, having not yet defined the role. John Voight and Ving Rhames are notable performances, lending some of the film’s better dialogue. The only character to really be lost in the shuffle is Béart’s Claire, who is too vital to the plot to let the lack of characterisation slide. However, the screenplay is a masterstroke, perfectly subverting expectations and playfully utilising its spy iconography. The final mask pull off is one of the film’s highlights, and I hope that the red light-green light gum can make another appearance one day.

De Palma blends those fantastical notions with carefully constructed action set pieces with a notion of realism in them. The Langley heist is a heart-pounding affair with Danny Elfman’s excellent score taking refuge as we wait to see if an alarm is going to be set off. The final train sequence is a different set of expectations, as the characters cling onto a speeding train without ever really interacting with one another. It’s special effects heavy, something Cruise would look to eliminate more and more with each entry into the saga. Nevertheless, I think this is a wonderful set piece, aided by De Palma’s formalistic approach and breathless pacing.

I love Mission: Impossible. Cruise had just begun, and he was already making incredible decisions in his action ventures. The premise is entertaining, with an opening sequence that never fails to impress. The mystery is intelligent, and the conclusion makes sense. There’s nothing more you need to make a successful action-mystery espionage film. This has all the necessary pieces and makes more than good use of them.

Check out the soundtrack here: