Henry O'Brien
The true magic of Mission: Impossible, at least for the first five films of the Tom Cruise-led franchise, was that it was a director’s playground. From the 1996 original up to Rogue Nation, there was a different director for each movie and they each brought their own sensibilities and style.
In Mission: Impossible II, John Woo brought his “balletic violence” and his trademark white doves to the film that many disavow, but still has its share of defenders. In Mission: Impossible III, J.J. Abrams used more nonlinear storytelling and his aggressive use of shaky cam. In Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol, Brad Bird has more of a level of playfulness that could be found in his other films like The Incredibles.
But from Rogue Nation on, the director’s chair has been helmed by Christopher McQuarrie. For all intents and purposes, McQuarrie and Cruise are equal authors of these previous four films: Rogue Nation, Fallout, Dead Reckoning and The Final Reckoning. This has led to undeniable success and many fans consider the 2015 and 2018 films some of the best in the franchise.
In ranking the Mission: Impossible films (something that has totally not been argued over on the internet before), Film Obsessive’s Chris Duncan astutely pointed out how the series has evolved over time and how McQuarrie and Cruise have found their sweet spot for these films: “It is no doubt a product of Tom Cruise and Christopher McQuarrie’s professional marriage in recent years that the franchise is now seemingly more confident than ever and is still churning out films with such creativity and inspiration.”
However, the two previous films do have some undeniable style, or in other words, inspiration. Both Dead Reckoning and The Final Reckoning have a clear influence from Brian De Palma’s 1996 film, where we first see Ethan Hunt/Cruise (they’re the same person at this point) do the impossible. Obviously, De Palma brought his signature style to the franchise, with an evident level of psychosexual tension and plenty of Dutch camera angles. Mission: Impossible, though a more commercial, crowd-pleasing film for De Palma, imbues so much of the same style that makes his prior films like Blow Out, Carrie or Body Double so distinct. In fact, YouTube channels specializing in how to make films feature Mission: Impossible to describe Dutch angles.
From a narrative, but more so a stylistic perspective, Dead Reckoning and The Final Reckoning can feel at times like they are making an empty ode to the greatness of not just the character of Hunt, but to De Palma’s film as well. This is more so the case with Dead Reckoning, but the latest entry, which has mostly won over audiences but left some critics wanting, has moments that could reasonably be seen as allusions. Narratively, there are some clear callbacks like the final climax taking place on a train. But while this experience can be fun to look at and dissect, McQuarrie and Cruise’s decision to have the film shot this way feels quite hollow and more so, lessens the power of De Palma’s original choices.
Let’s look no further than a scene that was mirrored in both Mission: Impossible and Dead Reckoning: where Ethan confronts IMF director-then-CIA director Eugene Kittridge (Henry Czerny). In De Palma’s film, the scene takes place at a restaurant where Kittirdge reveals to Hunt, who had just lost his entire team, that the whole operation was a mole hunt, eventually causing a classic Cruise sprint that bleeds out into the streets of Kyiv, Ukraine.
The scene starts in a three-camera setup, one in a master shot, the other two in a shot reverse shot in medium close-ups, maintaining a professional connection between the two men. But when Hunt asks about why there was another IMF team in the building with his team, De Palma places the camera at shoulder height and makes it face upward and tilted toward the agent’s face. As Hunt points out the other agents in the room, the scene continues with close-ups from this Dutch angle. And once Kittridge fully explains why he thinks Ethan is the mole, the Dutch angles create a disorienting view that almost makes Kittridge’s face look grotesque and unnatural.
These shots come out specifically when Ethan points out the conspiracy against him, furthering the paranoia he already feels after his whole team was murdered in front of him. The string-heavy piece from composer Danny Elfman that accompanies the scene only adds to the shock and slight terror Ethan feels. Meanwhile, Kittridge looks at Ethan with a perverse thrill, thinking he’s caught the man who has betrayed the IMF.
The paranoia only continues from there. After Ethan escapes and reaches his hideout, the camera starts at the top of a stairwell before moving down to where Hunt tries to enter without leaving a trace. With the camera at such a high angle, there’s a feeling as if Hunt is being surveyed.
Compare that to the similar sequence in Dead Reckoning, where Hunt and Kittridge face off once again in a tense exchange. This time, Ethan breaks in and gases a U.S. Intelligence Community meeting, revealing a classic M:I disguise. McQuarrie employs a nearly similar, but not totally identical, camera setup. There is a multi-camera set-up, but the conversation has no undertones to start and it’s straight to business for Hunt and Kittridge. McQuarrie shoots in tight close-ups and low-angle shots from the shoulders to again create a Dutch-esque view. He also changes the original by having both men be shot from the same side, creating a distorted shot-reverse-shot.
The cinematography creates an uneasy feeling, yes, as the two men are locked into their conversation about the entity and the future of the human race. But the shots that take on a striking similarity to the ones in De Palma’s film lack any underlying feeling or thought. The conversation in Dead Reckoning does feel tense from the camera angles, even as there is little subtext to it.
The issues with McQuarrie jacking the cooler shots from previous films only grow throughout the rest of the movie. When the Director of National Intelligence (Cary Elwes) negotiates with antagonist Gabriel (Esai Morales), the camera centers on Elwes’ face from a Dutch tilt.
For the rest of the scene, where Elwes’ character delivers mostly long and boring exposition, McQuarrie plays around with various angles and edits to liven up the scene. In truth, he achieves this and then some, separating himself from plenty of other filmmakers who use coverage as boring as they would with dialogue. But that’s all you can really say about sequences like this one.
De Palma’s action, on the other hand, fully takes advantage of the freaky angles or unconventional pans. Whether it’s the smooth camera movements around the elevator or the low-angle shots to reveal how the IMF agents surround the party, De Palma litters his action movie with themes like surveillance and conspiracy, making Mission: Impossible a far more intriguing film to chew on.
Within The Final Reckoning, McQuarrie pulls back from fully being an homage to De Palma’s movie. But the action sequences do feature unconventional Dutch angles relative to other genre works. Chase sequences will start with a master shot before falling to low angles, throwing off the viewers’ eyes for brief moments. This undoubtedly creates excitement, but I genuinely struggle to find a larger point in using it all like this.
But in the end, this riffing off one of the better Mission: Impossible films isn’t the most egregious crime in the world (far worse than anything the Entity would do). The reason for this is that while De Palma is working through America as a technological and conspiratorial surveillance state (only heightened by films like Blow Out, Body Double or even the 2012’s Passion).
But McQuarrie and Cruise are dealing with the idea of spectacle and Cruise as a messianic movie star. As generative AI becomes more and more prevalent, it’s no accident that Hunt/Cruise must fight it through analog ways. It’s also clear in The Final Reckoning that only Hunt/Cruise can do it, resurrecting him like Jesus Christ at one point (at least that’s how I read him nearly drowning in the Arctic Ocean. The allusions to the De Palma film feel like McQuarrie and Cruise closing a loop (Cruise said it’s the last one, but I have my doubts). There are further references to the original that I won’t spoil here, but slightly ruin the experience of the supposedly final reckoning.
So while the allusions may feel misguided, they aren’t without total artistic merit. Instead, they show the almighty cinematic power of Cruise, and there are probably worse things in the world than that.
