Tom Cruise will once again dazzle fans with his infinite charisma as IMF agent Ethan Hunt in the tentatively titled Mission: Impossible 7. The movie is set to bring back characters like Benji Dunn, Luther Stickell and Ilsa Faust, all of whom were featured in the sixth movie.
While Fallout received stellar reviews, there are some takeaways that reveal negative points the next entry needs to improve upon. These are mistakes in the overall presentation of the movie that prevented it from being even better than it was. Should they be rectified, then the seventh entry will have no problems becoming Tom Cruise’s best Mission: Impossible film yet.
Making The Film Too Sentimental With Ethan's Love Interests
Ethan is a well-rounded protagonist and perhaps the best quote from the Mission: Impossible series is when he reveals his undying devotion to keeping Julia safe in the fourth film. However, the sixth entry went a bit too much into the sentimental aspect, to the point where everyone was talking about Ethan’s love for Julia and Ilsa.
It was somewhat uneven to bring up the topic of love especially when Ethan had to stop a world-ending disaster in the film’s climax. The next move is set to depict Ethan and Ilsa’s relationship now Julia has exited, but it should be kept at a minimum without their love dominating moments that should be devoted to action instead.
Bringing A Former Villain Back To The Story
The series has done best with original characters who spice things up because fans are unaware of who they are. Villains, in particular, are best served in new renditions to build up a mysterious aura, but Fallout made the mistake of bringing back Solomon Lane despite promoting Henry Cavill’s character as the baddie.
Lane’s inclusion took away some of the impact of John Lark’s villainy since there were now two people occupying the antagonist’s spot. Lane also seemed shoehorned into the climax, which the next movie needs to avoid. The seventh part will do better by freshening things up with a new villain who’s the center of the plot’s conflict.
Having Both The Hero And Villain Lose To A Side Character
Some fans consider the fake John Lark to be the best henchman in the Mission: Impossible series, although who he actually was is still a mystery. The man remains memorable for the way he absolutely destroyed Ethan and the real Lark in combat, to the point where Ilsa intervened to save them.
While the bathroom fight remains an incredible scene, having both the protagonist and villain get clobbered so easily makes them seem less of a threat. It also raises fan inquiries over why such an impressive character was killed off so tamely, which is something that interferes with the experience of watching the movie play out.
Recycling The IMF-In-Trouble Storyline Again
Just about every Mission: Impossible movie has featured the angle of the IMF deemed as either traitors or immaterial by the government, forcing Ethan to take matters into his own hand. After the fourth movie, though, the stakes just don’t seem high enough to justify this aspect.
The seventh movie needs to come up with a different justification for Ethan to spring into action, especially since Fallout went extensively into him proving how invaluable the IMF is. The sixth entry made up for its mistake to use this as a plot device through the action on display, but there are only so many times the same technique can be applied before it gets obvious.
Overloading The Mask Reveal
There’s little argument against the belief that Fallout might be Tom Cruise’s greatest action movie, but there were moments that bordered on slapstick. The film made the mistake of putting in too many curveballs and betrayals, with the trademark mask reveal happening twice.
Although it’s an iconic aspect of the series, the mask reveals were better suited to earlier entries that weren’t as steeped into realism as the current entries are. The next movie could come across as somewhat cartoonish as Fallout nearly did if characters reveal masks too many times over the course of the plot.
Creating Another Character Whose Role Is To Question Ethan Hunt's Value
While the entertainment value can make fans forgive the over-the-top nature of certain Mission: Impossible action scenes, they might not be so lenient if yet another authority figure shows up to question the IMF’s importance. As it is, the majority of entries have featured a new character who does just that.
Alan Hunley was a stern opponent to the IMF in the fifth movie, only to become its secretary - Erika Sloane then took on Hunley’s former role in Fallout. The use of an authority figure as a hurdle for the main character could still work if Sloane is brought back, but introducing a new character to complete this aspect would be far too repetitive for the seventh entry.
Using Conversations As Exposition Dumps
It’s always better to show viewers major events rather than to tell them about it and Fallout made this mistake when Julia was suddenly reintroduced, only for fans to learn she’d divorced Ethan. It was a major piece of exposition that was relayed through conversations and didn’t feel wholly justified.
The seventh movie should avoid such exposition dumps because it shortchanges previously established plot points. It would be better to build upon characters introduced in Fallout like the White Widow rather than provide major revelations through dialogues and expect viewers to go along with it.
Leaving Plot Points Up For Interpretation
The globetrotting nature of Fallout led to certain things being left unexplained, such as who the guys who tried to kill Lark at the White Widow’s party were or why Lark needed two bombs when one would have done the trick. The downside to this is that interpretations take many forms and nobody knows what exactly was supposed to happen.
Fallout left quite a few things up in the air, which are quite clearly not meant to be discussed. However, fans generally do end up debating over points so the next entry needs to ensure that no stone is left unturned in terms of clarifying all plot details.
Killing Or Introducing Yet Another IMF Secretary
Alan Hunley’s character development was one of Fallout’s brightest spots and he became a beloved personality until he was killed off. While it worked for the plot, it was another case of a new IMF Secretary/Director being replaced, which has happened multiple times now.
Fallout’s decision to kill him off was good on an emotional level for the characters but it was a mistake where taking the IMF seriously is concerned for the fans. Hunley was the best authority figure in the series yet, so it’s better to end the involvement of IMF Secretaries now that he’s gone.
Greatly Extending The Film's Running Time
The first movie has a running time of 110 minutes, while the fifth’s duration is 131 minutes, Fallout’s goes for a whopping 147 minutes. The series, much like other action franchises, work best in films that have a fast-paced nature, which Fallout had to an extent but also interjected bloated talking scenes to justify its length.
The seventh film is a two-parter with the eighth, so it won’t be bogged down by the running time because the story will continue in the follow-up. It needs to have an edgier, high-octane atmosphere which will be delivered best by sticking close to the fifth entry’s runtime instead of stretching itself out with scenes that are largely immaterial.