Film of the Week: Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation

They say sequels aren’t as good as the first instalment. Very rarely does a sequel manage to be on par with the original, and even rarer when the sequel is even better than the first. Once a sequel has been released, if it does OK, then the studio may consider doing a third if it’s possible. According to the critics and fans of the franchise, it’s the third instalment that lets it down considerably. This is strongly noticeable in franchise such as (and this does not reflect my person opinion, just a note on the pattern that has naturally developed) Spider-Man 3, Transformers 3: Dark of the Moon, Pirates of the Caribbean 3: At World’s End, The Word’s End, and Shrek the Third. It must be pointed out that the second instalment in the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, “Dead Man’s Chest” was well-received and was considered on par with the original, albeit with a bit more pointers on what it could have done better compared to the first, and the same can be said about the Spider-Man trilogy. The second film was praised highly for its solid story, immense fights between hero and villain, and its special effects.

It is possible to make a good sequel, but a third film seems to be pushing it too far, which is why it is incredibly surprising when a third instalment to a popular franchise is actually good. An example of this is Toy Story 3. Released in 2010, it took the world by storm with its emotional story that brought children and adults alike to tears, especially at the very end when Andy passes the toys on to another owner. It’s a perfect ending to a perfect story. When a fourth film was announced, not many people were pleased with that decision. Why continue a franchise that ended brilliantly? What could they do that’s deemed good enough to warrant another film? I did think it was an odd decision at first, but Pixar prides its Toy Story franchise because it was the first film they ever did was their very first dominative moment over the film industry – I trust they will make a good film.

How many franchises have four films in them? Harry Potter, Shrek, Mission: Impossible – those are the only ones that I own at this present time. Harry Potter is an adaptation of a book series that got better with each new book and the films reflected that increase perfectly, and by the time the sixth and the seventh part 1 and part 2 was released, the franchise was hitting five stars without trouble – so I can’t technically include it, can I? Shrek is an original idea. It isn’t an adaptation of anything, and the fourth film didn’t do anywhere near as good as the first three films. The creators at Dreamworks Studios initially wanted the franchise to include seven films. That’s not going to happen at all now. Mission: Impossible 4 went above and beyond any film in the franchise ever did, and people enjoyed it a lot. When a fifth one was announced, some people did groan, but others were optimistic as they saw what had just been achieved so far into the franchise. Strictly speaking, the Mission: Impossible film series is actually a film adaptation of the TV show – it can even be classed as a continuation of the original series.

If it’s incredibly rare to make a sequel good, and even rarer to make the third good, then it has to be almost impossible to make the fourth good, and the fifth, yet Harry Potter and Mission: Impossible have successfully made their instalments great. What’s the catch?

Before we answer that question, let’s explore the film in the title, Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation is an enjoyable film to watch. So much happens in it, though. They are in many different countries, and the time gap between the beginning credits was a bit sudden – but all of it felt necessary. They couldn’t tell a bigger story than the fourth film if they didn’t do what they did in this one. Four characters return: Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise), Luther Stickell (Ving Rhames), Benji Dunn (Simon Pegg), and William Brandt (Jeremy Renner). They go on the run in order to prove that they are not part of a terrorist organisation known across the world as the Syndicate. Every film in the franchise has shown us unrelenting, adrenaline-fuelled action, engaging and sometimes emotional storylines, and of course the impossible scenarios that even though you know that Ethan is a veteran when it comes to impossible situations, you are still on the edge of your seat just hoping that he would pull through OK, and we’re all relieved when he does.

So I ask the question again: What’s the catch? And here’s another question: What makes Shrek any different from Mission: Impossible and Harry Potter? Well, that’s a stupid question without any context because one has a talking donkey and ogre, one has witches and wizards who go off to school and fight against the most evil dark wizard of all-time, and the other has high adrenaline action that has absolutely nothing to do with the other two. What I’m asking is, what is that one element that pushes the three franchises into different categories?

I believe I have the answer, and it’s one that people may not like. Hollywood has been focusing on adaptations and sequels for years now, and we’ve enjoyed them all. The MARVEL Cinematic Universe is proving that you can make a franchise with over 13 films in and still be praised, James Bond has so many famous movies in its catalogue. Shrek is an original idea. Harry Potter is seven books. MARVEL is comic books. Mission: Impossible is a TV series. They’re all adaptations, and so the story can continue. Shrek needs another original story in order to continue, and that’s where it starts to dip. It seems that the public likes to see what they’ve read on the big screen. A climatic fight on the big screen = awesomeness; a specific character on the big screen = awesomeness; the entire story from beginning to end on the big screen complete with plenty of mind-blowing elements from the book/comic = awesomeness. It takes a lot to make an original idea, and I praise anyone who tries to make one, and congratulates those that have succeeded – but it seems that people are more critical over the original than the adapted, and that could be down to one simple reason.

It's easier. We all like it when it's easy. When we're adapting, the story is already there, all we have to do is convert the book into a film script, and then make the film. When we're watching something, we want something easy to digest and if we already know the characters, the story, then it's going to be an enjoyable experience. An original idea needs time to develop because it needs to be something that has never been done before, and that's getting harder and harder each year; "good artists copy; great artists steal."

Ah, but Spider-Man 3 was panned by critics and that’s an adaptation/sequel, all three of the Fantastic Four films have been criticised by the critics and they’re adaptations, the Ghost Rider films have also been panned and they’re adaptations, and Batman Vs Superman: Dawn of Justice was heavily criticised and that’s an adaptation/sequel. What do you say about them? Yes, I cannot deny that fact. It seems that adaptations have turned the odds on its head. It’s hard to make a sequel of an original idea good, and even harder to make the third one good and so on. When it comes to adaptations, it seems it’s rare to that they are bad, and rarer still that the sequels of those adaptations are bad/even worse, and so on.

And lastly, what about films about games, they are notorious for being bad? That’s a difficult one because games are completely different to books and comic books and TV shows. You interact with them, and it’s through that interaction you get to know the characters. A game’s story can last for many times longer than a film can, and trying to condense that story into an hour and a half or two hours, or make an original story with the characters from the games inside of it, is going to be hard to do. Games such as the Uncharted franchise and the sensational The Last of Us all are cinematic experiences, and they have all been greenlit for a film adaptation. I am interested to see what they will do, but I will admit that I am not keeping my hopes up, neither am I expecting it to be bad, either. I want to remain neutral until the times comes when I eventually get the chance to see the story on the big screen and only then will I develop an opinion. Those games are among my favourite of all-time, and so many other films are of games that are other people’s all-time favourite, so if the film doesn’t live up to the experience the game gives – in the film’s own way – then it will be deemed as a bad film overall.

In conclusion, Hollywood appears to have picked up on this pattern and is running with it, and we’re enjoying most of what they’re handing us. They have announced that there will be a sixth Mission: Impossible film coming out sometime in the future, and if the other two films are anything to go by, it can only get better (although my fingers are crossed). I think we’re all happy with how the system is working. We’re aware that they aren’t that many original stories available, but yet we still praise the sequels and the adaptations highly. There will always be new and original ideas though. I have yet to see Hardcore Henry, and the next original film that I’m interested in seeing is Sausage Party. The next two adaptations/sequels I’m looking forward to seeing over the next few months are Suicide Squad, and Doctor Strange.

I do highly recommend Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation. Phenomenal, well-acted, well-written, better than the fourth.

Thanks for reading

Antony Hudson

(TonyHadNouns)