Why even a free ticket won't tempt me to watch Tom Cruise's latest Mission Impossible
My non-nerdy, 16-year-old nephew, who loves boom-boom flicks, emerged from Oppenheimer looking like he figured out quantum physics. "Loved it!" he declared with the fervour of a recent convert, surprising me. Oppenheimer is a three-hour dense tangle of theoretical physics, moral swamp, and men muttering gravely in rooms. Despite reading the biography, I struggled with the film. So, I asked my nephew what he liked. Pat came the answer: everything. It was only when I probed for specifics that his mouth went dry.
He hadn't necessarily been electrified by fission or Oppenheimer's tortured soul, but had been swept up in the zeitgeist, the social maelstrom that demands you adore the Officially Approved Cultural Moment. Though I didn't ask, I'm sure of what he'd be hooked to this May-June 2025: Tom Cruise.
Ah, Tom. The man who doesn't just run from danger, he courts it like it were his only true love. Every time a new Mission: Impossible parachutes into theatres, I see a similar phenomenon: audiences roar, critics bow, and the collective narrative becomes, "Did you SEE what he DID?!" The man scales cliffs! Dangles from planes! Pilots helicopters through canyons! It's undeniably impressive, a dedication bordering on the pathological.
But here's my multi-million-dollar question: Does the sheer, jaw-dropping spectacle of Tom Cruise tempting Yamraj automatically translate into great cinema? Or is it, perhaps, just a really expensive, really dangerous magic trick we are compelled to clap to just because Tom risked his life for it and makes it a point to scream that he did?
Before the torches and pitchforks come for me, I'll acknowledge our roots. Cinema was practically born doing pratfalls. Charlie Chaplin turned getting kicked into high art. Buster Keaton seemed like he was made of rubber and pure lunacy. Those original explorers of cinema risked life and limb (Keaton didn't notice a broken neck for 11 years!) for a laugh or a gasp.
But here's my point: those thrills were woven into something more. Pathos. Romance. Social commentary wrapped in slapstick: Chaplin's The Kid still makes my tissue supply run out. And remember, most of these early films were one-reelers, roughly 15 minutes long, or just over an hour (The Kid was 68 minutes, Keaton's The General: 67 minutes).
Holding attention with pure kinetic energy for a quarter of an hour or an hour is doable. But maintaining momentum for two-and-a-half hours: now that's the real mission impossible.
Think about it. What does a truly memorable action film need to succeed beyond the initial adrenaline rush? It requires an emotional drive. A reason to care for the character who is jumping off the cliff, why they're running down the Burj Khalifa, and what happens after the helicopter lands. It needs suspense that coils alongside your intestine, characters you root for or hate, a plot that isn't just connective tissue between explosions but is actually a story.
Alright, pop quiz, hotshot! (my favourite line from Speed) Think back to the last, say, five Mission: Impossible films. What comes to mind? Is it the intricate web of espionage? The heart-stopping betrayal of a trusted ally? The nuanced character arc of... anyone?
Or is it, perhaps: Cruise dangling off a plane, falling off a building, jumping on his bike off a cliff... Tom Cruise just... running!
The plot often boils down to: Tom Cruise does impossible stunts in search of something-something, while being chased by someone-someone. The setting changes. The place of the chase changes, but the story, like Tom, doesn't. Don't get me wrong, those stunts are phenomenal.
Watching Tom pilot that helicopter in Fallout was edge-of-the-seat stuff. Henry Cavill reloading his biceps mid-fight was peak action delight. But ask yourself: What else happened in that film? What were the stakes beyond "world ends"? Who were the characters beyond "person Tom needs to chase" or "person chasing Tom"? Did it resonate? Did anything... linger?
This isn't just about Mission: Impossible, though it's the current exhibit. It's a broader question in most Hollywood tentpole films: Is this spectacle-first approach what passes for good cinema today? And more importantly, is it good for cinema?
Look, I'm not trying to be the cantankerous Century Gowda passing judgments on all in Thithi. Cinema is a vast, glorious buffet in which belongs as much the brainy indie, as tear-jerkers, fart comedies, and yes, glorious, bone-crunching action films.
In fact, I adore action flicks. From the little-known The Warriors, to the famous Enter the Dragon, the initially underrated Rocky, flamboyant Predator and Mad Max, the realism of Heat and the nimbleness of Speed and Con Air, the red pill of Matrix, the bone-crushing scenes of The Raid and Ong Bak... I devoured Marvel up until the multiverse made one film look no different from the other.
Why do these films endure? Because beneath the explosions, the gunfire, the flying fists, they had heart. They had a story. They built worlds and characters I cared about.
I've never boxed, but I love Rocky for its grit, redemption, and Adrian! Neo's journey is a philosophical rabbit hole disguised in leather coats and bullet time, more relevant in today's age of AI and deepfakes than it was then. The relentless simplicity of Speed became my template as a screenwriter. The action was the icing, but the cake – the emotional core, the narrative drive – was substantial and satisfying. It made the action mean something.
Lately, however, the Mission: Impossible franchise feels increasingly like an elaborate, globe-trotting stage for Tom Cruise's increasingly insane death wish. It's less "impossible mission", more "impossible insurance premiums."
I understand the historical precedent – the Keatons and Jackie Chans who built legends on physical risk. I have immense respect for Cruise's dedication. The man is a force of nature. I've watched every BTS video, winced at every rumoured broken bone, and marvelled at his sheer commitment.
But here's the rub: Admiring the daredevilry isn't the same as endorsing it as the sole pillar of cinematic worth. Gladiators bled for the crowd's amusement, but I watch action films to escape the brutality of the real world, not to vicariously participate in potentially lethal filmmaking practices that could kill its actors.
The idea that an actor must flirt with mortality to "authenticate" a scene? That the primary marketing hook is "Come see Tom Cruise almost die!"? Sorry, count me out. It feels less like filmmaking and more like a high-stakes circus act. It feels... irresponsible. And frankly, a little ghoulish.
So, no, I won't be queuing for Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning Part Whatever. Not even for a free ticket. My pesky conscience won't allow it. I'm not trying to be a killjoy, but I want to advocate for cinema that aspires to be more than just a stunt reel.
I know, I know. This is cinematic heresy. An unpopular opinion shouted into the gale-force winds of a $150-million marketing blitz. But hear me out. We need perspective. We need to put things back in their proper boxes.
A film, a truly good film, is a complex equation. It's multiple emotions sparking, stories intertwining, ideas colliding, all coalescing into a cohesive whole that captures our imagination, engages our intellect, and holds our attention, not just through spectacle, but through substance. That's the real high-wire act. That's the genuine Mission Impossible.
And marketing blitz? Studios routinely spend more on promoting a film than making it. Their agenda is simple: bombard you, hypnotise you, make the film unmissable through sheer aural and visual dominance. But our agenda – yours and mine – should be simple: like or dislike a film based on its actual merits. Our focus must be on the story, the acting, the direction, the craft – not the poster size or the number of times Cruise appears in your Instagram feed.
But are we doing that? Or are we getting swept away in the tsunami of hype? Are we thinking for ourselves, feeling our own genuine reactions, or are we passively absorbing the pre-packaged emotions sold to us, mistaking the pizzaz for the pizza? Marketing is just doing its job. But our job is to demand and appreciate the actual pizza.
Would you eat something utterly foul just because it was wrapped in gold foil and advertised by a dancing dragon? Then why do we so often accept cinematic fast food just because it's been supersized and deep-fried in marketing dollars?
Don't mistake this for Tom Cruise slander. I admire the man's dedication. If I had even a fraction of his work ethic, I'd be a GOAT too. His commitment to giving audiences a visceral experience is undeniable. He is, in many ways, the last of a dying breed (hopefully not literally dying, Tom, please be careful).
But my point, wrapped in as much wit as I can muster, remains stubbornly simple: Death-defying stunts are breathtaking. They are audacious. They are worthy of applause. But they are not, and never can be, a substitute for the equally difficult, equally vital art of good filmmaking.
That's the real cliff we need cinema to scale. The rest is just gravity.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
2 days ago
- News18
Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt To Reunite On Screen After 31 Years? Here's What We Know
Last Updated: Brad Pitt said he is open to working with Tom Cruise again, but has one condition. Brad Pitt is open to working with Tom Cruise again, as long as he doesn't have to do any big stunts. The 61-year-old actor hasn't appeared on-screen with the Mission: Impossible star, 62, since 1994's Interview with the Vampire, and Pitt has now revealed he would collaborate with Cruise again, on the condition that his feet stay firmly on the ground. Speaking with E! News, Pitt said: 'Well, I'm not gonna hang my a** off airplanes and s*** like that. So when he does something again that's on the ground [then yes]." Pitt will next be seen in F1 – the high-octane racing movie from Top Gun: Maverick director Joseph Kosinski. In F1, Pitt plays Sonny Hayes, a retired racer who returns to the track with new blood Joshua Pearce (Damson Idris) in a bid to become the best Formula One driver in the world. While Pitt wants to avoid doing any major stunts in a Tom Cruise movie, the Once Upon A Time In Hollywood actor had driven at 180-miles-per-hour in real Formula One cars for F1. Speaking at a Q+A event in March, Kosinski said: '[Pitt] just had that natural feel for grip in the car, and what we're doing on this film is dangerous. So yeah, you have to be fearless, and when you see Brad driving, that's not acting." He added: 'He's really concentrating on keeping that car on the track and out of the wall during all those scenes. So that's something that you just can't fake, I think. I hope the audience feels that when they watch the movie." The filmmaker added that Pitt had undergone 'months of training" to prepare for the racing scenes, which also involved learning the art of the sport under the tutelage of seven-time Formula One world champion Sir Lewis Hamilton. Kosinski explained: 'Brad and Damson are both driving in this film and in order to get them into these race cars, it required months, literally months of training. But the first day was really fun. It was me, Brad and Lewis Hamilton at the track together, all of us jumping in cars and driving each other around in sports cars, which was one of those things, I'll never forget having Lewis Hamilton as your driving instructor. But what we learned and what Lewis was really interested was seeing did Brad knew how to drive right? Because if Brad can't drive, this whole film wasn't going to work." The director said Hamilton found Pitt to be a 'very talented, naturally gifted driver" when they first sped around the track together. Kosinski said: 'And what Lewis was very happy to discover was that Brad had a lot of just natural ability right from the start. And I don't know where he got that or if he was born with it, and he rides motorcycles, which I think has something to do with it, but he's just a very talented, naturally gifted driver, which for Lewis after that first meeting gave him a lot of confidence that we might have a shot at pulling this off." First Published:
News18
2 days ago
- News18
Brad Pitt Is Open To Working With Tom Cruise, But There Is One Condition
Last Updated: Brad Pitt made it clear that he would not be taking on roles that require him to pull off sky-high stunts. Brad Pitt, who is eyeing the release of his sports-drama F1: The Movie, has opened up on the possibility of sharing the screen space again with Tom Cruise. They were seen together in the 1994 film Interview with the Vampire. In an interview, Pitt said he would love to work with Tom Cruise, but on one condition. Any guesses? No sky-high stunts, please. We get it, Brad Pitt, we get it. In a chat with E! News, Brad Pitt shared, 'I'm not gonna hang my a** off the airplane and s**t like that." Pitt, currently busy with the promotion F1 racing film, talked about his reunion with Cruise. The actor stated he will consider working with Mission: Impossible star 'when he does something again that's on the ground." In the same chat, Pitt went on to talk about some of the unusual habits he developed while working on F1. 'Before getting in the car, I always have to get in on the left side," he said. Pitt added, 'I have to put my left shoe on first, I'd have to put my left glove on first." Talking about Tom Cruise, the actor is well-known for pulling off heart-stopping stunts in his films. In the Mission: Impossible series, he was seen skydiving, flying helicopters, scaling skyscrapers and jumping off a cliff. Earlier, Pitt and Cruise collaborated for the 1994 film, titled Interview with the Vampire. The gothic cult classic saw a rivalry between the two, which even reached the tracks. 'We raced go-karts. He got me in the end. I gotta admit," Pitt recalled. Meanwhile, earlier this year at a Paramount event, Tom Cruise lauded Brad Pitt's driving skills, especially given his upcoming F1 film. F1: The Movie has been directed by Joseph Kosinski. Formula 1 champion and British driver Lewis Hamilton has backed the movie. It will release on June 27. Damson Idris, Javier Bardem and Kerry Condon are also part of the film. First Published:
News18
3 days ago
- News18
Avneet Kaur Is Vibing To Ranjheya Ve Like No One Is Watching
Last Updated: In a video shared on Instagram, Avneet Kaur is seen lip-syncing to the romantic Punjabi track Ranjheya Ve by singer duo Zain and Zohaib. Avneet Kaur has emerged as a social media sensation primarily for her fashion-forward style and dance performances. She often shares content related to her life, fashion and entertainment on Instagram. Known for carrying bold and risque looks, the diva recently grabbed attention with her elegance in a traditional embroidered mustard suit. Needless to say, she looked gorgeous. In a video shared on Instagram, Avneet is seen vibing to the romantic Punjabi track, Ranjheya Ve, from singer duo Zain and Zohaib. She kept her hair open and let them cascade down her shoulders and accessorised her look with long oxidised earrings and a bindi. Above all, her adorable smile mesmerised the audience. She captioned the post , writing, 'Song." Fans and admirers were quick to share their reactions to the video. An Instagram user wrote, 'Looking so pretty." Another person said, 'So apsara coded." One of them shared, 'Khoobsurat." Recently, Avneet Kaur made headlines after she met Hollywood star Tom Cruise during the premiere of Mission: Impossible- The Final Reckoning in London. Not only did she meet the actor and interact with him, but also receive a lovely compliment from him. Taking to Instagram, the actress shared a video of herself interacting with the Hollywood heartthrob, which sent the fans into a frenzy. The clip begins with Avneet asking Tom, 'How are you?" to which he replies, 'Great! Very nice to see you." He then complimented her outfit, and said, 'Beautiful dress! So elegant, so elegant." View this post on Instagram A post shared by Avneet Kaur (@avneetkaur_13) Furthermore, Tom Cruise held her hand as she walked ahead. Avneet then congratulated him and said, 'Congratulations on the amazing premiere, well deserved. Amazing," He replied, 'Thank you." Sharing the clip, Avneet wrote in the caption, 'Tom, the gentleman that you are." On the work front, Avneet Kaur made her Bollywood debut with the 2014 action thriller film Mardaani, where she played the role of Meera, the niece of Rani Mukerji's character. However, she gained widespread recognition after her appearance in the lead role in Tiku Weds Sheru, alongside Nawazuddin Siddiqui. The film was directed by Sai Kabir and produced by Kangana Ranaut. She will be next seen in the film Love In Vietnam opposite Shantanu Maheshwari. First Published:
