Mission: Impossible - Fallout (2018) (1 Viewer)

[holtge]

Honestly, I think it's one of the best spy movies I've seen in a while. Probably on par with The Bourne Ultimatum. It's that good. I was on the edge of my seat throughout the entire thing. So good!

 

[DVDvision]

The movie has just been out for 10 days! Give it at least three months before screaming doom and money loss

 

[Tino]

My wife and I enjoyed this movie. A solid "B" would be my rating for it. To my surprise, however, I'm not sure it's going to be profitable. I assumed that it had made it to, say, 600 million or so at the box office by now, but instead it hasn't even reached 400 million. It probably will reach 400, but it's not clear it's going to go much more than that unless there's major market where it hasn't opened yet.

The movie had a production budget of about $180 million, and likely had advertising and overhead costs of another $100 million. Against a negative costs of c.$280 million right now it seems like—since studios typically only get c.50% of the worldwide box office—the studio is looking at a return of at most 250 million. You might add another 30 million or so for blu-ray sales and streaming, etc., but then you have to realize that Cruise typically gets 10% or more of first dollar gross for his movies. That's not part of the budget, but it does mean that for a movie that grosses 400 million they have to write him a check for 40 million dollars—which ultimately adds to the negative cost of the film as far as the studio is concerned.

Anyway, I enjoyed the movie a lot, but unless I'm missing something it doesn't look like it's going to be profitable, which makes it seem questionable about whether the studio will continue with the franchise? Perhaps Cruise will have to give up his 10%+ of first dollar gross? Or has he already done that?

You’re missing something.

With s $178 million production cost, It needs about $450 million world wide to break even.

As of yesterday it’s at about $380 million. It will be profitable in the next few days.

 

[Mikael Soderholm]

Honestly, I think it's one of the best spy movies I've seen in a while. Probably on par with The Bourne Ultimatum. It's that good. I was on the edge of my seat throughout the entire thing. So good!

Yeah, it was very intense, even for a MI movie, some of those height scenes were almost too much for me, I was sweating like I was on that mountain, hanging on with my bare hands after a few helicopter crashes and another violent fight.
I liked the plot, and how it tied in with the previous movies.
The best in the series yet.

 

[DVDvision]

The only thing I don't like is the car scene before the third act. It's probably a reshoot, it features bad green screen footage through the windows of the car, and you have the characters re-explaining what they just explained clearly again, like "let me repeat that because there are two morons in the screen test who didn't get how it works so the studio asked for an additional scene to be put right here were we explain what we just explained AGAIN...". This or it's just badly written.

 

[Tino]

My wife and I enjoyed this movie. A solid "B" would be my rating for it. To my surprise, however, I'm not sure it's going to be profitable. I assumed that it had made it to, say, 600 million or so at the box office by now, but instead it hasn't even reached 400 million. It probably will reach 400, but it's not clear it's going to go much more than that unless there's major market where it hasn't opened yet.

The movie had a production budget of about $180 million, and likely had advertising and overhead costs of another $100 million. Against a negative costs of c.$280 million right now it seems like—since studios typically only get c.50% of the worldwide box office—the studio is looking at a return of at most 250 million. You might add another 30 million or so for blu-ray sales and streaming, etc., but then you have to realize that Cruise typically gets 10% or more of first dollar gross for his movies. That's not part of the budget, but it does mean that for a movie that grosses 400 million they have to write him a check for 40 million dollars—which ultimately adds to the negative cost of the film as far as the studio is concerned.

Anyway, I enjoyed the movie a lot, but unless I'm missing something it doesn't look like it's going to be profitable, which makes it seem questionable about whether the studio will continue with the franchise? Perhaps Cruise will have to give up his 10%+ of first dollar gross? Or has he already done that?

Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic: $161,967,284 37.0%
+ Foreign: $275,600,000 63.0%
= Worldwide: $437,567,284

Still has China to open in. Should finish in the neigborhood of $750 million worldwide.

I think that makes it profitable.

 

[Keith Cobby]

Just got back from seeing this and have to say I was very disappointed after the last two MI films. It was very formulaic and derivative and all of the sequences have been done so many times before. The ending was straight out of one of Moore's Bonds. The villains were underplayed and it also confirmed my view that Cavill is a very wooden actor. The cinematography looked murky to me and lacked the crispness of the previous two films.

Tom Cruise made an error in having the same writer and director for a second film, and this contributed to the lack of freshness and originality.

 

[Patrick Sun]

I forgot to ask this earlier, did anyone else notice how bad the focus was for some of the close-up shots for back-and-forth dialogue between characters? It was alternate between some crisp footage of one side of the dialogue, and with out-of-focus footage for the other charcter in the scene.

 

[questrider]

Just an FYI: If you're interested in listening to Christopher McQuarrie talk about Mission: Impossible – Fallout for nearly six hours, this is a great podcast.

Mission: Impossible - Fallout Spoiler Special featuring Christopher McQuarrie - Part 1
https://soundcloud.com/empiremagazin...quarrie-part-1

Mission: Impossible - Fallout Spoiler Special featuring Christopher McQuarrie - Part 3
https://soundcloud.com/empiremagazin...pher-mcquarrie

(Note: Part 2 of the series was the hosts of The Empire Film Podcast talking about the movie.)


I'm surprised this movie is still in both Dolby Cinema auditoriums in my neck of the woods five weeks after release.

 

[SamT]

Just saw the movie. It wasn't very good. 2 hours of running and jumping does not make a movie. The story was way too convoluted. For people who have not seen the previous movies it's incomprehensible. Overall I enjoyed only the Kashmir part.

The movie was yelling lets find a famous place and lets find a reason to run there. Nothing felt organic or real. For example the motor cycle driving that was done for real, looked so bad and fake. When you add too much on top of it, it doesn't make it exciting.

Another, the Angela Bassett and Henry Cavill meeting in front of Eiffel Tower just to exchange a quick information was so bad. That was a huge eye rolling scene.

 

[TJPC]

This film was thrilling in 3D on the big screen. I will never see it again however due to no 3D blus. I had the box set of the other MI in my basket ready to order when the new one came out. I deleted it.

 

[Mike Frezon]

I just saw this yesterday. I still rank Rogue Nation as my favorite of the bunch...but I thought it was another solid entry in the franchise. I was very entertained.

 

[Jake Lipson]

For people who have not seen the previous movies it's incomprehensible.

Why is it unreasonable for the sixth movie in a franchise that has been running for more than two decades to assume audiences are already familiar with it? I saw the first four films once each, #3 and #4 during their theatrical releases and not since, and the fifth one twice, before seeing Fallout, and I didn't have any problem understanding it. Rogue Nation I saw in theaters, and then again the night before Fallout, and that was fine. Especially since it is from the same writer-director as its immediate predecessor, it would have surprised me more if it hadn't built on that movie than that it did.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Christopher McQuarrie has signed on to direct the next two (!) films, which will shoot back-to-back for release in 2021 and 2022:

https://variety.com/2019/film/news/...ion-impossible-films-back-to-back-1202986902/

That Paramount and Cruise would want McQuarrie back again is not a surprise, but that they're going to do two in a row is.

 

[Osato]

Christopher McQuarrie has signed on to direct the next two (!) films, which will shoot back-to-back for release in 2021 and 2022:

https://variety.com/2019/film/news/...ion-impossible-films-back-to-back-1202986902/

That Paramount and Cruise would want McQuarrie back again is not a surprise, but that they're going to do two in a row is.

Fantastic and a bit stunning news too! The 2 films part of it! Wow! I’m excited!

 

[George_W_K]

I wonder if this is Cruise's last hurrah in the MI movies so they're making an epic 2 parter?

 

[Jake Lipson]

I think if it were his last hurrah it would be announced as such. I wouldn't read that into this news personally.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I think Cruise is aware that his star power today comes from being in MI movies. A general audience just isn’t willing to pay to see Cruise on the big screen in just about anything else; every single one of his non-MI projects has underperformed or outright flopped for probably over a decade now.

The difference may be, other studios are probably starting to notice and his opportunities may be drying up, particularly for leading roles in the higher end of the pay scale.

Meanwhile, I’m hoping this could be a sign that Paramount is noticing that franchise audiences don’t want to wait 4-5 years between installments. While it might be too late for them to save their Star Trek film series, the idea of Paramount being more proactive about their properties is a very welcome development.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Meanwhile, I’m hoping this could be a sign that Paramount is noticing that franchise audiences don’t want to wait 4-5 years between installments. While it might be too late for them to save their Star Trek film series, the idea of Paramount being more proactive about their properties is a very welcome development.

I agree. And yet the previous Mission films have had some long gaps before and it always keeps coming back. The previous films were in 1996, 2000, 2006, 2011, 2015, 2018. It seems to have gotten more regular after the fourth one, which is a good thing.

We've talked before in other threads about how people like to know what they're going to get with a movie. In Mission: Impossible, you know what you're going to get at this point -- which doesn't mean that the movies can't surprise audiences, but it's a known property that has been (mostly) consistent in the quality department, and people expect to see Cruise doing insane stunts to save the world, and they get that.

As far his starpower is concerned, Cruise's other projects, like Edge of Tomorrow and American Made, have been less pre-established. People know who Tom Cruise is, but the concept of those movies were new and not as easily communicated in a TV spot as "Tom Cruise is playing Ethan Hunt again!" I think that might have something to do with the disparity in grosses between those films and his various Mission entries.

The wildcard here is Top Gun 2, which is very much a known property, but it's been so long since the last installment that they'll have to reintroduce it to audiences, including a younger generation that wasn't alive when the original came out. (I'm part of that age group, although I know what Top Gun is because I saw it on DVD and am looking forward to seeing what they do with the sequel, but there are a lot of younger people who might not.) I'm very curious to see how that one is going to do.

 

[dpippel]

Age will eventually catch up to Cruise, just as it will with everyone. I wouldn't be surprised if these two films are it for him in a starring MI feature movie role.