Is Tom Cruise finally free? That’s what I asked myself, watching Hollywood’s last movie star cling to the undercarriage of a biplane like a sloth in the climactic scene ofMission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning. Even by the standards of the long-running action franchise, this stunt – which sees Cruise’s character Ethan Hunt shimmy into the cockpit of one moving plane before wing-walking on to another, mid-flight – seems particularly masochistic: the crew were worried thathe had passed outduring its filming. What’s more, Cruise doesn’t even look particularly cool performing it: at one point the wind resistance plasters his hair into a Dumb and Dumber bowl-cut, jowls flapping about like a basset hound. You would have never caught Paul Newman committing such clownery. Surely Tom Cruise doesn’t have to do this sort of thing any more?
Cruise, who turns 63 in July, has been making Mission: Impossible films since Bill Clinton’s first presidential term. But The Final Reckoning, which arrives in UK cinemas on Wednesday, does seem to signal the end of something. Director Christopher McQuarrie has been at pains to frame it as the closing of an 18-hour, eight-movie chapter, a point bludgeoned home by the film itself via a plot that inelegantly tries to retrofit storylines from past instalments into some grand, planet-enveloping culmination. And while McQuarrie has been talking up the future of the franchise as a whole, and Cruise has been making optimistic noises about being AI ported,Harrison Ford-style, into future instalments, you have to assume that it won’t continue in its current form. It’s surely too big an operation, too taxing on its star, for business to continue as usual. Which is great news for anyone who would like to see Tom Cruise do something other than motorcycle off a cliff again and again; to see him, you know,act.
Cruise’s filmography tells quite the story. In its first half, after a couple of early faltering roles, he enjoyed an astonishing hot streak, spanning from Risky Business in 1983 to Jerry Maguire in 1996 – largely dramatic, middlebrow films that make lucrative use of his intensity, gigawatt smile and slight hint of sleaziness. The first Mission: Impossible arrived right before the end of this dynamite run, but it didn’t mark a dramatic sea change towards action movies. In fact, when Mission: Impossible 2 arrived in 2000, he was in the middle of period that might be described as “Cruise: the arthouse years”, where he took on challenging, messy roles in ambitious (if bloated) auteur-driven films: in Stanley Kubrick’s Eyes Wide Shut, Cameron Crowe’s Vanilla Sky and Paul Thomas Anderson’s Magnolia, the lattera career-best performancehe really should have won the best supporting actor Oscar for.
Plenty have speculated, in fact, that not winning that Oscar, and later not even being nominated for his brilliant villainous turn in Michael Mann’s Collateral, might have prompted Cruise to give up on awards-chasing, and instead hone himself into the gravity-defying, last action hero of his later career. It’s probably more complicated than that – it’s hard to ignore the effect that theOprah couch incidentand the negative press around Cruise’sassociation with Scientologymight have had on his role selection. Maybe he was avoiding complex parts that might have made him seem even weirder in the public eye and focusing on all-American heroes instead. Or perhaps he simply saw the way the wind was blowing in cinema, as mid-budget films died out and the studio focus became about making bigger and bigger blockbusters.
Whatever the reason, the shift was undeniable: in the 2010s and 2020s he has almost exclusively made whacking great action blockbusters. Some of those blockbusters have been very good (Mission: Impossible – Fallout, Edge of Tomorrow, Top Gun: Maverick), and Cruise’s commitment to throwing his body into them, sometimes quite literally, has been remarkable. But such Evel Knieveling has come at the expense of those dramatic roles that for so long felt central to his appeal as an actor. The characterisation in these action films has at times felt underwritten, bordering on Ken doll: with a gun to the temple, could you tell the difference between the character he plays in Top Gun: Maverick and the one he plays in those later Mission films? His hair might be different, but that’s it really.
Which is why I’m so excited by Cruise’s next film. Rumoured to be titled Judy, it is directed by Alejandro Iñárritu and follows “the most powerful man in the world, who embarks on a frantic mission to prove he is humanity’s saviour before the disaster he’s unleashed destroys everything.” Not only is it a complex role of the sort Cruise seemed to have left behind long ago, but it’s one that turns hismessianic action hero figuretrademark upside down. Iñárritu’s recent record has been patchy, but he is the sort of big-swinging auteur that Cruise worked with at the turned of the millennium – and iskeen to work with again(though perhaps a Paul Thomas Anderson reunion is a bit of a stretch, given Cruise’sreported reaction to The Master). Are we about to see a late-era flowering, with Cruise taking on fascinating roles?
Perhaps – but he might not be ale to resist the lure of contorting his body into uncomfortable shapes in the name of Hollywood. It seems a slightly cruel irony that the Oscars have announced the introduction of abest stunts categoryright after the closing of this Mission: Impossible “chapter”, depriving Cruise of an honour for his wing-walking, ravine-jumping Ethan Hunt performances. Still, another prospective role on his IMDb page seems a shoo-in, if the film ever gets made: a collaboration with Nasa and Elon Musk’s Space X that will see Cruise becomethe first man to act in space. Tom Cruise’s last action hero era may not be over just yet.
Sign up toThe Guide
Get our weekly pop culture email, free in your inbox every Friday
after newsletter promotion
If you want to read the complete version of this newsletterplease subscribeto receive The Guide in your inbox every Friday