"CATCH YOU FUCKERS AT A BAD TIME?"

Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning

MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE – THE FINAL RECKONING does not necessarily seem like “well guys, that’s the last one” at the end, but as a whole it definitely does play like they’re trying to wrap things up. Though the seven previous films in the series have been mostly disconnected, this one follows the series’ only cliffhanger, and has multiple instances of people discussing the past adventures of Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise, THE MUMMY), complete with clips. It has two big story threads that tie directly to Brian DePalma’s part I, plus a connection to J.J. Abrams’ part III. Both the NOC list and the Rabbit’s Foot come up – mcmuffin reminiscences from a movie series that has lasted more than four times as long as the TV series it was based on. And that ran for seven seasons!

I think it lives up to the series’ 29-year-long tradition of great entertainment, but it is also by far the sloppiest chapter. That’s not to say it’s lazy – quite the opposite. I think it just got too wild and out of control to ever sculpt it into an elegant shape. They might still be chiseling away at it as we speak. 

I’m not one to complain about long runtimes and unnecessary scenes, especially when the format demands zipping around through a string of incidents, but the first 45 minutes or so of this thing alternately feel like they didn’t have time to finish the edit or like we’re watching consecutive episodes of the world’s most expensive Quibi series. It opens with Ethan watching a VHS tape that’s his “your mission should you choose to accept it” message, though this time from President Erika Sloane (Angela Bassett, F/X), and it’s a very long “as you know” type explanation of what happened in MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE – DEAD RECKONING PART ONE, what has happened in the months since, and a reminder that he has the “cruciform key” everyone wants, that he can use to open a thing in the sunken Russian submarine the Sevastapol for access to the source code of the rogue artificial intelligence known as “The Entity” that he wants to destroy and everyone else wants to control. Though it’s obviously ridiculous for her to be telling him this stuff he already knows, and it’s awkward in its length, the forced exposition kicking off a mission is part of the fun of this series.

But it’s weird how much of that information is repeated one or more times in other forced exposition. It really seems like they filmed a bunch of different options for how to get the important story points across and then didn’t have time to trim it down to where it’s most effective. I think the overload of information makes it more confusing instead of less.

There are spoilery reasons they can’t simply cut the first chunk off of the movie, but it sort of repeated my experience of watching the first SUICIDE SQUAD and ROGUE ONE: a ways in I thought, “Oh, this is where it should’ve started.” In this case it’s when he’s brought into the war room with the president and her cabinet or whoever to again explain his past leading up to the last movie, and has to convince her to let him go and give him use of an aircraft carrier to prevent nuclear annihilation. That feels like the first scene after the title, but it’s a whole lot later.

By that point director/co-writer Christopher McQuarrie has gotten all the fuses untangled and is ready to start lighting them. Thankfully this one explodes as well as the other MISSIONs, which is to say it’s top-of-the-line, save-for-posterity popcorn spectacle. In the age of super heroes there are more than a few blockbusters that become less involving in the last act when they devolve into bluster and pixels, but that’s not remotely the case here – we’re watching Ethan climb around on a bi-plane flying low through a ravine, and though maybe that sounds less fresh than when he hung off a jet or flew a helicopter, when you see it it’s incredible, one of those magical movie sequences where it’s clear that holy shit, they really did some version of this. We are really flying. And it’s not just stunts, of course, but a story of escalating complications, with some excellent punchlines.

You could say the lead villain is Gabriel (Esai Morales, IN THE ARMY NOW), or maybe he’s just the henchman to The Entity, the Skynet-like A.I. program that has gone sentient and is on the verge of launching all the nuclear arsenals around the world, which has had the believable side effect of making at least one nation ([cough] us) consider firing ours first. It’s odd that it dips so far into sci-fi for the last chapters, and when Ethan climbs into a suitcase to talk to The Entity (which has a deep voice and shows him visions of the future) it’s a good reminder of how fucking ludicrously full of shit those real world people are who are “warning” about “artificial intelligence” being close to knowing how to think like a real human bean. Look at this shit, it’s silly, those people are lying to you.

But just go with it for the movie. It’s a good villain, a good metaphor for the very same dumb assholes I’m talking about, arrogant tech cultists intent on ruining the world in the name of their stupid god who sucks. In THE FINAL RECKONING there are crazy-eyed zealots on TV and among us willing to kill for The Entity. Gabriel’s motives shift but he’s Entity-pilled, so he gets an ending worthy of his dignity. (A hilarious one.)

Since part III some of the joy of these has been the teams. We lost our best and brightest member last time around and, though I like them, new recruits Grace (Hayley Atwell, PADDINGTON IN PERU) and Degas (Greg Tarzan Davis, TOP GUN: MAVERICK) could never hope to fill an Ilsa-Faust-sized hole. I’ve been partial to Atwell since that Agent Carter show, and Grace gets some moments – I’m glad her fast pickpocket hands help save the world – but it’s a pretty generic blurring of the line between mentee and wait-a-minute-is-she-supposed-to-be-a-love-interest?, feeling like less of a role than last time. That’s also true of Paris (Pom Klementieff, INGRID GOES WEST), but only because she got to have so much fun in DEAD RECKONING as the most colorful henchperson of the series. I’m glad to have her on the team, she gets some good kicks in her escape from captivity, and I like how there’s kind of a Chewbacca rule that she speaks French, everyone else speaks English, but everyone always understands each other.

My favorite part of this one is actually the reappearance of Donloe (Rolf Saxon, THE DIRTY DOZEN: THE NEXT MISSION), the CIA analyst who comically missed seeing Ethan during his iconic wire-hanging heist in the first film. I don’t like how thick they have to lay it on to make sure everybody gets the joke, though admittedly 99% of my sold out Imax screening seemed to need the help. But there’s a good 30 seconds there where real ones get a good laugh connecting for themselves why this particular guy is manning a radar tower in Alaska.

It’s a funny callback, but the beauty of it is that it’s more. McQuarrie takes this guy who was a funny visual gag with two lines in 1996 and makes him a dignified, heroic, central character, who has lived a beautiful life with his wife Tapeesa (Lucy Tulugarjuk, ATANARJUAT: THE FAST RUNNER) and doesn’t need our charity, yet transcends beyond cute cameo to full-fledged team member. I didn’t see that coming.

There has also been an evolution for Benji (Simon Pegg, THE ADVENTURES OF TINTIN: THE SECRET OF THE UNICORN), once a comic relief character who was in over his head, now getting laughs from his confidence that, as he keeps saying as things get worse and worse, “We’ll figure it out.” (Which seems to be McQuarrie and Cruise’s approach to making these movies as well.) He gets to lead the team, and has pretty much supplanted Luther (Ving Rhames, THE PEOPLE UNDER THE STAIRS), the only character to join Ethan in all 8 films, but this one also makes a point of reminding us how much we as a civilization have loved Ving Rhames for 30+ years. Even if we mostly just hear him talking about Arby’s these days.

Part 1 IMF director, now CIA director Kittridge (Henry Czerny, THE A-TEAM) is a funny foil in this one, still trying to put Ethan in his place and still always being way behind him. When he catches up to Ethan you don’t think “oh no, he’s got them now,” because he never will. Now he has Jasper Briggs (Shea Whigham, FIRST MAN) with him, seeming more embarrassed about it than him.

How many of these are there where Ethan doesn’t drive a motorcycle? Not many. He does get to do lots of his precious running, though, including in situations where it seems like maybe he could’ve gotten a vehicle but he just convinces himself nah, I’m Ethan Hunt, running will be faster. Come to think of it they seem to have used up all the motor vehicle business last time around. In this one you’ve got underwater, you’ve got in the sky. Grace does ride a dog sled at one point, I was hoping Ethan would get to do a huge, crazy dog sled stunt. Not sure how it would’ve worked though.

I forgot that Katy O’Brian (LOVE LIES BLEEDING) was gonna show up – she has a small part as a soldier on a submarine, but she gets to be awesome. It’s her take on a Vasquez-from-ALIENS type character but something about the glamorized way the people on the submarine are shot, posing with wry smirks looking down at the camera, made me think of Tony Scott. Hannah Waddingham (THE FALL GUY) and Nick Offerman (THE KINGS OF SUMMER) both get to shine in small but notable parts as military leaders. There’s lots of tension and disagreement about whether or not to trust this one guy they never heard of and violate all protocols for his ridiculous sounding plan to save the world. (Hint: they should.)

I want to note that the command center in this movie is really impressive – warehouse-sized. I’ve never seen one like that in a movie. But the quarters get smaller as the nuclear threat heightens and the president’s circle shrinks. I like that everyone’s faces are dripping with sweat except the president’s. Is it because she has full faith in Ethan Hunt? Or is it because Angela Bassett doesn’t sweat? I guess that depends on your religion.

I do not believe THE FINAL RECKONING will ever be a favorite of the series for me. But like all of them it will be worth rewatching and appreciating. As a whole, this run of movies is some kind of miracle. Consider that it came out of a trend of nostalgic movies based on old TV shows; in the ‘90s we also had THE ADDAMS FAMILY, THE AVENGERS, THE BEVERLY HILLBILLIES, BORIS AND NATASHA: THE MOVIE, THE BRADY BUNCH, CAR 54 WHERE ARE YOU?, THE FLINTSTONES, THE FUGITIVE, LASSIE, LEAVE IT TO BEAVER, LOST IN SPACE, MAVERICK, McHALE’S NAVY, MISTER MAGOO, THE MOD SQUAD, MY FAVORITE MARTIAN, THE SAINT, SGT. BILKO, and WILD WILD WEST. All but three four* of those were one and done, a similar amount of them sucked, only this one became an ongoing series that evolved and grew, eclipsed the source material in popular culture, for me also surpassed the James Bond movies it ran parallel to.

It’s so funny to think that at first there was controversy about it disrespecting a character from the TV show. It didn’t stick because it never seemed interested in being “i.p.” or “for the fans,” it was (at first) an excuse for the rare auteur-based blockbuster franchise. As it continued it shifted into something else very specific to the unique mania of its star and the type of filmmaking developed with the team around him. And now part 8 of a ’90s adaptation of a ’60s TV show represents a refreshing break from the usual bullshit.

I mean I love these movies is what it comes down to. Let me know what you think of this one.

P.S. SPECIAL SUPER SPOILER SECTION SHOULD YOU CHOOSE TO ACCEPT IT (reference to Mission: Impossible)

Okay, so there’s a big shocking (but mostly inconsequential) reveal that Sheah Whigham’s character Briggs is in fact named Jim Phelps Jr., because he’s the son of Ethan’s mentor who turned out to be the villain in part 1. My only guess for why they did this is they wanted to somewhat redeem the name of the original TV series character by introducing a non-traitor Jim Phelps, but it’s really ridiculous. I’m unclear why Hunt figures it out in the moment where he reveals it to us, or why Phelps was previously (and continues to be) called Briggs, and it does not (thankfully) become a secret villain motive. It honestly seems like they might have come up with this on the fly and not necessarily known it during other scenes they’d already shot. I guess the one good thing about it is that during that scene suddenly there does seem to be a resemblance between Whigham and Jon Voight. I was looking at him thinking, “Oh yeah, I see it.” The power of suggestion.

Also I enjoyed their “final reckoning” at the very end when we get to contemplate whether Junior purposely made it seem like he was going to execute Ethan or whether he just severely lacks self awareness when it comes to gun protocol.

I got a laugh from Luther’s recorded message played as narration at the end. I know it’s an accepted trope but it always amuses me that a guy’s voicemail hastily recorded from a hospital bed would come out as eloquent, poetic, professionally recorded voiceover wisdom.

I know bringing back Donloe was the greatest thing they could’ve done, I don’t need more, I’m no ingrate. But just for the record I would’ve been excited to see the forgotten characters played by Maggie Q (III), Paula Patton or Jeremy Renner (GHOST PROTOCOL) pop up. But the actual coolest would be Thandiwe Newton from part 2. And try to shoot her like a John Woo character the whole time. Bring in Hans Zimmer just to score her part. Many missed opportunities here come to think of it. But that’s life.


APPENDIX – My MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE reviews throughout the years

Brian DePalma’s MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE (reviewed in 2015)
John Woo’s MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE 2 (reviewed in 2015)
J.J. Abrams’ MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III (reviewed in 2006)
Brad Bird’s MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE – GHOST PROTOCOL (reviewed in 2011)
Christopher McQuarrie’s MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE – ROGUE NATION (reviewed in 2015)
McQ’s MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE – FALLOUT (reviewed in 2018)
McQ’s MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE – DEAD RECKONING PART ONE (reviewed in 2023)

 

*Thanks to Preachzilla on Bluesky for reminding me to include U.S. MARSHALS in my math here 

This entry was posted on Wednesday, May 28th, 2025 at 10:43 am and is filed under Reviews, Action, Thriller. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

50 Responses to “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning”

  1. but something about the glamorized way the people on the submarine are shot, posing with wry smirks looking down at the camera, made me think of Tony Scott

    Sub sets often (usually) utilize overhead lighting, and NOBODY loved overhead lighting more than Tony Scott

  2. Sorry to be a downer, but outside of the airplane stunts I would say this might be (in my opinion) the worst big budget movie I’ve seen in a theater since Attack of the Clones. Every piece of dialogue feels like exposition, often exposition which we already heard in previous dialogue. None of the characters do anything to make me care one way or another about them. The silly AI plot feels like I’m watching a 90s movie where they would focus a bunch of stuff on “computers” while showing that maybe nobody working on the movie had ever seen one.

    I mean, I didn’t go in expecting a perfect script or anything. These MI movies tend to have pretty bland stories which are hand waved away so that we can get to the stunts. But this was just excruciatingly bad to me. Oh well. Seems like most people liked it a lot more than I did so maybe I’m just a grouchy old man.

  3. This one surprised me – I’m a huge fan of the series overall but the advance reviews I saw ranged from mixed to terrible, and I almost skipped seeing this on the big screen. But I’m really glad I went. I could see all the flaws described in those reviews, and laid out here – the first hour+ is objectively sloppy, Hayley Atwell’s character is way less interesting than in the previous film, and there is so much back and forth explaining between characters about what The Entity wants and how they are going to stop it that, I admit, never made a lick of sense to me. And the tone is overall way bleaker and less zippy than any of the last few in the series – I had to think back to MI3 and the darkness of Hunt helplessly watching his teammates and wife die horribly in front of his eyes – and where there is humor, it feels forced (like in the early fight with Gabriel’s henchmen). And yet, and yet. Somehow the overall mood of desperate, messianic sincerity hit home this time. It felt right that this episode is, overall, way less fun than all the previous. The terrible outcome they are trying to overt is what we are actually living through right at this very moment. “Can you imagine how horrible it would be for some new technology to trap us in a web of lies, paranoia, cruelty and imminent global catastrophe?” Thanks for asking Cruise and co, yes I can, in fact I don’t have to imagine it at all. This is a movie about people selflessly trying to do the right thing in the face of such a world. It’s deeply flawed, long, confusing, full of itself, entirely lacking in sharp suits and international glamor and cool secret safehouses and all the trappings of the rest of the series, but somehow it was just what I needed.

  4. I went to a Live Q&A with the Storyboard Artist, Mark Bristol, here in Austin the night the movie opened. He mentioned that they were working on the movie right up until it premiered for critics a couple of weeks before release. But I get the feel nearly all movies like this are practically done that way. I remember Peter Jackson talking about barely finishing work on all the LOTR movies 25 years ago right before they were released. Guess just some movies are better done under pressure than others.

  5. I thought this was a big letdown. I didn’t especially like the last one, so I was worried it would be like this, so maybe I brought my bad attitude to the theater with me. I thought it was exciting but not fun. I thought The Entity was stupid and I almost laughed out loud at the end when the poor actors playing the cabinet had to use the phrase “We’re in The Entity’s reality now” in an extremely serious tone. I’m still bitter over killing off Ilsa, too, so maybe that’s my grudge speaking as well. But, I kind of had all these thoughts about the last one and when I rewatched it before going to see this one I genuinely laughed out loud at Grace panic driving that little yellow car in circles and then even bigger circles, so maybe I’ll change my mind if I ever watch it again.

    Oh, another thing, I really liked Paris and honestly have no idea why she would be on their side. Because Gabriel said she’d betray him, so she was all, okay, guess I will? What was her motivation being his henchwoman in the first place? Was she there just for him and not The Entity, so when he tries to kill her that’s enough to turn her? It’s the only thing that makes sense and I shouldn’t have to be the one to come up with that explanation.

    I didn’t hate it or anything. I liked the plane stunt at the end and bringing back Donloe and the small parts for the people on the sub or in the cabinet. That’s just not enough.

  6. The very mixed word of mouth had me nervous, but I loved this one. DEAD RECKONING played better for me the second time around, but I still found it a little too shaggy and wheel-spinny. With this one, I was locked in from the jump. I kept waiting for the first hour to become bloated and dull like I was told, but it never did. If anything, it’s paced a little too frantically, probably a mix of retooling after the tepid box office of the previous installment, and an attempt to get this thing under three hours. There’s a lot of cross-cutting in here, but I think it worked well for the pace, and then you really feel it when you slam into that slow, silent, tense underwater sequence.

    I’d even agree the plot probably makes no sense, they repeat some beats from previous Missions, Ethan doesn’t get to spend much time with the team, and it certainly doesn’t answer any questions about Ethan or Gabriel’s backstory that DEAD RECKONING brought up. But that tone– an apocalyptic death dream where truth no longer exists, unless The Last Good Man can save the day– was really effective for me, considering the state of our current world. And I also like it as a metaphor for Da Movies: Tom Cruise is The Last Movie Star, putting his life on the line using analog methods to defeat artificial intelligence and techno-nihilism from destroying all he holds dear. And he does it by wing-walking like a silent movie daredevil. Ethan trying to convince President Angela Bassett and company to give him an unlimited budget and carte blanche is probably verbatim from Tom Cruise convincing the studio to let him make this film.

    I was also surprised and delighted at how the movie used Rolf Saxon. I was expecting a cameo, but they gave us so much more. The coolest folks in the movie though are probably Tramell Tillman as the submarine commander, and Katy O’Brian.

    SPOILERS (?): I was kinda hoping Nick Offerman would pull his face off and be revealed as Jeremy Renner or Rebecca Ferguson or something. Alas.

  7. The Phelps Jr. reveal doesn’t quite land but I can understand why they wanted to at least try. Ethan losing his team and mentor in the original film ultimately became the driving force for him throughout the series, so it makes sense to include that sense of guilt as part of any final judgment on the character.

    *Spoilers*

    *

    *

    *

    There’s a great little moment early on when Ethan suddenly realizes Luther is telling him goodbye and it’s clear the idea they might not make it out alive had never even occurred to Ethan. As messy as the opening act is, it’s almost worth it to see Ethan go from joking around with his team as they attempt to improvise their way out of a dystopian nightmare to him instantly being jolted into the reality of what needs to be done.

    As for the other two major callbacks, I thought they were both surprisingly effective. Donloe’s return and the reveal of the Rabbit’s Foot were both very clever ways to represent the unexpected consequences- both good and bad- of Ethan’s actions over the years. I particularly love the conceit that even a successful mission could end up leading to negative consequences. (I honestly thought that’s where the Jason Bourne franchise was heading once he suddenly remembered all the terrible things he’d done at the end of The Bourne Ultimatum.)

    The film would’ve definitely benefited from tighter editing but I did appreciate how it felt like its own unique entry. I remember the original film being criticized for being convoluted and exposition-heavy so in a way it’s almost fitting that the series is ending close to where it began. (To that end, the sub dive sequence is probably the first time since the original’s vault break-in where I’ve witnessed an entire theater collectively hold its breath while watching Ethan Hunt attempt the impossible.)

  8. “Ethan trying to convince President Angela Bassett and company to give him an unlimited budget and carte blanche is probably verbatim from Tom Cruise convincing the studio to let him make this film.”

    This had me literally laughing out loud

  9. Maggie – Her loyalty was to Gabriel, who betrayed her, believing she would betray him because Ethan spared her. A self-fulfilling prophecy. Then in this one they keep showing that she only cares about getting revenge on Gabriel, though being along for the ride with people saving the world from nuclear annihilation might give her different priorities.

  10. I’m Team This Was Fun. I’m more or less on the same page as Vern. It’s a self-indulgent, bloated mess, but its sheer ambition, e’sprit d’corps, and stunt work makes it a win. This is one of those cases where the sheer number of winning qualities overwhelmed. Great ensemble. Beautiful people. Tom Cruise being awesome. Ving Rhames getting a nice moment. Simon Pegg getting a nice moment. Submarine commander guy is awesome. Submarine wreckage dive scene is awesome if overlong. Torture dungeon escape is fun. Biplane fight is epic. The command center casting choices and tension are fantastic — Bassett, Offermann, other crewcut tough guy, black gray-haired guy from MAVERICK, etc. — all awesome. It’s a big fat mess with a bunch of goofy threats and McGuffins, pluse like three flashbacks to Emilio Estevez’s death, a wtf and also who-tf-cares Jim Phelps callback, a dubious retcon of the rabbit’s foot, etc. But it’s also ambitious, fairly enthralling popcorn filming from a guy who has significantly moved the needle on keeping the theatrical experience alive, so, I’m here for it. Good times!

  11. Vern, yeah that’s what I figured. It just felt like I had to dig for it through all of the other exposition and twisty plot maneuvering and I guess I wish there had been more time for her story and motivation to breath.

    I rewatched all of the previous movies leading up to this one and I think maybe I burned myself out doing that. I probably should’ve just watched DEAD RECKONING. I still really like most of them and don’t dislike any of them, but that first one is still my favorite. Part of the fun of the series is how it builds to crazy shit but the simplicity of the first one is still my favorite and probably my favorite moment in any of them is still “Kittredge, you’ve never seen me very upset.” And then blowing up the aquarium/restaurant, running away in slow-mo with more water than could’ve possibly been in the aquariums cascading down behind him. So, I really enjoyed the call back where once again Kittredge tried to use that line on him, but this version of Ethan who is older, more experienced and probably just plain tired calmly said he wasn’t upset instead of seething at him.

  12. Oh wow, I didn’t even make that connection. I still love the first one too, but it’s been a while since I’ve seen the whole thing.

  13. Once again, fully aligned with Vern here… not the best of the series but still a lot to enjoy. Messy but fun. Too much exposition and flashback to earlier episodes but still a lot of fun to have. This is for me one of the few franchises out there that has maintained the same level of quality throughout. Few franchises get to have 8 episodes without a real stinker… i read a lot of ‘ranking worst to best’ articles about the M:I series lately, and while i can easily identify my favorite ones (Fallout and Rogue Nation), i cannot put any at the bottom of the list… many of these lists put the John Woo one at the bottom, but as much as it is flawed, i love the whole silliness of it and having one film where Ethan Hunt shoots with 2 guns at once… i used to think the third one was not as good but having re-watched it, i really enjoyed it more than i thought. Basically, this is a very strong franchise that has always tried to deliver never seen before stunts.
    I grew up with the James Bond films as the reference for amazing stunts (remember the ski jump in the Spy who loved me, or the twisted car jump in the Golden Gun one… they were making amazing stuff). Over time i think the James Bond stopped trying to do that… still like the Bond films but from a stunt perspective they got quite standard. I think that the M:I movies became the best ‘silly spy’ movies out there, and are now what the James Bond films were in the 60’s and 70’s.
    Maybe a good incentive for Amazon not to destroy the 007 re-launch.

    Back to Final Reckoning – really enjoyed it… you gotta give credit to Tom Cruise to give us a good reason to find the bigger screen possible. Say what you want about the guy, but his commitment to immersing us in never seem before action scenes is amazing. The whole plane sequence was crazy. As well as the underwater part in the submarine… will for sure see it again – this was my top of the list movie for this summer.

    As a side note, i live now in South Africa quite close to where some of these planes sequences were filmed – stunning landscape. People here are so proud that South Africa is part of the movie.. there was a lot of excitement when Tom Cruise was here filming his stuff… it adds a special note to watch this here – you could feel the crowd in the cinema enjoying that scene even more because of that!

  14. I have heard these movies are assembled as follows: Tom Cruise and McQuarrie come up with a list of big stunts/action beats they want to center the movie around and find locations. Then they start shooting those expensive, time-consuming sequences. WHILE they are shooting those scenes, they write the rest of the screenplay. They film some of the talk-y scenes during downtime from the action scenes as the script is still being written, and then once the action scenes wrap they finish shooting the rest of it. Then they have to assemble all the pieces that were made during varying levels of story/script completion into a (hopefully) cohesive whole. So apparently Haley Atwell was shooting the big car chase scene in the previous movie for weeks before she even knew her character’s name.

    A lot of the stuff Vern mentioned like the awkward pacing early on, repeated exposition, and weirdness/awkwardness of the SPOILER all make complete sense if that is how the movie was made. So they might have actually come up with that twist late enough in the game that it doesn’t affect any earlier scenes because they didn’t KNOW he was going to be SPOILER when they shot them.

    I have never been able to get as excited about this series as others. I watch them, usually enjoy the action/stunts, struggle to pay attention to the non-action scenes, and then forget everything about them within a few days. And sometimes I feel like the way the stunts are shot/edited detracts from them. Part of why I saw Dead Reckoning in theaters was getting sucked into the hype when they released the behind the scenes footage of the motorcycle cliff jump. But when I watched the actual movie, I found it far less impressive and exciting than the couple of minutes of behind the scenes footage. Considering all the takes they showed Cruise doing and all the cameras they had going, what they chose to edit together in the movie felt lacking in scale and spectacle. And I don’t care about these characters or stories. So when Ilsa died I just did some mental math and decided that as much as I like Rebecca Ferguson, that Hayley Atwell+Pom Klementoff is easily a better value. So the fact that this one tries to tie back to story beats and characters from the previous ones holds no appeal for me.

    I celebrate practical stunts, I celebrate much of the supporting cast, but that tilts me more toward “well I am glad these movies exist” than it does “I am excited to watch these movies.” And even then the Cruise factor creeps in… How much am I willing to overlook his high-level involvement in Scientology and the fact that his career/these movies financially benefits them? He really did hit on a clever way out of his public relations nightmare after the Oprah debacle: If he constantly puts his life at risk for big, impressive movie stunts then he appeals to a) people who like him and see he is continuing to work hard at being a movie star b) people who don’t care about him personally but love spectacle/popcorn entertainment, and c) people who don’t like him but approve of him constantly trying to kill himself on camera.

  15. “Also I enjoyed their “final reckoning” at the very end when we get to contemplate whether Junior purposely made it seem like he was going to execute Ethan or whether he just severely lacks self awareness when it comes to gun protocol.”

    Laughed out loud reading that! That WAS a bonkers moment. Willingham played it as so unmistakably going in for the kill that I figured they were going there, and the only way out was do do one of those fake outs where we hear a gunshot, but then we pull bask and see that it wasn’t “Briggs” shooting Ethan, but someone else (maybe Kittridge) shooting “Briggs.” I did not at all expect it to go how it did. Maybe it’s because I live in a blue state, but I’m unfamiliar with the fence-mending gesture of pointing a gun at a guy point blank before gracefully maneuvering into a handshake.

    I love this series, it really grew into something great. Final Reckoning isn’t the best of them (I’d say at least 3 or 4 of them are better), but it still has some great stuff in it. The submarine sequence and biplane sequence are instant classics for me. I will definitely include it this one my MI rewatch rotation (the only one I dislike is MI2).

    In the Movie Hall of Fame’s “Greatest Biplane Suspense” category, Dead Reckoning must finally supplant North by Northwest’s overrated scene of Carey Grant running around on the ground while a hostile biplane just kind of buzzes around sort of near him.

  16. I’m actually same as Adam as far as my recall of this series. For me, the plot is incidental, and the Ethan Hunt character is pretty thin, as I think I’ve said before. He’s probably the closest analogue we have to Cruise himself: intense, alpha, protective of “his people,” control freak, and workaholic mission-and-job-above-all-else (it would be interesting to analyze what Rocky tells us about Stallone’s mind and personality compared to what Ethan Hunt tells us about Cruises’s). Like Cruise himself, it’s not always clear what’s there beyond intensity, loyalty, monomaniacal focus, running, handsomeness, and a winning smile. Not much interiority.

    But that’s okay! Once upon a time, there was a Vern-verse trope that had to do with excusing a movie’s incompetence by appeal to “it’s just supposed to be a fun dumb popcorn movie — stop overthinking it.” Maybe it was inspired by TRANSFORMERS, I can’t remember. Anyway, the idea was that we can and should hold these films to higher standards.

    And while I think there’s a place for that, I also subscribe to the Ebert philosophy that you have to evaluate the film in terms of what it’s aiming to do (in particular and in relation to genre, etc.). This is a film that’s inspiring to give you a reason to go to the theatre and have fun watching this familiar crew do their thing in new locations, with new stunts, with higher stakes, and with new McGuffins and fairly arbitrary, afterhought “threats.” These films truly are about the journey, not the destination, and, yes, the plot is pretty disposable.

    In the spirit of striving for excellence, I do think they could’ve done a lot better here — there are many obvious areas for improvement. At the same time, this is one of those cases where, when I’m trying to rationalize and understand my visceral “like” response, it comes down to there being enough good qualities to overwhelm the less good or bad ones.

  17. But let’s be honest: It IS kinda strange how for a movie series that is so popular, its protagonist is such a complete nothing. I can’t imagine anybody ever saying “Oh yeah, Ethan Hunt is my favourite character! He is so cool!” He is “just” good at surviving every fucked up situation, no matter if he is on top of a high speed train, has a bomb in his head or crashing a helicopter into a mountain. He has no memorable quirks, not even a catchphrase.

    James Bond? Has catchphrases and despite being paper thin, he has enough stuff going for him that he counts as cool and influential. Jack Bauer? Iconic because of his complete recklessness (Motherfucker once killed someone by biting his throat!) and the tragedy of him doing everything to safe the world, yet constantly ending up abandoned and unable to save his loved ones. JAson Bourne? The movies are all about the mystery of his tragic backstory!

    But Ethan Hunt? Well, he is an avid freeclimber.

    Please keep in mind that I still love the M:I movies (that I have seen). They can get away with it, because of how good they are in general. But honestly, I can imagine that JJ Abrams didn’t put the focus on teamwork in part 3 because that’s what happened in the TV show, but because surrounding Ethan with a bunch of way more fun and interesting characters was probably easier than trying to force him into becoming an actual character.

    Again: Love the movies, especially for being able to work DESPITE its protagonist and not because of him, so it’s not as big of a complaint as it sounds.

  18. Re: Editing – my takeaway is that we need to adopt more specific film language for what is happening in this movie. I believe the French have two concepts of editing (even though, yes, montage comes from them meaning just “edit”) – edit, meaning assembling scenes into a narrative structure and determining order of plot points and what stays and goes VS montage, the specific cutting in a scene itself. McQuarrie is a smart guy and I listened to the crazy 7-hour Empire podcast interview with him around Fallout (now pulled offline? Sad because it is a filmmaking class in and of itself). He described really learning how to do montage in Reacher, where we don’t need to see a person chucked into a trunk and the trunk slammed shut but rather can just cut to them in the trunk and the audience will understand. He has honed that instinct over each subsequent film.

    Here, I thought the first 30 minutes were almost a new form of filmmaking – eliminate all shoe leather. There’s literally a cut to a fancy function in a building with no setup, no travel, nothing except on-screen text telling us we’ve moved. The pace is breakneck and I don’t think I’ve felt such a pace in a movie before – how much can we cut out before it becomes nonsensical? So within scenes there are huge slices to just keep the action moving. That speed, however, falters due to the edit, which places clumsy, po-faced exposition scenes (also trimmed down to be as short as possible) after each high-energy scene. So the overall edit of the movie, the structure, feels like 5 different movies jammed together and then each scene trimmed as much as possible instead of actually looking at eliminating entire scenes or subplots or characters. As pointed out, this is a problem of the writing (or lack thereof). When these things are so loosely planned, you get an unwieldy structure but the solution is that each scene, taken on its own, is edited to the bone. The viewing experience is this weird “I am forgiving this exposition because everyone knows this is just an exposition dump” feeling and then being slammed into a different location and immediately on the run again.

    Re: Edgard, I agree that it is hard to place these in any order. I think Fallout is the best (and one of the best action movies of all time) but disagree with most that 2 is the worst just because I enjoy the first 4 movies trying a different director each time and seeing how that influences things. A unique and fun experiment that I wish another franchise would do. Personally I think 3 might be the weakest for me, just due to how it looks, but it isn’t weak.

    Re: Cruise, I also find it hard to support him but, after all this time, I ultimately view him as a very damaged man and feel more sorry for him than anything. Clearly there are demons that he fights by keeping himself at 100% all the time. Do I love the Scientology stuff? Nope. But do I love that, according to Pegg, he got Pegg out of a downward spiral and sober again? That, to me, is enough to redeem Cruise, that he probably saved Pegg’s life. For that he gets a pass.

  19. I don’t know I feel like AI is getting close to thinking like a real human bean.

  20. Very well put, Hammer Time. I think the montage here is excellent but the overall shape of the story is a mess. And I think Adam is right about the reason being the seat-of-the-pants filmmaking method being the reason for this. I’ve heard many amazing interviews with McQuarrie about this and I think with ROGUE NATION and FALLOUT they really pulled off miracles with making everything fall into place. I think this time around they couldn’t fit it all together as well, maybe in part because they really do expect it to be the last one so they can’t save ideas for later.

    I really like your description of the first 30 minutes and it makes me wonder if it will be more enjoyable on rewatch when I can accept its flaws and focus more on what’s unusual about its technique.

  21. I have found the discourse around this one interesting, because I have heard everything from “worst in the franchise” to “a great time at the movies”.

    For me, I found it really subpar and probably my least favorite of the series. Certainly my least favorite of the recent run from MI4 to Dead Reckoning.

    There are really only two tentpole action scenes in this one, the sub scene and the plane chase. Both are great. But I found everything in between, not just the enormous exposition dumps, but even the smaller fight scenes (Tom in his undies in a knife fight, for example) I thought were completely below average. Watching Fallout again last week, the bathroom fight scene? Now THAT’S how we do it in America. Even Dead Reckoning has more huge tentpole action scenes (the train, the street fights in Venice, the handcuffed car chase, the motorcycle jump), but also a lot of smaller fight scenes and skirmishes that stand out.

    And I really cannot wrap my head around how interested the filmmakers were in this multi-Macguffin chasing plot. Like, they are REALLY convinced this intricate story of poison pills, crucifix keys, longitude/latitude x marks the spot locations is super interesting. They are pot-committed to this gobbledy goop plot that I think we can all agree could have been simplified and still been a satisfying action flick.

  22. I have seem the original MI a few times, it was hard to avoid back 30 years ago, but otherwise I am MI-free. Until now, my job took us on a team building exercise where we sat in a dark room for 3 hours staring straight ahead. Go Team!!

    I thought it was pretty bad. At least an hour too long, even the “big action scenes” started to drag. A huge convoluted mess full of head scratching and mind boggling scenes.

    For example… there is not one but two nuclear bombs that have to be defused within a couple minutes. The second one is defused by a CIA computer nerd, because of course smart computer people can do that. The first one explodes right away when defused and so it is a suicide mission for the desfuser, a heroic moment. The second one, defused by the amateur nuclear bomb defuser, has a ten second timer between nuke defusing and conventional bomb exploding, and the three people there discuss their chances of running 100 yards and closing a blast door all in 10 seconds. One 60 year old nerd, his clearly non-athletic wife, and a young guy who looks like he could play in the NFL. I am like, okay, the older couple says they are all gonna run together at the count of 3 and of course they are gonna just sit there and hold hands and blow up. Right? Predictable, but a noble sacrifice for a heroic character. And wife. But no. They defuse, it cuts to interior scene. Young athlete walks up, followed closely by old out of shape couple. Baffling.

    Another example…. we are treated to long meaningful shots of an aircraft carrier captain (admiral?). She looks kind of familiar. Why are we getting these long loving shots of this woman?? Am I supposed to know who she is???? I looked her up after the movie, she is some character actor who has been in a bunch of stuff.l, but not in the previous MI movies. It is very strange. You know the scene in WAYNE’S WORLD 2 where they bring in Charleton Heston to do a monologue and they all just stare at him in awe? It reminded me of that. Stunt casting as a gag, but who is she and why should I care??

    The whole movie felt a little like this. When there wasn’t a stunt happening they just pointed the camera at somebody famous and had them say some lines or take turns looking around the room with reaction shots overload. Put in some clearly non-actor soldier extras (what is this, BATTLESHIP?) and bam you got a movie.

    I didn’t hate it. Just confused and kind of bored.

  23. People love her because she’s on Ted Lasso. I personally don’t watch that show but didn’t notice any hold for recognition. I thought they were holding as she sized up this mysterious stranger who has shown up on her aircraft carrier with a meaningful coded message from her close friend who became the president that means she has an enormous decision to make with the fate of the world in balance.

  24. Yeah I guess so, but I thought it was overdone. Or poorly acted. I dunno.

    The submarine captain however felt completely natural and likeable while also being a serious, no nonsense, realistic naval officer. I thought he was great.

  25. I think the Jim Phelps thing brings it back full circle. There was a rumor of a Paramount+ series. Would make sense to have Shea Whigham’s Jim Phelps lead a new team.

    There’s another Mission Impossible III connection as Ethan doesn’t lose his protege Grace like he did Lindsey Farriss. In fact, it’s the biggest evolution of Ethan’s leadership as he realizes that he is expendable here and not the most important part of the mission once they get to South Africa. He has to finally put all of his trust in his teammates and ask Grace to do something truly impossible, which is usually his domain.

  26. One thing I appreciated is that, when they were retooling it away from its DR pt 2 incarnation after pt 1 flopped, they rolled with the punches by turning it into a sequel to all prior M:I’s, all at once.

    Not elegant, but so audacious in its lack of subtlety I couldn’t help but enjoy it, especially ‘oh actually your real name is X’ retcons.

    But the approach did reframe the series in a way that works for me – by pulling the strands together it starts to feel like a version of the seven labours of Hercules. Ethan Hunt basically ascends to godhood at the end of this.

  27. It was fine, but I expected more depth to things like the Ethan/Gabriel history and for Ilsa’s death to be even mentioned. Good action, but at this point I have to question if it’s worth them striving for doing stunts for real if the end result in the finished movie is a not-as-cinematic-as-it-could-look-if-faked Go Pro level of footage of Tom Cruise clinging awkwardly to the side of something before slowly climbing around it. Ethan’s trip to the sub wreck was a lot more nerve wracking to me. The lack of dialogue and the fact I didn’t always understand exactly what was going on in the scene really raised the tension for me. What was the point btw of the Entity showing Ethan a supposed future vision of Grace being on the ice and dying and him trying to warn her not to do it if she does it anyway and there’s no actual threat presented to her at any point during that?
    Also I’m pissed as anyone that Kamala Harris didn’t win the election, but if you’re gonna insist on putting in a stand-in character for her, could you not make it the same character who last time we saw them was depicted as a ruthless politicking CIA head who had no qualms about her top guy (who turned out to be the co-lead villain) solving problems with assassination? It kinda undermines making her the supposed moral conscience of world leadership that the movie tries to position her as.

  28. Oh, forgot: The Phelps Jr. plotline is something I actually thought was going to be something they did with Jeremy Renner way back in Ghost Protocol, because the trailers for that built up intrigue about Brandt being more than he appeared and him hinting at knowing stuff about Ethan’s past.

  29. @Stu

    McQuarrie has said the disappointing box office of Dead Reckoning coupled with the Hollywood strike delay led him to restructure the film into a self-contained entry. (Of course, at that point, Covid had already derailed the original plan of one long story, filmed back to back and released a year apart.)

    As a result, the footage of Gabriel and Ethan’s past was cut and I’m guessing the dialogue about Grace staying off the ice was another casualty. I assume he left it in since it can always be interpreted as the Entity messing with Ethan’s head. I remember McQuarrie saying the “light the fuse” sequence in Dead Reckoning contains some fake footage to imply the Entity has already begun spreading disinformation. Ethan being uncertain about what’s real and what isn’t immediately after “talking” to the Entity also adds to this effect.

    Speaking of the general sci-fi weirdness of the Entity, one thing I enjoyed is how much Final Reckoning reminds me of a disaster or alien invasion flick. That genre is also known for movies being way too long and exposition-heavy (complete with too many scenes of government officials standing around talking!) but where much of the fun comes from a pervasive feeling of tension and dread running throughout. Final Reckoning does that really well, imo.

  30. SPOILER TALK!!!

    I need some clarity on Ethan Hunt’s two seemingly-obvious deaths in this movie.

    First, him emerging from the submarine. As soon as I realized he was getting out of that sub, I knew something would happen to his fancy suit.And then, it was clear that he was going to have to rush up to the surface. He was gonna get the bends, and that would be the end of Ethan Hunt. His body language near the end of that sequence seemed to even suggest that his body was collapsing from the pressure — even if Hayley Atwell saved him as she did, he’d be a vegetable, right? I’m not a deep sea diver, but I assume that was a fatal ascent. That being said, it’s Part Eight. I accepted it as a bit of movie magic, particularly because of how gorgeously-shot his implausible rescue truly was.

    But secondly, the end. He pops open the parachute and then the parachute IMMEDIATELY bursts into flames. He’s falling, crashing towards Earth. He’s dead! No way out of that! I kinda thought, at that point, the movie would end with him accepting a medal for his accomplishments while inside a full body cast. And yet, they show him on the ground, amid a non-fiery parachute. Did I miss something here? Did he have a second chute? What exactly happened here?

  31. I asked this and my wife told me, as if I was stupid, that parachutes usually have a backup chute. I also didn’t really follow how he got the parachute in the first place but I pieced together that it was what he was distracted by when he should’ve been pushing the fucking poison pill into the whatchacallit.

  32. Yes, most parachutes have a backup. Films generally tend to ignore this fact for dramatic tension, so there’s a certain irony in seeing Mission Impossible, of all franchises, actually acknowledging this fact!

    As for the diving question, the suit was only intended to reduce the amount of time Ethan would need to spend in a decompression chamber afterwards. The fact that he would get the bends and likely drown was actually part of their plan. Benji even mentions how the freezing water should buy them a little extra time by inducing hypothermia and slowing Ethan’s metabolic functions.

    One interesting tidbit about this scene: Apparently Ethan was originally going to be “rescued” in the underwater shot by the brunette woman Gabriel kills in the flashback. The scene is still meant to be dreamlike, only they replaced the murdered woman with Hayley Atwell instead. (I actually thought Ethan was having a vision of Ilsa when the scene first began!)

  33. I could never quite figure out the entity’s backstory. So it was an AI virus designed to disrupt the silent running defenses of the Sevastopol submarine. But why did its source code end up in the submarine? That’s not how viruses or other computer programs work; they don’t carry their own source code around. Why did the entity sink the submarine? Was it in order to destroy the source code? If that was the plan, why didn’t the entity just launch a nuke or any other traditional missile at the submarine to finish the job?

  34. I’m happy to see that I’m not the only one who was confused by the parachute ex machina. Also (SPOILER) Gabriel’s last words were “Only one of us has a parachute hahaha (splat!)” and then Ethan suddenly has a parachute. My friend said there was a reaction shot of Ethan being surprised to find the chute or something but I definitely missed it and was sitting there thoroughly confused about Gabriel’s parting taunt. It just seemed very sloppy to me.

  35. Timo- The Entity was originally used by the Russians to make the Sevastapol undetectable. That’s why it’s on the sub in the first place. It just goes rogue, and arranges the sub’s sinking to cover up its escape and hide it’s achilles heel.

  36. Jake – I also thought that was Ilsa at first, then thought likely Grace but wasn’t sure. (Should’ve been Thandiwe Newton.)

  37. Stu- The Russians didn’t know about the Entity. They were just testing out a new algorithmic drive (the “Podkova”) that was designed to make their sub invisible to sonar. The Entity began as a virus that was spreading through Russia’s Black Sea fleet in an attempt to find and disrupt their new cloaking tech. The US had acquired the virus when Ethan retrieved the Rabbit’s Foot in MI3.

    Timo- “The Entity” didn’t actually exist until the virus merged with the Russian drive and somehow evolved into an A.I. capable of going rogue. Since that evolution was its true point of creation, it effectively served as the Entity’s source code. And because it happened in 2012, the Entity had yet to fully evolve into the powerful A.I. we see in the films.

    Vern- I should note the speculation stems from the teaser trailer, where it appears Ethan is being kissed during that scene by Mariela Garriga rather than Hayley Atwell. (Side note- I like the implication this Marie character from Ethan’s past is why he always goes for the brunette!)

    The brief glimpse occurs around the 1:18 mark:

    https://youtu.be/NOhDyUmT9z0?si=C9tFn2WF61_MbC6Q

  38. I actually found the Rabbit’s Foot connection to be a real missed opportunity here – I had no problem with the RF being the original source of the Entity but you’d think that Hunt learning he was, at least in part, personally responsible for setting the worldwide disaster in motion might have led to more than a split-second of self doubt, or at least introspection. I mean, sure, it probably would have gotten loose and had its inhibitor chip removed and all that no matter what, but – Luther and Ilsa getting killed, brink of nuclear war, etc. – you always mean well but a lot of this is on you, buddy! I’d have liked to see an Ethan Hunt with his self confidence shaken a little more fundamentally.

  39. Finally had a chance to check this out last night. I agree with the general Vern talkback consensus that it’s a shaggy dog, but a lovable shaggy dog. My favorite part was the beginning exposition outlaying everything that had happened since the last movie including an entire death cult that has developed around The Entity that has infiltrated the highest levels of governments around the world and then during the meeting with the president as they are going through all the amazing stuff he’s done they reference gassing the security briefing from Dead Reckoning and some says, “That was two months ago”. That was a busy 8 weeks.

    My only real complaint is I’m not sure Esai Morales was the right guy for Gabriel. After such amazing bad guys played by Sean Harris and Philip Seymour Hoffman I found myself feeling like this dude gets to kill both Ilsa and Luther (spoiler)?

    The sub sequence and the biplane sequence both had my laughing out loud as it just kept getting worse much as the end of Fallout did.

  40. Oh, also, did anyone have any thoughts on that very weird pre-credits moment where we don’t see Ethan brutally murder those two agents? I wasn’t sure if it was a joke that we watch Hayley Atwell nearly recoil and almost question her involvement in this as Cruise just bludgeons these two henchmen into closed-casket hell offscreen. I can’t recall anything like that in the earlier movies.

  41. Glaive Robber – I kinda loved the “Ethan Goes Beast Mode” bit, even though yeah, it didn’t seem to be followed up on and felt like something out of Knight & Day. I’m sure it was a product of an earlier draft where Grace had more of an arc (where at the end maybe she also has to do something morally grey to save the world), but now it just seems like a reminder that she’s the “Whoa this spy shit is crazy!” audience surrogate like she was in 7.

    I loved the movie, despite the fact that the first 90 minutes is literally the same scene over and over again, of Tom Cruise asking a character/the audience to put all logic aside and have faith in him. I mean, he does this with Degas. Then Paris. Then Angela Bassett. Then Ron Swanson. Then Holt McCallany. Then the lady from Ted Lasso. Then some military pilots. Then some tough navy seals. Then a submarine captain. I feel like I’m probably missing two or three other people in there but it felt like an SNL skit that was funny at first, went on so long that it got unfunny, then kept on going to the point where it was funny again.

    But whatever, it’s an automatic recommend for the plane sequence. Sure, it’s a copy of the Fallout helicopter chase, but done even better and I’m sad nobody is going to pick up the mantle of “Crazy Movie Star/Stunt Guy” for a while. (I’d be willing to bet money after the end of 7 that Atwell was going to have a show-stopping stunt in 8 to have the torch passed to her, but I’d argue she has even less to do than Renner did in 4).

  42. Oh and another thing – I’ve started to see (valid) complaints that the McQuarrie M:I’s have a bit of sameness to them that the Yates-era Harry Potters did. And yes, I do kinda wish they stuck with the pattern of having a wildly different auteur every time (I grew to really love the over-the-top ridiculousness of M:I 2 after all). But after re-watching all the McQuarrie’s, I’d argue that his four films (despite undeniably “feeling” similar) also don’t seem like they’re made by the same person! I mean, 5 has more of a focus on character and less focus on action than any film since 1 (I mean, I think we all fell in love with Ilsa not just because of Ferguson’s star-making performance but also because the movie spent the time to make us care about her). 6 kinda goes the other route, pulling a Fury Road where the lengthy action sequences are the bread and butter of the movie and the characters and plot are practically an afterthought. Even 7 and 8 seem wildly different, with 7 balancing an out-of-nowhere sci-fi plot with Speed 2-level destruction porn, while 8 plays almost like a Tarantino-y meta talk-a-thon about the “magic of movies” until it’s finale. There’s also weird dream-like sequences (and questionable dream logic) and probably more new supporting characters introduced here than the entire series combined. It’s a really weird movie – not one I’d like to see be the template for any future movies, but a fun and unusual finale for the series.

  43. Glaive: I thought it was a funny bit, if a little incongruous tonally. Maybe it was the product of a reshoot or a vestige left before or after retooling.

    Neal: IIRC McQ said, around the time of FALLOUT, that even though he was a returning director, he tried to make the movie FEEL like it was from a different director, which was also a reason why he went with a new cinematographer and score composer. I’m not sure subsequent movies bear this out, but the rationale did exist.

  44. From what I understand, McQuarrie made it a point to switch up some of his basic filmatistical grammar between movies. Different lenses, shot lengths, shit like that. Which is great, but the average viewer isn’t going to notice that kind of thing. The movie’s still going to have the same filmmaker’s fingerprints all over it in ways that can’t (and shouldn’t, really) be helped. It’s like an author saying he totally completely changed up his style by using fewer adverbs, but he’s still writing about all the same subject matter and themes. On a granular level, yeah, there’s a difference, but in its totality it still feels of a piece with the rest of the oeuvre. In a way, it’s heartening that it’s nearly impossible to subsume an artist’s essential self, even under the heaviest franchise machinery.

    I liked it. While the last several felt like pure action, this one feels like a return to the suspense thriller roots of the first film. I appreciated how it took its time setting up an increasingly impossible series of tasks, then constantly raised the difficulty of each task with new and exponentially greater obstacles until reaching a crescendo of utter impossibleness. I still think FALLOUT will remain the series highpoint, but FINAL RECKONING kept me engaged the entire three-hour running time. Considering it boasts a plot consisting almost entirely of shoe leather with very little actual story development, that’s an achievement. Sure, it’s an achievement akin to stacking a thousand aluminum cans on top of each other. Empty? Yes. Meaningless? Absolutely. But a marvel of engineering nonetheless.

  45. Tom’s last stunt in the film is something I had assumed he wasn’t crazy enough to do for real but guess what.

    (Obvious spoilers for Tom’s last stunt in the film!)

    https://youtu.be/K5PP7igejMU?si=JYhznnj3kpX-9SHO

  46. Ok. Seen this twice now. First time, I was In an off mood to begin with. The rushed nature of the opening got me afraid is was going to be Ethan inside the entity trying to game the system and failing.

    I was very happy when i discovered it wasn’t a bad storytelling trope, just rushed editing. (Legit could have had a little more padding in the beginning and maybe a little less at the end, but whatever). I enjoyed it as it went along from there but it also REALLY depressed me.

    The moment was when Cruise hands Ted Lasso’s boss the piece of paper with the date. All us good nerds know it was the day part 1 opened. That was also my first day at my first real paying job: working at the movie theater!

    I have an affinity for the first one because of its time and place in my history. (Or lore as the youth like to say). Graduating high school so no work left to do, off to film school in the fall, have a frisky & busty girlfriend, working a job that gets me free movies… The life!

    And having it be 29 years later I’m sitting in a theater, freshly unemployed (thanks tariffs), 5 miles down the road from the og theater… It made me really upset. Then the Luther scene and Enter Donloe, and im a mess.

    (For the record I actually did see the high school girl friend a week earlier, too. Obviously were not together, and her kid just finished freshman year of college, so theres that…)

    Anyway, i sat there depressed (and thrilled with the action) marvelling at how Cruise has been doing this for almost 30 years for me.

    Threw off the whole weekend.

    Cut to the other day, knowing what i know about the chopped up opening and what to expect emotionally (PLUS those chairs that move and massage you during action sequences) and it might be the most fun I’ve had all year.

    So yeah, agree with everything Vern said. I just needed to throw that out into the world because sometimes just holding on to these things cant be good.

    Thanks for coming to my TED talk..

  47. Ok. Seen this twice now. First time, I was In an off mood to begin with. The rushed nature of the opening got me afraid is was going to be Ethan inside the entity trying to game the system and failing.

    I was very happy when i discovered it wasn’t a bad storytelling trope, just rushed editing. (Legit could have had a little more padding in the beginning and maybe a little less at the end, but whatever). I enjoyed it as it went along from there but it also REALLY depressed me.

    The moment was when Cruise hands Ted Lasso’s boss the piece of paper with the date. All us good nerds know it was the day part 1 opened. That was also my first day at my first real paying job: working at the movie theater!

    I have an affinity for the first one because of its time and place in my history. (Or lore as the youth like to say). Graduating high school so no work left to do, off to film school in the fall, have a frisky & busty girlfriend, working a job that gets me free movies… The life!

    And having it be 29 years later I’m sitting in a theater, freshly unemployed (thanks tariffs), 5 miles down the road from the og theater… It made me really upset. Then the Luther scene and Enter Donloe, and im a mess.

    (For the record I actually did see the high school girl friend a week earlier, too. Obviously were not together, and her kid just finished freshman year of college, so theres that…)

    Anyway, i sat there depressed (and thrilled with the action) marvelling at how Cruise has been doing this for almost 30 years for me.

    Threw off the whole weekend.

    Cut to the other day, knowing what i know about the chopped up opening and what to expect emotionally (PLUS those chairs that move and massage you during action sequences) and it might be the most fun I’ve had all year.

    So yeah, agree with everything Vern said. I just needed to throw that out into the world because sometimes just holding on to these things cant be good.

    Thanks for coming to my TED talk..

  48. This was great, Winchester!

  49. Seconded, Winchester. I’d wondered where you were going with your emotional reactions to the movie, and hell, I ended up getting engaged with it as one shoe dropped after another. Glad to hear how much you enjoyed this the 2nd time around!

  50. I think my issue with the movie is best summed up in that flat moment leading to the opening credits. The offscreen butt-kicking was fine but a tepid way to launch into the credits. Also, the opening credits of the recent films show action beats, as if to say “this is going to be so awesome, we’ll go ahead and show some of it to you now to get you excited.” This one, it was mostly just shots of the actors when their names came up. It was janky and disappointing, like a lot of the movie.

    I’m sure my view will improve on a second viewing, but for now this is in the bottom half of the franchise for me.

Leave a Reply





XHTML: You can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>