Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning - Car stunts, train stunts, horse stunts, dance stunts

I had a pretty great time with this movie, I think. It’s a little complicated because we had a weirdly stressful experience at the theater unrelated to the film itself, so I may feel differently the next time I see the movie, but as best as I can separate the film from that: this is a lot of fun, but has maybe the dumbest plot in the franchise.

I should also rewatch the others, it’s possible I’ve simply forgotten some of the absurdities for the films I haven’t seen recently.

M:I films are always a little needlessly convoluted. There’s nothing wrong with an action movie that bills itself as a spy flick where the actual spy craft and espionage is only a shallow premise to set things in motion, but M:I tends to throw in one or two more twists or double-crosses than is necessary, mistaking confusion for a complexity it didn’t actually need to chase in the first place. That’s all fine, it’s sort of charming in its way.

Someone watched The Dark Knight and thought the problem was it didn’t lean quite hard enough into trolley problems.

The theme of Ethan being faced with a choice between his team (or the safety of some individual) and the “greater good” of his mission, and then Ethan nobly rejecting that choice and somehow usually managing both is well established at this point. Also fine, part of the charm of the series.

But in Dead Reckoning the scriptwriters just dropped all pretense of trying to justify anything by pitting Ethan Hunt against a sentient, rogue, A.I. giving them the freedom to be nakedly—well, artificial with every moral dilemma they put him through.

“The Entity” just wants Ethan to have to chose which of his friends lives or dies, and the writers don’t have to come up with a reason why.

It’s a well worn trope that can still satisfy if executed well—I’m a sucker for it every time it comes up for Captain America—but it’s never been lazier than it is here.

As a side effect, the movie also has no antagonist that we particularly care about. Henry Cavill almost stole the show as August Walker/John Lark in Fallout, first as the obnoxious and uncooperative rival agent, then as the unmasked and unhinged villain, and importantly you always knew what he wanted and why (within the limits of the aforementioned trademark M:I confusion).

Gabriel is just a guy? Who I guess likes death and suffering (which we’re told more than shown), and I guess was the first person to hurt a woman Ethan cared for, but we aren’t made to care. Beyond that his motivations are inscrutable because he seems to have no agency, he’s just as much a puppet of the script because hey, A.I.!

Ethan Hunt vs. ChatGPT just doesn’t do it for me.

And yet despite all that, there’s a ton to like about this too. It’s not going to be my favorite entry, but it’s a pretty solid contribution, and when I have more time I’ll come back and write a lengthy post about all the things I like about it too. And once I finish talking about Hayley Atwell perhaps I’ll get to the stunts.

I agree that the plot was a bit too much for its own good. I suspect the central problem is that it was over-explained. Thinking back on previous M:I flicks, they have a tendency to generate MacGuffins. Ask me what the general plot of the last few movies is, I couldn’t tell you. What is the rabbit’s foot? Why are they climbing the Burj Khalifa? Did they really need to break into the Vatican? The broad strokes don’t matter very much. And that isn’t a criticism. I’m so enthralled by the moments these films generate — their athleticism, their artistry, their charisma — that I really don’t need an answer.

Dead Reckoning thinks I need an answer. So it goes out of its way to provide one, even when that answer doesn’t make a lick of sense. Couldn’t Bad Man just chuck the key somewhere? Couldn’t the A.I. set up a sniper zeroed in on a rooftop where it knows Ethan Hunt will appear? Couldn’t it plaster Hunt’s likeness on the internet for conspiracy goons to harass? Oh, probably. The thing is, I’m not worried about that stuff until the movie decides I need an answer to everything. Now I’m picking through why the A.I. blew up its own submarine. Now Dead Reckoning is more of a puzzle box movie than it needs to be.

Which is fine. As I mentioned upthread, I loved the movie in spite of its expositional leanings. But I suspect that its action moments will tether themselves to the goofball plot in my memory, unlike the individual beats of previous entries.

Should I be rewatching any of the old MI’s before seeing the new one, or is it pretty standalone? I’ve only seem them once, and they all blur together for me.

There are a lot of callbacks to the original movie, not the least of all Kittridge. But Dead Reckoning also feels like part homage and part escalation to the original movie.

It also doesn’t hurt to probably rewatch Rogue Nation and Fallout, because that feels like where they’ve really nailed the current formula and creative team. Plus, maximum Ilsa Faust is always a great thing.

The least essential to this movie are MI2 (the John Woo one) and MI3 (the JJ Abrams one with Philip Seymour Hoffman)

I haven’t seen the new film yet, but one thing that’s true about most of the films since MI:3 is that they’ve often had a very personal angle for Ethan Hunt. Whether that was his wife or his team, he’s often had emotional stakes that helped drive his actions, not just love of country or saving the world.

I thought the AI and Gabriel as its avatar was pretty silly. And it did feel over-explained, as if they were worried my dad wouldn’t get it (he got it.) Pretty quickly I realized I should just focus on the key. The key could just as easily have been for a one hundred million dollar treasure chest, or NOC List 2.0, or whatever. Chasing the key and watching it change hands over and over was fun. The way that you couldn’t acquire the second half of the key without making the first half vulnerable–I really liked that.

I felt this was a weak effort, with problems both with the writing and the pacing.

It’s not just the way the feel they need to overexplain the McGuffin as discussed above, but it’s the way the back half of the movie ends up feeling kind of pointless because of the central conceit that the AI can perfectly predict what everyone will do even when they’re told that the AI predicts that’s what they’ll do. It’s a movie script, I know nobody actually has agency. But being told by the movie that everything is on predictable rails just makes it harder to suspend disbelief and pretend that the choices matter. And also, when the villains do all these inexplicably stupid things, it can all be waved away by the AI predicting the butterfly effect from it..

As another example of the writing issues, why is Rebecca Ferguson even in the movie? I think literally every part she was in could be cut without any impact to the movie. The action pieces are filler. Her dying is totally poinless and also immediately forgotten.

It seems hard to believe that splitting Dead Reckoning into two movies had no effect here. It’s like they had 3.5 hours of material, and are stretching it to 5 rather than compressing it to 2.5h.

I saw this last night. It was already out of the IMAX theater, so I saw it in a normal theater, but it was still a visual and audio feast for the senses.

The Rome chase had a bit of Bourne Supremacy style of fast cuts and realism mixed in with McCuarrie’s usual epic sweep and camera work that always lets you envision in your mind’s eye exactly what’s happening.

I loved the pacing and the writing. McCuarrie really knows when the audience is exhausted and needs a break. It goes from intense to relaxed to intense, to funny to exciting to quietly intense to confusing to weirdly emotional, and so on. Watching these movies is like a well designed rollercoaster ride. The anticipation, the curiousity, it’s never the same again the second time when you know what’s going to happen, but man, that first time on the ride is truly breathtaking.

The weirdly emotional moment for me was when Ethan recruits Grace and tells her he would put her life about his own. “You don’t even know me”. It got me to tear up, honestly, what a weirdly powerful moment about comradery and friendship right in the middle of an action movie. I’m a bit surprised some of you are overthinking the story during this kind of ride. Between the action scenes and the story beats, there was only enough time for me to be emotionally invested in the outcome of the scene I was watching, and anticipate the success or failure of the next scene. I think in that way the dialog and story beats were incredibly successful.

Of course, McCuarrie and company are not playing fair. The editing and music is once again spectacular and a huge part of crafting those emotional beats and feelings of melancholy. The acting is top notch here as well. I wasn’t too impressed with Agent Carter in the Captain America movie, so to see here was just so unexpected and amazing. Both her and Tom Cruise and the rest of the cast really did an amazing job of capturing just the right emotional intensity in all their numerous closeups.

Well done. The Mission Impossible movies are still the poster child for me for why going to the movies is something we should continue to do.

TLDR: Go see this in the theater everyone. It’s a treat and you deserve it.

It got to me too. It’s the core of Ethan Hunt’s character that the McQuarrie movies have been honing in on, and it’s such a refreshing, sincere idealism.

You just know that at the end of the next film that gets paid off, so to speak.

I give it 10% chance Ethan is alive at the end of part 2

Yeah, that statement pretty much requires him to die for narrative satisfaction.

I saw this late last night and after being a little put off by the run time, it ended up going by pretty fast. I thought the stunts were great, a particularly good one toward the end had a nice Posideon Adventure vibe and was probably my favorite. I can see why they have so many videos advertising the practical stunts as practical stunts. To really appreciate the motorcycle stunt, you have to know that it was practical. With the capability of CGI, it’s too easy to dismiss such a stunt as all CGI (as it is, the ramp is CGI, and if you’re going to do the ramp, why not just do the whole thing? I mean, maybe there is some technical reason you cannot do that stunt as purely CGI, but even if there is, there won’t be in a few short years.) The answer is, of course, to get people to come to see Tom Cruise risk life and limb to entertain us, right?

I was not crazy about the nemesis in this one. Rogue AI? Really? And it doesn’t help that there is no good way to dramatize a rogue AI. Or maybe there is, but what I saw in MI7 wasn’t very inspiring. A crazy lead-in that takes a really long time and is super confusing and then a lot of talking heads assuring everyone this rogue AI is a bad mofo. All that stuff sounds like crazy “Y2K” conspiracy theory talk that I find hard to swallow. And kudos to the art director or whoever came up with the idea of making the disco lights at the nightclub a menacing manifestation of the rogue AI. I love Tom Cruise looking up at the light suspiciously and going, “omg, we’re in the entity now.” No, Ethan, this is a nightclub and those are disco lights.

And since when are the IMF team former convicts? I thought they were ex-military? I couldn’t figure out if the Ethan love interest backstory was canon or something inserted for this movie? I know I have seen all the other mission impossible at least once, so I was surprised to be surprised about the backstory.

I don’t disagree with your critiques, but I was still entertained.

But the plot could have easily been in an episode of Rick & Morty. But in R&M Rick would have figured out how to outsmart the AI by doing the opposite of what it would have predicted, and then doing the opposite of that because he knew the AI would assume he would do the opposite.

In fact, it’s a nearly identical plot device to the heist episode from the most recent season.

I finally went and saw this last night. I really liked the action sequences, particularly the car chase in Rome (I was just in Rome in June and it was so familiar!) Hayley Atwell is dreamy, Rebecca Ferguson is badass and Tom Cruise finally looks his age. The plot was, as others have mentioned, garbage. The AI stuff is super dumb, shoved in there without need, and needs a bunch of exposition that doesn’t even come close to filling in the plot holes. It kind of reminded me of John Wick 4 with all these bombastic camera shots rotating around the actors while they stand there doing very little. There’s a whole long scene which only purpose is to show Tom Cruise running. (Rebecca Ferguson can run like that too; she does it in Dune. No showcase here though.) I was entertained the whole time, but I’ve always liked the M:I film plots before. This movie was nonsense.

To be fair, that’s true of every Tom Cruise movie.

Except maybe Born on the Fourth of July.

Okay, that one blew Coke out my nose, damn it!

“That blew coke out my airplane!” could be an American Made tagline.

Had a really good time with MI7 but didn’t enjoy it quite as much as 5 or 6. As some folks have talked about, the Macguffin felt the most Macguffin-y of all the Macguffins whichsold Esai Morales a little short in some ways. This one also felt like the writing was supporting the stunts instead of the other way around (even if they start with the stunts first and craft a story around it). 5 and 6 had some really strong writing to it that made the story/characters/etc really strong and the great stunts were a nice bonus.

Finally, I really appreciate that they do some much practical stunt work, but when you film a practical fight on a moving train and then have to CGI the alps behind it and add trees to the foreground or whatever, it ends up looking pretty fake in the end. Same thing happened with the parachuting sequence in 6 once they brought in the lightning storm. Having said all that, I’m definitely looking forward to part 2.