The Mission: Impossible Thread

[Silver Nemesis]

This thread, should you choose to accept it, is for the Mission: Impossible franchise.

I went to see Dead Reckoning Part One today. I've seen every Mission: Impossible film on the big screen since the first movie came out in 1996, and I wasn't going to miss this one. The latest instalment is another satisfying entry in a franchise that ranks alongside Rocky for sheer consistency. Dead Reckoning doesn't do anything terribly innovative. These films are, after all, very formulaic. But they execute the formula well. Much better than the Bond films have over the past few decades.

Nobody's going to see a Mission: Impossible movie for deep storytelling or weighty drama. You see these films for the action, humour and suspense. The characters are developed just enough to make us like them if they're good guys, or dislike them if they're villains. But it's not a character-driven franchise, any more than it's plot-driven. Instead it's all about the set pieces and stunts, with the story, such as it is, serving to connect one suspenseful sequence to the next. Dead Reckoning sticks to the tried and tested formula, and the results shouldn't disappoint anyone who liked the previous films.

I've previously expressed frustration with the modern trend for popcorn flicks running over two hours in length, and Dead Reckoning is another example of that. But I wasn't bored during it, just as I wasn't bored during John Wick 4. However I do wish filmmakers would rediscover the art of tight editing and start getting their films down to two hours. Not every film needs to be that length, but most popcorn films should aspire for it.

There's a note of topicality in Dead Reckoning's antagonistic AI, the Entity. These movies have always been tech thrillers at heart, so having an enemy that can attack and misdirect the IMF through their technology is an interesting concept. Less interesting is the MacGuffin of the two keys, though I expect the significance of the Sevastopol submarine will be clarified and expanded on in the sequel.

(SPOILERS) I didn't know in advance that Ilsa was going to die, but I predicted she would based on two clues. The first was her fake death at the start of the movie. This reminded me straight away of Spock's fake death at the start of Wrath of Khan, which was used to lure fans into a sense of false security before hitting them with his real death later on. As soon as Ilsa turned up alive, I had a feeling they might kill her for real. The other clue came in the form of the scenes leading up to the party in Venice, where we saw Elsa and Ethan hugging and holding hands. The sole purpose of those scenes was to emphasise the emotional bond between them, which was an obvious portent of the tragedy to come. Still, her death was a bold move and Rebecca Ferguson's last fight scene was a good one.

Speaking of the cast, Tom Cruise once again proves he's the last real movie star in Hollywood. As you'd expect, he performs several breathtaking stunts that eclipse the bland CGI action of most other recent action movies. He might be in his sixties now, but he's still in excellent shape and is clearly physically capable of handling the workload, so I hope he'll continue entertaining us for many more years to come. If Dead Reckoning Part Two sticks the landing, he'll have had a hit movie three years in a row. That's an increasingly rare thing for an actor these days.

It was nice to see Henry Czerny return as Kittridge, and I enjoyed Hayley Atwell's performance as Grace. That female thief archetype can sometimes come off as annoyingly smug or unlikeable, such as Anne Hathaway's performance in The Dark Knight Rises. And while there are some obvious similarities between Grace and the Nolanverse Selina, what with both seeking a 'clean slate', I found Atwell's performance a lot more endearing. I'll look forward to seeing how well she adapts to being a member of the IMF in the sequel.

That's about all I have to say on Dead Reckoning. I didn't like it quite as much as Top Gun: Maverick, and I don't think it's the best Mission: Impossible film, but it's a good action flick and a worthy addition to one of the strongest movie franchises around. So it's a thumbs up from me.

This post will self-destruct in five seconds if nobody replies.

[thecolorsblend]

Your remark about the CGI intrigues me. Because it is true that the MI series overall has tried to use quality effects. A good example is Cruise's motorcycle base jump. While the stunt itself is real, the effects team replaced the pristine ramp with a rocky outcropping that blends in seamlessly with the surrounding environment.

I'm starting to get the idea that if a film production doesn't want post-production time with endless reshoots of material they should've gotten the first time, the rest of the production pipeline won't suffer. For example, craptacular CGI effects shots that got bashed out in one week because the VFX technicians had zero time to finish their work.

I saw MIDR1 in 4DX. As I mentioned in the thread about Bale's fighting style, the gimmick isn't something I would go out of my way to repeat. But I figured that if any movie was worth spending the extra money, it pretty much has to be MI.

As to the movie itself, this franchise is one of the most consistent in all of Hollywood. And I know where of I speak since the past week was the first time I watched most of the MI films. But something that doesn't get talked about as much is the characterizations.

Yes, Ethan does a lot of absolutely insane thing to complete his missions. But he's not a caricatured Action Star. He doesn't actually WANT to do the death-defying things that he does. But he does them anyway because others need him to do it. So, he does it. But the hesitation Ethan shows before executing his motorcycle launch says it all. He wishes he could find ANY other way to do what he needs to do.

And that means something. I like that he's not Ethan The Superhero. He's Ethan The Spy, who's all too mortal and knows that it's possible for him to misjudge or make a mistake.

Atwell fit right in with the rest of the cast. I was sad to see Ilsa go, frankly. Still, I'm already seeing people argue that Grace is a better non-love interest for Ethan anyway. But we all have our biases. And in my case, Ilsa looks like an ex gf of mine that I always had a high opinion of.

Still, I like the fact that the Mission Impossible franchise now has its own Catwoman. And let's face it, Grace is a fun character.

By virtue of the fact that I saw a 4DX showing of the film, the crowd in my theater is already very different from other moviegoers. Where they're cinema enthusiasts or MI enthusiasts, I'm not sure their reaction to the film should be treated as normative. At least, not necessarily.

Still, it seems like nobody came out of my screening disappointed with the film. They had a great time at the movies, they ate buttery popcorn and they were able to put their problems aside for a little while and enjoy the action and spectacle.

I can quibble over the film's runtime (it didn't NEED to be that long) or Ethan and Grace's forced reunion with each other on the train allowing time for the key to get stolen again or Luther and Benji's relatively smaller roles in the film. But in the end, small details like that aren't worth making a big deal about.

I can't wait for MIDR2!

One other note. A few people did walk out of the theater. I guess the seats bouncing around and the splashing water was too much for them. Admittedly, they did look sort of old so I'm not sure what they were doing in that theater in the first place, tbh.

[The Dark Knight]

I've been going to the cinema to watch Mission Impossible films since I've been 11 year old. I was playing the N64 game after school. I don't know where to begin in explaining my accumulated enjoyment of this franchise, so I'll first start with the newest entry.

I think Part One is a good movie and it continues the run of consistency. I appreciate how this sets itself up as a two partner from the get go with the submarine opening. It introduces the threat and shows us where the story will ultimately end - that's smart filmmaking. The story itself is pretty straightforward (find the keys) but there's an epic scale to how it unfolds and it takes its time to set the scene. Of course there's action, and when it comes it's top quality.

I was extremely impressed with Gabriel as a villain, whose name amplifies the idea Ethan is taking on God via the Entity. He had mystique and sense of danger about him that other villains in recent times haven't reached, and it's great to know there's more to come with him. He puts his faith in the data and its predictions. He's right about what happens to Ilsa, which justifies his belief and also makes the audience hate him more.

I appreciate what the Entity brings to the table in terms of disrupting the team dynamic, namely guiding Ethan around environments. Digitally masking people for misdirection was also a good idea, and helped make the traditional/customary scenes feel a little bit different - and timely.

It's a longer length movie but hand on heart I didn't feel its weight due to the pacing. Before you know it they're talking about the train sequence and you realize things are coming to a close. I dig how Tom had the movie end in the context this is a two parter. There's more to come but the final scene has Ethan with the key and the villain thwarted. It doesn't crash to a black screen. There's a sense of satisfaction in what has just happened. I suppose you could just watch Part One and leave it there, but you want to see what follows.

Cruise and Macquarie have a formula that works and I'm hoping they keep their partnership going forward. They have a rough template of what set pieces they're looking to do, but everything is still up or debate and can be changed on the day of shooting. They talk in depth about what works for each character and what works best for the audience. Usually that style of filmmaking results in chaos and reshoots galore, but these two just make it happen. As Tom said, having a script is very different to acting something out.

I'm hoping they can finish Part Two this year for its 2024 release date.

[Silver Nemesis]

[The Dark Knight]

Retconning Dead Reckoning Part One into just Dead Reckoning makes business sense to me. Not as many people saw the first part as expected, and those who didn't may not be interested in jumping in for a story they aren't up to date with. Final Reckoning still gives connective tissue but allows it to be sold as a final chapter style film that appeals to a broader audience. I think Dead Reckoning, while great, needed to be a bigger hit to create more positive momentum. It will be interesting to see if the required interest is there.