MISSION IMPOSSIBLE - FINAL RECKONING -- Middling Franchise Collapses Under Weight of One Man's Hubris

Review by Daniel Lima

There is something inherently interesting about a big budget vanity project, an artist who uses the prodigious resources at their disposal to create a monument to themselves and their hubris. Mission Impossible – Final Reckoning puts that notion to the test. On a certain level, it is impressive to see such a vast canvas used to create something so vapid, so empty, so deluded and lost in its self-importance as both the latest in a franchise spanning three decades, and as Tom Cruise’s claim on the modern cinematic landscape. It is hard to get to energized by that, however, when it is so painfully dull.

Beginning only a couple months after the previous entry, the film sees Cruise’s government agent Ethan Hunt reuniting with his team as they attempt to stop The Entity, a sentient AI set on destroying the world by taking control of every nuclear state’s arsenal. In the face of this existential threat, Cruise must both negotiate both a paranoid political landscape and perilous environments in order to obtain the means to destroy the computer program.

If you’re at all confused by this synopsis, fear not, because you will hear it spelled out for you ad nauseam. ​

Final Reckoning continues one of most egregious flaws of the last one, beginning with a torrent of exposition that continues almost without interruption through to the credits. Every conversation reiterates that this is a dangerous foe the likes of which the world had never seen, that only Tom Cruise can stop it, that he needs the key to submarine and the submarine holds the key to stopping the Entity and the Entity wants total annihilation and if they get the key to the submarine they can get the key in the submarine to stop the Entity that wants total annihilation. There are even flashbacks to help make things clear, not only to past entries, but to scenes that passed mere minutes before.

The constant establishment and reestablishment of what is at stake bogs down the momentum of the film, with agonizingly long stretches of people sitting in rooms talking to each other about what needs to happen next. Past films in the series were content to give the barest possible justification to get from one set piece to the next; here, the justification is the set piece, and it’s every bit as thrilling as it sounds. It’s as if the script doesn’t trust that the audience can follow the goals of the characters, and so it proceeds to spend so much time laying them out that the explanation itself becomes white noise.

The time not spent on plot is spent on the characters. Not fleshing out their histories, or building up their personalities, or giving them some dimension to make them feel like people. Instead, the film takes the legacy sequel approach of making the audience care about the characters by reminding you of all the time you’ve spent with them. It is assumed that since you’ve seen Ving Rhames in eight of these movies across thirty years, you must have an emotional attachment to him, even though he has no discernible personality trait beyond being friends with Tom Cruise. Angela Bassett was in one of these, so now that she’s playing the president we’ll spend ample time as she decides whether to preemptively nuke the world (this is a non-spoiler review, so I’ll leave you in suspense). Not to mention the guy who’s apparently the son of one of the previous villains, and the guy who popped up at the end of an iconic scene in the first movie but didn’t have any lines. One person gets a dramatic death scene, and they aren’t ever even named. ​

When these movies are operating as fun thrill rides, it’s harder to fault the lack of effort that’s put in developing the characters. Final Reckoning instead takes on an air of dour seriousness, and so the emphasis it places on some idea of emotional pathos lays bare how horribly shallow they all are. This is made even worse by the insufferable callbacks to series lore, a blatant appeal to nostalgia that is more likely to go over the heads of even longtime fans than actually make the audience care about what happens.

This extends to the antagonist of the film. The simple fact is an enemy with no physical presence, that the hero barely interacts with, who has no personal ties to the hero, who doesn’t ever directly affect what the hero is up against in any given scene, is a terrible villain. Regardless of how much breath is spent on how dangerous the Entity is, it is less dramatically compelling than any foe in any of the other movies precisely because the degree of remove it has from what is unfolding. Even Esai Morales, the bland human henchman of the AI from Dead Reckoning, has been cut loose from it. That leaves the primary driver of the plot an amorphous, impersonal, invisible threat, which hardly suffices for a big action blockbuster.​

For many, the action has been the highlight of this franchise, and it has generally risen above the low standards of most Hollywood studio fare. Sadly, it has never been less impressive. Depending on how you stretch the definition of “action”, there are four set pieces, amounting to maybe a half hour over the course of three hours. Two of these are unremarkable brawls, decently choreographed and captured but unimaginative and brief. One sequence sees Cruise cautious moving through a downed submarine on the edge of an ocean floor cliff, easily the highlight of the film, yet reminiscent of the last. The climax has him dangling off some propeller planes, an impressive stunt, but even that is crosscut with, what else, people standing in rooms talking. After so many grueling hours of nothing happening, it is too little too late.

The exposition, the weak characters, the flimsy emotional appeals, the limp villain, the middling action, there is something underpinning all these issues: this movie isn’t fun. There are other films in the franchise that are weak in one area or another, but they all have the tone of a rousing summer crowd pleaser. The plot moved quickly, characters had identifiable personalities beyond their role in the story, they laughed and argued and felt distinct. It is only with these last two entries, pitched as series finales, that an air of operatic grandiosity has suffocated all the verve, instead insisting on a gravity and weight that goes unsupported by what’s actually on screen.

This shift can be partially attributed to the fact that the Reckoning films are positioned as a finale, though time will tell if such an identifiable IP will be allowed to lay dormant. It also folds neatly into the current studio obsession with legacy sequels, constantly attempting to forge an emotional connection between old media and modern consumers, no matter how forced. More than anything, however, it’s worth looking at the man powering the entire franchise: Tom Cruise.

After a decade of bad press, a career slump, and losing his family, Cruise managed to completely turn around his image. Where he was once seen as a cultist with an army of slaves who eats placenta and jumps on couches, he is now the Entertainer-in-Chief, the President of Movies, devoted entirely to pleasing a global audience any way he can. Climbing the Burj Khalifa, learning to HALO jump, taking on financial burdens to make real movies that shoot on film and are made to be seen in a theater a reality, these actions have completely rehabilitated his image in the eyes of the public.

The Mission Impossible series has been a large part of that, and as audiences and critics have responded with such glowing praise to these films, it seems that the acclaim has affected how he and his creative have approach them. These can no longer be larks, frivolous and light-hearted romps punctuated by intense action. Tom Cruise — Ethan Hunt — is bigger than that. Suddenly, the events of these middle action films become the stuff of myth and legend. Every character, every frame, every word must now take on an almost religious importance, and this “final” entry must take on a stately affect, lest the audience get led astray in thinking that they are supposed to be having fun.

Perhaps it’s unfair to lay this at the feet of one man, but given how central he has been to the marketing, the stylistic similarities between all his recent creative endeavors, and his own demeanor when producing and promoting them, it’s near impossible to not see a movie like this as a monument to himself. The most interesting way to evaluate Dead Reckoning is as the most expensive vanity film of all time.

For it to succeed on those terms, it would need to offer a level of sophistication and depth in the storytelling to complement how po-faced and self-serious it is. For all its posturing and dreary exposition, however, this film is no more interested in actually exploring tangible ideas than any of the previous ones. In spite of Cruise’s own professed disdain for AI, the film offers only the most surface level commentary on how it affects our own world. While the heroes are subverting the will of the government in attempting to destroy the program rather than deliver it to their superiors, the film confines all misgivings about the US security state to one character, with chunks of this movie that play more like a recruitment ad for the military and intelligence agencies than a summer blockbuster. Even that insistence that the AI needs to be destroyed can be interpreted as skepticism about a radical restructuring of the world. Even that requires interrogating the premise with more intellectual rigor than anyone who worked on it.

Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning is many things. An action epic bereft of action, a political thriller with shallow politics and few thrills, corporate IP that asserts its place in the culture with no emotional foundation. It is a mask for a man whose own identity has become that mask, even though his efforts to make that facade meaningful in and of itself are in vain. One crucial thing that this movie is not, however, is good.

Mission Impossible: Final Reckoning is now in theaters.

Rating: 1.5/5