Mission: Impossible - La Sentence Finale

As both parts of the final film in the Mission Impossible franchise were shot back to back, I can't understand the marketing decision to release the 2 chapters 2 years apart. Having said that, the opening- again - was a masterpiece: fast, entertaining, suspenseful. What followed thereafter was 1 hour too long. They just stretched the final action scene endlessly and the White House/ Pentagon scenes were too pompous and too long. One could have made the film so much better and more entertaining by cutting A LOT of scenes. However the movie was still fun, but by far not the best of the series. All actors were excellent, the action scenes were the stars, as usual. Unfortunately many dialogues sounded like the were written by "the entity" aka KI.

Mission: Impossible - The Final Reckoning is a bit of a disappointment, coming off the particularly high highs of Fallout and Dead Reckoning. The stakes are heightened narratively, with the end of the world being imminent throughout, but you don't often feel the desperation; you're mostly just told about it. And that's one of the things that holds this film back. It's so weighed down in exposition and dialogue scenes that aren't necessarily that much worse than such scenes in the other films in the series, but they're inferior enough that they start to drag. And there's not enough action here, which feels weird to say. There needed to be one more set piece, preferably during the first hour, because this is a long movie and the first hour or more is honestly a bit dull. The funny banter was also much less funny, when they even attempted humor. It's kind of a dour movie, which makes sense with the stakes, but also, I didn't really feel those stakes. So I would've rather just had that usual breezy team chemistry and joke-making.

Speaking of stakes and showing things, I would've loved a set piece in a populated area? Or an action scene that felt more alive/crowded/in a place that felt real. In The Final Reckoning, there's an extended one with Cruise alone, one near the end (and on some of the posters for the film) involving some small planes, and then a handful of small shootouts and fist fights. There's nothing that's as big or as exciting as the whole train sequence in Dead Reckoning, and that film had some city action (plus a great car chase) and the whole airport scene. It's fresher in my mind than The Final Reckoning, even though I saw one two years ago and the other two hours ago. There's more tension and a feeling of danger when you can see civilization and bystanders, I think. And with everyone in the world being in danger because of the plot, it was weird to feel like no one (other than the main heroes and villains) was in danger during the action scenes.

The finale of this movie is smaller scale, but that sequence is a knockout. It's almost worth the price of admission, but you do have to slog through some dreary stuff beforehand. The end of the world is nigh, but mostly you just hear about it, or some high-ranking government officials discuss things in board/bored rooms (and some of those scenes feel like if they were pushed into territory that was any more over-dramatic, we'd have Dr. Strangelove-esque comedy).

The more I think about it, the more I realize this was kind of disappointing, even if I really loved the one big action scene that will, eventually, be the only thing I remember about this. I'm torn between like a 3/5 or a 3.5/5, and think I have to go more toward the former, just because this is too long for something with so little action. It needed to show more of the world, and we needed at least one sequence with more people and things in it. I feel like Dead Reckoning had about two or three times more great action than this, and the same can be said about Fallout. Dead Reckoning was a few minutes shorter, and Fallout was like half an hour shorter. Neither cost as much, but both felt more expensive. More bang for your buck watching those, and fewer bucks spent by the filmmakers to make them. The Final Reckoning feels pretty expensive, but not $300-400 million expensive.

They got a little lazy with The Final Reckoning. They didn't get lazy in the couple of particularly flashy scenes, but they needed more big scenes and they shouldn't have had the film feel so empty. Too much telling, not enough showing. The lack of a consistent villain throughout hurt - Gabriel was a compelling presence in Dead Reckoning, but he's not in this one as much, disappearing for long stretches at a time.

The Final Reckoning comes alive in parts. The plane stuff is thrilling. 90% of the movie, or maybe even a little more, fluctuates between being a tiny bit disappointing and very disappointing. I guess overall, I'm quite disappointed they couldn't keep the momentum going; these films had just kept getting better, from the second onwards, but no more.

This really will be the Final one, I Reckon. Can't see it turning a profit, either.

Mission Impossible: The Final Reckoning serves as the grandest and boldest farewell to arguably the greatest action franchise of all time. Yet, it lacks a true sense of finality.

The film shoulders a colossal burden, attempting to deliver a worthy goodbye to Ethan Hunt and the iconic franchise. It aims to provide satisfying conclusions to a bloated roster of side characters while also setting up inevitable cash-grab sequels. Additionally, it strives to outdo every previous installment by going bigger and bolder than ever. While it excels in some areas, it falters in others.

One of the film's biggest challenges is managing its vast ensemble of characters. The script occasionally struggles to balance them all, resulting in scenes where some characters randomly appear and disappear, seemingly out of convenience rather than logic. This inconsistency can be jarring, pulling the audience out of the experience.

In typical Mission Impossible fashion, the film promises the most spectacular set pieces yet-and it delivers. These grand, meticulously crafted action sequences are thrilling to watch. However, their constant back-to-back presence somewhat dampens their impact. Once the audience becomes accustomed to the relentless spectacle, the element of surprise and tension starts to wane.

The stunts, while still impressive, carry a bittersweet note. Unlike previous installments where Tom Cruise's daring feats were fully captured on camera, this time around, roughly half of the action scenes rely on noticeable green screen effects. Though understandable, given Cruise's age and safety precautions, it slightly detracts from the visceral thrill of witnessing genuine stunts, making the danger feel less real.

Performance-wise, this installment shines, particularly with Angela Bassett delivering one of the most emotionally charged portrayals in the franchise. The script's emphasis on deeper emotions allows for some of the finest acting moments in the series.

However, the editing feels somewhat sloppy, giving the impression that substantial material was left on the cutting room floor. While the brisk pacing keeps the film engaging, it sometimes feels as if we're only witnessing the start and end of scenes without the journey in between, leaving a sense of incompleteness. The cutting is fast, but not in an exhilarating manner-instead, it's disorienting.

If this truly is the final goodbye to the Mission Impossible series, it's been an unforgettable ride. Despite its flaws, the franchise remains the pinnacle of action cinema in my book, and its legacy will undoubtedly endure for generations. I've said this before, and I'll say it again: we are witnessing a master at craft. Cherish it while you can.

This message will self-destruct in five seconds.

It should be titled "Missing" Impossible. Everything you love about the MI franchise is gone. If you are expecting an espionage thriller, there are 7 other Mission Impossible movies for that. It isn't this. The story is convoluted and doesn't make sense. The editing is so choppy and doesn't feel cohesive. Taking place less than 2 months after the last movie, so much has changed that is never explained. How is so-and-so president all of a sudden when they weren't 2 months prior? How did that other character get into the state they are in? No explanation. The franchise should have ended with the last movie. This felt like it was all about Tom Cruise trying to prove to himself and others that he can still do this. What a disappointment!

It was quite clear this film had lofty ambitions since the previous entry.

And considering what it is, what came before it and the legacy it was meant to conclude.. I was expecting to be wowed! Not bored at the start, anxious for something to happen in the middle, and losing all hope to at least be surprised by the end.

It is almost 3 hours long, and the little that does happen, is buried between too much nothing. Awful pacing, dull and meanders dialogue that often goes nowhere nor builds-up to something, a completely dull villain and threat. And worse of all.. what is the point in a movie that constantly tells you exactly how it is going to go? And by virtue of being what it is, there is absolutely no mystery about its conclusion. Not playing with a viewer's expectation is NOT a requirement in storytelling.. but you have to give them something! A bit of tension and intrigue.

It's a shame because I can see what it wanted to achieve with its premise, but it feels stuck in the past while trying to use more modern tropes.

Still, it is entertaining enough, and provides spectacle-scenes so incredible anyone would be hard pressed to replicate them in such quality. The cast is okay, the locations good, great production, visuals and cinematography.

But a film has to be more than a few set pieces and scenes.. it has to work as a whole and be more than the sum of its parts.

It's a fact that not all previous entries have been stellar. So I'm somewhat sad this is how M. I. "ends".