The first reactions to Mission: Impossible — Dead Reckoning Part One are here
The seventh installment in the Mission Impossible franchise premieres in theaters on July 10
Aux News Mission: Impossible
Now that Mission: Impossible — Dead Reckoning Part One is less than a month away, it’s time to find out whether or not the seventh installment in Tom Cruise’s death (of cinema)-defying franchise lives up to the hype. As early reactions for the film start to roll in, it’s beginning to become apparent that number 7 is definitely a lucky number for Ethan Hunt (Cruise) and his penchant for outlandish missions peppered with massive stunts.
For the most part, viewers and critics alike had plenty of flowers to deliver to the film, which appears to have more than earned its two-and-a-half-hour run time. Early critical reactions highlight MI7's “through the roof” production value, “next-level” action sequences, and overall “behemoth-sized spectacle.” As one reviewer simply puts it: “It’s a must see on the largest screen available.”
The film also received positive feedback for wrangling a “sprawling” and “dense” story, still managing to leave at least one reviewer “dying for what comes next” and actually setting up the film for an upcoming second half. Overall, the film received widespread praise for setting up and pulling off a big swing (and for keeping Henry Czerny fans fed).
However, not every viewer was completely swept away by the action, with The Wrap critic Scott Mendelson calling the film “a big letdown” with “wonky dialogue, oddly broad acting, and narrative contrivances/shortcuts.” And although Uproxx writer Mike Ryan opined that the film functions well as director Christopher McQuarrie’s “ambitious examination of/meditation on AI and the dangerous path we might be on,” he ultimately decides that it’s “not as satisfying” as the last Mission: Impossible film, 2018's Mission: Impossible—Fallout.
Mission: Impossible — Dead Reckoning Part One premieres in theaters on July 12.
21 Comments
Once, just one time I would love to read a first impression that actually accurately reflected the thing that was being reviewed. Like, ‘“Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning” is a perfectly acceptable way to pass an hour and a half. Unfortunately it is nearly three hours long much of which is spent trying to convince me that a grinning midget who just finished his sixth decade on Earth (leaving the question of thetans aside) is in fact an Olympic level athlete with charisma who is capable of loving human relationships.’ or something.
It’s a mutually exclusive venn diagram between critics who want to get the flashiest blurb published and media outlets looking for the most interesting opinion; it’s not the time/place in the media cycle for a thoughtful, balanced perspective.
It sounds like you’re perfectly capable of generating the impression that you apparently want to get from a movie you haven’t seen.(I’m not saying your impression is inaccurate, but what exactly are you asking for?)
Fallout’s actual reviews were almost universally positive, so I’m guessing these impressions are a little more accurate than yours.
First reactions are pointless. For example, the first reactions for Quantumania made it sound like the best MCU film ever when it was nothing more than perfectly serviceable.My prediction for Dead Reckoning? The plot will be incomprehensible, dumb, and utterly forgettable, but the movie will be saved by fun characters and terrific set pieces as usual.
Top gun maverick seems more your speed unless you just don’t enjoy action films. It is simple so i can’t see someone thinking it’s incomprehensible unless they get confused easily. It’s about real life stuff or relates to it as much as you want with fiction while being well fictional, so it’s still escapism fun, cause let’s face it if you’re going to the movies for a serious thing just watch a documentary that way things that are out there won’t be “dumb”. Lastly, it has such a simple plot I’d be hard-pressed to forget it…Did you like that movie more? To be fair, I think any action film can come off bad if you break it down to them doing impossible stuff or unlikely things and trying to achieve something big like save the world, city, themselves. Even romance is bad by those metrics…it’s about two or more people or one falling in love…that’s it. Or out of love. Bare basics, all movies are bad, they just have someone doing something…then it ends…lol. Seems rather anticlimactic. You get what you put in. What I’m trying to say is…Fast and Furious 5 was the best fast and furious movie.
You misunderstand me. I enjoy the fuck out of the MI movies, and I sure as hell like the characters more than Top Gun: Maverick. (The only non-Plane Goes Zoom moment from Maverick I liked was Val Kilmer’s cameo.)The thing is these movies aren’t about the plot. The plots simply exist to deliver the action. The genre has a proud history of this. Comedy too—just look at the ZAZ films or the Borat movies. And that’s ok. (Even the John Wick films barely have a plot—not to be confused with world building which the series has in abundance.)Also, “dumb” doesn’t necessarily mean bad. (Stoner movies count on this.) Tom Cruise needing a wrist band telling him how long he can hold his breath in Rogue Nation is dumb. The bombers dropping bombs at the beginning of The Last Jedi is dumb. But I loved both moments for different reasons: the wristband served as a visual ticking clock for the audience which ramped up the silliness of an already delightfully silly scene; and the bombs dropping in zero G was a throwback to the space battle scenes in Star Wars being shot-for-shot remakes of WWII dogfight footage.
Ok, gotcha. Yeah, i can agree with everything you said. I thought you were one of those people who call tons of stuff dumb and dumb stuff is in basically every movie. Those people are annoying since they call things dumb and use that as criticism to not like anything. It’s their opinion, so whatever just annoying lol.
…so like every Mission: Impossible film after the third one? Seriously, I couldn’t tell you what the plot of any of the ones after 3 actually was.
Not completely pointless.
If first reactions are bad or even mediocre, you know the movie is absolutely terrible. If first reactions are overwhelmingly positive, then it might be good.
I’m just hoping it actually resembles Mission: Impossible in the sense of having subterfuge and getting away with a complex scheme without anyone knowing rather than just… explosions and car chases and fistfights. (As awesome as the bathroom fight was in Fallout, it was about as un-MI as you can get.)
I dare anyone to summarize the plot of more than two of these movies. I know there was one involving a mole, who was a computer hacker on a train, and there was one with the climb in Dubai. And that’s it. I’ve seen at least 4 of them and that’s my collective memory of all of them.
They aren’t “movies” so much as a collection of setpieces where Tom Cruise might die on screen. I’m not saying that in any derogatory way.
I’m pretty sure I remember reading something from a writer or director or something (maybe even McQuarrie himself) saying basically that– that they come up with some boffo set pieces first, and then try to figure out a plot to shoehorn them into. (With varying levels of success.)
Wow, another “story” that is just a collection of tweets.
Wow, a bunch of people pre-selected for their likelihood to hype stuff up and given a special private screening are hyping up the movie? What a surprise! We definitely didn’t get articles like this about Flash or Black Adam or fucking Morbius for God’s sake!
Setting aside the hyperventilation of the first reactions quoted above… I saw the trailer for this movie before GotG3, and after years of hearing about how fun the series is I think that was the push needed to make me want to take the plunge. So, speaking as someone who’s seen a grand total of one (1) MI movie so far (M:I2, for the record), I have two questions:1. Which movies in the series are essential viewing before watching the latest installment of “Tom Cruise cheats death for your amusement”?2. Would you rather try to talk me out of watching what is, from pretty much all accounts, a pretty ludicrous blockbuster series?
MI2 is truly the only bad one imo, but if you don’t care to watch them all, you can start at MI4 easy enough and move in sequence from there.
The only one you have watched is the worst one by a mile. M:I2 is thunderingly bad. I personally like M:I1 the most as it’s kind of it’s own thing. M:I3 is where the new formula mostly gets established and there aren’t a lot of variations from there. They are all various levels of watchable with none of them standing out much as either good or bad. To answer your questions:1. Nothing essential. They are all pretty standalone. You might miss some callbacks, but nothing that will limit your enjoyment (at least if it’s like the other movies. I obviously haven’t seen the new one)2. Overall, most people will find the series worth their time.
The twist is that everyone thinks Ethan Hunt is the mole! -every Mission Impossible movie.
My understanding is that there is a character in MI:1 that is back for this installment AND there is a secondary character that has a weightier backstory based on a relationship to a character in MI:1. It has some classic set pieces and is quick, so it might be worth it.
After that, while nothing is particularly essential I would say Rogue Nation (#5) rounds out the supporting character relationships really well and is a pretty good stand alone. I personally like Rebecca Ferguson’s character a lot, and I think it does some really good work establishing the supporting character relationships from the regular team. It establishes the most current status quo of the series.
Other Contenders: Fallout (#6) is between Rogue Nation and Dead Reckoning, and has some of those spectacular set pieces, so if you were adding one more, this would be logical. Ghost Protocol (#4, mentioned elsewhere) is actually the movie that pivots the series back into relevance (also, Tom Cruise climbs a tall building) – it was originally set up as though it was pivoting the series to Jeremy Renner, but ends up working so well it seemed to reinvigorate everyone’s collective interest, which Rogue Nation built on. Ghost Protocol also has some back story more relevant to the last act plot of Fallout, so if considering Fallout in the run, it might just make sense to start with the 4th one.