Mission: Impossible—Dead Reckoning Part One review: Tom Cruise runs, jumps, and delivers again
Cruise teams up with Simon Pegg, Ving Rhames, and series newcomer Hayley Atwell for yet another impossibly good sequel
Film Reviews Mission: Impossible
Mission: Impossible—Dead Reckoning Part One delivers on expectations. It is, after all, the seventh film in this popular franchise that started way back in 1996. The audience knows exactly what they’re getting with one of these films. There will be lots of action with huge set pieces in many international locations. There will be someone in peril or perhaps the fate of the world will hang in the balance. There will be characters taking off latex masks to reveal a completely different character underneath. And of course, there will be Tom Cruise, as spy extraordinaire Ethan Hunt, running as fast as he can, jumping off cliffs and ultimately saving the day after surviving many close calls.
Thankfully, Dead Reckoning Part One is not just the Tom Cruise show; it’s also a story about friendship and the lengths the team will go to save each other. That team includes Luther (Ving Rhames), Benji (Simon Pegg), Ilsa (Rebecca Ferguson), and new addition Grace (Hayley Atwell), a pickpocket and thief for hire. The MacGuffin they are pursuing is a literal key, one that can unlock the secret powers of a nefarious and powerful AI. While the key is a rather sly joke on the plots of such big action movies, the introduction of AI takes Dead Reckoning Part One almost into Matrix territory. This AI is called “the entity”—which immediately recalls The Matrix’s “Oracle”—and is an all-seeing computer system that predicts the future. Yet as a villain it’s not fully formed, which makes caring about the stakes an uphill climb.
However, no one comes into these movies for the plot and the filmmakers know that. Christopher McQuarrie—who has directed every Mission: Impossible film since 2015’s Rogue Nation— keeps raising the action bar in Dead Reckoning Part One. From a cat-and-mouse sequence at a busy airport to a long car chase through Rome to a grand finale aboard a runaway train, each action scene tops the one before it. Plus, there are always at least two parallel stories happening during each of these action sequences. As a result, the tension never lets up and the quick cuts from one suspenseful event to the other ensures the rhythm is tight and highly engaging. The film, with its exemplary sound and special effects, is such a ride that in some instances audiences might think their seats are shaking. Indeed, there’s so much excitement that by the time the finale comes, many would surely feel the need to clap. McQuarrie and Cruise are betting on these sequences to make their film and they do.
While the action keeps the film humming along and the audience satisfied, the scenes in between the big set pieces are rather lackluster, full of plot expositions and ponderous dialogue about the end of the world. Even when the film returns to its theme of friendship, it does it so seriously that it stops the flow. It’s maybe asking too much for the audience to invest in such things when in the previous scene every vehicle in Rome was destroyed by our heroes with no care in the world. The screenplay, credited to McQuarrie and Erik Jendresen, should have kept things lighter.
The actors compensate and keep it moving. Atwell makes for a fantastic addition to the film’s core cast. Her banter with Cruise comes with wily amusement. She’s not intimidated by him; in fact, she matches him beat for beat and when the action moves to that long car chase scene she actually outmaneuvers him. Could Atwell prove herself cooler than Cruise? You bet. Vanessa Kirby returns as the White Widow and single-handedly adds a big jolt to the movie’s final third. She has to play two characters—those masks again—and ramp up the dramatic tension. She drolly conveys the easy charm of her character yet she’s also totally believable as someone in peril, adding real stakes to a film whose action is mostly cartoonish. Rhames and Pegg remain the perfect comedic foils to Cruise as they guide him through the numerous action sequences. Esai Morales appears as the enforcer for “the entity‘’ and brings such simmering malevolence to the character that he should have been the villain instead.
But Cruise remains the main attraction. He carries the film with aplomb and invests the action with enough familiarity from the previous films that fans will be more than happy. Yet he also keeps raising the action stakes, making Mission: Impossible—Dead Reckoning Part One a must-watch for anyone looking for a thrilling summer blockbuster.
Mission: Impossible—Dead Reckoning Part One opens in theaters July 12
99 Comments
The little infographic you’ve got in the middle of the page appears to have the information for the 1st Mission Impossible film, listing the cast and crew of that movie (e.g. Brian DePalma as director).
woo got early tickets for monday and i cannot wait. was shocked to see that it’s 2 hours and 43 minutes, but i guess that’s what we’ve gotta deal with.
I go to the movies a lot still but I don’t really get that
excited for most of them; this one, I am excited for. Just… does it
need to be almost 3 hours long? Some of us don’t have infinite bladder
capacity.
well if the last decade of movies have prepared me for anything it’s how to sit for 3+ hours in a movie theatre and not have to go pee till before or after. i usually walk to the theatre to dehydrate myself haha.
Movie length is the #1 reason I still don’t bother with theaters. If I know I’m going to be watching something that long, I know I’m going to need to use the bathroom – and honestly I’ve yet to run into one of the modern 2+ hour movies that has managed to keep my attention well enough that at some point I don’t pause and just go do something else until I can care about the movie again.Marvel’s really bad about it, and I’m kinda burned on thinking there’s any action film that can justify the length. Seriously, just save the “awesome set piece we just have to wedge in” for the next sequel.
The cinemas offering on-site catheterisation are going to make a killing.
Just hook it to my veins urethra!
Saw this today and believe me, that time will fly by. And you definitely do not get a chance in the movie to take a few minutes to leave the theatre so make sure you go before the movie starts !
No action movie needs to be damn near 3 hours. They aren’t trying to condense a super deep story along the lines of something like Dune. That is a hard pass for me.
It’s fantastic, the almost-three-hours just flies by. Hahaha, hit the facilities just before (or like right as) the train scene starts, because you won’t want to leave when it does 😀
These movies sit the same blind spot for me the Fast and Furious movies do.I saw the first one and enjoyed it, heard the second one was not very good and never went back. Should I give them a watch?
i mean if you’ve gone almost 30 years why not just keep the streak alive?
The first one’s incredibly weird compared to the rest of them: it was a stylish spy thriller, with aspirations to being somewhat smart and cool. Then they became action films.
I can sympathize – when I was younger, I too once had aspirations of being somewhat smart and cool.
They didn’t just become action films, they became fantastic action films.
The first one is uber De Palma, with all the good and bad that comes with it. I prefer the sequels, in which Cruise seems a little freer from the Hitchcock imitator’s style. In the second one, Cruise’s co-star is Thandie Newton; count the mainstream movies back in 2000 that had the balls to do a mixed race romance (no matter how gorgeous). Philip Seymour Hoffman, especially, is the most terrifying Bond villain ever.
The third was where they actually started getting good, and have only accelerated in that direction since.
I really loved the first one, but the John Woo one that came right after should be avoided at all cost. It’s really horrible.
The first one leaves a bad taste in my mouth for making Jim Phelps (from the TV show) a traitor. Especially with money as the motivation. If Phelps wanted $10M, he could steal it every day of the week and twice on Sundays without anyone knowing about it.
Having never watched the TV show I didn’t have any particular attachment to Phelps, so his motivation (first articulated as an attempt at misdirection) didn’t bother me. I do agree someone with his skill set could likely run highly successful financial scams without breaking a sweat.
Counterpoint: it’s not that bad if you like American John Woo movies.
It’s like there are two phases of MI films: 1-3 seemed like they functioned in the same general genre and are perfectly fine, then the franchise found its footing from 4-present and became the standard bearer for action films.Watch 1-3 to understand the characters, then sit back and enjoy the more recent films for how great they are.
You don’t really need to know much about the characters. 15 movies in and Ethan Hunt is still arguably the most underdeveloped action franchise character in history. The movies still work, but all you need to know is that Ethan Hunt is:A) Determined and,
B) Enjoys running
C) Kinda has a wife but could take it or leave it.
Yeah, but they got divorced, but they’re still friends… Sometimes… or something?
But… is he determined to enjoy running? He certainly doesn’t look like it.
No, definitely not.
Sure doesn’t look like he gets much in the way of results out of all that effort.
1-3 were experiments where Tom Cruise wanted each director to interpret each film any way they wanted. Then JJ Abrams showed up and was like, “Alias, though” and suddenly they decided to make them stylish heist films forever. And then McQuarrie showed up and was like, “Also, what if Tom Cruise risks his life doing stunts in each one” and the rest was history.
I think you might be onto something: McQuarrie maybe is just playing the long game and this is all an elaborate plan to kill Tom Cruise.
I don’t think I agree with that. The first two are completely different from each other and from the rest of the bunch. The third is (for me) one of the best of the series, but regardless of ranking I find it much more in line with what came later.
The M: I movies are the perfect antidote to the MCU-DC superhero deluge of shitty CGI action. The stunts are real, in-camera, and you feel like you’re right there with the characters. It’s a breath of fresh air. It is action done right, and you’ll find yourself wondering why we put up with anything less.
They are excellent. 2 was definitely the weakest. But they are AMAZING after that.
Second one is the worst of the series and can be skipped. Third one was worth watching for Philip Seymour Hoffman’s turn as the villain. Fourth on was worth it for the Burj Khalifa stunt, really breathtaking, and for the scene where the Red Square blows up. After that they each had a great stunt set piece, but the plots start getting too confusing for me to keep interest. Henry Cavill reloads his arms impressively in one of them, I forget which.
Something that by rights should look really stupid but he pulls off convincingly.
Do they make a “chk-chk” sound?
They did, but those cowards at the foley department edited it out in post.
I would assume Cavill’s do, yes.
That Cavill/Cruise/buff scary guy fight in the bathroom is the best fight across the entire franchise. Every second of that fight felt brutal, and everyone in it seemed convincingly tired and in pain all through it.
I just love dudes fighting in suits.
Second one is the worst of the series and can be skipped. Hey, hey, hey, now: it had Richard Roxburgh doing a Yarpie accent.And doves. In slow-mo. Because John Woo. And Limp Bizkit…
Second one is the worst of the series. Third is good because Hoffman plays a great villain. The last three have been very entertaining and fun action thrillers (Ghost Protocol is my favorite) that aren’t as serious as first few were.
I have to say I had the same feeling as you did. But from number three on, they have increasingly become a fun summertime ride. They are just a series of intricate action set pieces the always include Cruise looking incredibly intense. For my money, they are way more entertaining than the Bond series. Those movies could take a page from the M:I book, imo. (And, yes, I realize they were just a carbon copy of the Bond movies in the first place. To the point that I call them “American Bond” movies as it is.)Btw, the second movie was tripe. They totally ripped off Hitchcock’s ‘Notorious’ without so much as a wink. Throw in John Woo’s tricks and it seemed like we’d all see it all before.
Skip directly to the Chris McQuarrie movies. Everything else is varying degrees of crap.
Yes. I would jump straight to 4, where the series really started finding its current niche/groove on building around Tom Cruise doing a death-defying stunt (in this case, climbing up, then running down the Burj Khalifa)
If you like James Bond movies, these have been much better than the actual James Bond movies of the past three decades.
As everyone is saying, these defy logic and from bland to good at the 4th. And keep it up for 5 and 6, which are both better than 4.
No, you’re fine. The first one is a legitimately excellent spy thriller, and the third one tries for an emotional core (it’s probably Tom Cruise’s last attempt at acting in a movie, and he’s pretty good in it) but it stumbles trying to subvert genre tropes and collapses under its own weight.And the rest are 100% forgettable action movies with near identical plots (oh no, we’ve been disavowed again!). They make no sense, never add up to anything, and have nothing to say.But that’s beside the point, really, because dumb forgettable action movies can still be fun to watch. No, it must be said (and I’m shocked that the entertainment media has wholly forgotten about this) that Tom Cruise is a legitimate monster of a human being.He is a party to human trafficking, slave labor, and myriad other abuses, not just though his continued support and enrichment of the Church of Scientology, but personal actions he has taken within and around it. People who are basically indentured servants clean his cars and homes, serve him as personal staff, and manage the logistics of his romantic life.
This isn’t old news, either, so I really don’t care how good his movies are of how nice to his costars he is, fuck him and any project he touches, and yes, if you are like “it’s just a movie, whatever” then sorry but fuck you, too.(Well, that went somewhere!)
I won’t but you might as well – just to see old Cruise creaking along in his shoe lifts; see if you can spot differences between him and his body doubles (because there must be a few. Never a stunt double though…). At least that way you can come back and critisize it without getting piled on yourself.
You can see him break his ankle! Still impressed they left that cut in the film–even without knowing he broke his ankle it looked painful as hell, and for him to drag himself and keep acting after doing that is…well, he’s got the blood of Xenu in him for sure.
I didn’t know that. I don’t know about Xenu, but I think this guy gets super adreniline rushes that probably make him impervious to a lot of otherwise painful things (like humility?).Update: I just watched that on youtube and I can’t believe he didn’t break his arms and wrists too. This is some kind of madness.
I
won’t, but you might as well – just to see old Cruise creaking along
in his shoe lifts; see if you can spot differences between him and
his body doubles
(because there must be a few. Never a stunt double though…). At
least that way you can come back and criticize it without getting
piled on yourself.
Yeah, I was gonna post that the MI films are just F&F for people who *think* that they have better taste.
Watch the third one then decide on the rest. skip the second.
Start from Ghost Protocol and move forwardWhile 3 sets the “tone” 0f what Mission Impossible is today (and admittedly has Phillip Seymour Hoffman just relishing playing a villain) it feels like an uneven movie that is weirdly front loaded with action that kind of sputters out as it goes along.Brad Bird sets the template with Ghost Protocol and Christopher McQuarrie takes it to its natural heights.
I actually like MI:2, but I am more a fan of John Woo than I am Mission Impossible.
I think the Mission Impossible movies are much better than the Fast movies. Opinions on 1-3 vary, but 4-6 are generally considered to be very good to great. I agree with others that those most recent one really are more of a piece than the first three so you could probably start there. I think Fallout (#6) might be the best action movie I’ve ever seen. It is truly spectacular.I saw the new one last night and it is somehow just as tense as Fallout. It’s kinda incredible.
We just rewatched 4-6 as kind of a prep for 7 and they’re fantastic. They’re also a bit serialized, especially 5 and 6, some recurring villains, and while they tend to keep the who and the what pretty mysterious, there is _some_ attempt to establish some sense of a “universe”.7 (saw it yesterday) is spectacular, and the middle section was actually pretty fun/light hearted given the situation, probably more so than previous installments. It has a 2:43 runtime and it flew by, geez, when the credits rolled it hit me, that’s it, now we wait a year …But anyway, yes, check them out (again), and just start with 4.
Considering the last one was probably the best (I saw this latest entry about a week ago) and that this is consistently the best action franchise going I’d say it’s worth it. MI:2 was the weak spot of all the movies for sure—it’s not a good MI film OR a good John Woo movie, unfortunately, but the rest are solid. 4, 5 and 6 almost feel like a different franchise. My personal ranking: 6, 4, 3, 5, 7, 1, 3, 2–but the only one I’d consider bad is 2.
They find the sweet spot as crowd pleasers in 3 or 4.Skip 2, it’s like a castoff James Bond script from that era. If you already saw 1, fast forward to 3, which has some unusual flourishes you don’t find in other films, but still has about 80%+ of the winning formula of exotic locations, interesting stunts, semi-slapstick comedy, and small “family unit” of supporting characters. When you get to 4, they have perfected the formula that has carried them through the present day, and all of these films are highly recommended.
Spoiler alert. Each one tops the previous, these movies beat the limping James Bond and keep their main actor (who produces), and any other characters that survive (Ving Rhames!). When it’s over 90 degrees and your choice is this or your brain melting….
Glad to see the streak continue. I’m not sure whom to thank more for the reinvigoration of this franchise. Is it J.J. Abrams for keeping the franchise alive with MI:3? Is it Brad Bird for taking the series to a new level and tone with Ghost Protocol? Is it McQuarrie for becoming Cruise’s muse? Is it Cruise himself for singlehandedly making these films happen, insane practical stunts and all?Either way, if you would have told me in 1996 this series would still be going, continue to improve, and Tom Cruise would continue as the star, I would have given you my No Doubt CD.
certainly abrams: the producer deserves some credit. bad robot has been a part of all of them since 3. i don’t like him but clearly he’s doing something right, even if that something is just cutting cheques and letting cruise do his thing.
Brad Bird is the guy who was able to turn this into a franchise. Until then, the M:I films were all something of auteur films, very reliant on the director for their feel. But Bird helped the franchise find its footing and establish the formula that made everything from Ghost Protocol onward into perfect popcorn flicks.
McQuarrie was brought in to reshape Ghost Protocol mid-production though, so arguably that’s the beginning of his influence.
Not a fan of M1:3, but it basically serves as a soft reboot of the series, since many of the characters introduced there show up again and again and the tone shifts away from whatever the hell the first two were doing.Unfortunately, this means we’re still saddled with Simon Pegg’s utterly superfluous and deeply annoying sidekick 11 movies later. Sigh.
Definitely not Abrams (through no real fault of his own). While I enjoyed M:I-3, it was such a massive underperformer at the box office that Paramount actually cut ties with Tom Cruise over it (alongside his, um, antics) and only patched things up when he rehabbed his image and they were starving for hits.Honestly, I’d credit the star himself. It’s a very short list of A-list actors (as in, he IS the list) who would willingly clamber around the surface of the tallest building in the world (in digitally-removed harnesses) than to CG it, and found that, hey, people will pay to see him do some insane stuff.
I’m with you on giving Cruise a lot of credit. I’m mostly reminded of fans of Jackie Chan’s classic works. The story’s usually not important – what’s important is watching someone doing insane levels of practical stunt work in entertaining ways.
Good comp. As much as I am a diehard fan of these movies and know its lore, it’s still just a clothesline to the next jaw-dropping Cruise stunt.
There’s never truly an “A” in “A.V. Club.” It’s like they’re allergic.
Allergic starts with A, so there’s that.
Ha ha. Touche!!
Haha reddit! Haha Reddit: The Movie! EEAAO!
Nothing says “impossibly good” like a B grade.
Really excited for this movie and already made plans to see it. Only other movie I’ve done that for this year has been John Wick 4.Also somewhat curious how it fares in its second week going up against Oppenheimer and Barbie. Always thought it was curious that both of those movies are opening week after MI7 as I would normally bet on MI movies to have decent legs.
“a pickpocket and thief for hire”Didn’t we already have one of those in Part 2?
Haven’t we had one of those in ever heist movie ever since ever?
All I’m saying is that with this new M:I movie and with the Avengers Infinity War/Endgame saga, the filmmakers went out of their way to tell us we were getting TWO movies with one overarching story.The makes of Spider-Verse 2 did NOT do that and I’m still pissed.
‘Across the Spider-Verse’ was originally subtitled ‘Part 1′. I don’t know why they changed it, but there was certainly a period where they were letting you know what you were in for.
I was so caught off guard when SV2 ended because I did NOT know that there were two parts. I guess I deserve some blame because once I decide I am going to see a movie, I avoid all trailers and movie news, but I wish that the movie title clearly specified that there would be a part 2.
That’s all I’m saying! Honestly, I felt like the movie was overly long and not all of the storylines worked. They could have jettisoned the bad parts and brought it in in a tight, single movie. Oh, well.
i mean, it happens. sometimes movies end in cliffhangers.
See Tom run, see Tom jump?
Fuck Tom Cruise and his fake Mission Impossible and being #2 in Scientology. The simping on him and his shit films are just disgusting. Fuck Tom cruise
Talk like that’ll earn ya a one-way ticket to the DANGER ZONE, pal!
So they’re still doing the thing with the masks that change your face, height, build, and sometimes skin tone on the rest of your body? Interesting choice.
I might actually watch another of these things if Hunt were to infiltrate David Miscavige’s Compound/concentration camp, otherwise known as “The Hole” and release the poor souls that Scientology has brainwashed.
Be that hero, Tom.
I find it hard looking at his face onscreen. Pass.
It appears to me that Cruise’s goal is to die while filming one of these things, and I say GO FOR IT. The man is a waste of air.
Since it was missed in the article, and as im sure, everyone wants to know, but does Hayley Atwell get naked at all?Im guessing not since it was only given a B.
Assume the B rating is because Atwell doesn’t bare all.
I gotta say, I saw this movie today and all I could think of afterwards was where I could get a stiff drink and have a lie down. There is no let up, no down time, no god time to pop out for a pee. It’s buckle up your seatbelt and hold on for the entire run time. That first 2 hours will fly by and then it goes into a whole other gear for the final forty. And yeah Tom Cruise does his usual Tom Cruisey stuff, but don’t be fooled.. the real stars of this movie are the female characters. Every. Single. One. Killed it ladies!
I remember being impressed by how tense Fallout was. It felt like the movie never slowed down. It reminded me of Fury Road in that respect. I think Dead Reckoning somehow outdoes them both. It was incredible. I think the stunts were actually smaller. They were still great, but not as jaw-dropping as some of what they did in the previous movies. The review said the movie should’ve been lighter, but I felt like they incorporated a lot of humor into the action sequences.I thought Morales was great, and Atwell too. I think they’ve really done a good job with their new characters in each of the recent movies. Also, after six movies we finally learned just a little about Ethan Hunt’s background (other than that he has an Uncle Donald). I have to imagine they’ll come back to that in the next one.
So I have seen it. It is not Fallout indeed but still excellent, I can’t say where I would put it they are all very good but MI2.
This movie is certainly going to be an interesting addition to exactly what does and doesn’t count as fridging, further complicated by how the character could well be revealed to not actually be dead in the second part.
Just going to spoiler talk here so avoid if you haven’t seen.It’s the definitive example of what fridging is. And what’s crazy to me is they acted like Ilsa was the same as Grace to Ethan (and the same to unnamed female character that never gets any background shown in flashbacks). It’s like they’re sending the message that atractive women are all the same to the main character.Really don’t understand the decision-making in this movie. I like Atwell just fine but don’t understand why she’s necessary at all in this movie. Make Pom’s character have a bigger role as the thief and replace Atwell’s role on the train and her emotional moments with Ilsa and the movie is better IMO.
Went to see this tonight with high expectations given I’ve enjoyed every other MI movie and the high scores on reviews. Was incredibly disappointed and kind of can’t believe how positive the reviews are. All of the new characters are poorly developed including the main villain and Atwell’s character and the majority of the new characters are barely utilized. And the plot feels like the first half of a movie – like a one hour segment of a movie stretched into nearly three hours. Even the action pieces are disappointing. The jump that Cruise does is impressive but it ends with a CGI-fest that more resembles Bullet Train than the best stunts that the series has had. There is nothing remotely as impressive as the Burj Khalifa climb in 4, the plane stunt or underwater stunt in 5, or the helicopter chase in 6.
And finally (major spoilers ahead so don’t read if you haven’t seen)…really, really disappointed with one major decision in this movie. Any and all complaints about fridging female characters should be directed at this film.
Did we watch the same movie? This was as dull as a sack of mealy potatoes and half as enjoyable. Nothing mattered, there was zero tension, the dialouge was either too self important or glib to be interesting, and it kept getting dumber by the minute. “I found us a safe car…” five seconds later “the cops are onto us!” For a superspy, Ethan Hunt sure gets made an awful lot. This movie is an insult to its audience, and could be used by the AMPTP as an example as to why the WGA doesn’t deserve a raise.
I can confirm that my seats DID indeed vibrate and rumble during the movie – not my imagination – and the audience clapped after some of the set-pieces. Quite the entertaining movie.