FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://www.firstshowing.net/2025/review-mi-final-reckoning-emotional-ambitious-conclusion/
"Mission: Impossible - The Final Reckoning may not be the best film in the franchise, but it's certainly a worthy, emotionally satisfying farewell.
Despite some pacing issues and an overreliance on exposition, Christopher McQuarrie and Tom Cruise triumph through their audiovisual spectacle, thematic strength, and unwavering commitment to the saga's legacy. If this truly is the end, then what a beautiful, heartfelt goodbye it is.
Thank you, Ethan Hunt. And thank you to everyone who made this mission possible."
Rating: B+
Brent Marchant
May 23, 2025
5/10
Whenever a film playing in theaters is introduced by one of the members of the picture’s creative team, it’s a safe bet that it doesn’t live up to its pre-release hype. (Indeed, in all the years I’ve watched movies theatrically, that’s been the case every time with just two exceptions.) And, regrettably, that’s very much the case in this final installment in this long-running franchise. To put it simply, “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning” is an offering with a lot of problems, the biggest of which being the decision to split the story into two parts in the first place. As it stands, the narrative could have easily been condensed down to a single release. But, if the producers truly wanted to make two films to close out the franchise, they could have readily done so by making two distinct stand-alone pictures instead of trying to tie this offering to its predecessor, “Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning, Part One” (2023), considering that the nexus between them is tepid at best. As a consequence, though, this two-film package makes for a needlessly long 5½-hour story that could have been told in much less time with some judicious editing. This suggests that milking the box office had to have been a strong incentive for how this project ultimately played out. And, even if that wasn’t the case, the least the creators could have done was to tell a better story: While the first part did a reasonably capable job of holding viewer interest, that’s out the window here with its many well-crafted but decidedly overlong action sequences (a la the most recent “Indiana Jones” offering (2023)); a story that elevates comparatively minor characters to unexplained relevance; under-utilizes the talents of several gifted cast members (e.g., Nick Offerman and Janet McTeer) while leaving others out entirely (where’s Vanesa Kirby’s White Widow, a character who played a key role in the first part?); and requires comprehensive audience familiarity with both the franchise’s complete mythology, as well as in-depth knowledge of the intricacies of AI technology. Most importantly, however, many plot elements of the picture go beyond being “impossible” to “wholly implausible” or even “difficult to accept,” with numerous scenes that are full of holes, rely on convenient contrivances or seem completely unfathomable. “Final Reckoning” even “borrows” elements from other movie narratives (most notably “Fail Safe” (1964) and “Terminator 2: Judgment Day” (1991)) that strain its efforts at originality. There’s also an almost self-congratulatory aspect to the production thanks to the inclusion of numerous flashback clips to previous installments in the franchise, introduced with somewhat tangential tie-ins, a cinematic stroll down memory lane that adds little (the film’s inspired reintroduction and effective use of CIA operative William Donloe (Rolf Saxon) from the franchise’s first release (1996) notwithstanding). In the end, however, this release misses the mark in myriad ways, and that even includes a rather lame conclusion that comes across as stretched out and unsatisfyingly anticlimactic (and that could have been handled better and differently in several alternate scenarios). In my view, this collection of blatant shortcomings is not the way to wrap up a storied franchise like this. I firmly believe that it should have come to an end with the release of “Mission: Impossible – Fallout” (2018), handily the best of the eight features in this series. Indeed, going to the well one (or two!) too many times can tarnish a mythology’s legacy, and “Mission: Impossible” is one such venture. It genuinely deserves to go out with a bang and not a whimper. Unfortunately, though, in this case, the latter is the reality, and that’s truly a shame.
CinemaSerf
May 23, 2025
7/10
It might have been a good idea for Tom Cruise to have re-released the first part of this career retrospective a few weeks ago so we could be reminded of just what was in the submarine perched precariously on a subterranean ridge in the Arctic - because I had totally forgotten what happened last time around. Quickly, though, we are reminded that the entity (anyone see the “Forbin Project” from 1970?) is bent on seizing control of the world’s nuclear arsenals and using them to start a process of mutually assured destruction that will eradicate all life on Earth. Luckily “Ethan” (Cruise) has the magic key that might lead to humanity’s salvation, but he also needs the support of his erstwhile bosses, the President of the USA, an aircraft carrier and a nuclear submarine that actually works. Once we have waded through all the recaps the story kicks in with plenty of opportunity for our ingenious hero and his team - largely without Ving Rhames this time - to put together a series of cunning plays and counter-plays to keep themselves ahead of not just the megalomaniacal virus but also the malevolent “Gabriel” (Esai Morales) who reckons he might be able to take control. It’s essentially a vehicle for the star for the supporting efforts from the likes of Hayley Atwell and Simon Pegg offer us little of distinction, but if you’re a fan of action adventure movies then this is the equivalent of a higher-tech “Indiana Jones” movie with car chases; loads of pyrotechnics; great visual effects, an energetic score and it culminates with an enjoyable aerial dogfight that just needed the Red Baron and/or Sir Sean Connery. I am struggling to believe this is really the last of these, but if it is then it’s a fitting denouement for a character that has largely delivered well these last thirty years and that has has come along way from the Peter Graves stuff from the late 1960s. It does need a big screen as it will look very ordinary on the television, but even though it is probably half an hour longer than it needs to be, is still a good watch.
