As I have said in the past, while I do not really like Tom Cruise as an individual, he does make a hell of a movie, and his most recent outing Mission: Impossible Dead Reckoning Part 1 doesn’t dissapoint. It clocks in at 2 h 43 m, and it doesn’t get boring. It includes the normal cast of characters and a few new ones. The action scenes are top notch, the settings great and enough humor sprinkled in so you know it doesn’t take itself too seriously. It automatically sets up the sequel, not surprising considering its blatantly right there in the title. My understanding that primary filming for both films was done at the same time. Part 2 is due out next summer.
It’s my favorite so far of the Mission: Impossible series.
Probably will be delayed somewhat due to the strike. From what I’ve read they were about 90% done filming it.
I absolutely loved it. It felt like a love letter to M:I 1 while still fitting the new direction of the franchise. My only issue was MAJOR SPOILER fridging Ilsa. I hope it’s just a fake out.
My updated MI rankings:
1A. Ghost Protocol
1B. Rogue Nation
2. Dead Reckoning
3. Fallout
4. M:I
5. M:I 3
6. M:I 2
I had a question about the airport scene, which I’ll spoiler because I’m not sure if we’re doing spoilers:
They make a big deal about how Ethan knows the government is going to try to track him down at the airport, and so Luther keeps electronically putting a Tom Cruise face on random people so the troops will go for them. Which, okay, fine, but: why is Ethan walking around looking like Tom Cruise? Isn’t he good at looking like someone else? If the answer is “because he’s the star and people are paying to see his face,” I’ll shrug and go with it; but: did I miss it, or are they not even bothering to give an in-story reason?
Likewise for Ilsa’s big fight scene; isn’t she really good with, and perfectly willing to use, firearms? If she’s going to carry around a concealed sword and lose the fight, is there a reason she can’t carry a concealed gun and win instead? Or, once again, is there no in-story reason, it’s just that the screenwriters wanted it to go that way?
I think your explanation for the first item is spot on. I was also disappointed with Ilsa’s death, given how much we (the audience) had invested. However, I realized that the team had been disarmed in the nightclub and everyone grabbed weapons available as they scattered. Ilsa had grabbed Paris’ sword cane (which she was specifically shown playing with prior). So she only had what she could grab when she encountered Gabriel. No time to rearm.
I thoroughly enjoyed the film (saw it in IMAX, very much recommend this). At almost 3 hours, it seemed to fly by. Say what you will about Tom Cruise, he works really well in the action scenes. Plus, he seems to be, for an actor that can pretty much dictate how he is portrayed, incredibly generous to his co-stars, particularly the women. They get to be just as bad-ass as him in certain scenes, which is not usually the case in this genre.
And, let me hasten to add: I really enjoyed it. As a popcorn movie, there’s plenty of over-the-top action but never with the nagging sensation that you’re looking at weightless CGI stuff, and there’s an interesting plot with a good amount of humor, and everyone other than Hayley Atwell was just about perfect, and I only say that because Atwell apparently was, in fact, perfect.
I thought it was weird that nobody noticed a major character’s eye color changed in the middle of a scene! Unless, of course, the point was to show how oblivious some guys can be about that sort of thing.
This is correct and mind you, both movies were being shot pre-pandemic in one long shooting block and had to stop and start multiple times. It’s been a tremendously difficult production taking up years of effort.
I’m impressed they have turned in an impressive movie and I am sympathetic to them having to stop one more time as they approach the 80-90% shooting of the second movie.
At least the director and editor can basically edit this second movie very close to what they want and simply film the final sequences when they resume.
In fact, a lot can be finished with a 90% shot movie.
Closing to slashing range with her sword was fine. But she kept (seemingly purposefully) getting into “stabbed by a switchblade” range, when she was doing OK before that.
Just got home from seeing it, thought it was terrific and as good as ever. Already looking forward to the concluding part. Liked the little nod back to the first film and the meeting between Kitteridge and Hunt… “I can tell you’re upset” etc.
Probably me just being the massive Bond fan that I am but couldn’t help thinking of that series, what with the trip to Venice (a place Bond has been to a few times), fights on (both inside and on top of) a train (standard Bond trope) and a car chase involving an initially rather underwhelming little yellow car (a Fiat 500 in lieu of a Citreon 2CV in For Your Eyes Only). And was that an Aston Martin parked right next to it?? Heck, if I am pushing it, even the departure of Gabriel from the train into a drop-side van, which was Grant’s escape plan vehicle of choice from the Orient Express in From Russia With Love
Serious question: Is Ethan once again accused of being a traitor and he has to go on the run, working covertly with Benji and Luther and Hawkeye and whoever?
To spoil as little a possible I will say yes, but it’s not like in the past movies where someone betrayed him or set him up. It’s more of a “I have to do this one on my own because I don’t trust my government to do the right thing.” And it’s all set up within the first few scenes.