Even worse this time because some of the STITCH reviews I just read are horrific. Granted that won't stop the movie from opening well but...it sounds like a Disney Channel remake and apparently plays like one, too.

AndyDursin wrote: ↑Thu May 22, 2025 12:37 pmGranted that won't stop the movie from opening well but...it sounds like a Disney Channel remake and apparently plays like one, too.

That's because it was...it was intended as a D+ movie until Moana 2 (which was intended as a D+ series) got bumped to the big screen and made big money. This summer's Freakier Friday was also conceived for D+ before getting an upgrade, which is how you know Disney's losing a fortune on their hard pivot to streaming five years ago, and are beginning to to realize their mistake. Not just for the branded Disney stuff, either...Alien: Romulus got a big-screen bow and made a surprising amount of money, which is why this fall's Predator: Badlands is getting a wide theatrical release after everyone complained about Prey getting dumped on Hulu.

In the long run that's going to hurt them, as much money as Stitch will take in, people will see it's no better than lame streaming product. (that PREDATOR thing looks like garbage too)

AndyDursin wrote: ↑Thu May 22, 2025 12:52 pm In the long run that's going to hurt them, as much money as Stitch will take in, people will see it's no better than lame streaming product. (that PREDATOR thing looks like garbage too)

It kills me that the first Star Wars movie to play in theaters since 2019 is gonna be next summer's horribly titled The Mandalorian & Grogu ("This fall, on ABC...!" ), which is not only gonna ask moviegoers to remember three seasons of a D+ series (the third of which was widely disliked), but also have knowledge of characters from two SW cartoon shows (which have a combined episode count of 208 half-hour shows ). This is what Disney turned the grand CINEMATIC saga of Gen-Xers into.

"Disney+ On the Big Screen" is a recipe for disaster as we know.

All Disney's gonna see with these is movies made for $100 mil or less making big money, and...maybe that will make them think about it when the $1.5 billion they spend on the next two Avengers movies makes only $800 mil back.

7/10

Do film editors exist anymore? You could literally cut nearly the entire first HOUR of this supposedly last Mission Impossible installment out and created a better viewing experience. It wouldn't have been difficult either, choosing to open up this movie where the previous entry ended, with Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) heading into a lost Russian sub, trying to retrieve the source code for a sentient AI that's about to blow the world to smithereens. Alas, while what's here ends well, on balance, this sequel still isn't nearly as strong as the previous series entry, "Dead Reckoning."

It's something that's particularly puzzling given the complaints about its immediate predecessor's run time. In fact, this sequel comes off much worse in that regard, because instead of action scenes that tended to overstay their welcome, this sequel's opening act is all EXPOSITION instead -- endless talk and set-up, with ample recycled footage from the previous entry, as well as shots from Brian DePalma's 1996 franchise-starter for good measure.

While callbacks from the latter are understandable since it's been so long since most viewers have seen the first MI, surely there had to have been a better, more concise way to remind people what was going on in the last sequel and get audiences INTO this film. Alas, that eludes Tom Cruise and his returning director Christopher McQuarrie here, and it's a deadly way to start what should have been a nice way to cap the entire series.

The rest of the movie is reasonably fun once it gets moving but also doesn't do anything unexpected. Big set-pieces including Cruise jumping from one plane to another are all impressive in the series' traditional style, yet there's something very "confined" about this particular picture -- like, where are all the extras? The sense of scale? Outdoor scenes where, I dunno, people are walking about? It's like the movie was still being shot in a COVID bubble, as it's heavily confined to sets instead of the globe-trotting adventure all the other films in the franchise contained. In nearly every way, this picture is inferior to the film that came before it.

The end result has its moments (and the return of one side character from the series' most memorable set-piece is highly amusing), but is let down by the opening act pacing and other elements (what was the point of Angela Bassett's son?) that would've been better off on the cutting room floor. Esai Morales' "Snivly Whiplash" villainy, ultimately, doesn't seem like it was substantive enough to comprise two different films as well, and the lack of support on his side of the drama this time out is also a shortcoming.

Ultimately, "Final Reckoning" doesn't really give Ethan Hunt the big-bang sendoff he deserved, in a flabby sequel that works best if you walk in 45 minutes late.

Andy's astute analysis is about where I landed, too. The first hour is DEADLY, just gobs of dry exposition being recited with very little action to break it up, and by the time Ethan FINALLY begins his deep dive to get to the sunken submarine (which was the VERY LAST SHOT of the previous film), we were, what, eighty minutes in? The movie thankfully picks up after that, and the climax delivers the thrills the audience is primed for, but...it's also weirdly the exact same climax of Fallout! Ethan scrambling around a pair of aircraft to retrieve a remote control button thingy while, on the ground, other team members are waiting patiently to snip a pair of wires. And Esai Morales' demise was actually funny in a bad way, timed like something out of a ZAZ movie.



Also the movie was clearly torn to pieces and re-edited at some point after the production was shut down by the writer/actor strikes in late 2023. That B&W flashback to the woman Ethan was cradling in his arms as she died in Dead Reckoning? We never learn who the hell she was (despite her actress getting a prominent credit in the opening titles of DR). There's even a shot of her giving Ethan the "breath of life" underwater in the trailer that was reshot with Hayley Atwell, so I have no idea what the original intent of the character was.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariela_Garriga

And the awkward "Rey is a Palpatine"-level reveal of Shea Whigham's character doesn't inform anything in the movie, and was clearly not being set up by the previous film. That feels like something that was jammed in after the fact, like something the filmmakers thought, 'Ooooo, this'd be a good twist!" without thinking it through. There's no real payoff for it, either...it's just odd.

Overall I liked the film, and was satisfied with it once it (finally!) got rolling, but it's clearly inferior to Dead Reckoning in every way (which I re-watched shortly before the new film, and has a lot more humor and excitement and locations, despite that film being shot during peak Covid restrictions).

We are 100% agreement on this one MJ.

it's clearly inferior to Dead Reckoning in every way (which I re-watched shortly before the new film, and has a lot more humor and excitement and locations, despite that film being shot during peak Covid restrictions).

That's what I don't understand -- why is THIS the movie that looks like it had pandemic shooting restrictions applied to it? The only thing I can surmise is the announced budget is a smokescreen and isn't as high as they have reported. Certainly this doesn't look like it cost nearly as much as Dead Reckoning, the sheer lack of location shooting is telling. If nothing else it would make sense because of the last one's disappointing box-office (relative to cost).

I mean, really, it's the most dismal looking of all the films in the series too -- lots of digital work, shootouts and chases in caves and dingy corridors, until the plane sequence at the very end. It was like "oh we're outdoors again, finally!" when we got there.

Ethan scrambling around a pair of aircraft to retrieve a remote control button thingy while, on the ground, other team members are waiting patiently to snip a pair of wires. And Esai Morales' demise was actually funny in a bad way, timed like something out of a ZAZ movie.

The scene where the guy from MI thanks Ethan for his great life living in the arctic circle just felt way too pat also, I halfway chuckled out loud at how seriously it was delivered. I kept expecting some kind of self-deprecating laugh to show up there and it didn't, it was just played totally straight.

My friend laughed also when Ethan takes his super-underwater suit off and manages to swim through arctic circle water in a scene that he called "The Princess Leia [Last Jedi] bit of Mission Impossible sequences." Certainly strained credibility.

Also the movie was clearly torn to pieces and re-edited at some point after the production was shut down by the writer/actor strikes in late 2023. That B&W flashback to the woman Ethan was cradling in his arms as she died in Dead Reckoning? We never learn who the hell she was (despite her actress getting a prominent credit in the opening titles of DR). There's even a shot of her giving Ethan the "breath of life" underwater in the trailer that was reshot with Hayley Atwell, so I have no idea what the original intent of the character was.

I got that sense that there was some major plot component to Ethan and his personal journey that was excised -- a romantic angle with that actress you mention, and/or (probably both) also something more with Hayley Atwell certainly. They just dumped their entire relationship out of this film completely. For a picture that was built on having some kind of "finality" it didn't even bother to "go there" at all, even though they had much more of a connection in the first Reckoning.

And for a movie that was supposed to "end," I didn't find the ending of this very definitive either! People were all standing and waiting through the credits to see if there was anything else (as they seem to do now with EVERY movie).

I gave the movie 4 ½ stars. Here’s my letterboxd review.

https://letterboxd.com/johnkholm/film/m ... reckoning/

The entire movie has an apocalyptic tone and is filled with religious and mythological imagery. All of humanity is threatened with extinction by an evil entity that is referred to as both the “father of deceit” and the “Anti-god.” With a villain like that, it makes sense that the heroes are put through hell. That’s why so many locations are underground: Luther’s lair in London’s Underground, the South African bunker, and presumably where the President and her staff are. The submarine scene is the most mythological of all as Ethan literally descends to the Underworld and must escape from the Land of the Dead. That’s why this scene is placed in the middle of the movie rather than the beginning. It represents Ethan’s lowest point (literally and symbolically). Once he accomplishes this mission, he is destined to win in the end. As befitting this archetypal hero, he “dies” but is resuscitated by Grace.

jkholm wrote: ↑Wed May 28, 2025 11:46 am I gave the movie 4 ½ stars. Here’s my letterboxd review.

https://letterboxd.com/johnkholm/film/m ... reckoning/

The entire movie has an apocalyptic tone and is filled with religious and mythological imagery. All of humanity is threatened with extinction by an evil entity that is referred to as both the “father of deceit” and the “Anti-god.” With a villain like that, it makes sense that the heroes are put through hell. That’s why so many locations are underground: Luther’s lair in London’s Underground, the South African bunker, and presumably where the President and her staff are. The submarine scene is the most mythological of all as Ethan literally descends to the Underworld and must escape from the Land of the Dead. That’s why this scene is placed in the middle of the movie rather than the beginning. It represents Ethan’s lowest point (literally and symbolically). Once he accomplishes this mission, he is destined to win in the end. As befitting this archetypal hero, he “dies” but is resuscitated by Grace.

Interesting...I know very little about Scientology and always just assumed (incorrectly perhaps) that any religious symbolism in his movies would be tied to Scientology. Is that what it teaches???

That's an interesting reading John! Though for me, it doesn't make the first hour any less boring than it was.

AndyDursin wrote: ↑Wed May 28, 2025 10:25 amI got that sense that there was some major plot component to Ethan and his personal journey that was excised -- a romantic angle with that actress you mention, and/or (probably both) also something more with Hayley Atwell certainly. They just dumped their entire relationship out of this film completely. For a picture that was built on having some kind of "finality" it didn't even bother to "go there" at all, even though they had much more of a connection in the first Reckoning.

Esai Morales was such a bland nothing of a villain, you have to wonder why they didn't bring back Sean Harris' Solomon Lane from the first two McQ flicks. He was the only M:I villain to spread across two movies and not to get killed at the end of his second movie, and you would have already had a built-in animosity from his previous encounters with Ethan, so you couldn't have had to concoct this weird "backstory" in Dead Reckoning that -- again -- didn't go anywhere! Instead, you have this villain with a shady connection to Ethan's forced indentured servitude to the IMF (an idea that comes out of nowhere in The Final Reckoning, feeling more like something out of La Femme Nikita) that's never elaborated upon, so it feels very narratively unsatisfying, especially in the second half of a "grand finale" to a thirty-year-old franchise.

And killing off Rebecca Ferguson in the last film while introducing Hayley Atwell as her replacement and potential romantic interest for Ethan, again, does not pay off. It's part of the neutering of Cruise's sexual charisma that defined his screen personal in the 80s and 90s that I've never fully understood. The only one of the M:I films where Ethan definitely f*cks is the underrated second film, and it's the only one where he generated real heat with one of his female co-stars (Thandi[w]e Newton). Since III, the films have gone out of their way to make Ethan as sheepish about S-E-X as possible. Only after getting married to Michelle Monaghan is he allowed a bit of wedded-night bliss in a hospital back room, and there's not a single whiff of eroticism in his interactions with any of his females leads in subsequent films. This from the man who engaged in strenuous coitus with Kelly Preston in Jerry Maguire while she panted, "Don't! Ever! Stop! F*cking me!" Of course, sex in mainstream Hollywood has become extremely downplayed over the last 15-20 years anyways, but it seems especially odd in Cruise's case. What happened to this Tom...?

And for a movie that was supposed to "end," I didn't find the ending of this very definitive either! People were all standing and waiting through the credits to see if there was anything else (as they seem to do now with EVERY movie).

Sinners was a weird recent example, choosing to present a key, nearly ten-minute sequence after seeing Buddy Guy performing through the main credits at the end! And it's not like that was a film that was going to kick off an interconnected "Sinnersverse".

Ferguson had a lot more of everything going on than Hayley Atwell. That was not a fair trade there and a major issue because Atwell comes off like a British Julia Roberts or thereabouts. She smiles a lot but her overall acting ability is way below Ferguson and losing that character hurt these last two movies for sure.

I mean Atwell was ill served by this movie's decision to nix romance altogether...along with humor. This movie was so solemn and serious it became unintentionally funny as we referenced in a few places. That didnt play to her strengths either.

Honestly, I read these summaries just to remind myself that I haven't missed anything by deciding 30 years ago that when this franchise launched itself by pissing all over the legacy of the TV series (and I learned that without ever seeing the first movie), it wasn't for me. And these plots are just not the kind of films that would excite me even if they hadn't extended such a big middle finger in the first movie (though to be honest, I would have at least treated them more with an open mind. But once you make a damaging first impression, you can never wash the bad tastes out of your mouth).

Then again, I've never really been a fan of Cruise in general (and I remember seeing him at age 12 in "Taps" when he was the nutcase in the group). I saw the original "Top Gun" maybe once or twice in the days of late 80s VHS rental and never saw it again. I saw him in "Color Money" in the cinema and didn't care for that film. I saw "Days Of Thunder" in the cinema and it was so ludicrous I never saw that film again. So maybe it's the fact I've never thought much of Cruise that also reinforces my inability to see past how this franchise started because it just plays into the fact I've never cared for his work at all (looking at my shelf I realize only now I don't own a single film with him!).

So apologies to fans of the franchise for the brief "Get off my lawn" indulgence on my part. I return the discussion to you.