Mission: Impossible - Final Reckoning (2025)

[hbquikcomjamesl]

Thse days, I see a lot more concerts and live theatre than movies. I've got (currently) the entire Tuesday evening series at Hollywood Bowl, and the odd half of the Thursday evening series (and whatever else I pick up for cash or subscriber privilege exchanges), as well as one of the two Colburn Celebrity series, and one of the two chamber music series, at Disney Hall. And when I'm in San Francisco, I usually try to time my visit so that I'll catch something at Davies Hall, and something at 42nd Street Moon. And on other vacations, I've been to Benaroya Hall in Seattle, Orchestra Hall in Chicago, Symphony Hall in Boston, Kimmel Center in Philadelphia, several of the performance spaces in the Kennedy Center, in Washington, DC, both Lincoln Center and Carnegie Hall in New York City, and a few others.

And until COVID is reduced to being a minor nuisance, I don't really have much inclination to spend time in a large auditorium when there isn't a live performance involved.

So I don't see a whole lot of movies in general, these days.

 

[Christopher]

And until COVID is reduced to being a minor nuisance, I don't really have much inclination to spend time in a large auditorium when there isn't a live performance involved.

So I don't see a whole lot of movies in general, these days.

There are always streaming and DVDs. I'm just saying, the problems with the first M:I movie shouldn't be held against the later ones, because they're from different creators and have little in common beyond the title and lead actor.

 

[Owain Taggart]

I think they took off "Dead Roeckoning , Part 2" because part 1 actually did relatively poorly, compared to expectations.

If that's truly the case, I don't understand the logic behind the decision, as it's still a direct sequel even though it might not seem like it via the name. Same McGuffin, same storyline being continued. All they'll do is risk confusing those who haven't seen the first part. I think they'll do themselves a disservice in the end.

 

[Rowdy Roddy McDowall]

The problems with the first M:I movie shouldn't be held against the later ones, because they're from different creators and have little in common beyond the title and lead actor.

I found the first, shortest IM movie to be the best. No doubt it offended at least two original cast members for understandable reasons, but what problems are you describing from Part One?

 

[Set Harth]

And until COVID is reduced to being a minor nuisance, I don't really have much inclination to spend time in a large auditorium when there isn't a live performance involved.

And how will you know that 'COVID is reduced to being a minor nuisance'?

 

[Christopher]

If that's truly the case, I don't understand the logic behind the decision, as it's still a direct sequel even though it might not seem like it via the name. Same McGuffin, same storyline being continued. All they'll do is risk confusing those who haven't seen the first part. I think they'll do themselves a disservice in the end.

It's promotion. It's not about actual content, it's about first impressions. Lots of people don't bother to look much past the title before picking a movie to see.

Besides, I don't see how it's confusing to give a second part of a story a different title. Audiences weren't confused by titles like The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that The Final Reckoning is connected to Dead Reckoning.

I found the first, shortest IM movie to be the best. No doubt it offended at least two original cast members for understandable reasons, but what problems are you describing from Part One?

Assuming that by "Part One" you mean the original 1996 movie (which wasn't part one of anything, because there was no story continuity whatsoever between the first few movies), here's my decade-old blog review where I answer that question in detail: https://christopherlbennett.wordpress.com/2014/06/26/mission-impossible-1996-movie-review-spoilers/

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

The idea of Jim Phelps (or Dan Briggs, for that matter) turning traitor is as ludicrous (and as deeply insulting to the original material) as the idea of Maxwell Smart, Agent 99, or Derek Flint* turning traitor. Or Kirk, Picard, Sisko, Janeway, Archer, Burnham, Mariner, Freeman, or Pike, for that matter.

In the original series, Dan Briggs was quietly replaced with no canonical explanation, and likely never mentioned again. Indeed, it was the general policy of the original series to add and drop regular cast with no canonical explanation, as actors came and went. So it would have been more in keeping with the look and feel of the original series for Hunt to be introduced with no mention of what happened to Phelps.

And how will you know that 'COVID is reduced to being a minor nuisance'?

Uh, the death rate and hospitalization rate drops to no more than that of, say, the flu? Maybe the development of a "one-and-done" vaccine, like the one that eradicated smallpox? Neither of which have happened yet.

_____
*Whenever anybody asks me who my favorite Bond is (presumably expecting Connery, Moore, Dalton, Brosnan, maybe even Lazenby), my stock answer is always "James Coburn as Derek Flint."

 

[Christopher]

The idea of Jim Phelps (or Dan Briggs, for that matter) turning traitor is as ludicrous (and as deeply insulting to the original material) as the idea of Maxwell Smart, Agent 99, or Derek Flint* turning traitor. Or Kirk, Picard, Sisko, Janeway, Archer, Burnham, Mariner, Freeman, or Pike, for that matter.

I agree, but again, that's no reflection on the later films, which are made by entirely different people and have never mentioned Phelps again.

Anyway, the Christopher McQuarrie-directed films have clarified that the movies are a reboot continuity rather than a sequel; Fallout established that the IMF was only 40 years old, meaning it was founded after the end of the TV series. Plus Dead Reckoning has characters named Briggs and Paris who have no relation to their namesakes in the show. So while it may not have been Brian DePalma's intent at the time, we can now recognize that the movies' "Jim Phelps" is an entirely different entity from the TV character of that name. (Although before the movies were confirmed as a reboot, my headcanon was that the movie's Phelps was an impostor in an improbably lifelike mask, and the mission Ethan got at the end of the film was the rescue of the real Jim Phelps.)

In the original series, Dan Briggs was quietly replaced with no canonical explanation, and likely never mentioned again. Indeed, it was the general policy of the original series to add and drop regular cast with no canonical explanation, as actors came and went.

Well, until season 7, when they mentioned Casey being on special assignment and gave her temporary replacement Mimi an origin story. By that point, series TV was starting to get a bit more continuity-driven, so the old "change the cast without explanation" practice didn't cut it anymore. By the same token, in the 1988 revival (an age of even greater continuity), the new team members were given introductions in the pilot, and when Terry Markwell was replaced by Jane Badler mid-season, there was a whole episode showing how and why the change happened (the first time we actually saw an IMF agent disavowed).

So it would have been more in keeping with the look and feel of the original series for Hunt to be introduced with no mention of what happened to Phelps.

Except that wasn't DePalma's goal, which was to start out with something that looked and felt like the TV series, and then to blow it all up and deconstruct the hell out of it.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Besides, I don't see how it's confusing to give a second part of a story a different title. Audiences weren't confused by titles like The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that The Final Reckoning is connected to Dead Reckoning.

The difference is that people were expecting a trilogy and that's what they got, something that connected. There's no such expectation here. Most people would just be expecting another unconnected Mission Impossible movie.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

Except that wasn't DePalma's goal, which was to start out with something that looked and felt like the TV series, and then to blow it all up and deconstruct the hell out of it.

In his short story adaptation of "Mirror, Mirror," Blish described the scene of Spock applying an agnoizer to Kyle as (and I'm quoting from memory, so I may have a few words wrong) "a vicious burlesque of the Vulcan neck pinch."

I haven't read any of Blish's TOS adaptations in years, but your description of DePalma's goal immediately brought the phrase "vicious burlesque" to my mind.

 

[CaptainCalvinCat]

I agree, but again, that's no reflection on the later films, which are made by entirely different people and have never mentioned Phelps again.

Back in the day, my parents and I rented a version of the first Mission:Impossible-Movie that was trimmed down, so that a 6 year old kid could watch it. So - Jacks meeting with the business-end of the elevator-thingies of course was omitted, and I think, funnily enough, the scene with Henry Czerny in the restaurant was cut.

Anyway, there I was - roughly 9 years old - and we watched the movie together. It was the sequence when shit was about to really start hitting the fan, before Jack dies. And it might be, because Jim Phelps was played by Jon Voight and I found him very unfriendly, it might be, because the director and editor slept, I don't know - anyway, the scene, where Jim hits the Enter-Button and the scene, where the elevator-thingies are activated, plus Jim not starting to panic, were three dead give-aways to me, that Phelps was the baddie in this movie.

Sure his "death" on the bridge surprised me, too, but when he re-appeared in London, I was like "HA! I knew it!"

Years later - actually in this decade - I stumbled upon a Fanfic, that tried to connect the tv-series with the movie-series, in which Cinnamon Carter meets with Ethan Hunt on Jim Phelps grave and tells him: "This was not Jim Phelps."

The whole story ends with a funny little joke and - I have to say, after that, I had no qualms integrating the first movie in my head-canon.

 

[Christopher]

The difference is that people were expecting a trilogy and that's what they got, something that connected.

But that's exactly my point. Movies don't have to have the same title with "Part 2" after them for audiences to understand that they're connected. It's not different at all, it's exactly what I intended to say.

And it might be, because Jim Phelps was played by Jon Voight and I found him very unfriendly,

As I think I mentioned in my blog review, Voight's character may have been named Jim Phelps, but he reminded me far more of Dan Briggs.

The whole story ends with a funny little joke and - I have to say, after that, I had no qualms integrating the first movie in my head-canon.

Which was doable at the time; my blog review contains a link to an essay offering a credible theory for how the real Phelps could've become the disaffected agent we saw in the movie. But it's no longer necessary now that the McQuarrie movies have revealed/retconned the movie continuity as a different reality from the series, in which the IMF wasn't even formed until around 1975 (and I misspoke earlier -- that was established in Rogue Nation, not Fallout).

 

[the G-man]

I watched "Part 1" yesterday on Prime. It started very strong, but could have been shorter overall. I thought the train/bridge scene went on too long, almost to the point of parody. As usual, Tom brought the A game. The supporting cast was good with Shea Whigham (along with the Walton Goggins the best character actor under sixty working today) being a standout (his comment that Ethan "always goes rogue, that's all he ever does" was a good one). Looking forward to "Part 2," and respectfully suggest that the Broccoli family and Amazon consider bringing in McQuarrie as a Bond helmer after Part 2 comes out.

 

[Rowdy Roddy McDowall]

Sure {Jim's} "death" on the bridge surprised me, too, but when he re-appeared in London, I was like "HA! I knew it!"

That Jim-death on the bridge didn't fool me for the following reasons.

1.We hear a gunshot without actually seeing it, while seeing the following fakeout.

2. The above tactic is itself a TEN LITTLE INDIANS ripoff.....

3........which I myself used in my DIE HARD ripoff megascript four months before DePalma's MI was released. (My version's ''Ellis'' is an actual co-conspirator, preferably played by Bruce Willis, who only seemed to be shot dead by the chief terrorist parakeet. In DIE HARD we only hear Hans' shot then see Ellis's corpse. In my ripoff we hear Claude's shot and drag away the still-living ''victim'' with held breath and a forehead ketchup-stain. This accomplice was named Martin Plisaco. If you take the last three letters of his last name, then put them ahead of the first four while placing his first-name initial in-between...)(:

4. Jon Voight is awfully high in the credits to die so soon, whether we count Brando's Jor-El or not.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Looking forward to "Part 2," and respectfully suggest that the Broccoli family and Amazon consider bringing in McQuarrie as a Bond helmer after Part 2 comes out.

The ironic thing is that I feel like MI has been more stylish than the last several Bond movies, so yeah, I do feel he'd be a great fit.

 

[Aragorn]

4. Jon Voight is awfully high in the credits to die so soon, whether we count Brando's Jor-El or not.

Low budget movies like to put big names in supporting roles because that's how they sell the movie. They give a lot of money to one name to put on the cover but it only buys a day or two of filming. Stallone seems to be the go-to guy for that right now.

In the case of Mission: Impossible, clearly that was not something they needed to do.

 

[Christopher]

4. Jon Voight is awfully high in the credits to die so soon, whether we count Brando's Jor-El or not.

I would've suggested Janet Leigh in Psycho. After all, DePalma's intent in M:I was similar to Hitchcock's, to set up our expectations and then pull the rug out. So it would've been consistent with that if Voight had, in fact, been killed off in the first act along with the others.

 

[Starkers]

That Jim-death on the bridge didn't fool me for the following reasons.

1.We hear a gunshot without actually seeing it, while seeing the following fakeout.

2. The above tactic is itself a TEN LITTLE INDIANS ripoff.....

3........which I myself used in my DIE HARD ripoff megascript four months before DePalma's MI was released. (My version's ''Ellis'' is an actual co-conspirator, preferably played by Bruce Willis, who only seemed to be shot dead by the chief terrorist parakeet. In DIE HARD we only hear Hans' shot then see Ellis's corpse. In my ripoff we hear Claude's shot and drag away the still-living ''victim'' with held breath and a forehead ketchup-stain. This accomplice was named Martin Plisaco. If you take the last three letters of his last name, then put them ahead of the first four while placing his first-name initial in-between...)(:

4. Jon Voight is awfully high in the credits to die so soon, whether we count Brando's Jor-El or not.

Presumably you were waiting for Steven Seagal to come back from the dead in Executive Decision?

The ironic thing is that I feel like MI has been more stylish than the last several Bond movies, so yeah, I do feel he'd be a great fit.

I enjoy the MI films but if I'm honest I find them a tad samey, for good or ill Bond films tend to be more distinct from each other so personally I wouldn't want McQuarrie anywhere near Bond

 

[Tosk]

I would've suggested Janet Leigh in Psycho. After all, DePalma's intent in M:I was similar to Hitchcock's

Damn weird for someone like DePalma to try to emulate Hitchcock in any way.

 

[Christopher]

I enjoy the MI films but if I'm honest I find them a tad samey, for good or ill Bond films tend to be more distinct from each other so personally I wouldn't want McQuarrie anywhere near Bond

Yeah... The striking thing about the first four M:I movies, for better or worse, is that they were highly individual, showing more affinity to their respective directors' overall bodies of work than to one another. The first movie was very much a Brian DePalma paranoid thriller, the second was very much a John Woo crazy action-fest, the third was J.J. Abrams doing Alias: The Movie, and the fourth was Brad Bird doing the same kind of meticulously constructed and fun action and character set pieces he did in The Incredibles (as well as the same kind of period/genre homage, since Ghost Protocol was the only M:I movie that actually felt like the TV series). But ever since McQuarrie became the regular director, they've all been more of a consistent piece. It's not a bad thing that the series has more continuity now, but after four McQuarrie films in a row, it would be nice to mix things up again with a new directorial voice.