Mission Impossible - The Final Reckoning Review: Distracting, If Not Outright Confusing
By the time Mission: Impossible - The Final Reckoning trudges its way to the end of its bag of tricks, a question looms and it is as large as the aura of Tom Cruise's Agent Ethan Hunt.
Will the eighth and presumably final instalment of the popular action-adventure franchise leave the audience asking for more or have them wondering if they have had enough? The answer is likely to tilt more towards the latter.
This mission, a strenuous continuation of what was left incomplete in Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning Part One, suffers from an excess of expositions - a sure sign that the screenplay has holes that needed to be plugged before being sent out into the world.
Almost all through the film, the characters engage in constant chit-chat with the purpose of clearing the air - and the ground - for Hunt's hunt for the fiendish Gabriel (Esai Morales), who makes no bones about his desire to wrest control of a truth-devouring parasitic Artificial Intelligence called "Entity", that can wipe out all of humankind by infecting cyberspace and breaching the arsenals of nations that possess nuclear weapons.
Hunt and his core team - Luther (Ving Rhames), Benji (Simon Pegg), pickpocket-turned-agent Grace (Hayley Atwell) and former assassin Paris (Pom Klementieff) - race against time to recover the Entity's original source code buried in a wrecked Russian submarine, and pair it with a "poison pill" developed by Luther in order to neutralise it.
If they don't, the predatory AI could lay everything to waste and wipe out all life from the face of the earth.
The film isn't all action and not all the action that it mounts has the heart-pounding velocity and energy that can help the script by director Christopher McQuarrie and Erik Jendresen paper over its many loopholes and dull stretches.
It appears to dangle between two conflicting impulses - one the desire to peddle pop philosophy about the dangers humankind faces from autocrats, warmongers, and the impending weaponization of AI and two, the urge to give the fans of the franchise the explosive, unbridled onscreen spectacle that they expect.
As a spectacle, the film works fine for the most part. As a commentary, not so much. Humanity is on the edge. It is at the mercy of pernicious forces. Its future rests on the invincible Agent Hunt.
"The world is changing, truth is vanishing, war is coming, the US President, who is a Black woman played by Angela Bassett (last seen in Mission: Impossible - Fallout as the CIA deputy director), says to the globe-trotting, messianic agent out to save the world from annihilation.
Later on, Grace, who can, in a blink of an eye, filch objects that he sets her sights, tells Hunt, "The whole world is in trouble and you are the only one I trust to save it."
The man, clearly, is accustomed to having such unquestioning faith reposed in him.
Others who swear by Hunt's survival skills say pretty much the same. The idea seems to be to bestow God-like quality upon Hunt so that we continue to believe in his abiding ability to defy death and endure personal tragedies.
Cruise, expectedly, gets to do all the stuff that defines the character and the impossible feats that he is known to pull off. He dives deep into an ocean armed with a cruciform key to retrieve a crucial portable device from the bottom of the Bering Sea, hangs from a biplane while fighting off an adversary, and even jumps into an action sequence in his underpants aboard a US submarine.
But notwithstanding all the set pieces that the film assembles, The Final Reckoning isn't as much pure fun as Dead Reckoning was. The burden of its world-weary message weighs it down.
Its oracular pronouncement (repeated ad nauseum) about those that live and die in the shadows, not only for those that they hold close but also for those they will never meet, loses it edge owing to the continual and laboured attempts to play up the altruistic spirit of the IMF team.
The film turns overly ponderous in the run-ups to its many action scenes and even when mayhem unfolds on the screen the combatants never stop chattering away, announcing their intentions not just to the people that they are up against but also to the audience in the hope of keeping it invested in the proceedings. The strategy does not always work.
The film is a cinematic complex of fadeouts and fade-ins, flashbacks and flash forwards, montages of fleeting snatches from previous M:I films, and old characters and new. It is often distracting, if not outright confusing.
The fancy lensing and lighting by cinematographer Fraser Taggart - much of the film pans out in shadowy crypts, concealed crannies, and dimly lit caves and war rooms - and the frenetic editing by Eddie Hamilton aren't enough to deflect attention from what is missing in this purported swan song.
If this is indeed meant to be a parting shot, it needed to be far more rousing. Be that as it may, if you have three hours to spare and want to see how Cruise is doing as Ethan Hunt three decades on, you could consider giving the film a shot. It has no dearth of exciting passages that give the star all the room that he needs to display his proven wares.
But be warned, the underwater sequence in The Final Reckoning is excruciatingly protracted. The interminable solo dive-and-search operation is the dullest bit in a film that struggles to find the inspiration to keep going in the face of a debilitating lack of novelty.
The film begins with a recorded message from a President and ends with a pep talk from a dead friend of Hunt's. The pal reminds the protagonist that the world as we know it deserves to be saved from the wrong hands, and that mankind still needs Ethan Hunt.
So, here is another question to end this review with - do we really still need him or has the man we have loved all these years outlived his utility? Going by the evidence available here, he may have.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
43 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
From Mission: Impossible to Ne Zha 2, biggest box office hits of 2025 so far
Many different kinds of movies were released in the first half of 2025 and did really well at the box office. From the animated action-adventure Ne Zha 2 to Tom Cruise's Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning, many films entertained audiences and met expectations. Ne Zha 2 is a Chinese animated film that has broken several box office records. Last year, big hits like Deadpool & Wolverine, Inside Out 2, Moana 2, Despicable Me 4 and Kung Fu Panda 4 did great in cinemas. The first six months of 2025 have been just as exciting, with fans happy to see some of their favorite stars and stories back on screen. These are the top 10 movies of 2025 so far, according to worldwide earnings shared by Dexerto. Ne Zha 2 – $1.898 billion A Minecraft Movie – $954 million Lilo & Stitch – $910 million Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning – $541 million Captain America: Brave New World – $415 million Thunderbolts* – $381 million Sinners – $364 million How to Train Your Dragon – $358 million Final Destination: Bloodlines – $280 million Snow White – $205 million The live-action remake of How to Train Your Dragon, which released on June 13, is currently still running in theatres. It stars Mason Thames, Nico Parker, Gabriel Howell and Julian Dennison. Other major titles still showing in select theatres include Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning (Tom Cruise's final outing as Ethan Hunt), Lilo & Stitch and Thunderbolts. ALSO READ: This actor's hyper blue eyes were so 'distracting', producers made her wear contact lenses Top 10 Highest-Grossing Films of 2024 Inside Out 2 – $1.69 billion Deadpool & Wolverine – $1.34 billion Moana 2 – $1 billion Despicable Me 4 – $969 million Wicked – $728 million Dune: Part Two – $714 million Mufasa: The Lion King – $699 million Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire – $571 million Kung Fu Panda 4 – $548 million Sonic the Hedgehog 3 – $483 million FAQs 1. Which big Hollywood films are slated for release in 2025? Among them are F1, M3GAN 2.0, Jurassic World: Rebirth, Heads of State, Superman, Smurfs, Eddington, The Fantastic Four: First Steps, Splitsville, The Roses, The Toxic Avenger, The Conjuring: Last Rites, The Smashing Machine, Kiss of the Spider Woman, Now You See Me: Now You Don't and Avatar: Fire and Ash, among others. 2. How many films have crossed $1 billion so far in 2025? As per reports, only Ne Zha 2 ($1.898 billion) has crossed the $1 billion mark so far. 3. When was Ne Zha 2 released? It was released at the end of January.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
John Oliver takes a deep dive into AI slop on Last Week Tonight
Last Week Tonight aired its new episode on June 22, with its main story focusing on the rise of 'AI slop' in social media and content aggregation platforms. The HBO original series, going strong since its debut in 2014, entered its 12th season on February of this year and has thus far aired its 16th episode. In his segment on 'AI slop' John Oliver focused on how easy it is to mass-produce AI content and flood social media feeds with it. It doesn't help that companies such as Meta are deliberately leaning into the AI boom and tweaking their algorithms to allow more such 'slop' content. Lastly, he also discussed AI content's role in proliferating fake news and appropriating the work of real artists and craftsmen. AI slop content is flooding social media AI content is dominating social media feeds these days, with many accounts dedicated to mass-producing short, shareable posts meant to go 'viral'. John Oliver spoke of AI-generated cat stories, videos of AI-generated humans eating fruits and morphing into them, and Facebook posts of people sharing AI-generated wood carvings. While some of these posts can be entertaining, the mass-produced nature of AI slop has only served to intensify the competition for clicks and engagement. AI slop producers are aware of this, and have monetized their own success by selling courses that can 'teach' their audience how to go viral themselves. John Oliver explained how AI content goes viral john oliver and his team commissioning a real artist who was harmed by a i content mills ripping off his work, in their piece ripping a i slop apartand flying him out to appear in the epthis feels wonderful to see from a show with that big a platform John then proceeded to provide his own insights into how AI content creators strategize for free, taking a dig at all these courses. Step 1, as he put it, was to create a monetized page on social media, with Meta, X and YouTube all offering monetization options provided you've crossed a certain threshold. John Oliver did note, however, that premade monetization-ready accounts can be purchased online. Step 2 was to flood the account with as much content as possible in order to increase the chances of going viral. As John Oliver noted, content was a numbers game, and a number of AI tutorials being sold instructed users on how to maximize their rate of content generation in the shortest timeframe possible. Finally, Step 3 was getting paid. AI content creators can get paid directly through social media platforms, or by posting affiliate links to third-party storefronts. John did note, however, that most users would make very little money from such tactics unless their posts went 'megaviral'. He then proceeded to note that the majority of AI slop channels originated from India, Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia and Pakistan. John ended his story by speaking of how AI slop has been leading to the proliferation of fake news, and brought on wood carver Michael Jones (who's art had been appropriated by AI) for a special appearance where he showed off a carving based on an AI video, thus reversing the trend of AI ripping off artists in a move John admitted was petty.
Mint
2 hours ago
- Mint
Colleagues or overlords? The debate over AI bots has been raging but needn't
There's the Terminator school of perceiving artificial intelligence (AI) risks, in which we'll all be killed by our robot overlords. And then there's one where, if not friends exactly, the machines serve as valued colleagues. A Japanese tech researcher is arguing that our global AI safety approach hinges on reframing efforts to achieve this benign partnership. In 2023, as the world was shaken by the release of ChatGPT, a pair of successive warnings came from Silicon Valley of existential threats from powerful AI tools. Elon Musk led a group of experts and industry executives in calling for a six-month pause in developing advanced systems until we figured out how to manage risks. Then hundreds of AI leaders—including Sam Altman of OpenAI and Demis Hassabis of Alphabet's DeepMind—sent shockwaves with a statement that warned: 'Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks, such as pandemics and nuclear war." Also Read: AI didn't take the job. It changed what the job is. Despite all the attention paid to the potentially catastrophic dangers, the years since have been marked by AI 'accelerationists' largely drowning out AI doomers. Companies and countries have raced towards being the first to achieve superhuman AI, brushing off the early calls to prioritise safety. And it has all left the public very confused. But maybe we've been viewing this all wrong. Hiroshi Yamakawa, a prominent AI scholar from the University of Tokyo who has spent the past three decades studying the technology, is now arguing that the most promising route to a sustainable future is to let humans and AIs 'live in symbiosis and flourish together, protecting each other's well-being and averting catastrophic risks." Yamakawa hit a nerve because while he recognizes the threats noted in 2023, he argues for a working path toward coexistence with super-intelligent machines—especially at a time when nobody is halting development over fears of falling behind. In other words, if we can't beat AI from becoming smarter than us, we're better off joining it as an equal partner. 'Equality' is the sensitive part. Humans want to keep believing they are superior, not equal to machines. Also Read: Rahul Matthan: AI models aren't copycats but learners just like us His statement has generated a lot of buzz in Japanese academic circles, receiving dozens of signatories so far, including from some influential AI safety researchers overseas. In an interview with Nikkei Asia, he argued that cultural differences in Asia are more likely to enable seeing machines as peers instead of as adversaries. While the United States has produced AI-inspired characters like the Terminator from the eponymous Hollywood movie, the Japanese have envisioned friendlier companions like Astro Boy or Doraemon, he told the news outlet. Beyond pop culture, there's some truth to this cultural embrace. At just 25%, Japanese people had the lowest share of respondents who say products using AI make them nervous, according to a global Ipsos survey last June, compared to 64% of Americans. It's likely his comments will fall on deaf ears, though, like so many of the other AI risk warnings. Development has its own momentum. And whether the machines will ever get to a point where they could spur 'civilization extinction' remains an extremely heated debate. It's fair to say that some of the industry's focus on far-off, science-fiction scenarios is meant to distract from the more immediate harm that the technology could bring—whether that's job displacement, allegations of copyright infringement or reneging on climate change goals. Still, Yamakawa's proposal is a timely re-up on an AI safety debate that has languished in recent years. These discussions can't just rely on eyebrow-raising warnings and the absence of governance. Also Read: You're absolutely right, as the AI chatbot says With the exception of Europe, most jurisdictions have focused on loosening regulations in the hope of not falling behind. Policymakers can't afford to turn a blind eye until it's too late. It also shows the need for more safety research beyond just the companies trying to create and sell these products, like in the social-media era. These platforms were obviously less incentivized to share their findings with the public. Governments and universities must prioritise independent analysis on large-scale AI risks. Meanwhile, as the global tech industry has been caught up in a race to create computer systems that are smarter than humans, it's yet to be determined whether we'll ever get there. But setting godlike AI as the goalpost has created a lot of counter-productive fear-mongering. There might be merit in seeing these machines as colleagues and not overlords. ©Bloomberg The author is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Asia tech.
