Mission: Impossible’s Final Reckoning Reveals Shocking Truths About Franchise Filmmaking!

Ahead lies information that might be considered spoilers for the movie “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning.” According to promotional materials, this film could mark the conclusion of Tom Cruise’s portrayal of IMF agent Ethan Hunt. While watching the movie, it seems plausible due to its focus on looking back at Ethan’s past achievements. This series has typically maintained a flexible narrative continuity, adjusting or reintroducing backstories at the start of each installment to fit the new storyline. In contrast, this film devotes a significant portion of its runtime reminiscing about Ethan’s journey.

This decision might raise some eyebrows, as it seems to have garnered more negative feedback than any other film during the Christopher McQuarrie era. Despite being generally well-liked, The Final Reckoning has faced a significant number of critics. A major reason for this is that the initial part of the movie contains a lot of expository dialogue, making it rather dense and heavy. Unusual terms like “bloated” and “drags” have been used to describe it, which I wouldn’t have expected in relation to these films. Frankly, I never thought a Mission: Impossible movie could be described as dragging until I watched this one myself.

In a slightly different phrasing: Although I share some doubts, I must admit that Cruise and McQuarrie’s grand finale for the franchise is intriguing. When you consider Dead Reckoning alongside it, they have crafted a Mission film that delves into the very essence of making Mission films – the process, the appeal, and the implications of creating such films in today’s era of Hollywood dominated by intellectual properties. View The Final Reckoning with this perspective, and you’ll find that even the repetitive elements become purposeful.

Final Reckoning Continues What Dead Reckoning Started

Or, Rather, Does It All Again

Since I had recently rewatched the franchise prior to watching Dead Reckoning for the first time, I found something odd: it felt like I had seen most of it already. The movie is filled with references to every previous Mission: Impossible film, from recurring characters and locations to specific character interactions. In fact, if you analyze Gabriel, you’ll find he shares traits with each of Ethan’s past villains, as I pointed out back in 2023.

In this narrative, there’s Gabriel who resembles the monster from “Mission” akin to Frankenstein – fashioned with parts from all the antagonists preceding him. Similar to Jim Phelps or Job from “Mission: Impossible,” he was once a mentor to Ethan, using a religious alias as cover. Gabriel is depicted as an almost legendary adversary to Hunt, much like Sean Ambrose in “Mission: Impossible 2.” He follows the pattern set by Owen Davian in “Mission: Impossible 3” by making things personal and specifically targeting individuals that Ethan cares about.
Gabriel integrates the doomsday zealotry of Kurt Hendricks/Cobalt from “Ghost Protocol” with the lethal prowess of Solomon Lane from “Rogue Nation.” However, like August Walker/John Lark in “Fallout,” his mercilessness serves another malevolent mastermind’s scheme.

I came to understand that the relentless recurrence of events was, indeed, a testament to the AI constructed from past Mission flicks. This artificial adversary seemed to consistently reel out Ethan’s old plotlines, using them as weapons against him. Gabriel goaded Ethan by implying he was foreseeable, suggesting that some outcomes were unavoidable. However, one constant in these movies is that Tom Cruise’s character always emerges victorious in the end. This undying resilience of Ethan was what made him the only person on Earth who instilled genuine fear within the AI.

Initially, I expected “The Final Reckoning” to build upon the groundwork laid in the last film. However, to my surprise, Tom Cruise and McQuarrie chose to start anew, repeating much of the initial work. The opening moments are filled with one reference after another to the earlier film.

Follow Ethan’s adventures as he frees Paris from prison in Ghost Protocol. Later, he attends an ambassador’s party where he flirts with a skilled thief, and this event continues in Mission: Impossible 2. He gets captured and held captive in a basement in Rogue Nation, and his loved ones are threatened with torture in Mission: Impossible 3. In London, Ethan pursues Gabriel, reminiscent of his chase after John Lark in Fallout. When Luther is tasked with disarming a nuclear bomb (Fallout again), Ethan unfortunately fails to save him in Dead Reckoning.

Instead of being subtly hinted at like before, The Final Reckoning clearly establishes these links, and does so more frequently and swiftly. McQuarrie deliberately includes clips from previous films whenever a direct reference is made, creating numerous chances for such connections. The intention is for the audience to not only observe these echoes of the past but to contemplate them deeply.

The Final Reckoning Is About Franchise Filmmaking In 2025

And Why Tom Cruise’s Way Of Doing Things Matters

Other “Mission: Impossible” films may hint at deeper interpretations, but none quite as explicitly as “The Final Reckoning”. This film uniquely delves into the world of filmmaking – particularly franchise film production.

Consider the Entity as a form of algorithmic storytelling at the blockbuster scale. It operates based on past events and imposes certain requirements on the narrative. For instance, one of these key characters must meet their demise immediately, “so it is foretold” (we’ll delve into that later). In the film “Dead Reckoning,” everyone except Ethan desiring to control its power served as a critique of Hollywood’s trajectory. Through Tom Cruise’s resistance, it suggested that “Mission: Impossible” was distinct from other productions in the competition.

In the film titled “The Final Reckoning“, the mysterious Entity has gone berserk. The concept of truth has become blurred. One by one, nuclear weapons are being destroyed in its rampage. Rather than trying to tame it, there are individuals who wish to join it now. To us, the notion that anyone would still think they can harness it seems absurd, bordering on insanity. The movie implies this is an existential crisis Hollywood is facing, and it attempts to make itself seem unavoidable. It’s either the Entity’s dominion, or none at all.

In the upcoming scenario, Ethan and his band of misfits from the IMF stand defiantly against an uncertain future. The opening motto from “Dead Reckoning” seems to serve as a creed for them: “We exist in the shadows, for those we cherish and for those who remain unknown.” These performers dwell in the shadows of cinema halls, performing for us, the unseen spectators. I don’t find it accidental that this final part is said more frequently than others. Gabriel, the movie’s counterpart to Ethan, appears to echo it mockingly, as if the ticket buyers are worthy only of disdain.

In this scenario, it falls to me, often perceived as reckless for my daring stunts, to play the voice of reason amidst the turbulence. Upon reading about the production challenges and escalating budget of The Final Reckoning, I found a striking parallel when Ethan was successfully persuading skeptical authorities to not halt him, but rather grant him unlimited creative freedom and even an aircraft carrier for his work.

Instead of trying to have it both ways, The Final Reckoning initially embodies what it seeks to challenge in order to drive home its message. Wouldn’t you prefer a franchise movie that mirrors the innovative flair of the last hour, as demonstrated by Cruise and McQuarrie, rather than rehashing the same formulaic elements from the first hour?

Is Mission: Impossible Part Of The Problem, Or The Solution?

This Question Defines The Final Reckoning

Dead Reckoning implies that Ethan’s blatant disregard for orders makes him responsible for the unintended consequences of his actions. The Final Reckoning, however, escalates this concept by cleverly employing unexpected references from the franchise to drive its point home.

In Mission: Impossible 3, the enigma surrounding the Rabbit’s Foot has been resolved. To torment Ethan Hunt, Gabriel discloses that the “Anti-God” he had taken was actually the original software of the Entity itself. This revelation implies that by handing it over to the U.S. government, Ethan is responsible for the current predicament involving the Entity. In essence, Ethan bears the guilt for the Entity’s existence.

In our analysis of the Mission: Impossible franchise films, it’s noticeable that the first one in 1996 was Tom Cruise’s initial production. Since then, he’s delved deep into the realm of big-budget franchise movies and let Paramount ride on Mission’s success for three decades. One might wonder if he feels a sense of obligation for shaping the industry this way. Could it be that, unintentionally, he contributed to the rise of the intellectual property behemoth?

To delve deeper into this topic, “Final Reckoning” revisits the initial film through two significant connections. The first unmasks Briggs, Ethan’s government pursuer from “Dead Reckoning“, as Jim Phelps, Jr., the son of the treacherous agent that Ethan eliminates in the climax of “Mission: Impossible“. This character serves as a living consequence of Hunt’s actions, regardless of their justification. Cruise conveys the burden of his guilt during their encounter.

The sequel reintroduces William Donloe, the CIA operative who faced the aftermath of Ethan’s covert operation at Langley that was momentarily halted – an event that may be considered the most pivotal in the Mission series history. Following the theft of the NOC List, Donloe was exiled to a remote outpost in the Bering Sea, where he’s been isolated for the past thirty years. Some might argue that Ethan’s unauthorized moves led to Donloe’s tragic fate.

In the third act of “The Final Reckoning”, when Donloe encounters Ethan face-to-face, it provides an opportunity for him to rewrite his story. Had Ethan not exiled him from Langley, Donloe might never have found genuine job satisfaction; he might never have met his wife. Essentially, if Ethan is the cause of Donloe’s circumstances, then credit, not blame, is due to him.

Essentially, the movie’s final take is encapsulated in Luther’s posthumous message. The tireless efforts of Ethan, portrayed by Cruise, to preserve the world are depicted as a noble endeavor, symbolizing his unyielding pursuit of grand-scale cinema entertainment. Despite the unpredictable outcomes of his art, which can be either beneficial or detrimental, the quote “the true goodness within us is judged by the good we do for others” holds. Opting to undertake this mission and executing it according to his own methods remains the morally correct choice.

In a clear contradiction of the established viewpoint, Luther boldly asserts, “nothing is set in stone,” – a subtle acknowledgment of the cinematographic technique used in these films, where scenes are filmed without strict adherence to a written script. McQuarrie elaborated on this method to GQ in a manner that I find particularly enlightening.

We’re not improvising without a plan. Instead, we’re consistently striving to enhance the experience, making it more captivating, more resonant, and more interactive. We don’t assume that simply writing words on a page will make you emotionally connect with them.

This is essentially the core theme of ‘The Final Reckoning’. Despite its approach potentially making it less impressive than a typical ‘Mission: Impossible’ film, it manages to encapsulate what makes these movies truly extraordinary.

2025-05-24 16:09