Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning Part One

 DVD, Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning Part One (2023) film

This series became one I was very invested in as I saw II at the cinema, saw I not too much later on video, and from then on looked forward to another entry, which was a long time coming. But long waits between Missions was something to get used to, though in recent years they were becoming a touch more frequent at the same time as I was becoming a touch less anticipatory towards them, though I don't think that had as much to do with it as age and jaded appreciation for action films generally (and modern films as a whole!). I didn't hear a thing about this latest one, other than it was going to be 'Part One' for the first time ever (even though V and VI were somewhat linked), and the harbinger of the final film in the series. Partly, again, it was lack of excitement over the prospect despite a mild pleasure at the reassurance the films were still being made, but I also preferred to wait and see, hoping to be surprised. I used to have ideas for what I'd like to see, the tropes of the series (alternating long-hair, short-hair; spreadeagled limbs stunt; and of course no Mission would be complete without Luther Stickell and some motorbike and face mask action), but I've got past those checklist days and concentrate on content: are the stakes believable and well worked out, or is it full of holes? Is it whip-clever, knife-edge drama or is it too clever and convoluted for it's own good? Do we get old characters returning or is it a blank slate?

That last one has always been important to the health of the series both in front of and behind the camera: a different Director for every instalment gave each a unique visual identity and style. But it's the nature of long-running franchises to degenerate into something samey because it is tough to be different and unique while also staying true to the foundation laid out before, and they reused the same Director again, Christopher McQuarrie (who did both V and VI, didn't he? He also cowrote with Erik Jendresen who in the 2000s wrote an unused script for what would have been the next Trek film, though those are ten a penny these days!), which seems like overkill and suggests a new vision was required. One character points out Ethan Hunt is always going rogue and that does seem to be a habit of the stories, the same as in recent films the unreliability of their tech and gadgets, and the intentional humour at their predicaments have often undermined drama. When Bad Robot took over with III they came with their own too-realistic style of domestic down-to-earth nature mixed with the high concepts and ridiculous stunts, and that didn't exactly serve the setup well, especially as more and more humour was added at the expense of drama. The majority of the films are now too similar, as much as they're trying to do something bigger and more daring each time. But really the only thing that can have resonance are the characters and the bonds between them. In the same vein, especially as this is the first of the last, the beginning of the end, I was hoping for as many old characters returning to lend a hand as possible. The issue there is that an ensemble takes up a lot of time and so you can only concentrate on two or three of them properly (as the 'TNG' films proved).

As I was watching this one I was wondering if it was really worth parcelling out the story into a second part, and if the villain had been defeated it would have ended as any other Mission had before - it made me wonder if there'd be some big post-credits scene as is the norm in superhero films and other franchises looking to increase anticipation for the next part, and if so could they somehow bring back all the old villains? Then I remembered all the old villains were dead, they always end up dying even if Hunt isn't personally responsible for that except at the risk to his own life, because he was portrayed as an ethical hero, very unlike James Bond. (It's worth noting where those other big 'spy' action series' have gone in the time since Mission occurred: Brosnan's Bond was rebooted with Daniel Craig, and that era ended in death and awaits the next rebooting, while Jason Bourne seems to be solidly below ground in spite of the fact Matt Damon gave it a go at a resurrection and didn't kill off the character, but failed to recapture what worked before). If not villains then maybe more of the old cast could come back: how about Billy the Aussie pilot, or the Asian woman from III. Kittridge had always been high on the list and it was disappointing they never brought him back, but right from the opening when Hunt is receiving his instructions from a taped voice I thought it sounded like the old guy... Then we get a scene in which he actually appears, but I still wasn't quite sure, after all it had been over twenty-five years since Henry Czerny's appearance in I, but eventually as the scene progressed I realised it was undeniably the character (gave it away when they said his name, but I still wasn't sure if it was the same actor), and then it clicked into place! Excellent!

When you consider this guy was significantly older than Hunt in the first film and now even the eternally youthful Cruise himself is starting to show his age, he must be ancient! But as someone who grew up with the series myself and though younger, isn't young any more either, there was something reassuring about the fact this film is mostly about old grey-haired blokes, with the odd young woman thrown in for good measure! It really is an 'old-fashioned' film in the best sense of the words, and though I can't say the traditional Hollywood screwball comedy style with the hero and his young heroine handcuffed together, plus a Mini chase around Rome that brought to mind 'The Italian Job' was something I liked in the film, there is a sense of reassurance that this is rooted in a kind of reasonable reality that I feel too many films and TV shows are veering away from, as if it's 'wrong' to have a male hero and all the other tropes that make up normality rather than the bizarre societal mores taking more and more ground in the world today. So I applaud the fact it is a film that wouldn't look out of place in the Nineties, other than the effects. It's funny to realise that when Ethan, Luther and Benji are sitting around chatting, it's three old men! The villain, Gabriel, is another old guy, as is Kittridge (even one of the two American agents chasing Hunt throughout isn't a spring chicken!), but it doesn't matter, it's not important, it's not trying desperately to appeal to teens, though there's nothing to put them off. You could say it is generic action fare, and I'd agree, but there's also a history here because so much time has passed in the company of this core group.

History is an operative word as we're given some background (I don't just mean revealing Kittridge's first name as Eugene), on Hunt's motivation for joining the IMF in the first place, or at least some defining moment for him. That was a little weak, I have to say - at one point I wondered if they were going the whole hog and recreating parts of I since they'd already brought Kittridge back and this flashback was reminiscent of the moment one of Ethan's team was knifed on the mission in Prague. But that wasn't it, she seemed like someone close to him, but it wasn't spelt out clearly what that was about, who Gabriel was, or why he killed the woman. Are we to expect the details in Part Two or is it just one of those things we take as given that it was important but we don't have anything more? Establishing bonds is very important if we're to care about characters and though I felt they handled Luther and Benji significantly better than previously, Ilsa Faust was a different matter. There'd been a strange situation coming out of III when Hunt got married and, naturally, his new wife was put in jeopardy. They reminded us she still existed in IV, but then resolved it unsatisfactorily in VI where she at least played an important role and paid off the past, even though it would've been so much more meaningful to keep that part of Hunt's life going, unique and dramatic, even if difficult to justify for an action man role. Ilsa seemed to be his new woman after that, or had potential to be, but I'm not sure, and then this new girl, Grace, fills the role in some ways - it's telling she's there standing over Ilsa's dead body when Hunt finds her.

I didn't feel any sadness over Ilsa, strangely, she was just there, along for the ride, and while I didn't particularly expect anyone to be killed off, also knowing we're near the end it wasn't unlikely. At first I was wondering if Grace would rip off her face at some point to reveal Niah from II, but that really was unlikely, other than they were both thieves. I wouldn't say I was disappointed we didn't get any other cameos or roles other than the obvious White Widow from VI (supposedly the daughter of 'Max' from I, though I always find it annoying they don't clearly state that on screen!). They'd experimented with a new group of people when it seemed possible Cruise would be handing off to a younger action hero (say Jeremy Renner, with Alex Baldwin as boss), bumping Simon Pegg up to full cast member, and Luther had taken a backseat with his introduction. That was one good thing about this entry, Ving Rhames is back in prime position as the man of computers, which Benji had taken over. There appeared to be a little bit of competitiveness between them early on, but it didn't develop into anything, but at least Luther was the tech man while Benji was more active, appropriate as Pegg looks the more sprightly. Development wasn't one of the film's strengths. I could have done with more reference to them all being old (like the original 'Star Trek' films where they were clearly of a certain age, but it didn't matter because we loved them), such as how Luther is keeping up to date with the latest tech, or even turning it into an advantage since the story is largely concerned with modern technology being dangerously prone to control by artificial intelligence.

Those kind of nuances can't really be expected in an action flick, but it would have raised the story to at least the level of ideas and ideals seen in the better parts of The Dark Knight trilogy. There were seeds visible for planting, but they weren't watered and didn't grow into anything. The idea itself is full of intrigue: is what they continually call the Entity actually sentient as they say it is, or is it merely AI, because if it had become sentient does Ethan have the right to kill it, can't he talk to it, see if it has a personality that can be worked with? That's the Trekker view in me - clearly if it was merely artificial, just a very clever computer program, it can just be deleted without thought. But if it had achieved actual sentience? I know evidence is there of an evil nature (which makes sense coming from the mind of humanity which is fallen and requires redemption), murdering the Russian sub at the start, working with its chosen 'false prophet' Gabriel, a man who appears a bit of an automaton himself - indeed, I got the wrong end of the stick from the start and thought the Entity had a human form somehow (well, if the IMF can make lifelike masks of people so easily, why not a robot body that can pose as whoever it wants to), and I was dreading it turning into a 'Terminator' ripoff, but Gabriel did appear to be human. I thought the mysterious stranger entering the intelligence meeting was a robot come to kill them - they did say something like it could 'be' anyone, but later I came to the conclusion that meant impersonation in the digital world rather than reality! Gabriel came across cold, merciless, fanatical in his devotion to... what? Killing? Suffering? We're not told how he became like that, or why, so he's a very simplistic baddie, too much like the villain from IV who was also just an old guy who wanted to destroy everyone, and that was it.

Motivation was one of the film's weak points. We can believe in Hunt's sincerity as he dashes around all over the place, his earnest face telling us all we need to know about him (assuming we hadn't seen the other six films), but why do the other characters do what they do? Is Kittridge supposed to actually be a bad guy or does he really think America having the key to this weapon is the most important thing for the world's sake? Because the other guy in glasses (was that Cary Elwes?), seemed only to want power. Not sure why or what role he had, but obviously high up. The White Widow just wants money? I don't really know her or get her role in this or the last film (though Kirby's acting as someone pretending to be her was well observed). Arms dealer, that's it, I suppose. Grace wants a better life? I suppose. It was all a little flimsy for grownups, especially if you're used to watching old films where they couldn't often get away without a strong story and characterisations because they didn't have effects to dazzle an audience nowadays - I'm thinking of 'The Man Who Never Was' from 1955 which I watched recently and has more tension than this film, more reality to its stakes, and a more emotional connection. I will say I highly approved of the redemption of the Asian-Frenchwoman assassin, Paris. It didn't sit right Hunt should be knocking this girl's head into brick walls (all very well saying he spared her life, but I wouldn't rate her chances at avoiding dementia in later life after all that head-pounding!), either from a gentlemanly position or that she'd be a match for him. Circumstances were mitigated by there being another, burly bloke, and that Hunt is getting on a bit, but still...

But the fact she betrays her boss since he tried to kill her (and succeeded, just a matter of time), and chose to assist the goodies, was a real lift to the end of the film that reminded me of Mayday in 'A View To A Kill,' one of the reasons I feel so fondly towards that as one of the better Bond films. That whole ending with the train pushing out over the crumbling bridge was a strong, physical sequence that counterbalanced the CGI visuals that I was constantly suspicious of (I didn't believe for a moment they actually dropped real carriages into the river, it didn't have the weight, though even if I was proved wrong I'd say they didn't film it to get the best out of it, if so). There had been some nice shots such as the early police car chase with a camera sticking off the end of the vehicles that gave it a different look to the usual style where the view is bolted to the car, rigid and unmoving - here you had a greater sense of flying by the seat of the trousers, jerking around in the air, but it wasn't used overmuch. Climbing up the inside of the train carriages was another example of real classic film action, and the only downside of the whole thing was that Hunt needed rescuing at all (balanced by my favour towards redemption for a villain). That's one side that I miss from those early instalments, the fearless, unstoppable confidence of the man. That ended after III as I've noted in previous reviews, perhaps 'in-universe' you can put it down to dying and being brought back to life in that film, but however much I can rationalise, I never liked it.

As fast as Hunt can pelt it along streets or rooftops he can't disguise he doesn't have the same assuredness he once did as a younger man, and that's quite sad. That says more about his ageing than his face does. He isn't unbreakable, even if he does survive so much battering and rolling throughout with nary a complaint. But is the man worried about jumping off an outcropping the same man who used to go free climbing mountains? That more than anything brought home to me the changes he's gone through over the years and I miss that steely certainty, even if they're deliberately trying to make him more human. Perhaps they went too far in his greatest trial, that of whether to kill Gabriel, his personal nemesis, or not. They need him alive to find the Sevastopol submarine and unlock the Entity (although that does make you wonder how it can be out in the world, such as being the light show at the Widow's party - either it's locked up in the sub, or it's out there controlling things, isn't it?). Or is the sub merely where it's controlled from - even then it had compromised the systems on that boat, disabling the torpedo abort switch and running false readings to get them to fire in the first place. Too many such details were unclear, as was Hunt's history with Gabriel: he murdered some woman and Hunt would like him dead. Again, missing some of the ethical edges of the hero we knew and not enough is done in the film to make his feelings seem justifiable. He has to be pulled down from the deed at gunpoint when the agents catch up with him atop the train (another link back to the first film, maybe, where he had to go after the villain on a train's roof?), whereas I was hoping he'd make the choice of his own free will.

There were shades of more potentially thought-provoking stuff to rival the AI/sentience debate, and very apt for our time, too: manipulation of emotion versus staying rational. Hunt is warned that the Entity could use his emotional situation to predict his moves and control him, and he needs to become like it to defeat it, going against the modern predilection for emotionalism being the answer ('just do whatever feels right...'). But again, it's not explored, it's merely mentioned. If they had delved into some of these things it could have been a strong entry in the series, but as it stands I felt it one of the weaker examples. Not to say it wasn't enjoyable and there'll always be plenty of nitpicks in all the films (wouldn't the sub have a secondary kill switch to knock out the torpedo in case the first failed?; was all that thumpy music good for those old buildings?; why does one of Hunt's girlfriends have to die, just Gabriel showing his mean streak?; how can they rely on any tech if the Entity has its fingers in all the pies?; and most glaring of all: a vast hall full of workers and not one person looks up at the huge glass windows and sees gas and smoke when Hunt meets with Kittridge, not to mention this guy just walking into the room and no one paying any attention!), but it's what goes beyond the basics that makes a film stand out as special, even more within a long-running series. There's an idea of this Entity being 'Godless, stateless, amoral,' and that whomever controls it controls truth itself, referring to the ability of the internet and media to sway so many's perceptions of reality and fact. That's the real scare in all this, AI just the tool to show what's possible in mass delusion in today's world. We should be grateful they tackled it at all, even in an unsatisfactory way.

I expected the Entity's ability to use their own tech against them was going to be the clever new angle, but other than removing Gabriel from security recordings (and upsetting the admittedly great Augmented Reality glasses), at the Abu Dhabi airport and later impersonating Benji's voice to throw Ethan off the chase in Venice, that threat wasn't fully realised and it was more akin to IV where they didn't have access to the latest gear as they were (wait for it...), rogue again. They seem to manage perfectly well, there isn't particularly that Bourne ingenuity of using everyday items around them to succeed, so the film didn't appear that clever in itself. Lip service is paid to Kittridge using old CRT, offline computers, but it was a bit of a throwaway. And as a whole it did come across rather a messy story with a messy villain hierarchy of goons and higher-ups, where I prefer precision, planning and perfect double-tricks along with cutting edge, knife edge danger and close calls. The idea of 'put-pocketing' as opposed to 'pick-pocketing' was a nice little trick and there's plenty of sleight of hand, but it was one of those minor things that showed they could come up with nice ideas.

So that leaves execution and it's undoubtedly slick as it should be, but there wasn't the depth and core I need to call out a good film. I'd put it above IV, but below all the others, which is a shame because it started out (as they often do), suggesting it could contain a strong and pertinent theme. Maybe it's the fact I've watched so much of the original Sixties and Seventies TV series in recent years and that made me realise Mission was always a bit silly and fantastical. I had the vague, whimsical hope a CGI Peter Graves would somehow put in an appearance, as nonsensical as that would have been! Maybe someone could have used his face as a cover? The AI concept made me think of Cyberax from 'BUGS' and that was done a whole lot better and creepier, the same year the first film came out. That puts it all in perspective somehow. I haven't even referred to the big stunt! There's always The Big Stunt, probably the main reason Cruise likes doing the series, and I was waiting for it all the way through, suddenly realising it hadn't happened yet. I assume it was the motorbike off the cliff, then wing-gliding or whatever it's called, and finally parachuting. Somehow it didn't seem that spectacular, but maybe that was down to the way it was shot? It's not a criticism and in no way affects the quality of the film either way (my least favourite, IV, has probably the best stunt: swinging around on the tallest building in the world). But as I said I went in with no knowledge or expectation and the film as a whole was in the region of the other recent ones: I quite liked a good portion of it, but it didn't excel or bring much new, and was clumsy and messy, overlong for a series that works best at speed, and doesn't buck the trend in not exploring the characters - by now they should be doing at least some of that to increase the stakes. What did we really even know about Ilsa? Not that much. Potential, but not realised, meaning it ends up a reasonably jolly little outing. It was positive in the sense there isn't much bad language, I don't remember anything gory (the fighting's all crunch and thump), with no unnecessary romantic interludes to slow things up, so I wouldn't complain about the content. It's just everything else didn't content.

**