Ohjaus:
Christopher McQuarrieKuvaus:
Fraser TaggartSävellys:
Lorne BalfeNäyttelijät:
Tom Cruise, Hayley Atwell, Simon Pegg, Ving Rhames, Rebecca Ferguson, Vanessa Kirby, Esai Morales, Pom Klementieff, Henry Czerny, Shea Whigham (lisää)Suoratoistopalvelut (5)
Juonikuvaukset(1)
Cruise stars as Ethan Hunt, a secret agent framed for the deaths of his espionage team. Fleeing from government assassins, breaking into the CIA's most impenetrable vault, clinging to the roof of a speeding bullet train, Hunt races like a burning fuse to stay one step ahead of his pursuers... and draw one step closer to discovering the shocking truth. (Paramount Pictures)
(lisää)Arvostelut (14)
At first glance, Dead Reckoning Part One is the weakest instalment of the franchise, as it paradoxically offers half the attractions of the best of the previous instalments in the longest runtime. The car chase in Rome is nothing to write home about and the train scene is lifted from the first Mission: Impossible, plus there is a hopped-up version of the most thrilling scene from The Lost World. BUT! On the second viewing, I found Dead Reckoning Part One to be the most entertaining of all the Mission: Impossible movies thanks to its plot. The way the movie’s subject perfectly coincides with the threat of artificial intelligence; the constellation of characters from the previous instalments, including Kittridge from the first one; the new ultimate bad guy Gabriel, whom Ethan Hunt has double the reason to hate more than anything else in the world; the sincere emotion of the scene on the Conzafelzi bridge in Venice; the new beauty Hayley Atwell, who shares perfect chemistry with Tom Cruise; and plenty of humorous and imaginative details that dress up the scenes that seem less than innovative at first glance – the airport, the car chase in Rome, the incorporation of the well-known motorcycle jump into the train and the almost cinephilically orgiastic climax that transforms the aforementioned scene from The Lost World into an absolute blockbuster thrill. And we’re only halfway through the movie. If Part Two has the build-up that Cruise and McQuarrie know it must have, Dead Reckoning will become the alpha instalment of the franchise and will possibly set a new course for the multi-part delivery of Ethan Hunt’s future impossible missions. The news that Tom plans to keep making them until he’s eighty made my day.
()
HE’S RUNNING AGAIN, at a nice heroic pace, knees right up (yeah, right Tom, we know you're an eternal youngster, you don't have to keep reassuring us so blatantly). The film itself is a succession of good action sequences, glued onto a stupid skeleton that seems to have fallen out of a spy movie from the 60s, the ones that were so beautifully parodied later. I found the concept of the Entity utterly ridiculous.
()
More graphically than the previous instalments of the M:I franchise, Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One raises concerns associated with the future of humanity and of Hollywood. The film, whose main villain is an extraordinarily powerful artificial intelligence, was released to cinemas during the dual strike of Hollywood actors and writers, who in addition to fair compensation also demanded a guarantee that they would not be replaced by modern technologies. The computer-generated illusions in the film threaten the approach to truth and relativise the ethical categories of good and evil. Ethan Hunt/Tom Cruise is naturally the only safeguard against machines taking over the world, the last link holding human society together (this is literally true in the final action scene, when his partner uses him as a ladder). What awaits him is a confrontation with the most powerful adversary he has faced yet, which collects our best-hidden secrets, reshapes reality and is everywhere and nowhere. In other words, he will have to take on a (false) god, whose interests are represented by a villain with the biblical name of Gabriel, and the key to controlling it is in the shape of a cross. ___ Though few people in Hollywood today are able to so effectively evoke the dizzying feeling of forward motion as a running Tom Cruise, Dead Reckoning is to a significant extent a film of reversions, to the old faces and analogue technology of the Cold War period, to the protagonist’s past and to the skewed angles of De Palma’s paranoid first Mission: Impossible. And even deeper into the past. To The General, Hitchcock’s comedy spy thrillers and related 1970s caper comedies like What’s Up, Doc? McQuarrie combines the structural principles of the cinema of attractions and classic Hollywood, but he intensifies the situations and takes them to such an extreme that even the characters sometimes laugh resignedly over their impossibility. Tension arises between the (unseen) classic and (self-reflexive) post-modern approach to style and narrative when the film alternately fulfils and defies our expectations, as it is playfully ironic at times and tragically romantic at other time. Similarly to the way Hunt defies the algorithm and how the protagonists are aided by disguises and advanced surveillance technologies, which fail repeatedly, however. In the end, they can rely only on human bodies, ingenuity and teamwork. ___ The characters’ distrust and suspicion toward what they see and hear is expressed in the dialogue scenes by the tilted camera shooting from up close and in decentred compositions of the actors’ faces. Sometimes without establishing shots, which, together with the hasty editing (including cross-axis jumps), intensifies the feeling of disorientation and the impossibility of determining what is true and who is running the show. At other times, usually while the next course of action is being planned, the camera uneasily circles the characters. Thanks to this, even the chatty explanatory sequences are thrilling and there are practically no statics moment in the film. The almost cubist composition of the picture occurs roughly at the midpoint of the narrative during the meeting of most of the key players at a party at Doge’s Palace in Venice. The characters’ dialogue as they try to figure out their adversaries’ motivations is edited in the rhythm of the diegetic background music. Their verbal shootout is reminiscent of a dance performance, as every camera movement is synchronized with the soundtrack. Also in other scenes, though not as conspicuously, the information conveyed is of comparable importance as the aesthetic pleasure of the interplay of shapes and lines. For example, during the chase through the narrow and dark streets and canals of Venice, the order of shots is not determined only by the continuity of the ongoing action, but also by the rhythmic alternation of contrasting and complementary angles and movements. ___ The episodically structured film traditionally comprises several massive action sequences, each of which having its own objective, obstacles and course of development. At the same time, they are firmly interlinked. Each one prepares us for what will happen next (which doesn’t always go according to the presented plan) and sets in motion another notional cog in the flawlessly tuned mechanism. The chosen locations also complement each other, as they give the characters less and less room to manoeuvre (from an expansive multi-level airport to a closed train). Almost every sequence works with a tight deadline and the necessity of precise timing, both across the given sequence and in its constituent parts (for example, the necessity of escaping from the car before it gets destroyed by an oncoming metro train at the end of the Rome sequence). ___ Unlike in blockbuster comic book adaptations and the high-octane, progressively dumber Fast & Furious movies, the human element is never overshadowed by the shootouts and explosions in Dead Reckoning. On the contrary, they are doubly suspenseful thanks to the chemistry between the believable characters. Their characterisation, which is carried out without pauses in the action or during their preparations for the next task, is skilfully connected with certain recurring motifs and props (e.g. Hunt’s lighter, the passing around of which among the characters reflects the development of the relationship between Grace and the protagonist). That’s what the franchise is about, as Cruise doesn’t hesitate to risk his own life again and again with maniacal determination in order to convince us that an intelligent machine can never do anything as spectacular as a human (or a team of humans) can do. In the latest instalment of the M:I franchise, which is the most narratively harmonious and stylistically experimental of the lot, he does this for the first time not only in the subtext, but in the foreground. The time for subtlety has passed. 95%
()
(vähemmän)
(lisää)
Some brilliantly overblown action sequences in a generally problematic film for me. MI may look deadly serious, fateful, whatever, but I'm afraid we're already on the level of the Fast and Furious franchise in terms of plot intelligence. The whole AI stampede is utterly ludicrously contrived, the plot still has to be explained verbatim by one of the characters to get the viewer to at least frame it, but it doesn't help much. If we forget about the craftsmanship and just think about the plot itself... I don't believe it makes sense to anyone. For example the dialogue exchange at the Venetian party, WTF? We spend over two and a half hours looking for a key, next thing we know we're diving towards a submarine for over two and a half hours, then Cruise shoves the key up the AI's ass and it goes nuts or something. 83 percent and 620th best movie, My God.
()
The echo of the 90s, sending postcards about villainous AI through a time machine, sometimes appears to have the upper hand over the audience, but do not be lulled by the admitted stupidity, because the running scout Cruise and McQuarrie send it uncompromisingly into the present. It's not about WHAT, but HOW. Seeing a film that layers action scenes with stunt attractions, as well as plot twists of "good guys vs. bad guys vs. (other) bad guys," is an absolute delight for the audience. If Fallout is an amusement park of action entertainment, Dead Reckoning is the top form of creative concentration. Venice may be an early peak, but the climax of the episode with the trains, when the appreciation of the second part of the game "Uncharted" is realized, ultimately closes it off as the peak of this year's popcorn entertainment and easily parks this part of the film series behind the unattainable Rogue Nation.
()
I don't really get the blockbusters this year, I admit that, but with Mission: Impossible I was sure it just had to work out. Well, it didn't. I had that fundamental problem from the very beginning. The story looks like out of movies that were made twenty years ago. The whole plot with the artificial intelligence that knows everything and can predict everything reminded me of Eagle Eyes in its better moments, and Next with Nicolas Cage in its worse ones. And as the main villain, he comes across as somewhat out of place and not the least bit scary, which unfortunately also applies to Esai Morales. The plot didn't grab me because it felt sort of old-fashioned. It's as if the script was written by someone who still has a push-button phone, has recently read something about artificial intelligence, and calls his grandchildren when Yahoo crashes, telling them that the internet is down... only there's more to it than that. Aside from crappy bad guys with zero charisma and questionable motivations, there are also the occasional oddly edited action sequences, which are often unnecessarily long on top of that. The chemistry between Tom Cruise and Hayley Atwell is virtually non-existent, and the film literally doesn't bother to work with emotion, stopping to let the characters and the audience enjoy and savour even the very major twists. After the bloated fifth and sixth episodes, Cruise and Christopher McQuarrie have simply served up some damn good Hollywood craftsmanship, but compared to the previous installments, it runs out of steam quite often and fails to offer any downright memorable scenes. But unfortunately, along with that comes a really stupid story, which leaves me a little afraid of what's to come in the grand finale.
()
The best Brosnan movie of the 1990s inadvertently released in 2023. If I leave aside the slightly WTF technophobic foundation and the chaotic motivations and donkey bridges arising from it, this is a king-sized portion of superbly constructed and charismatic action in which the climax aboard a train is the dominant feature. This is probably what Nolan’s take on Bond would look like. That’s good enough for me. I'm looking forward to part two, aka The Hunt for Red October.
()
The collaboration of the McQuarrie-Cruise duo is a well-established brand promising a modern take on old-school action in an edgy, thrilling and adrenaline-fuelled setting, and that is absolutely true this time as well. Many things could be praised, but the best way to describe it is that even though we've seen chases through ancient buildings in a small car or action in an out-of-control train countless times, the way it is paced, plotted and delivered here is both breathtaking and riveting in a way that will make you sweat your shirt off from the sheer dodging and clenching of fists. A genre film that defines (though does not redefine) the genre to the core. Too bad about the apparent lack of closure and the bland villain. Hats off and pure enthusiastic curiosity about where they want to take it in the finale.
()
From the 4th episode, Mission Impossible is one of the great spy action series, where every new episode is a big action feast, and I was expecting Reckoning to be one of the movies of the year. Even though it's a great show, I thought it was a bit slower compared to Fallout and Rogue Nation, which I think are a level above. Tom Cruise is still in great form and there's one amazing stunt, the craftsmanship is again of a high standard, and the film is definitely a lot of fun, but there are a few little things that slightly detracted from the absolute experience. I don't find the AI theme all that dazzling or interesting, and I'm a little bothered that it will continue into the finale, but I'll probably have to put up with it. Gabriel is a weaker villain than the previous ones the franchise had and doesn't even have much scope, I felt like there were fewer high tech gadgets and there were definitely fewer contact fights (the bathroom fight with Henry Cavill still resonates in my head, no such satisfaction here). The chase in Rome is cool and thanks to Fiat it's very fresh and original (it doesn't have the same feel as the motorbike chase), but the finale on the train is excellent (the scene where Cruise has to change from carriage to carriage is one of the best sequences of the whole series, that was a really cool eye candy moment), so even though I have a few minor reservations, it's still a great blockbuster that's worth seeing in the cinema, but when I compare it to this year's action movies, both John Wick 4 and Extraction 2 were surprisingly more satisfying. 8/10.
()
Ethan Hunt protecting his women vs. an entity with the IQ of six thousand gym teachers. This is the realization of differing views on the form of higher good, as a frail old-school action skeleton aware that variations on Lalo Schifrin's iconic theme and an epic train crash, a must since Buster Keaton, help stimulate the viewer's subconscious. There are a few missteps (running across the roof of an Abu Dhabi airport just for a joke, a fight on a Venetian bridge with an unexpectedly ineffective emotional climax), and Esai Morales' gray mold can hardly compete with Cavill's musk. However, Christopher McQuarrie can comfortably say about the duo of Beautiful Dream Plastic Surgeons that in the 21st century, no one makes Bond films without Bond as well as they do. Hopefully, in Part Two, Holly will show us a proper Queeg.
()
Hunt vs Hall 9000 round one. Basically a tie between the sheer technical brilliance and perfection of each action sequence with a dated and clunky script that is perhaps supposed to be a homage to the old (Roger Moore) Bond films or something. The golden rule is, stick to what you know and what you're good at, and Christopher McQuarrie overestimated himself this time and showed that he doesn't understand computers at all, otherwise he wouldn't have written such a piece of garbage. I'm not saying it doesn't work for the average person, it's just that for IT people it will be like scraping your fingernails on a blackboard in places. He can still salvage a few things in a sequel, but no one can take away his English-speaking Russian submariners and theatrical speeches about deleting oneself in cyberspace. He can still move and offer an interesting twist, but it's as if he's started to care about the Tom crap instead of the story. Otherwise, everything we're used to works. The actresses are fine. Hayley Atwell clicked with Cruise whether she's stuck on him in Rome or when they're talking on the train. Beautiful locations and beautiful shots. Tom is starting to look old though. One more episode and then it would be nice to kick off the Extreme Old Man series.
()
Everything Tom Cruise has his fingers in is entertaining and most of what Christopher McQuarrie has his fingers in is not. At least that is my first impression after watching MI7. In Tom's case, you can see extreme commitment, diligence, and an effort to do everything to entertain the viewer, not to mention the stunts, including the now legendary cliff jump. But the film is not fun in terms of content. A plot like from the 1990s, dialogue wadding and most of the characters are poorly drawn and therefore emotionally flat, including the main big villain, whose fateful moment in history we learn about through a five-second flashback, which is repeated about three times in the course of the film. The extremely swollen running time is hard to justify with the feeling of a film like Tomorrow Never Dies. There is some physical action, but Cruise is hardly a match for Daniel Craig or Chris Hemsworth, he doesn't have the age and especially the physical parameters. The much-discussed train finale is satisfying, but certainly not the best MI has ever offered. The sixth film, which is a similarly styled formal spy romp, is better. And those thunderous "Dar Knight" synths like something out of Hans Zimmer's workshop help just a little and rip off a lot.
()
I liked the previous missions under the supervision of Christopher McQuarrie better, but there is no question of any big disappointment. For example, I don't have a problem with the fact that there's a lot going on in the film, but I was getting a little annoyed with how long it was going on, and that there were certain things associated with the Entity that we would have immediately laughed off in Fast and Furious, for example. I also wasn't too keen on the villain from Hunt's past, who appeared kind of out of nowhere and then acted accordingly – somewhat bland. Nevertheless, the film is great fun, the action is terrific (the stuff that happens on and in the train are like something out of a Buster Keaton slapstick), and the humour is natural. I enjoyed it as much as the new Indiana Jones, with the only difference that I won't go to the cinema a second time.
()
Christopher McQuarrie and Tom Cruise promised mountains and valleys, and we all believed it. However, after watching it, I can say with a clear conscience that the best film in the series (Abrams' third) remains unbeaten. Sure, in terms of action, it blows all the competition away; it’s clear that in this regard, it’s at the very top (for me, the highlight of the entire film is the chase with the Fiat in the center of Rome... an incredible adrenaline sequence). I was also pleased to see the return of Kittridge from the first film. New female faces (Hayley Atwell, Pom Klementieff) also delivered impressively. But I was a bit disappointed with the story. The idea of an artificial intelligence rising against humanity (wink Skynet wink) might have looked good on paper, but its translation to the big screen didn’t quite work for me. Especially with the rather dull villain Gabriel. I haven’t seen such an uninteresting character in a long time, and at times, I didn’t understand his actions. All in all, it’s an audiovisual spectacle, no doubt, with a pace that doesn’t really slow down. Unfortunately, it’s marred by a needlessly chaotic plot. We’ll see how the second part of this legendary series wraps up. For me, it gets an 8/10 (plus half a point for the movie theater experience :D). P.S. The film contains one of the biggest mistakes I’ve ever seen in my life. You’ll definitely spot it. I can’t understand how this could slip past an AAA production :D.
()