• 5 Posts
  • 372 Comments
Joined 5 months ago
cake
Cake day: December 29th, 2024

help-circle







  • I was invited on short notice to watch this at the cinema with family, so in preparation I binge watched films 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 over a couple of days. I knew I’d seen 1 before so I skipped that, and I’d seen 3 as well but wasn’t sure so watched it again. I was quite surprised at how consistently decent films 4 through 7 were, so going into film 8 I thought it would be at a similar level. I was shocked by how bad this film was, I’d say it’s the worst in the series by an absolute mile.

    The tone is nothing like a Mission Impossible film, it’s got that generic third film in a Hollywood action trilogy feeling where they spend so much time beating the audience over the head with how big the stakes are, and how only our protagonist can save mankind, that it sucks away all of the spontaneity and fun. I don’t think the classic theme plays a single time during the actual film (only during the opening and closing credits), there is no crazy opening, no car chase, no comedy, no “we’ll figure it out” madness. The big action finale is a rehash of the finale in film 6, while the other one is slow motion underwater suspense that, while technically impressive, feels entirely out of place in this franchise. The globetrotting adventure vibe is completely absent, most scenes take place indoors, at night, underwater or in the Arctic - the sets are just visually boring and it hinders how creative they can get with the limited action.

    The Final Reckoning feels like some self-indulgent love letter from Tom Cruise to himself, with tons of time spent trying to pretend Mission Impossible has a deeper and more complex storyline than it ever did in reality. It is filled with these completely unnecessary connections to older films which are made redundant because this is a very direct sequel to 7, so everything has already been setup, and because none of them actually do anything to enhance the story of film 8. Like why does this random CIA agent side character need to be the son of Ethan Hunt’s original team leader? Why does the ‘Rabbit’s Foot’ from 3 need to suddenly be revealed as The Entity? None of these connections matter or have any time spent developing them.

    The writing is horrendous, this film treats you like an complete fucking moron and repeatedly explains the same basic plot points so often that it actually becomes an unintentional joke. There’s a scene towards the end of the film where most of the cast are literally standing around a nuclear bomb that is ticking down while they explain the plot to each other for the billionth time. CIA agent side character man questions why they are doing this - in a previous film this line would have actually been a real joke that the writers planned, but they were so clueless here that we’re supposed to take it seriously instead.

    Anyway, I could go on and on but this film is just so unnecessarily bad, I really wonder why they deviated so heavily from their successful formula. Was it an ego decision from Cruise, or was this about the (relatively) poor box office performance of the previous film?





  • It’s a first-gen product, most of them tend to be “okay but who is going to buy this?” type things. I guess they will better figure that out as they iterate (unless it gets discontinued). We have been approaching a true bezel-less design for a while now so it was only a matter of time before companies started on making phones thinner. Apple is also reportedly working on one, which is probably why Samsung’s feels a bit rushed (they wanted to be first).




  • The split makes more sense for the moderate Liberals, getting away from The Nationals does give them the opportunity to free up their policy platform a bit and finally start addressing some of the issues that the conservative faction wants to continue ignoring. Though the split also looks very bad for Ley’s leadership which is probably why she has raced back to the negotating table. It makes very little sense for The Nationals, beyond Littleproud protecting his own leadership by taking a hardline stance on key policy issues to appease his internal critics. Neither the party, nor its voters, gain any power from leaving the Coalition to become a minor party and lose all of extra staff, pay and influence that they otherwise would have had. It’s all well and good to say you’re taking a principled position to advocate for your constituents, but if you massively undercutting your own political power in the process then what is the point? The only thing I can think of is that they’ll be free to negotiate with Labor in the senate at the expense of the Liberals and Greens, but is that actually a real possibility?












OSZAR »