It was 2019 when Mission: Impossible fans received the news that the seventh and eighth films would be shot back-to-back. Two years ago, we saw Dead Reckoning Part One, and in May, after much hype, The Final Reckoning was released in cinemas. Did the latest Mission: Impossible bring "proper" cinema back? Did it deliver the kind of big-screen experience that cinema fans have missed?
In a sense, yes — The Final Reckoning represents a return to the kind of tactile, high-stakes filmmaking that once defined blockbuster cinema. It may not be flawless, but it harks back to a time when spectacle was achieved through craft more than computers and when the cinema experience meant something uniquely physical.
Courtesy of Unsplash
Early reviews
While not as emphatic as the reaction to some Mission: Impossible films, early reviews for The Final Reckoning were mostly positive. The overall critic score on Tomatometer (Rotten Tomatoes) stands at 80%. Critic Sergio Burstein (Los Angeles Times) said it was entertaining and had a particularly memorable action sequence. Leigh Paatsch (Daily Telegraph Australia) wrote that the film was a fitting finale to the series. While Paatsch felt The Final Reckoning was flawed and excessive in some respects, it was also a celebration of Tom Cruise's work ethic and commitment. Like other critics, Paatsch felt the start to the film dragged, and explained that no one attends a M:I film for the plot. In short, it should have "cut to the chase" and reached the action sooner.
Fans' reviews were predictably mixed, as is often the case with series where there are strong feelings. Out of 10,000 verified ratings on Popcornmeter, the film scores an impressive 89% positive. But there were plenty of fans less than impressed. One called the dialogue "unbearable," and the physics weren't rooted in reality. While some may scorn at the idea of going to an action film expecting realism, that review brings up an interesting point: The series is one of the last surviving that doesn't rely heavily on CGI.
Is that, perhaps, hitting the nail on the head? Many film franchises have a nostalgic appeal to fans, but is that appeal beginning to wane as CGI and other "modern" elements of filmmaking become the norm? Does "proper" cinema, to so many of us, feel slightly rougher around the edges — in a very human sense?
Practical filmmaking
Director Christopher McQuarrie has been praised for his commitment to what's sometimes termed "practical filmmaking" — that is, genuine physical action sequences. Cruise performs his stunts. Or did. The Final Reckoning has been confirmed as Cruise's last in the role he started in 1996.
The Mission: Impossible series has been based on questionable physics ever since the 1960s television series, but does it matter? In a review for the very first film, The New York Times writer Stephen Holden wrote that "basic credibility" hardly mattered, as long as suspense was felt. That perspective seems key to understanding the franchise's enduring appeal: It isn't about plausibility — it's about immersion.
Others complained of The Final Reckoning's plot holes and a poor script, but the general reaction was that McQuarrie and Cruise delivered a satisfying goodbye. As one viewer suggested, perhaps "deep analysis" isn't necessary for a Mission: Impossible film. Most agree that the series is meant to be about a fun big-screen night out — in other words, a cinema equivalent to a Vegas experience — and in that respect, it delivered.
And crucially, it did so without leaning heavily on the CGI-heavy, green-screened formula of most contemporary action films. That choice — to keep action real, physical and filmed on location — is what elevates The Final Reckoning above much of its genre, and what brings it closer to what many view as "proper" cinema.
A few thoughts from the director
Around the time of the previous film, Dead Reckoning, McQuarrie sparked a debate around "fan service" and fandom. The director said callbacks, inside jokes and familiar tropes were the enemy of filmmaking. He said he doesn't "count on it" and the effect of such films is that they ask the viewer to leave the current narrative, remember another one and then return to the current film.
But the new film was "ironic," according to The Hollywood Reporter, for being plot-heavy and trying to summarize the entire franchise in one viewing (admittedly a three-hour viewing).
Writer James Hibberd, in reviewing McQuarrie's comments, noted that Marvel is often guilty of stuffing references to prior films that require knowledge of prequels and connected Universe storylines. The Final Reckoning won't be remembered for such things. It'll be remembered for its action sequences, a five-minute standing ovation at Cannes, and, in many eyes, a welcome return to physical filmmaking.
So, was it a return to proper cinema?
In some ways, yes — not because it reinvents the genre or rewrites cinematic history but because it honors an older tradition of how films are made. The Final Reckoning returns to the idea that the big screen should thrill us not through pixels but through presence: real stunts, real locations, real risks. In an age where blockbusters often resemble extended cutscenes, that alone feels like a cinematic mission worth accepting.
Courtesy of Altice USA/YouTube
ZUMAPRESS.com / MEGA
