Editor’s Note: The following contains spoilers for Mission: Impossible — Dead Reckoning Part One.There’s nothing that Hollywood loves more than guaranteeing that audiences will come back for multiple installments in a recurring franchise. One of the most popular recurring trends of the past two decades has been for studios to split the final (or at least a pivotal) installment in a major franchise and divide it into two separate films entirely; if the audience is guaranteed to come back to see the conclusion of the story, it doesn’t matter if they can only watch half of a movie at once. This summer saw several major “part ones” withFast XandSpider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse,but of all the summer movies,Mission: Impossible — Dead Reckoning Part Onehas been the only film that stands on its own as a complete story.
RELATED:Christopher McQuarrie Explains Why ‘Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning’ Had to be Two Movie
In the era in which they ruled the box office, popular young adult fantasy novel adaptations divided their final film into two entries (Harry Potter and the Deathly HallowsandThe Hunger Games: Mockingjay). While this may have been because the source material was too dense to fit within the parameters of a single film, it quickly became an excuse used to stretch out the narrative beyond the point of reason. This became a trend that even non-adaptations would adopt; even the Marvel Cinematic Universe separated the conclusion to the first three phases of the story (collectively known as the “Infinity Saga”) into 2018’sAvengers: Infinity Warand 2019’sAvengers: Endgame.Mission: Impossible- Dead Reckoning Part Onehad the opportunity to do the same thing; whileTom Cruiseseems toinsist that the series will go on forever, it seems largely assumed that the two-partDead Reckoningproject will bethe end of Ethan Hunt’s story.
Even thoughDead Reckoning Part Oneis thelongest entry in theMission: Impossiblesagayet at 163 minutes, you wouldn’t know it based on the film’s nonstop sense of momentum. After a nuclear missile is hijacked by an enigmatic A.I. system known as “the entity” and destroys a Russian submarine, the audience is left to ponder who was responsible for this attack, and what the power could look like in the wrong hands. Even if Ethan’s journey isn’t over yet, the film isn’t just teasing out a conclusion by raising questions; it’s revealed that the Director of National Intelligence, Denlinger (Cary Elwes), had intended to use “the entity” to create a monopoly on the world’s intelligence networks.
By the time it begins, it’s clear thatDead Reckoning Part Oneis telling the most philosophically complex, morally delicate, and globally didactic story in theMission: Impossiblefranchise yet. Not only are Ethan and his team going up against a threat that seems almost a little too plausible when an artificial intelligence system goes rouge, but the film teased early on that there was more to be learned about Ethan’s life before he joined the IMF (prior to his adventure in thefirstMission: Impossiblefilm from 1996). These elements suggest a sense of finality. Who was Ethan before he chose to accept his mission, and is he capable of stopping this modern threat with old-school tools? By the end of the film, the audience isn’t left with an answer to either question fully, but that doesn’t mean thatChristopher McQuarrieand his team chose to end the story in the middle of the action.
Ethan has a complete character arc over the course ofDead Reckoning Part One. He’s haunted by the emergence of the ruthless terrorist Gabriel (Esai Morales), who is identified as a shadowy figure from his past who caused personal tragedy in Ethan’s life. Ethan is given the opportunity to kill Gabriel during the film’s final set piece aboard the Orient Express, but he makes the critical conclusion not to do so to secure the safety of a key to the A.I. network. It marks the growth of his character; he’s always recognized that he can’t fix a short-term problem with what seems like an easy solution, but that becomes more challenging when he’s tempted by the opportunity to avenge a tragedy that has lingered in his mind for as long as he’s been a spy.
Ethan may not have stopped Gabriel from escaping with the key to “the entity,” but he solved the short-term problem of avoiding a tragedy aboard a train of innocent civilians. He also showed a sign of maturity in the way that he became an ally, and potential mentor for thenew IMF member Grace (Hayley Atwell). Grace is a thief who follows her own moral code; judging by the brief details given about Ethan’s past, it seems like they originated from similar places. Ethan explains to Grace why he answered the call all those years ago; he was tired of being selfish and found purpose in serving a higher cause. Beyond being a perfect way to introduce Grace into the team, this sentiment serves as the perfect summation of the saga’s themes. Heroes like Ethan, Benji Dunn (Simon Pegg), and Luther Stickell (Ving Rhames) aren’t part of the IMF out of obligation, but because they find value in doing what no one else will.
Sure, simply taking a massive story and simply cutting it in half might be a good way for a franchise to generate short-term anticipation, but it won’t make the film age well in the long run. It’s nearly impossible to judgeHarry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part OneorThe Hunger Games: Mockingjay- Part 1on their own because they simply don’t have an ending. This is why evenAvengers: Infinity War,as beloved as it is by some Marvel fans, is ultimately just a collection of crowd-pleasing moments that saves the emotional payoff for a completely different film. This may even have financial ramifications in some instances;Fast Xhas been underperforming compared to expectations, and it may be becauseVin Dieselhas teased that this will be “one last ride” for far too long.
Mission: Impossible- —Dead Reckoning Part Onerepresents the best of modern blockbuster storytelling. The film doesn’t needa post-credit stingerto amp up the excitement for the next film, and it doesn’t cheat the viewer out of a complete experience. Who would have thought that simply making a good movie would still be within viewers’ minds longer than a generic cliffhanger that doesn’t offer a proper conclusion?
