Mission: Impossible Franchise (1996-?)

[therewillbeblus]

I think you just might be- I love Die Hard 2 and The Temple of Doom and don't think the comparison fits. I also much prefer Cruise's chemistry with Ferguson in Rogue Nation, which as I've already described is far deeper and complex than it appears to be, though part of the reason I've soured on Fallout is that their chemistry and her character in general is diluted of substance, undoing the magic that came before. Hopefully McQuarrie is interested in restoring that energy in the new films.

[domino harvey]

Siskel named Die Hard 2 as one of the best films of the year. It was a popular and critical hit, as was Temple of Doom. Not sure where you’re getting these “mass” hot takes from Monterey Jack, though nothing can compare to actually admitting you like MI2

[tenia]

Temple of Doom has for a very long time been my favorite Indy. However, I disliked for quite some Die Hard 2 but having re-watched it recently, it turned out to be quite better than what I remembered, though its turns and twists are very predictable and the baddies particularly caricatural (I'm also unsure about its relatively more violent and darker tone compared to the 1st movie, which seemed more balanced in comparaison - something that Die Hard 3 managed to get back).

[Monterey Jack]

Go to any message board topic about the Die Hard movies, and Die Harder is inevitably referred to as the "black sheep" of the initial three films. And Temple Of Doom was widely disliked at the time of release and made significantly less than Raiders, and still has a bad rep to this day. Granted, the fourth Indiana Jones and fifth Die Hard have supplanted those films as the bottom-of-the-barrel worst of their respective franchises in the years since.

And I may not know a lot about "art", but I know what I like, and M:I-2 is a fun way to spend two hours.

[Never Cursed]

Weren't most of the negative contemporary reactions to Temple of Doom principally in response to its perceived inappropriateness for children? I can't really find much in the way of backlash against the film that doesn't have to do with its darker tone as it pertained to its presumed audience of families, and even then it still attained critical success (at least in the long term, the arguments of the most famous defenders of the film, among them Ebert, Vincent Canby, and Pauline Kael, have clearly won this historical battle) as well as commercial (given that it was the third highest grossing film of the year).

[domino harvey]

Go to any message board topic about the Die Hard movies, and Die Harder is inevitably referred to as the "black sheep" of the initial three films.

You... you are using the Blu-Ray.vom forums as the primary citation for your claims?

[thirtyframesasecond]

1, 5, 6, 4, 3.....................2

[Finch]

5, 1, 6, 4........ 3..2

Temple of Doom is far better than the tedious Last Crusade but it's also so relentless that it wears me down after a while.

[swo17]

Temple of Doom has by far the best parts (but also some of the worst parts) of all the Indy films

[domino harvey]

Best: Kate Capshaw whining
Worst: All that action stuff

[flyonthewall2983]

Hopefully he has more screen time. I just remember him having a few scenes towards the beginning culminating with the one in the restaurant. Between that and his role in Clear And Present Danger he really nailed down the evil bureaucrat cliche for awhile.

Czerny also played Christopher Plummer's son in Egoyan's 'Remember', which came out a few years ago, which was decent.

For some really odd reason I thought he played the guy Plummer's character was going after. I haven't watched it yet (obviously), but knowing that not to be true has upped my interest.

[Finch]

Hollywood Reporter piece on the messy, ongoing filming for MI 7 & 8

[therewillbeblus]

In the midst of doing a full series revisit via the new UHD set, with little alterations in opinions but some notable appreciations. I've never cared for the first film in the series before, but during this last watch I was more attuned to De Palma's skills at economy. There are plenty of set pieces and small multicharacter arcs that could've been fleshed out to superfluous ends in a normal bloated actioner, but that never happens. If anything, the investment feels lacking, yet everything moves along so seamlessly that even without being particularly inspired, the reveals don't pack on some extra unearned gravitas either. So flaws and strengths alike blend into a product of hollow but mildly stimulating narrative thrust for the sake of low-stakes entertainment. Also, I know it's hardly a novel thought, especially when referring to De Palma's influences, but the unpredictable demise of the crew just minutes into the first act is an amusing self-aware one-uppage of the auteur's famous Hitchcock borrowings, issuing the whole Janet Leigh-Psycho narrative pivot much earlier and with way more heads. I know the film takes it very seriously, and I don't think it's a lampoon or anything (part of why De Palma justifiably gets away with his echos is in how sincerely and transparently he pitches them, while formulating them into his own brand) but I can't help but smile a bit at the devious plotting to wield such a perverse device, only louder and inside a blockbuster franchise-starter to boot.

But it's the third entry that continues to grow as one of the series' very best for me, just behind Rogue Nation. Talk about economic filmmaking- Abrams leaves zero fat on this bone, and applies simultaneous meticulous time management and relentless forward momentum across a wider variety of interests, while still prioritizing their dimensionality with dedication: The space he allots for character development, a detailed romance, felt high stakes sourced in the emotionality of professional camaraderie and personal lives, riveting action set pieces, and gritty violence, is all perfectly balanced. With all the recent talk of Bond, this is the entry that feels most like a Bond movie-done-right, where there's actually a compelling villain if only in his slimy sociopathy and brutal follow-through on threats, and absurd luck is treated as such without sugar-coating the experience of trauma that almost-was if only specific interventions weren't implemented. I think someone complained about the prayer bit, but it's a strange moment to single out because it's so brief and sandwiched between a jaw-dropping set piece that you thought was over, but was really just on stand-by while we cut to these two in the van for a second! I get that some people hate the style of the film, and I can't fault that - if you're repulsed by it, this film probably never had much of a chance. But it's just so slick and grimy, and the dizzying action appropriately obfuscates our line of sight within the frenzied violence on occasion, a tactic I admire only because Abrams can snap us right back into the zone with lucidity the next moment. That's how in control he is. III feels like an eclectic greatest hits compilation of the B-sides, pulp entertainment that rises romantic and depressive waves without ever escaping from its airtight container of the dark muck that is this work, that fatalistically pulls Ethan Hunt away from his chance at happiness even when it graces us with genuine observations on the resilience of love. They are impermanent, but the forces-at-be that promote infinite opportunities for Hunt to be enslaved to serve a utilitarian ethos are permanent. One man's love can never contend with his moral impulses, and when cast against such an immoral and ghastly milieu, we feel that tragedy even stronger.

[beamish14]

I was just thinking the other day about how truly difficult it is to maintain a secret about a high-profile film over the last few decades, and that the appearance of Emilio Estevez in the beginning of the first Mission: Impossible is one of the last times I can recall being truly shocked by a high-profile actor showing up unannounced in a feature.

It’s such a shame that we still don’t have what John Woo really intend for the 2nd. It’s such a messy film, and multiple editors had to tackle the holes left by the demands Paramount placed on him.

I’m in agreement with you on the 3rd, and I’m very outspoken about my dislike of Abrams’ other work, particularly Super 8; the humor all lands so well in it.

After rewatching Ghost Protocol, you should revisit Barry Levinson’s Toys (or not-I understand that movie is certainly not for many!) The scene with the mirror fake-out is identical to a moment in that. It’s quite uncanny.

[brundlefly]

Wasn't the Abrams hire directly based on his work on Alias? That show -- at least for a while, and at least at that time (I suspect its pacing may not hold up) -- was about as thrillingly silly and joyfully functional as 22-episode/season network TV could get.

[therewillbeblus]

After rewatching Ghost Protocol, you should revisit Barry Levinson’s Toys (or not-I understand that movie is certainly not for many!) The scene with the mirror fake-out is identical to a moment in that. It’s quite uncanny.

Ha, I've never had a desire to revisit that, and I hardly remember anything about it, but any silly Robin Williams movie I hated when I was 8 can't really be something I need to mature to appreciate, can it?

After revisiting Ghost Protocol and Fallout, it's clear to me that both are stronger-than-average spy action films, but their respective ambitions fall short of the masterpieces of 3 and 5. Ghost Protocol tones things waaaayyy down to produce good, clean, light-as-a-feather fun, but its leisurely pleasures wane a bit on returns. Conversely, Fallout attempts to retain the earned paramount tone from Rogue Nation but doesn't weave the pieces together with the perfect-balance of tragic fatalism, moral-political intricacy, riveting action set pieces, subtle comedy, and artsy flourishes - at least not in a rhythm that works quite as well. Instead of Ghost Protocol’s tendency to enhance those fluid elements a bit louder than they need to be, Fallout leans harder into the solemnity of its predecessor without as much care to engage the characters or narrative as deeply as they’ve proven to be capable of deserving in the directly previous treatment. The big issue here, as I mentioned earlier upthread, is Ferguson's complex part reduced to a unidimensional vehicle to replace Hunt’s love interest, which she was already on the road to doing with that complexity intact. Everything about 6 feels to be orbiting that same vein- the plot, trajectory, characters all remain more or less static and repeat diluted versions of what they’ve done before. I still love 6 and 4 for what they are, and they’re about tied in my book for third place in a ranking, far above 1 and far behind 3, but neither accomplish what the best do. Though if it weren’t for the existence of 5, and to a lesser extent 3, I wouldn’t have these notes; it’s through the unexpected presence of the possible that critiques the flatlining aspects of the solid franchise entries.

[therewillbeblus]

Dead Reckoning: Part One Trailer

[therewillbeblus]

Dead Reckoning: Part One is a blast from start to finish, and easily in the upper echelon of the franchise. It's also an eclectic amalgamation of what made each entry (sans II..) special, without becoming a bland Greatest Hits compilation. This should appease the 1 & 6 crowd, in overarching tone, callback scenes, and a strong investment in lore. It also sustains the humor and lightness of 4 when it slips into the mode of mismatched buddy-comedy, contains a few fierce moments infused with 3's grit, and has 5's penchant for strong set pieces, relentless action, interpersonal intimacy, global stakes, and overall fun.

But whereas 6 peaked early and ultimately devolved into rote familiar stuff redone (*but done well), these set pieces put novel spins on known mechanics. There's a car chase that's inverted into a long-gag rather than becoming yet another humdrum car chase sequence (while also being more thrilling than any 'chase' I can recall from a MI pic), a claustrophobic alley fight shot and staged like a horror sequence (makeup and all), and the train scene.. just when you think it's over, the film delivers its most compelling sequence yet, set pieces literally spilling into each other as McQuarrie and Cruise drain the possibilities of the train car setting this side of Snowpiercer.

Of course the only place this series could've gone to next (and, most likely, will end with) is by making its villain an enigmatic omniscient A.I., eradicating human value and ascending all of our tools to problem-solve or engage in power games with any semblance of dominance. And of course all world powers want to weaponize the thing because the series has always been about pitting the IMF’s unconditional humanism and the value of emotional investment against ambitious and fear-based manipulations of “utilitarian” rationalizations posturing as amoral logic. By creating that very thing that stupefies even the smartest and most powerful human forces.. well, there’s no where to go to from here - but they’re clearly breeding one character for a spin-off, or setting up a finale signaling the recycling of moral soldiers amidst an increasingly amoral world. Pretty on-brand for the series.

Which is where the problems are - though they're few and far between. I suppose it's somewhat fitting that this is a pretty predictable film, since the plot-points are being governed by a pragmatic, predictive machine, but it's a little overdone in a few places. There are certainly scenes like the sprawling airport bit that are exhilarating because the thrills are sourced in experimental trickery, both from the filmmakers on the audience and the characters on one another, but then there are obvious fatalistic occurrences that we know will play out and just sit wait to happen. The explanations of the plot, villainous vehicle, and the thematic gravitas are a bit overwritten at times, and Rebecca Ferguson is criminally underutilized, once again. However, Hayley Atwell's new blood adds a fresh element to the group dynamics. She's green, from a different context, with an entirely separate set of skills (it's refreshing that she can't really defend herself in hand-to-hand combat and requires a defender to survive) - not to mention, her existence contrasts well with the overwhelming nebulous force of a Godlike A.I., since she represents the personal, corporeal, 'human' asset on skill level alone - in the intimate 1:1 archaic form of thievery as a pickpocket. It's a neat juxtaposition, that really heightens the moral humanist element once she figures deeper into the narrative.

Still, the few issues I had with this were overshadowed by its pleasures. I really liked Fallout, but this reminded me of what that film might have looked like if they put a bit more thought into its structure, and more blood into its scenes of fellowship. Plus we get more Vanessa Kirby stealing every scene she's in with an unnecessarily-stellar performance, and the writers admirably give her several reasons-as-opportunities to gift us a sizable chunk of her range. Time will have to tell, but this probably ranks either north or south of III and obviously under Rogue Nation, because that'll forever hold the crown. But it's close to the best. It's also worth noting that the film ends in a way where - even if the full story is 'unresolved' - there's a sense of settlement and transitions happening that are cathartic and cute, just like every other MI film (the ending it resembles most is probably 5's). It's not a cliffhanger where you'll be frustrated you can't keep going to finish the story - though I'm certainly hungry for more action (yet grateful for three-fucking-hours-worth of it, my god)! In a way, 5 and 6 could've functioned as a Two-Part film. They're very different, but 6 is fundamentally a continuation of 5 in plot and character. So I expect Part II to be about the same 'thing', but with characters evolved and going through different things together and apart. I imagine it'll stand on its own to some degree, as will this one, just as much as they all follow the same formula regardless of tonal or stylistic bending.

Lastly, while this is probably more appropriate to place in the Movie Experiences thread, my advanced screening demonstrated just how awful some moviegoers are with the worst kind: Guy Who Points Out Things That Just Happened On Screen With No Personal Spin On Them. Just flat-out screaming what he watched, like the infamous Schwarzenegger commentaries. If we see a Fiat, "That's a Fiat!", if someone doesn't make a jump, "He didn't make it!", during the Big Jaw-dropping Stunt when the movie intentionally goes silent as you stop breathing to take in what’s happening..“Is this real?” I locked eyes with the guy and he stopped for about twenty seconds, then just kept going til the end. What kind of person has zero self-or-external consciousness? The evil A.I., and this guy, that's who

[Finch]

A solid entry for me. It did not start well. The first 20 minutes (outside of the desert storm sequence) are frankly boring, with the scene where Cary Elwes gets briefed on the threat of the entity feels like a franchise-worst exposition dump where bit players get to spout one line before it cuts to someone else in the room finishing the previous person's thought. The talents of Mark Gatiss were wasted here. But once it gets to the airport, it gets really good. The car chase in Rome involving the adorable little yellow Fiat driven with one hand by Cruise is marvelous, a franchise best even when it requires your suspension of disbelief that a Roman bus (which drives past Cruise and Atwell) would be completely empty (in real life, these things are as overstuffed as Japanese trains). The chemistry between Cruise and Atwell is very good and the movie's funniest moments are between them in that scene. After that chase sequence, we get more portentous talk about the entity which drags the movie down in the nightclub (though to be fair, a lot gets communicated also through gestures and looks, which I wish the movie had relied on more) and another chase through Venice. The scene where Ethan gets attacked from both sides from the French assassin and her side-kick is the movie's weakest action scene: the framing is too tight and messy; it would have paid dividends to have studied the similarly claustrophobic finale of the Shaw Bros entry Martial Club which does this thing a dozen times better. The motorbike stunt got a bit spoiled for me by the trailers and making of's which makes me want to stay away from any promos for the eighth movie. And one thing that the movies never explain is how when Ethan or someone else from his team dons a mask of someone else's face how they manage to simulate that person's voice so convincingly. Hollywood magic. The entire train sequence was great and ends the film on a high. Right now, I'd rate this higher than Fallout and Ghost Protocol but most definitely lower than the series' best, Rogue Nation. Almost everyone acquits themselves well, except for Simon Pegg who plays it really broad this time, and who I've honestly always considered the weak link in the ensemble since he joined in 3 (?). Hayley Atwell is the standout for me and I did like Esai Morales in a somewhat thankless role. Vanessa Kirby is also very good whereas I'm getting a little bored with Rebecca Ferguson's soulful eyes shtick. Cruise lightens up a little here, I felt, especially in the Italian scenes with Atwell. He was a little less one-note intense than in Fallout.

Current ranking: 5 > 1 > 7 > 4 > 6 > 2 > 3

[Monterey Jack]

And one thing that the movies never explain is how when Ethan or someone else from his team dons a mask of someone else's face how they manage to simulate that person's voice so convincingly.

This has been specifically explained as far back as M:I-2, with an electronic strip placed across a person's larynx that allows them to speak in the voice of the person they're impersonating. There's a good bit in M:I-3 where Cruise (impersonating Philip Seymour Hoffman's villain) has to fake a violent coughing fit until his voice strip is activated.

[therewillbeblus]

The scene where Ethan gets attacked from both sides from the French assassin and her side-kick is the movie's weakest action scene: the framing is too tight and messy; it would have paid dividends to have studied the similarly claustrophobic finale of the Shaw Bros entry Martial Club which does this thing a dozen times better.

I don't think it's going for what you think it's going for - it's not trying to be a well-choreographed action scene in close-quarters, but a horror set piece (the villain's ghostly makeup is on-the-nose, but the way the sharp edits of her lunging at the subjective camera, suffocating us with grammar masquerading as jump-scares, couldn't make this more obvious). It's more in line with the chaotic grit of III than anything else, though I appreciate that a) you and others don't like that one, and b) it's unlike any other scene in this film, so it's going to stick out like a sore thumb. Personally, I thought it was one of the highlights of the film -a sobering tonal epiphany of the raw dangers lurking about, contrasting the inventive narrative surprises of the airport, or creativity of the train set pieces, and the silly buddy-comedy fun of the Fiat car chase.

I'm getting a little bored with Rebecca Ferguson's soulful eyes shtick.

The desert storm sequence early gave me hope, but the series really botched the potential of her arc, which held so much promise of depth ignited by the shared pathos with Ethan permeating Rogue Nation. Mishandling/suppressing her characterization is the biggest disappointment of the franchise.

Cruise lightens up a little here, I felt, especially in the Italian scenes with Atwell. He was a little less one-note intense than in Fallout.

Agreed, I liked the deus ex machina of his 'entrance' on the train, and generally felt like he toned down his stunt work for the sake of more versatile physical and situational comedy this go-around, which makes sense given his age. His stunts are still very impressive (the 'big stunt' was breathtaking - maybe the most impressive and gut-wrenching yet, though the Burj Khalifa scaling is kinda unbeatable), but he no longer needs to be engaging in constant exercise and pummeling to stir us up, and he knows it.

I suspect we'll get more Mark Gatiss in the sequel, since it was indeed strange that he showed up for just a hot second

[Finch]

And one thing that the movies never explain is how when Ethan or someone else from his team dons a mask of someone else's face how they manage to simulate that person's voice so convincingly.

This has been specifically explained as far back as M:I-2, with an electronic strip placed across a person's larynx that allows them to speak in the voice of the person they're impersonating. There's a good bit in M:I-3 where Cruise (impersonating Philip Seymour Hoffman's villain) has to fake a violent coughing fit until his voice strip is activated.

Haven't seen 2 and 3 in a long time but thanks for reminding me that they did address this.

[Monterey Jack]

One thing they DON'T address is how people's eyes look identical to who they're impersonating...until Dead Reckoning, where...

SpoilerShow

...we suddenly see Vanessa Kirby sporting Hayley Atwell's brown eyes.

We never see a scene of the IMF team removing colored contact lenses after they yank a mask off.

[Mr Sausage]

After greatly enjoying all of these since 4, and finding 6 an utter blast and maybe my favourite, I was surprised at my indifference to Dead Reckoning. After so many years and such hype, I'm baffled all they could muster was an often lifeless action film full of shopworn set pieces, superbly cast but thinly sketched and underused characters, and a tiresome plot that hamstrings the movie by its very nature.

SpoilerShow

All of the film's big action set pieces are minor elaborations on long standing traditions. The car chase through narrow foreign streets, the fight atop a train, the train that won't stop, the elusive chase in a crowded public space. Not only have I seen these a million times, I just saw the first two a couple weeks ago in the new Indiana Jones. Dead Reckoning tries to justify itself by applying minor elaborations, like handcuffing the leads for the car chase, or having them run up falling train cars. But as well done as those are, they weren't enough to distract from the fact that there's already been much better chase scenes with the leads handcuffed, and that the train stuff was mostly repeating The Lost World. The film didn't work quite hard enough to make the action feel fresh and exciting. Rogue Nation had a terrific, textbook fight scene in a bathroom. This one has a jerky and confused fight in an alleyway so narrow that even the filmmakers seem too hampered to do anything creative with it.

That the movie works at all is down to the charming cast, especially a pert Haley Atwell and a...I don't know how to describe Vanessa Kirby here, but it's memorable in its bright-eyed oddness. But none of them are given anything interesting to do or even real characters to inhabit. They're all attitudes. Haley Atwell has enough personality that you almost don't notice there isn't a character there. She's a thief for hire wanted by agencies across the world, she carries two switchblades, and she shows not only proficiency in hand-to-hand combat but the kind of coolness that comes from long experience with it. But then she's unable to drive a car fast and seems panicked, oblivious, and even naive in any chases or dangerous situations, as if she were initially written as a member of the public swept up in things and then changed in subsequent drafts. Who she is, what she wants, what motivates her, we never find out. There's only one scene that gives her any character or depth, and she's not even being played by Atwell! Vanessa Kirby's character is wasted as a charismatic plot device. Kirby's best scene is, again, when she's not even playing her character. Pom Klementieff is game, but given nothing to do but be the silent henchman. She does it well, taking a crazed pleasure in the ongoing destruction, but it's still a waste of a talented actress (at least when John Wick 2 did it with Ruby Rose, they did not have a talented actress to waste). Ving Rhames and Simon Pegg are again confined to bare rooms talking into ear pieces, except the plot makes their roles redundant, to the point that Ving Rhames has to outright recuse himself from the finale, and Pegg has to sit in a self driving car shouting hysterical instructions and then disappears once Cruise is on the train, also left out of the finale. Rebecca Ferguson is so plainly here to get killed off that they have her do it twice! The movie doesn't bother to hide that they're replacing Ferguson with Atwell, because they make that part of the plot. So when the film tries to apply a 'the most important thing in the world are your friends' theme on it, it rings especially hollow. A set of postures and attitudes claiming to care about each other.

And then there's the plot, which reuses the plot device and villain from the worst season of Westworld: the AI that has calculated every possibility and hamstrung humanity, with its little human actor in tow. I hated it in Westworld and groaned inwardly when it was revealed here. They even paired the AI with a repeating mechanical groan much like Westworld. Another piece of unoriginality in a movie overloaded with it. But worst of all, this plot device ends up making explicit something that a big blockbuster action movie should leave in the background as much as it can: it foregrounds the contrivances. Any big blockbuster will have its share of them, but here everything in the plot is a contrivance, by design. A small set of characters not only forever show up at convenient or portentous moments, but also spend the whole time talking about how all these meetings and character appearances are contrivances, the contrivances of an all seeing AI, ie. a team of writers somewhere. This doesn't work even in a heady, sci-fi story of ideas like Westworld, let alone in a breezy popcorn movie (and I hope no one gets the bright idea to defend this as purposefully metatextual, because the fact that it's not is the reason the movie's still watchable). Mostly what happens is you feel jerked around and toyed with, aware that someone is organizing these excitements for you because the fact is repeatedly shoved in your face. The ultimate effect is that you don't feel any of the character choices matter; everything is foreordained, manipulated by some computer, so that everyone's running around in a pointless maze where every step is planned to the millimeter. That might make for a good paranoid conspiracy thriller, but not a blockbuster action film where you have to be nominally excited about the events. Action films don't work when you're told, first, exactly what will happen, and then have to sit there as those very things happen, in more and more improbable ways, all while being reminded that everything was designed like this. The only saving grace is that this is not an empty metatextual game. But that's it. Otherwise, this whole plot is a big smokeshow of contrivance and overdetermination that hasn't sense enough to hide it, to know that the only way to involve an audience in a big event film is to project a feeling that the characters could choose to pull off any incredible thing at any moment, not that only a certain set of predetermined things are going to happen, that there's not much anyone can do about it, and that however incredible they may be, they'll only be elaborate ways of accomplishing the mundane thing you were told was already going to happen.

John Wick 4 is easily and without question the best big action movie of the year. No competition.

[therewillbeblus]

The plot is ridiculous and contrived but the film is very self-conscious about this, poking fun at its absurdities right along with the IMF branch's silly title and cartoonish service in the same political roundtable scene where it's introduced. It's obviously subjective if one finds this funny or not, but while the film has to commit to its premise's seriousness in order for the action to carry weight (and the elongated scenes talking about the AI's ominous powers, musing over the mind games of what it 'wants us to do', are tediously dire), I thought they did a good job at winking at rather than alienating us. But then again, I seem to be the only one who doesn't think the alley scene was supposed to be a well-choreographed action scene accidentally filmed and edited wrong...

The points about problems structurally building a blockbuster film around contrivances are well-stated and interesting! It didn't bother me, but it does say a lot that the only set piece that actually carries 'surprises' in the places it goes is the airport scene before the AI/human baddie surrogate stuff is really woven in

SpoilerShow

Rebecca Ferguson's fate was so obviously sealed the moment the choice between her and Atwell was introduced, since anyone who's ever seen a movie knows they're not going to kill off the new 'underdeveloped-but-clearly-being-groomed-for-development' character, especially the second-billed actor. An eight-year-old would've predicted it, and it was very annoying tapping feet for another fifteen minutes or so waiting for the tragedy to strike.

I think this could've been handled a lot better and left room for some possible hope, but choosing Hunt's nemesis as the opponent, knowing he won't die til part two, and having the all-powerful AI be relaying the intel just doesn't leave a road open. In a normal MI movie, the fight could've been a side-villain getting taken out part-way through with fate evaded or coming later. The AI is obviously going to be right about everything until it's wrong in the end of part two (and that marks its fate) because humans have heart and soul and that trumps pure logic or whatever