'Mission: Impossible — The Final Reckoning' review: Self-indulgence overshadows spectacle in Tom Cruise film
Tom Cruise has been impressing audiences for years with Mission: Impossible movies, leading to the newly released Mission: Impossible — The Final Reckoning, the eighth movie in the famed franchise. Being touted as (possibly) Cruise's last hurrah as Ethan Hunt, he's certainly raised the bar for technical achievement and stunt work.
But while Mission: Impossible — The Final Reckoning was crafted for the thrills, a messy story flattens its impact. Sure, these films are about spectacle, but visual delight can be overshadowed by self-indulgence.
Mission: Impossible — The Final Reckoning release date: May 23Cast: Tom Cruise, Hayley Atwell, Ving Rhames, Simon Pegg, Esai Morales, Pom Klementieff, Henry Czerny, Holt McCallany, Janet McTeer, Nick Offerman, Hannah Waddingham, Tramell Tillman, Angela Bassett, Shea Whigham, Greg Tarzan Davis, Charles Parnell, Mark Gatiss, with Rolf Saxon, Lucy TulugarjukDirector: Christopher McQuarrieRuntime: 169 minutes
Mission: Impossible — The Final Reckoning begins two months after the previous film, Mission: Impossible — Dead Reckoning, with Ethan striving to take down the Entity, AI threatening the world with nuclear annihilation. With the key in hand to take down this threat, he only has 72 hours to do so.
Working with a team that includes Grace (Hayley Atwell), Luther (Ving Rhames) and Benji (Simon Pegg), only Ethan can save the world.
Mission: Impossible — The Final Reckoning certainly harkens back to the big blockbuster movies of the past, where you're going to get the immense pleasure of a thrilling adventure with impressive visuals on the big screen. And that still holds true for this movie.
As we approach the end of the film, that's where the high-octane, stress-inducing nature of the story really shines through. And of course, much of that has to do with the impressive biplane stunt, where Cruise is hanging off the wing of a plane, facing winds of more than 225 km/h.
There are many elements in Mission: Impossible — The Final Reckoning that make it feel too much like a vanity project for Cruise. Yes, Cruise is a superstar, but there's just so much you can take when you're constantly reminded that only Ethan can save the world.
We get it, the repetition is unnecessary and distracting.
Overall, Mission: Impossible — The Final Reckoning just feels clunky and overstuffed, particularly when it includes several flashbacks that completely take you out of the flow of any narrative. Worst of all, none of it is necessary for anyone who's seen the previous films, but they're also likely to not provide enough context for any newbies in the audience. They're useless montages that are masquerading as some sort of fan service to remember the past.
While some have argued that you go to a Mission: Impossible movie for spectacle not the plot, that's never been my way of evaluating movies. The messy story here takes the fun out of the spectacle.
It also feels like this movie has lost all self-awareness. The situations setup in this franchise are oftentimes just silly, and Mission: Impossible — The Final Reckoning largely misses any humour.
But you can't deny the impact of that plane sequence, which really is the element that saves this otherwise directionless, chaotic film.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
33 minutes ago
- Forbes
How To Stay Ahead Of AI – The Human Skills Universities Must Teach
Photo credit Some people are concerned that AI will take over the workforce. The reality? While automation and machine learning are reshaping industries, the most valuable skills in today's job market are innately human. AI may be faster than humans, but we hold the edge in critical thinking, emotional intelligence, and adaptability. Those are the qualities that come naturally and can't be replicated by machines. With this shift underway, universities need to rethink traditional education models to better prepare graduates for the new world of work. While AI can process huge amounts of data in seconds, it still relies on human judgment, intuition, and creativity to give that information meaning. Today's professionals must be able to analyze nuance, challenge assumptions, and synthesize complex information to make informed decisions. Universities have a critical role in developing these social skills. That starts with shifting away from passive learning and toward discussion-based, interdisciplinary experiences that mirror the complexity of real-world problems. Case-based coursework, cohort-focused projects, and ethical reasoning exercises help students build the kind of critical thinking skills that technology can't replicate. Institutions that emphasize debate, reflection, and cross-disciplinary exploration are preparing students to lead in environments where sound judgment and the ability to navigate ambiguity are just as important as technical know-how. Soft skills are no longer just nice to have. As AI automates routine tasks, human connection is becoming the primary competitive advantage at work. Employers prioritize emotional intelligence (EQ) because it drives collaboration, leadership, and workplace success. Recent research confirms that employees with high emotional intelligence (EQ) outperform their peers in leadership, teamwork, and overall workplace effectiveness. Emotional intelligence is one of the key elements of authentic leadership – the style of leadership that's most effective in today's complex workplace. To meet this demand, a growing number of universities are exploring ways to integrate emotional intelligence into the student experience. Some are beginning to introduce first-year students to behavioral science concepts that encourage reflection and perspective-taking. Others are piloting programs that promote inclusive dialogue, empathy-building, and real-world communication practice through orientation, residence life, and leadership initiatives. The most effective approaches give students repeated, structured opportunities to develop self-awareness and practice the interpersonal skills that matter most in today's workplaces. These are the skills that AI simply can't replicate. The half-life of skills is shrinking—fast. Research from the World Economic Forum says that by 2027, nearly half of all workers will need reskilling. With industries and job functions evolving rapidly, adaptability is no longer optional—it's essential. At Canisius University in Buffalo, NY, for example, this mindset weaves through both classroom learning and extracurricular activities. Take the university's sports analytics certificate program. It goes beyond teaching AI-driven tools by pushing students to grapple with ethical questions, such as those surrounding sports betting. The program emphasizes the importance of continuous learning and thoughtful decision-making. Danielle Ianni, PhD, Vice President for Enrollment Management at Canisius, encourages students to evaluate higher education choices based on long-term career value, not just degree completion. She explains, 'A Canisius education isn't just about getting a job—it's about preparing for a lifetime of professional growth. We emphasize ethical judgment, creative problem-solving, and leadership development—qualities that remain relevant no matter how industries change.' To future-proof their careers, students must embrace learning as a lifelong pursuit—a mindset that universities can cultivate by offering interdisciplinary courses, experiential learning, and opportunities for adaptability-driven skill development. AI is changing the way we work by pushing us to lean into the social skills that come naturally to us. Critical thinking, emotional intelligence, and adaptability aren't just bonuses anymore; they're at the heart of what makes people indispensable in an AI-infused world. For colleges and universities, there's an opportunity to rethink how these skills are taught and reinforced. For students and professionals, the challenge is to embrace learning that goes beyond technical ability and invests in human capacity. The future of work will undoubtedly be shaped by machines, but people will still lead it. Those who demonstrate their human skills will be able to connect, adapt, and think critically. William Arruda is a keynote speaker, author, and personal branding pioneer. Join him as he discusses clever strategies for using AI to express and expand your brand in Maven's free Lightning Lesson. If you can't attend live, register to receive the replay.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Pore no more: US scientists develop real-time defect detection for 3D metal printing
Scientists from the federally funded Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois and the University of Virginia have developed a new approach for detecting defects in metal parts produced by 3D printing. By combining artificial intelligence (AI), X-ray imaging, and thermal imaging, this approach could pave the way for real-time self-correcting systems in the future. 3D printing of metals involves a method called laser powder bed fusion, where you build objects layer by layer by melting metal powder with a laser. However, a big issue in this process is defects, especially keyhole pores, which are tiny holes that form when the laser melts too deeply. These pores weaken the final object, which is a significant concern when printing high-performance parts, such as rocket nozzles or surgical implants. Keyhole pores also pose a significant challenge as they compromise the structural integrity of printed parts. These tiny voids form when excessive laser energy creates deep, narrow holes that trap gas, leading to internal cavities as the metal solidifies. Recurrent microscopic keyhole pores can act as stress concentrators, increasing the risk of cracks or failure under pressure. This is particularly hazardous in critical applications, such as aerospace, automotive and medical devices, where part reliability is crucial. Detecting and preventing keyhole pores is therefore vital in ensuring the performance, safety, and durability of additively manufactured metal components. To help achieve this, researchers developed a method to identify and predict these pores real-time using a combination of thermal imaging, X-ray imaging, and machine learning. This new process utilizes powerful X-rays (from a government laboratory) to capture snapshots of what was happening inside the metal as it was being printed. A camera also recorded thermal images (from the surface) at the same time. Then, a trained AI model was used to teach it how specific surface heat patterns predict pore formation. Once trained, the model could detect when a pore was forming just from the thermal image, with extremely high accuracy and within milliseconds. Thermal cameras are already installed on several 3D printers. However, until now, they couldn't reliably spot internal defects. The new method developed by the collaborative team of scientists utilizes existing cameras and AI to instantly detect flaws, eliminating the need for expensive X-rays every time. "Our approach can readily be implemented in commercial systems. With only a thermal camera, the machines should be able to detect when and where pores are generated during the printing process and adjust their parameters accordingly," said Kamel Fezzaa, a physicist at Argonne and a member of the scientific team. Eventually, this technology could be paired with automatic corrections, such as adjusting the laser or reprinting a layer, to fix problems as they occur. This makes 3D printing more reliable for mission-critical parts. It could reduce waste, save money, and increase safety. "Our X-ray beams are so intense that we can image more than a million frames per second," added Samuel Clark, another physicist at Argonne. "Next, the researchers will develop sensing technologies that can detect other types of defects that occur during the additive manufacturing process. The goal is to create a system that not only detects defects but can enable repairs during 3D printing," a release by the U.S. Department of Energy stated. The study has been published on the website DOE Pages.
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
Are We Paying Too Much Attention To Machines?
Are we paying too much attention to machines? As we delve into everything that artificial intelligence can do today, we also run into some questions about what we choose to offer to the technology. In some ways, you could boil this down to talking about the attention mechanism. Stephen Wolfram is a renowned data scientist and mathematician who often talks about the ways that AI curates human attention, or the ways that we can direct it to focus on what's useful to us. Here's a bit of what he said in a recent talk that I wrote about a few weeks ago: 'Insofar as we humans still have a place, so to speak, it's defining what it is that we want to do, and that's something that you can specify that more precisely computationally,' Wolfram said. 'That's how you get to (the answer) that is precisely what we want.' Interested in the intersection of human and AI attention, I typed the following question into Microsoft Copilot: 'are we paying too much attention to machines?' Here are the five fundamental sources that the model used to reply. The first one is from one of our own authors at Forbes, Curt Steinhorst, who asked: how will we keep people at the center of business? 'We seem to believe that we are only one 'life hack' away from limitless productivity, that the skilled use of human focus can be reduced to a productivity system, and that if we simply want it bad enough, we can beat the machines at their own game,' Steinhorst writes. 'But this attitude amounts to a passive indictment of our innate humanity, and it is a problem. We will never catch machines and digital tools in the ways they excel—but there is reason to believe that technology will never catch up to humanity in the ways that we excel. The key is to understand and nurture the differences, rather than pursue the parallels.' The second source Copilot shows is a scientific paper in the International Journal of Information Management that asks: what is it about humanity that we can't give away to intelligent machines? I'm going to quote from the conclusions of the study: 'Humans must retain the role of meaningful, responsible critique of the design and application of AI, and the intelligent machines it can create. Critique is a vital concept that humanity can retain as a means to ensure liberation from intelligent machines. Suppose intelligent machines are used to help shape decision processes in life-changing situations, such as criminal court proceedings, or to aid emergency care first responders in disaster situations. In that case, they should serve only as referees or expert guides and not as decision-makers. It is critical that such machine 'referees' or 'guides' should be subject to constant human critique. Second, a human must be kept in the loop of intelligent machine decision-making processes. This involvement is vital to preserve our ability to systematically reflect on the decisions we make, which ultimately influence our individuality, a central feature of humanism.' I think that's useful, too. The third source is a LinkedIn piece from Shomila Malik noting that the brain looks for information about 4 times per second, and talking about how our human attention is paid. I think this is leading toward the next piece that I'll summarize next. Here, there's sort of an emphasis on prolific media and stimulus 'flooding the zone' and overwhelming our human attention spans. There's an interesting proposition in the fourth link that I found talking about the recent work of pioneers like Ezra Klein. The author also reveals a theory from professor of psychiatry Joel Nigg. In a nutshell, it's that our attention is being degraded through attentional deficits caused by things like a pathogenic environment, inadequate sleep, unhealthy diets, air pollution, lack of physical activity, other health conditions, overwork, excessive stress, early trauma, relationship strains, and smoking cigarettes. In the last of the links at the New York Times, Stephen Hawking is quoted, saying artificial intelligence could be a real danger and explaining the problem that way: 'It could design improvements to itself and outsmart us all,' Hawking theorized. I'll let that comment speak for itself. (Be sure to check out Hawking's words on 'killer machines' and frightening scenarios, and remember, this guy is a renowned scientist.) In a recent talk at Imagination in Action, David Kenny talked about applying lessons from IBM Watson's performance on Jeopardy, and other landmarks of AI design. In general, he noted, we're moving from the era of inductive reasoning, to one of deductive and affective reasoning. He mentioned a weather app giving probabilities in percentages, rather than a clear answer, and the need to prompt engineer in order to get results from LLMs, instead of just accepting whatever they say the first time. A new generation, he said, is generally becoming more trustful of AI for data on medical conditions, relationships, financial strategies, and more. 'There's just been an enormous trust put in this,' he said. 'It's all working for them on a very personalized basis. So we find that there are people getting their own information.' Human interactions, he said, like dating and marriage, are reducing, and people trusting the machines more can be good, or in his words, 'super-dangerous.' '(Humans need to) build critical thinking skills, build interpersonal skills, do things like this that bring them together with each other, spend time with each other in order to take full advantage of the AI, as opposed to ceding our agency to it,' he said. 'So while the last 15 years were largely about technical advances, and there's a lot of technical advances we're going to see today and invest in, I think it's even more urgent that we work on the human advances, and make sure that technology is actually bringing communities back together, having people know how to interact with each other and with the machine, so that we get the best answer.' And then he went back to that thesis on inductive versus deductive reasoning. 'It takes a humility of being able to understand that we're no longer about getting the answer, we're about getting to the next question,' Kenny said. For sure, there's a need to celebrate the human in the loop, and the inherent value of humanity. We can't give everything away to machines. All of the above tries to make some through lines in what we can give away and what we can keep. Maybe it's a little like that Marie Kondo thing, where if it sparks joy, we reserve it for human capability, and if we need help, we ask a machine. But this is going to be one of the balancing acts that we have to do in 2025 and beyond, as we reckon with forces that are, in human terms, pretty darn smart.
