UHD Review A Few Words About A few words about...™ - Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning Part One -- in 4k UHD (1 Viewer)

[Robert Harris]

I'm not certain where we specifically stand with Mission: Impossible in a numeric fashion, so well just go with Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning Part One.

Regardless, it's a terrific piece of entertainment. Possibly occasionally confusing with the myriad of disguises, but terrifically entertaining nonetheless.

Let's get the important attributes out of the way first, and it has been reported that Christopher McQuarrie was highly involved during production - and that is the magnificent blood red Steelbook packaging.

I believe that it has been reported on line, and seen on youtube, that care must be taken whilst attempting to remove the outer plastic wrapping so as not to any any way damage the Steelbook within.

My example was shipped in a standard bubble mailer, and consequently, as it was bumped on the right obvers, will never attain a high grade when eventually graded. I doubt that it will reach the high 50s.

Fortunately, the discs held within were unaffected.

I was able to view the film theatrically, and can attest to the fact that Paramount's new 4k UHD release accurately portrays what I saw projected via a 4k DCP. Further, I would bet that if one ran this 4k disc in a theatrical setting, it would be an extremely pleasing experience, even on a large screen.

Part Two is currently in post, and scheduled for release 23 May of 2025.

Image – 5 (Dolby Vision)

Audio – 5 (Dolby Atmos)

Pass / Fail – Pass

Plays nicely with projectors - Yes

Makes use of and works well in 4k - 10

Worth your attention - 9

Slipcover rating - 6 (Steelbook)

RAH


Thank you for supporting HTF when you preorder using the link below. As an Amazon Associate HTF earns from qualifying purchases. If you are using an adblocker you will not see link.



See on Amazon See on Amazon

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Regardless, it's a terrific piece of entertainment. Possibly occasionally confusing with the myriad of disguises, but terrifically entertaining nonetheless.

That is an understatement!


It's not only a terrific piece of entertainment, but it's one of the most polished action films I have seen since JOHN WICK 4.

I have always loved the MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE films over the years, but this one is off the charts. The ending action sequence is brilliantly done and truly puts the viewer on the edge of their seat.

This is a film to own. Glad to see you have given it an exemplary rating, RAH.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Part Two is currently in post

They might very well be doing post on the portions that have already been shot. Some of it was shot simultaneously with this film. But filming is not complete. The plan had been to go finish filming the rest of Part Two as soon as the press tour for Part One ended, but the SAG-AFTRA strike interfered. This necessitated the recent delay from next summer to 2025.

Also, they've apparently decided to give the next film a different title, leaving the "Part One" on this film as a weird dangling tag. The next film will still be the second part of this story but won't be labeled as such.

I agree with your assessment of the film. It is fantastic.

 

[Robert Harris]

Strike?!

 

[jayembee]

Strike?!

Lucky!

 

[bobclampett]

Saw about 20 minutes of it in the theatre before I walked out because the patron in front of me wouldn't stop using her cell phone. I really missed not seeing genuine IMAX sequences. Marketing it as an IMAX movie was a little dishonest. Fan of the series but like you stated it was up against a genuine IMAX movie Oppenheimer, which I saw in 75mm 15 perf. It was stunning. Would love to see a Mission Impossible movie shot entirely in IMAX. Looking forward to watching my 4k UHD of Mission without cell phone interruptions.

 

[zoetmb]

Saw about 20 minutes of it in the theatre before I walked out because the patron in front of me wouldn't stop using her cell phone. I really missed not seeing genuine IMAX sequences. Marketing it as an IMAX movie was a little dishonest. Fan of the series but like you stated it was up against a genuine IMAX movie Oppenheimer, which I saw in 75mm 15 perf. It was stunning. Would love to see a Mission Impossible movie shot entirely in IMAX. Looking forward to watching my 4k UHD of Mission without cell phone interruptions.

Sometimes the IMAX sequences are nothing more than more top and bottom with nothing of significance in that space and as long as the screen was large enough, seeing the film in 2.4:1 AR really wouldn't have been a different experience, except for it feeling closer in what had been the IMAX sequences.

Why didn't you just change your seat? I don't see many people using their cell phones incessantly anymore, but when I do, I usually say something like, "can you give us a freaking break"? And they stop. Or they walk out. When it does happen, I feel enraged, not just because they're ruining the film experience for others, but because it becomes so obvious that they're so addicted to their phones that they just can't put it down.

 

[JoshZ]

Sometimes the IMAX sequences are nothing more than more top and bottom with nothing of significance in that space and as long as the screen was large enough, seeing the film in 2.4:1 AR really wouldn't have been a different experience, except for it feeling closer in what had been the IMAX sequences.

But only in IMAX can you see all that super-important, thrilling screen real estate that's so vital to the storytelling. Like... uhhh...

Yeah, OK, never mind.

 

[Tino]

. I really missed not seeing genuine IMAX sequences. Marketing it as an IMAX movie was a little dishonest.

AFAIK, I don’t believe it was ever marketed as an “IMAX” film. It was merely shown on IMAX screens.

 

[dpippel]

 

[Worth]

But only in IMAX can you see all that super-important, thrilling screen real estate that's so vital to the storytelling. Like... uhhh...

View attachment 203786

Yeah, OK, never mind.

It’s kind of like those 90s movies that were shot in scope but kept all the main action in the centre of the frame so it wouldn’t look too bad when pan-and-scanned.

 

[jayembee]

It’s kind of like those 90s movies that were shot in scope but kept all the main action in the centre of the frame so it wouldn’t look too bad when pan-and-scanned.

Even earlier than that, and not always in scope. Do you think it's a coincidence that in Ghostbusters, it's Murray and Ackroyd who are always center-frame while Ramis and Hudson are off to the sides?

 

[sbjork]

This particular video mentions Dead Reckoning without going into it in much detail, but I can't recommend it highly enough. It's a takedown of the idea that modern films stressing the fact that they use practical effects means that they aren't using CGI. Which is baloney. It's a new channel, and this is part one of four planned installments. This one spends much of its time on Top Gun: Maverick, but hopefully he'll address the Mission: Impossible films directly in future installments. Again, I can't recommend this highly enough. It's worth every single minute of your time:




Edit: it looks like it's blocked from watching directly, but click the link to see it on YouTube.

 

[Worth]

This particular video mentions Dead Reckoning without going into it in much detail, but I can't recommend it highly enough. It's a takedown of the idea that modern films stressing the fact that they use practical effects means that they aren't using CGI...

The difference is they aren't creating things entirely with CGI while the actors stand in front of a green screen.

 

[sbjork]

The difference is they aren't creating things entirely with CGI while the actors stand in front of a green screen.

I humbly suggest watching the video first.

Green screen or not, there are plenty of shots in movies like Maverick where everything but the actors has been replaced by CGI. It was rotoscoped instead of green screened, but replaced regardless. The whole point is that movies like Reckoning are being sold as a return to practical effects when they're just as awash in CGI as any green screen extravaganza.

And the bottom line is that there's nothing wrong with the way that they blend practical and CGI. In fact, it's sometimes astonishingly effective. The problem is that the marketing is pretending like the CGI doesn't exist.

 

[Keith Cobby]

This particular video mentions Dead Reckoning without going into it in much detail, but I can't recommend it highly enough. It's a takedown of the idea that modern films stressing the fact that they use practical effects means that they aren't using CGI. Which is baloney. It's a new channel, and this is part one of four planned installments. This one spends much of its time on Top Gun: Maverick, but hopefully he'll address the Mission: Impossible films directly in future installments. Again, I can't recommend this highly enough. It's worth every single minute of your time:




Edit: it looks like it's blocked from watching directly, but click the link to see it on YouTube.

Great video. The car driving down the dam wall (filmed on a runway and inclined) reminded me of Batman walking up the wall on the 60s TV show, nothing much has changed. Not surprised by how disingenuous Tom Cruise is about his films.

 

[sbjork]

Great video. The car driving down the dam wall (filmed on a runway and inclined) reminded me of Batman walking up the wall on the 60s TV show, nothing much has changed. Not surprised by how disingenuous Tom Cruise is about his films.

Well, doing stunts looms large in his legend these days. And the reality is that he really is doing amazing stuntwork. I think that he wants to avoid mentioning CGI because people associate that with things being faked, and they'd appreciate his efforts less if they realized what was going on in the final shots. And I do think that this creator has a point that it's probably also studio mandated. They know that they have a hook to sell the film by talking about the practical effects and stuntwork, and they don't want the public realizing that it still comes down to CGI in the end. He's correct that there's nothing inherently wrong with the approach -- the fact that people don't realize how much CGI was involved in every single shot of Maverick proves that point. It works beautifully when done well. It's just the selling pitch that's disingenuous, as you say.

I think that all of that started to bother me in the Mission: Impossible series starting with Rogue Nation. They made such a big deal about Cruise and Ferguson learning to hold their breath underwater for extended periods, but the final sequence in the film is nearly full CGI with the actors as the only real elements (and even they're digital in many shots). The breath-holding antics still do help the quality of the final sequence, but mostly because it helps their performances. The problem in that case was that unlike Maverick, it really looked like CGI. That put the lie to what they were saying in the promotional materials. Similar thing with Fallout. They promoted Cruise doing the big HALO jump, and he did indeed perform some major freefalls for the film, but then they replaced the backgrounds with CGI clouds. The initial shot of him jumping out of the plane is awesome, but then the rest of it looks less believable because the CGI isn't completely convincing.

It's more obvious in Dead Reckoning, too. Yes, they put the actors on top of real trains, but the backgrounds were mostly replaced with CGI. The same thing with the motorcycle jump. It works much better in the latter case, but the fact that they released so many promotional videos showing him doing the stunt off of a giant jump ramp makes you look for it in the final shot, so it draws attention to the CGI. Because of that, it's kind of understandable that the studio and Cruise both downplayed the use of CGI. If you know it's there, you look for it. People weren't looking for it with Maverick, and so it fooled nearly everyone. That speaks to the quality of the visual effects work that was done in that film. It's much better CGI than in Dead Reckoning.

 

[Tino]

View attachment 203795

I mean it wasn’t marketed as being filmed in IMAX like Oppenheimer for instance. Any film shown on IMAX screens could create a similar poster.

 

[dpippel]

I mean it wasn’t marketed as being filmed in IMAX like Oppenheimer for instance. Any film shown on IMAX screens could create a similar poster.

True, but it's ambiguous marketing at best. Could mean either.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

True, but it's ambiguous marketing at best. Could mean either.

No, I think that any movie shot on IMAX cameras - in whole or in part - gets a different line than "Experience It In IMAX".

For instance, posters for "Creed III" and "Quantumania" both say "Filmed For IMAX".

They clearly want to highlight the use of IMAX cameras when that's the case.

"Experience It In IMAX" equals "no IMAX cameras involved".