Full disclosure: I’ve semi-enjoyed the previous films in the series, but TBH, they all blur in the mind. I made sure I saw the prior film (Dead Reckoning, Part One) the night before I saw this film. That helped me with the setup of FR, which jumps right off the end of the earlier film and plunges the viewer right into the action.

Although who knows what Tom Cruise is planning on doing in the future with this series—there have been indications that this is the end, and that it’s not—this film seemed like a wrap-up … a L.O.N.G. drawn-out and overly reverential finale. I’ve not been engaged enough in the individual characters over the years, except for Simon Pegg (always enjoyable, even when playing serious), and I’ve been even less engaged with the dynamics between and among the characters. If you enjoy the characters and their interplay, then this one is for you. And there are plenty to choose from in addition to Cruise and Pegg. Of course there is Ving Rhames, who is the emotional anchor of the film. He may well be the best thing in it. Then there is Hayley Atwell, whom I’ve enjoyed in other films, but doesn’t register as strongly here. (Probably not her fault, as her character is not as strongly defined as it could have been. She’s given a lot to do, but not much to be.) It was fun to see Hannah Waddington as an Admiral, and to see Janet McTeer and Angela Bassett in roles that unfortunately barely tapped into their strengths.

Two actors brought their pervious acting personas into this film in somewhat conflicting ways. Nick Offerman is of course a comic actor, and here he is given a straight and even dramatic role. He pulls it off well, but one has to get past seeing Ron Swanson in a military uniform. Then there is Tramell Tillman, who is going to give future casting directors and directors a challenge. His character in “Severance” is fascinating and disturbing. There is an is he?/isn’t he? quality in his Mr. Milchick, and it works perfectly, if not disquietingly, in that series. But that quality needed to be pushed back here, and it wasn’t always. I wonder where his career is going to go, and if there are directors who can either use that aspect of Tillman or can help him bury it for the sake of a character. So as far as those many characters go, except for Rhames, I’m not fully on board.

I am on board, however, with the technical aspects of the film. Fraser Taggart’s cinematography is crisp and clean, with an abundance of power shots that can get a bit old as the film progresses. But otherwise, it’s a great looking film, with more depth in the images and a welcome use of shadow.

The biggest strength of the film IMHO is the soundscape. The score by Alfie Godfrey and Max Aruj is blended expertly with the sounds created by the sound department. The film should clearly get a nomination for Best Sound. In some films, Best Sound means the loudest sound. Not here. The sound is assertive without being aggressive, and works like a classical pas de deux with the visuals. It should be studied as an example of providing a full and rich music score and soundscape without overpowering what we’re watching.

The film is too long by almost an hour, unless you like elongated action scenes that are well done and extended to the point of exhaustion. There isn’t an action set piece or stunt that wasn’t stretched out, causing them to become films-within-the-film that have a life of their own and that fail to connect with the rest of the film, which does have a plot that might have been enriched by those scenes.

Also drawn out was the delivery of nearly every actor in the film. I understand that we’re doing a reverential homage here to the previous films in the series, but does that mean that we all have to speak so very slowly and enunciate so clearly so much of the time? I was longing for the tempo of a ‘40s film like White Heat or any other film that moved. I thought I’d be seeing an action movie and but ended up with a talking marathon interrupted by action set pieces. The slow speaking also extends to the so-called suspenseful scenes. When folks are on the verge of being blown up or otherwise destroyed, it’s amazing how slowly folks can speak. The absolute worst example is the long and drawn-out last scene between Cruise and Rhames. What clearly was intended to be a deeply emotional scene between two old friends moves into sheer nonsense. Spoiler alert: Rhames is going to die, he knows it, and there is nothing he can do. Nothing, that is, but warn his beloved friend Cruise that if he doesn’t get moving (i.e., fun fast), he’s not going to make it. But the goodbye is stretched out beyond credulity and instead of being emotionally realistic, it ends up being another last-minute, will-he-make-it setup for more Cruise flying on foot. It this is supposed to make Cruise’s character emotionally deep, it instead presents him as something of an idiot for waiting so long, especially when his closest friend is trying so hard to save his life.

And speaking of the 1940s, the plot here is in the same confusing league as The Big Sleep. The film is scarily both prescient and cutting-edge in its plot about AI taking over (no spoilers here). But there’s an awful lot going on, and not being a big fan of the series, the plot seemed overly complex and confusing. The bottom line was always clear, though: The world needs Tom Cruise to save it, again and again.

Then there is the TV habit of having everything explained to us as viewers by a large group of folks, each taking their turn, each taking their time, adding finally to something like a full understanding of what is going on and what needs to happen. Some of the lines here are laughable:

• “I need you to trust me…one last time.”
• “Every risk you’ve taken, every comrade you’ve lost in the field, every personal sacrifice you made, has brought this world another sunrise.”
• “For every life you try to save, you gamble millions more. And now the fate of every living soul on Earth is your responsibility.”
• And my favorite: “It’s just pain.”

But then there was the humor around the cutting of the red wire—well done. And “You’re spending too much time on the internet” garnered a good laugh.

I experience three Tom Cruises. One is the serious actor that can do both heavy thespian lifting and classic comic roles (e.g., Born on the Fourth of July, Magnolia, Tropic Thunder). Then there is the action star (take your pick). This film features the aging star at his finest, running (sometimes unnecessarily) everywhere with great abandon, and showing us again and again and again what incredible shape he is in for a 60-year-old. And then there is the wackadoo Cruise who challenges folks on medications and who avail themselves of counseling help, and who has a scary relationship with the even scarier Scientology leader David Miscavige.  (You can see a starter video at https://www.reddit.com/r/Fauxmoi/comments/1lc7t7b/tom_cruises_2004_acceptance_speech_for/). But honestly, a deep dive is available and recommended on how crazy Cruise is if you just begin to look, especially with films such Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief or Leah Remini’s brave series, “Leah Remini: Scientology and the Aftermath.”

If you are a dedicated MI fan à la Star Wars, then it may well work as an enjoyable homage to the entire series. If you’re looking for a great action film that moves the plot along with energy and verve, this isn’t it.