Why did Dead Reckoning: Part 1 fail at the Box Office? | TheReviewGeek Investigates

Rationalizing Dead Reckoning’s Tepid Box Office Success: Beyond the “Barbenheimer” Phenomenon

 

The Hollywood film industry is facing an existential crisis of sorts. Some might even say it’s in shambles! The writer’s strike (at the time of writing) is an indication of this and so too is the rise of streaming services that keep people rooted in their seats at home.

 Hollywood’s high prestige has come crashing down in recent times with a slew of box office failures as changing consumer habits continue to dictate terms. A new consciousness among moviegoers no longer recognizes the age-old norms of filmmaking in the same standing. Well, not in the traditional sense anyway. The solid, bankable brand of cinema that would previously qualify as blockbuster material is facing pressure. Creative fatigue is clear and it is hurting the industry in the most fundamentally damaging way.

In recent times, it has become clear that politically driven messaging is also affecting box office performance (source). Could this be because audiences are tired of being targeted for their preferences? Disney has been at the centre of this discourse with the relative failure of two of their recent movies – Lightyear and Strange World. While the integration of “inclusiveness” and “representation” into the fabric is not a bad idea, too much of it can feel like pandering.

This needs to be the subject of a whole other discussion as it’s not the point of this essay. It is surely an important one but the origins of this piece are from experiences of watching Tom Cruise’s newest Mission Impossible installment, Dead Reckoning: Part 1.

For some context with respect to the title, Dead Reckoning could be heading for huge losses. It will be the first in the MI franchise to achieve that distinction and a rare occasion in Cruise’s stellar body of films. There is no denying his untameable superstar energy. Cruise is a global action star with a near-universal appeal when it comes to his brand of cinema. Steven Spielberg thanked him after Top Gun: Maverick’s success for “saving cinema.” And Cruise can’t be faulted for championing the big screen’s cause. He kept both Maverick and Dead Reckoning going through the pandemic (which piled up the production costs for the latter), only wanting to release the films in theatres.

But apparently, his enthusiasm isn’t enough. Dead Reckoning, at the time of writing this article, has roughly scored $500 million at the global box office. While the number is certainly not bad, we have to compare it to the other movies within the franchise’s history. Currently, the film is the second-worst performer in the franchise (source). The movie will have to hit at least double its production and marketing costs to break even.

The real shock for Dead Reckoning has come in the domestic box office numbers. Less than one-third of the total gross amount has come from North America, which once again pales in comparison to other MI movies.

Internationally, box office takings remained steady into the third week of screening, though China, which is a huge contributor to the final number and still reeling from lockdown restrictions, hasn’t even managed to meet half of the numbers for MI: Fallout (2018). 

So why has Dead Reckoning – despite Cruise’s stardom, good word of mouth, and its standing as one of the most dominant action franchises in history – “failed” at the box office?

 Franchise fatigue could be one factor as audiences are currently favouring originality. We need only consider the “Barbenheimer” phenomenon in relation to this. Barbie and Oppenheimer were expected to have an impact but not many people expected them to be as disruptive as they have been at the box office. They both ate up Dead Reckoning’s premium-rate IMAX screens just a week after their release. Both films have much better numbers than the latest MI film too, even though their reception, in relation to Dead Reckoning, was on an equal footing.  

Does this mark the end for big-scale films with negligible creative surprises? 

Experiences in the Theatre

Very briefly, I would just like to establish something: I have never missed watching a MI film in theatres before. Well…almost. 

I am a huge Cruise fanboy if you will. I believe he is one of the last stars in the global arena who cab pull audiences to the big screens simply by being in a film.  He represents the ideals of filmmaking that make movies a towering significance in our lives. The actor isn’t afraid to take half-measures. His committed efforts to engage and involve the audience have seen him do unimaginable things. Hanging onto a plane in midflight, jumping off a cliff, climbing the biggest building in the world… you get what I am saying. He makes an impact to ensure our enjoyment! 

My experience with his latest film was a little different, however. There is always palpable excitement whenever a MI movie plays in a theatre. Dead Reckoning started off in the same manner. But as time went on, people grew restless. They visibly squirmed in their seats. A lingering uneasiness suggested that people who went along with the initial buildup were now waiting for the end.

This is the first time I have seen people sleeping in or walking away from the theatre midway. Dead Reckoning’s progression deteriorated with each passing minute, which has to evoke a short-breath gasp! The face mask riff got the viewers as did the heavily marketed action scenes. But elsewhere, the response from them was at best lukewarm. 

Here are some of the possible reasons why:

Overdependence on the Marquee Action Sequences

Dead Reckoning’s hype was built on Cruise’s adventurous jump off a cliff. The marketing period was significantly apportioned by the base jump. It threatened to take away the thrill of seeing it in real time but thankfully, that didn’t happen. It is the biggest attraction in the film in terms of highlights, something that has become the norm with Cruise and MI films. But therein lies the problem: Dead Reckoning suffers from a terrible over-reliance on its marquee action scenes. 

The plot is very thin and the story seems to cater to the action scenes instead of integrating with them. This is quite interesting as balancing the two has not been a problem for the franchise before. The showcasing of such daring stunts has gone in hand with some semblance of storytelling. But in this case, the benefits did not accrue narratively. The buildup is too focused on getting to those moments when the entire theatre shifts to the edge of their seats. Despite being the biggest strength of the franchise, the action in Dead Reckoning smothered the plot progression.

Did the makers think it was alright to fund the shortfall in the script with these scenes? I highly suspect that. They could be given the benefit of the doubt because this hasn’t happened before. But the reality of the situation is this: Dead Reckoning has a weaker plot than other movies in the franchise and its over-dependence on action sequences only exacerbated this issue.

Beyond the base jump (plus the extended train scene) and the car chase in Rome, the craft and guile, which is usually immaculate in these films, were missing. The film doesn’t boast many other notable moments apart from these scenes. And even the film’s best sequences didn’t work as spectacularly because the standard set by other films in the franchise is already set very high. 

The AI gamble doesn’t work

Audiences may have lost interest in this film due to a lack of understanding of the plot. Usually, the essentials are laid out in a simple manner that is easy to follow even though there is some catching up to do that leads us to the finale.

But Dead Reckoning chooses a sentient evil AI as Hunt’s big nemesis. Although the makers manifested it in the form of its custodian, Gabriel, the AI gamble did not pay off. The primary reason for that, I feel, is how all of it was pitched to us. The Entity’s origins, relationship to Gabriel, and the absence of a hook to keep us tethered to its next moves weren’t explained clearly.

For instance, the Entity making Cruise choose between Grace and Ilsa just did not make sense. The whole gaff with Alana also had me scratching my head. It was not so much being unable to see the Entity that was bothersome but not being able to grasp its motivations and endgame that bothered me. Artificial intelligence is a hot topic right now. It is arguably an important technological advancement of our time. But extrapolating its potency to spark a world war seemed too far-fetched with its inclusion in a script that didn’t make things clear for the viewer. 

Offbrand characterization

This is the most fundamental reason why Dead Reckoning did not feel like an extension of the franchise. It is important to note that since the third movie, Mission Impossible has cultivated a strong brand identity. You can spot story and character ingredients from some distance away and put the pieces together. We don’t mind the predictability element too much as seeing Cruise as a one-man army stopping the world from crumbling is too joyful. While that also happens in Dead Reckoning, a lot of things about its characterization were off-brand.

The film definitely seemed heavier than usual from the other instalments. Hunt’s grappling with the “loss of one life to save millions” has been an important pivot until now. Although that is not a problem on the face of it, Dead Reckoning saw him dive unnecessarily deep into his inability to “protect the ones he cares about.” I felt that the writers focussed on this a little too much and that had an impact on the storytelling. Christopher McQuarrie, the director, lost agility and the capability to manoeuvre as a result.

This theme was consistent in other technical elements as well, such as the dialogue which lacked the usual quick-fire repartee. All the lightness that comes from Hunt and Benji’s exchanges, for instance, was drained out and replaced with the aforementioned heaviness. Dead Reckoning was dragged down by long indecipherable monologues that did not really have much purpose or meaning. There was a sense that, for much of the runtime, the writers did not have a very clear idea of their vision. Hence, a sense of detachment took over that couldn’t involve us in the new direction of the story. The dialogue-heavy approach absorbed a lot of thrust and excitement from the film’s best sequences, which were far and few in between.

Noticeable changes in the soundscape and setup of the action sequences did not help either. They tend to go hand in hand but Dead Reckoning changed that formula as the film is not as crisp in execution and editing. All of this ensures that Dead Reckoning: Part 1 strayed away from  Mission Impossible’s brand identity. 

Sequel’s overhang effect

Part 2 of Dead Reckoning will release next year in the month of June. In trying to set us up for the (possible) final film in the franchise, Part 1 suffered from a serious hangover as it marked the first occasion when a plot within a MI film did not culminate within its runtime.

Although the characters have largely remained the same, each film in the franchise has boasted of a differentiated plot. Part 1 felt like an elaborate setup for the sequel. The makers were afforded more time to setup up the new characters and timelines, as a result. But they weren’t able to capitalize on this opportunity. 

In comparison, Dune’s first part (whose second is slated to release in November 2023) did a stellar job of carving a standalone film that didn’t depend on a follow-up to be meaningful.

Hayley Atwell’s Grace will be playing a key part in the final film; so will Esai Morales’ Gabriel. And perhaps, looking at both the Dead Reckoning films together, we will get a better perspective on the first part. But for now, the lack of a real resolution may have added to audience apathy.

The final word

Dead Reckoning Part 1 is by no means a bad film. That has never been the assertion in this essay. The purpose was to rationalize why the newest MI film did not work as well as it should have.

As an avid follower of the franchise and Cruise, Dead Reckoning is certainly not the best product. The changes to the film made the experience somewhat unfulfilling.

Although “Barbenheimer” had a huge role to play in its tepid box office showing, I feel the other reasons mentioned contributed to the film’s box office downturn. Would it have been more successful without the onslaught of both Barbie and Oppenheimer? Quite certainly. But one still cannot dismiss legitimate concerns about the fall in quality. The real question is what this means for Hollywood going forward.

There is a clear distinction in the trifecta of films (Dead Reckoning and Barbenheimmer). Each one provides a different experience to their viewers. But their release at roughly at the same time hints towards a change in consumer habits.  How we digest a film and connect to it is changing. Is it coming at the expense of conventional cinema where stories and patterns are repeated? We will have to wait some more to get a definitive answer. But for now, it’s clear that Barbie’s remarkable one-upmanship, which seemingly came out of nowhere, was due to its originality.

The general consensus was that MI would prevail and gain strength in subsequent weeks of its release. That didn’t materialize so Paramount may bear some big losses. Someone like Cruise cannot be pinned down for long, though. I think the second part will make a stellar comeback and more than make up for the first part’s lacklustre showing.

---

What did you think of MI: Dead Reckoning? Are you disappointed with the movie’s box office performance? Let us know in the comments below.