Boom. There it is. Mission: Impossible — The Final Reckoning will run for 2 hours and 51 minutes, making it the longest entry in the franchise by a ludicrous margin. For context, the original 1996 film was a lean 110 minutes—a tight, efficient spy thriller. Now? We're getting a marathon of Cruise sprinting, sweating, and defying physics like a man who's allergic to stunt doubles.
The Numbers Don't Lie (But Maybe Paramount Does)
- 1996: Mission: Impossible – 110 minutes
- 2023: Dead Reckoning – 163 minutes
- 2024: Final Reckoning – 171 minutes
That's a 55% increase since the first film. At this rate, Mission: Impossible 9 will just be a live-stream of Tom Cruise doing parkour in your backyard while whispering, “You're welcome.”
Hollywood's obsession with longer = better isn't new (Avengers: Endgame, The Batman, Dune), but here's the twist: Most of these films don't earn their runtime. Final Reckoning might—if it's wall-to-wall insanity. But if it's just 30 extra minutes of Rebecca Ferguson explaining MacGuffins? We riot.
Why This Matters (Beyond Your Bladder's Suffering)
- Theatrical Endurance Test: Remember when The Lord of the Rings justified its runtime with epic storytelling? Now, studios assume audiences will sit through anything if it's branded.
- Budget Bloat: At $400M, this film has to be a hit. Longer runtime = more showtimes, but also higher risk. If it flops? Say goodbye to mid-budget action flicks.
- The Cruise Factor: The man does his own stunts. If he's asking for three hours, he's either delivering a masterpiece or testing our loyalty.
If Final Reckoning is non-stop, jaw-dropping spectacle, then fine—we'll bring adult diapers. But if it's just franchise bloat, Hollywood's in trouble. Either way, Tom Cruise wins.
Would you sit through a 3-hour ‘Mission: Impossible'? Or is this the final reckoning for your patience?
