Saving the world often enough has a way of inflating any superstar’s ego. Early in “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning,” the bulky, sentimental, slightly pious but nonetheless satisfying capper to an eight-film franchise, the U.S. president (Angela Bassett, returning to the role) refers to espionage all-star Ethan Hunt as “the best of men,” and by inference the first man you call when you need someone to run an errand in a Tom Cruise hurry.

Later in the movie, another character sneers that Hunt is way past ordinary greatness; he’s now “the Chosen One.” Not just a world saver, but a world savior! By this point in the sanctification of our hero, “Final Reckoning” has made it relentlessly clear that only these two superstars — Cruise (real, and a proven industry savior thanks to the pandemic-era “Top Gun: Maverick”) and Hunt (fictional) — can prevent the “truth-eating digital parasite” and next-generation artificial intelligence troublemaker known as The Entity from destroying the world. Its mission, clearly accepted, is to redesign Earth according to its own controversial notions of progress and preferred sentient AI-to-human ratio.

The Entity emerged two summers ago in “Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One,” with Hunt’s rogue Impossible Mission Force scrambling after the literal and metaphoric key to vanquishing its renovation plans. The AI source code, we learned from the earlier outing, lies at the bottom of the Bering Sea, stashed in a sunken Russian submarine. Much of the new picture concerns the retrieval of that plot device. In one of “Final Reckoning’s” most compelling sequences, finessed nicely for maximum intentional audience breath-holding, Hunt risks the bends and death itself to complete this piece of the mission, as he rolls around amid massive cylindrical nukes in the hulk of the sub rolling around and upside down on the ocean floor. A little “Inception,” a little “Poseidon Adventure.”

In league with its sniveling human colleague Gabriel (Esai Morales, cackling with evil intent as if being paid by the cackle), The Entity conducts a good deal of digital foreplay in the new movie, co-written and directed by “M:I” franchise veteran Christopher McQuarrie. This means the AI monster is hacking into the world’s nuclear defense systems and taking control of the missiles, one paralyzed and panicking nation at a time. Meanwhile Hunt’s team, back in reasonably good graces with the U.S. government despite Henry Czerny’s welcome, born-to-distrust return to the franchise as CIA director Kittridge, follows a travel itinerary spanning the U.K., the U.S., Norway (subbing for St. Matthew Island in the Bering Sea off Alaska) and South Africa.

Tom Cruise as Ethan Hunt in “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning.” (Paramount Pictures and Skydance/TNS)

McQuarrie’s script, written with Eric Jendresen, manages to stretch a fairly simple, easily summarized plot into the longest of the eight “M:I” films. At 169 minutes, it’s about an hour longer than director Brian De Palma’s 1996 swank, cynical, quite beautiful diversion based on the hit TV series. The grandiosity and solemnity of the stakes in “Final Reckoning” test the very limits of what some of us want from an “M:I” movie. Maybe it’s a matter of real-world confidence in some of our leaders; watching a film about what might happen in a case of uncertain nuclear intentions, and wondering how your own leaders would handle it, well, it’s basically the opposite of escapism.

The dialogue scenes all have two or three too many reiterations of the mission’s importance per hour of running time. Elsewhere, “Final Reckoning” becomes a festival of callbacks and flashbacks to the entire series, with dozens of Easter eggs for the superfans, including the release date of the De Palma movie. Just in time, for my taste, the climax goes old-school for old times’ sake, per the producer and star’s wishes, featuring Gabriel’s biplane winging its way through narrow gorges while Cruise dangles off the wing, making sure we see that it’s him there, not a stunt double. In “Dead Reckoning” two years ago, the big wow was the motorcycle plummet and parachute routine, pretty amazing, and nicely compact in its duration and impact. The climax of “Final Reckoning” is likewise impressive and scenic, but also what you might call lengthy. Show-offy. Paced and edited less for the good of the overall movie and more for risk-verification purposes.

That said, this franchise has class. Always has. Plus, it has the virtue, taken as a 29-year entity, of having had a striking variety of directors at the helm. McQuarrie’s ideal in many ways, devoted to both traditional ’60s-derived “exotic” locations and spy games, and to star maintenance and ever-higher threat levels. Stalwart regulars from Ving Rhames and Simon Pegg to more recent series ringers Hayley Atwell and Pom Klementieff act as grounding points for this purported wrap-up, which may be more at home in the air or underwater but there it is.

And there’s this, a small thing in theory, but a huge bonus in practice. It’s not a spoiler, since he’s foregrounded, conspicuously, in the “Final Reckoning” trailer, but the movie boasts a real dinger of a callback: the very minor role of CIA analyst William Donloe. He’s the fellow who failed to notice Cruise hanging from wires in that vault in the bowels of Langley in the first film. Last we heard, 29 years ago, then-IMF head Kittridge promised to exile Donloe to a radar tower near the Arctic Circle.

He’s back, in a happily expanded role, and from my perspective, “Final Reckoning” exists primarily to allow the actor playing Donloe, Rolf Saxon, an opportunity most character actors never get in this lifetime. He’s not just there for nostalgia’s sake, but for real scenes, in which Saxon’s nearly forgotten minor player performs with an equally welcome series newbie, Inuk actor Lucy Tulugarjuk, who plays Donloe’s resourceful wife. In a franchise built on extremes, and the grandiosity that tends to come with a near-$400 million dollar production budget, Saxon’s own personal mission appears simply to have been: Play this material nice and easy, not like a callback or a punchline, but a relatable human being in unusual circumstances. He may not hang off a biplane, but the year’s unlikeliest franchise MVP makes “Final Reckoning” something better than superhuman: human.

‘Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning’

3 stars (out of 4)

MPA rating: PG-13 (for sequences of strong violence and action, bloody images, and brief language)

Running time: 2:49

How to watch: In theaters May 23

Related Articles

Movie review: Live-action ‘Lilo & Stitch’ an utterly refreshing delight

Column: AC/DC and the underrated art of doing the same thing forever

‘Friendship’ review: Tim Robinson, Paul Rudd in doppelganger ‘I Love You, Man’

A slow death? Broadcast TV news gets overhaul as viewers decline

Movie review: ‘Final Destination: Bloodlines’ reinvigorates horror franchise

(Ben Sargent)

To see more political cartoons from Ben Sargent, visit our Loon Star State section. Find Observer political reporting here.

The post Loon Star State: Religion in Schools appeared first on The Texas Observer.

So much easier to just criticize

As I open the Pioneer Press on a daily basis, there is one thing that I can be sure of, there will be a front page story detailing how budgetary cuts directed by President Trump and the DOGE team, led by Elon Musk, are causing hardships among Americans.  There will also be similar stories sprinkled throughout the paper. I am hard pressed to find any articles detailing the consequences of inaction on the part of our budget deficits.

If our budget deficits continue at its current pace, in 20 years the U.S. government will default on its loans and there will be nothing that can be done about it.  No more Social Security, no more Medicare, inflation will be rampant and at the very least a recession will ensue. The dollar will probably lose its status as the world’s primary reserve currency with all of those consequences.

Also, who now is going to loan the U.S. money needed to keep all of its obligations going? This should be a bipartisan issue, with both parties working to find a solution. Instead the Democratic Party offers nothing but criticism. Where are their solutions? What are they planning to cut? It’s so much safer to just criticize.

Please, Minnesota senators and members of Congress, what are your plans for cutting the deficit?

Don Lohrey, Shoreview

‘I don’t know’

President Trump’s deferral when asked on “Meet The Press” recently whether he is obligated to abide by the Constitution is predictable, troubling and reflective of his failing memory or mendacity.

His answer to the question — “I don’t know” — underscores many of the actions his administration has taken, which have drawn the wrath of a number of judges, even including some he appointed to the bench.

The non-committal response also belies the oath he took when entering the presidency 3-1/2 months ago as  well as in 2017, as prescribed in the Constitution that he would “to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

His ignorance of that provision indicates that his ability to carry out his oath is limited or he was not being truthful when he swore he would do so.

In any event, his behavior would disqualify him from membership in the right-wing Oath Keepers group that supports him.

Marshall H. Tanick, Minneapolis

 

A missed Messi opportunity

I attended the Inter Miami vs. MNUFC match recently and was deeply disappointed by the treatment of fans in the supporters section — particularly children — who were told to remove or cover up their Lionel Messi jerseys. According to ushers, only MNUFC gear was allowed in that section. This policy, if it exists, is not only misguided but was inconsistently and unfairly applied.

First, Messi is the greatest soccer player of all time — a global ambassador for the sport. For many fans, especially kids, watching him play is a once-in-a-lifetime experience. Asking them to hide their admiration for him is not only petty, it’s contrary to the spirit of the game.

Second, MNUFC is not a storied club with the legacy or stature to demand this kind of tribal loyalty from a quarter of its stadium. If the team wants a small contingent of hardcore supporters to follow certain rules, that’s one thing. But enforcing it on casual fans — who were fortunate enough to get tickets — is something else entirely.

Third, Messi’s presence brought the club unprecedented attention and revenue. By my estimate, this match generated 8–10 times the typical game-day revenue. Instead of embracing the moment, the team chose to alienate fans who helped make it special.

Finally, I’ve attended many MNUFC games, and I’ve never seen this policy enforced before. If the club truly believes in it, it should apply it consistently — not just when one of the greatest athletes of our time is in town.

This was a missed opportunity for the club to celebrate a unifying moment for soccer fans in Minnesota — not a time to police jerseys.

Joe Trenzeluk, Wayzata

 

The cure? Midterm elections

People, what is happening to our elected representatives? I fear there is an unreported health crisis in the halls of Congress as well as our very own state Legislature. What could it be? Have lead paint chips been drifting down upon the balding pates of our nation’s and state senators and representatives, or perhaps mixing in with their modest cafeteria lunch soups? What could be causing this cranial malaise, this mind-numbing brain fog that seems to have become endemic to legislative halls?

I have only the symptoms of this condition to know of its existence. What other possible reason could there be for them to forget the tenets of “public health.” For instance, I read that our state leaders wish to leave a segment of Minnesota residents without the means to access reasonable health care. Allowing sickness and disease to develop and fester, threatening the public health. Or, as in our nation’s halls of state, they are debating how to cut Medicaid benefits to provide tax cuts to the already wealthy. Another threat to public health.

These can only be symptoms of some form of undiagnosed brain disorder that must be cured. I believe that can best be done by midterm elections.

Bob Emery, Mendota Heights

 

Before either of us departs

I’m no fan of memorials. I’m not against them. I just wonder what good it does for the dearly departed. They needed to hear what’s said when they’re alive and wondering what it’s all been about. To me, they’re just another contest: “I know more good things to say about them than you do.” We make competition out of anything.

There is an exception, though: that these mourners create something worthwhile and lasting in their name – a donation to their favorite cause, an endowment, a scholarship – a way for the deceased to live forever, still alive after death.

So, Don, because I believe you don’t know you don’t know, I want to enlighten you about what you think you know about me. And tell you what your being part of my life means to me now. Before either of us departs, that is. This is my paean to you, a word I didn’t realize was in my ken until I began typing.

When I started in the writers group, your remarks led me to believe you’d been an English teacher. I liked what you said about my stories, ever encouraging, showing me subtle nuances I didn’t see in phrases. I’d watch you out of the corner of my eye, measuring your facial reactions when you silently read my story. An English teacher after all and unwitting mentor. You helped me get in touch with parts of myself that I had lost, to realign puzzle pieces that made no sense, that didn’t quite fit.

And you introduced me to the Bulletin Board in the Pioneer Press. I was able to make an item from my bucket list come true. I saw my name in print in a publication people paid for. Wouldn’t have happened without your encouragement. A major boost for me.

Related Articles

Letters: More politicians should follow Walz’s lead on money for religious institutions

Letters: Preventing landlords from screening tenants is a one-sided view of our housing problem

Letters: ‘Let’s not make it harder to learn,’ Walz wrote. A private school principal responds.

Letters: Actually, it IS about President Trump

Letters: St. Paul Council should delay vote on rent-control amendments

All the friends I grew up with who gave my life meaning and purpose are gone now. Connecting with you has renewed my sense of looking forward to another day with anticipation rather than antipathy,

I keep a message on my fridge, a reminder of what’s most important to being alive and well. It presented itself to me when I needed a helping hand with relationships gone awry: “Stay in touch with those people who make you feel good about yourself, and distance yourself from those who do not.”

I’m happy we’re in touch, Don.

Milan Mockovak, who describes himself as 94 years of age (not old yet) and an Episcopal Homes resident

By JILL COLVIN and CHRIS MEGERIAN

WASHINGTON (AP) — Between a barrage of executive orders, foreign trips and norm-shattering proclamations, Donald Trump has also been busy raking in cash.

The president has amassed a war chest of at least $600 million in political donations heading into the midterm elections, according to three people familiar with the matter. It’s an unprecedented sum in modern politics, particularly for a lame-duck president who is barred by the U.S. Constitution from running again.

Trump is keeping an aggressive fundraising schedule with the ultimate goal of raising $1 billion or more to back his agenda and hold the House and Senate next November, according to the people, who spoke on condition of anonymity to share internal details of the fundraising efforts.

The preoccupation with fundraising might seem highly unusual for a president who was notably averse to dialing for dollars when he first ran. But according to people familiar with his thinking, it makes perfect sense: By amassing money, Trump amasses power.

Trump is eager to reverse the tide of Democrats routinely outraising GOP candidates and wants to maximize his own impact as president. Any money left over after his term could help him maintain enormous influence over the Republican Party, cementing his status as its most influential kingmaker — and potential patron — through 2028 and beyond.

“It’s leverage,” said Marc Short, who served as Trump’s director of legislative affairs during his first term and later as Vice President Mike Pence’s chief of staff. “It’s a reflection of the power that he still holds.”

Inside Trump’s money operation

The day after winning November’s election, Trump began calling top staff with a surprising plan, according to two people with knowledge of the conversations. He wanted to start raising money again, immediately, not just for the transition and his inauguration, but for political committees that would demonstrate his clout throughout his second term.

Trump made calls to donors himself. One of the people described the message as “double up.” If a donor had given $1 million before the election, Trump wanted another $1 million now.

Related Articles

Trump administration bars Harvard from enrolling foreign students

Federal judge blocks immigration authorities from revoking international students’ legal status

Trump administration files motion to end protections for immigrant children in federal custody

Trump’s DOJ accuses Medicare Advantage insurers of paying ‘kickbacks’ for primo customers

Why Kamala Harris could run for California governor and bypass another White House bid

People in Trump’s orbit describe him as someone with a strong sense of timing, and he knew that his influence was at its peak right after winning his comeback campaign. He had yet to make any personnel or policy decisions that could alienate key constituencies, and there was no shortage of people who wanted to get on board with the victorious team.

He has continued raising money at a rapid pace while president, headlining a series of high-dollar fundraisers, including a $1.5 million-a-head event on May 5 at the Trump National Golf Club in Virginia for “crypto and AI innovators,” and a pair of “candlelight dinners” at his Mar-a-Lago in Florida on April 4 and March 1.

Democrats and campaign finance watchdogs have long complained about Trump’s blending of official and campaign business. Many of the attendees have potential business before the federal government. But a conservative Supreme Court and Republicans who control Congress have for years weakened campaign finance rules.

The money is spread across a number of different committees, including MAGA Inc., Trump’s longtime super PAC, and Securing American Greatness, a nonprofit 501(c)(4) that earlier this month began airing a commercial backing Trump’s economic agenda and encouraging the passage of his tax plan “to get our economy back on track.”

The operation is being overseen by Chris LaCivita, Trump’s 2024 co-campaign manager, and Tony Fabrizio, the president’s longtime pollster. There are also other entities, including Never Surrender, Trump’s renamed leadership PAC, and outside groups like the Elon Musk-backed Building America’s Future, which LaCivita and Fabrizio have also joined as senior advisers.

There’s also the fundraising for Trump’s eventual presidential library and the nearly $240 million raised for his inauguration festivities.

‘I’m going to be very active’

One of the goals of the groups is to back Trump’s agenda and help push his legislative priorities through Congress. Securing American Greatness plans to spend more than $10 million on its ad, which has been airing across the country.

Most, however, is being held in reserve as they prepare to spend big in the 2026 primaries and midterms, with a particular focus on holding and expanding Republicans’ majority in the House. Aides are eyeing advertising, rallies and travel to back favored candidates. They may also challenge incumbent Republicans who have crossed the president or failed to back his agenda.

Trump has made clear that he intends to play an outsized role in next year’s midterm elections and has already begun issuing a flurry of endorsements in races across the country.

In 2018, Republicans lost control of the House in his first term to Democrats who went on to block much of Trump’s agenda and then impeached him twice, first in 2019 over his efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate former President Joe Biden, and then for his role in the Capitol insurrection after he lost the 2020 election.

Trump, according to people familiar with his thinking, is particularly focused on avoiding another impeachment and maintaining his power through the end of his second term.

“I’m going to be very active,” Trump said of his plans for the midterms in a recent interview on “Meet the Press,” where he noted he’s “raised a lot of money for congressmen and senators that I think are really good people.”

Trump and his aides are aware that the party in power typically loses seats in the midterms. But they hope that by ramping up spending before Democrats, they can break that trend.

“We’re not going to let that be a self-fulfilling prophecy,” Trump said at the annual National Republican Congressional Committee President’s Dinner last month.

He is also using official levers of power against Democrats ahead of the midterms, including with an executive order demanding immediate changes to how elections are run. He ordered the Justice Department to investigate ActBlue, the fundraising platform that has supercharged Democratic campaigns.

Will he follow through?

It remains to be seen how much Trump will ultimately spend on other candidates. The president has a long history of being stingy with his money, choosing instead to wield his influence by bestowing endorsements and staging rallies that energize the Republican base.

In 2022, as Trump prepared to run for president again, Republicans repeatedly griped that he was hoarding money for himself and not spending more on his endorsed candidates.

In the end, MAGA Inc. spent $19 million during the 2022 midterms, mostly opposing Democrats, including $3.4 million targeting now Pennsylvania’s John Fetterman, $3 million opposing Arizona’s Mark Kelly, and $3.4 million against Georgia’s Raphael Warnock. All three won their Senate races against Trump-favored candidates.

That sum was far eclipsed by the $260 million spent by the Congressional Leadership Fund and the $290 million spent by the Senate Leadership Fund, the campaign arms of House and Senate Republicans.

This time around, however, one of the people familiar with his operation said that they would not be surprised if Trump’s groups end up outspending them. Those who think Trump will be more generous say he has little else to do with the cash, even as he muses publicly about trying to run for a third term in defiance of the Constitution’s 22nd Amendment.

Others are more skeptical.

At the National Republican Senate Committee, for instance, staff have emphasized to incumbents that they are expected to build their own professional operations, with sufficient staff and infrastructure, so they won’t need to rely on the president or other outside groups for help.

“I would be shocked if that changes,” said Short, the former Trump and Pence aide. “I don’t think anybody’s sitting there thinking: Maybe he’ll give me some of that.”

Megerian reported from Washington. Associated Press writer Zeke Miller contributed to this report.