› ›

Mission: Impossible - films and tv series

1…140141143145146…306

Comments

  • Seven_Point_Six_FiveSeven_Point_Six_Five Southern California
    Posts: 1,257
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Seven_Point_Six_Five wrote: »
    I’ll be seeing Fallout on in few hours from now. I’ve done a pretty good job avoiding reviews and whatnot so I’ll be going in fresh.

    Great, let us know what you think.

    I’m sitting in my car in the parking lot of the theater and figured I’d give my initial thoughts.

    I think this is easily one of the most intense films I’ve seen in awhile. I feel a bit worn out after watching this. As far as MI movies go, the stakes felt very high. I felt more emotionally invested than usual with these types of films.

    Cruise yet again proves why is one of the true remaining movie stars. The man loves his job and I respect the hell out of the dedication he has for these films.

    As for Cavill, as much as I have grown to love him over the past few years, he did nothing to stand out in this film. He just felt flat, both performance and characterization. His character needed to be funny/sarcastic, or super smart, or a formidable brick shithouse. His character was really none of those. His character was just forgettable.

    I may post some more thoughts later, but all in all, this is a great film that continues to raise the esteem of the MI franchise.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    @Seven_Point_Six_Five, honestly, that intensity and high stakes feel was my major takeaway from this. Every action sequence felt like it had grandiose emotion and even bigger stakes driving it all. It's one rollercoaster of a film.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @Seven_Point_Six_Five, honestly, that intensity and high stakes feel was my major takeaway from this. Every action sequence felt like it had grandiose emotion and even bigger stakes driving it all. It's one rollercoaster of a film.
    I very much agree. For me it is similar to TDK in that regard. There is a sense of foreboding to it from the very first scene and Balfe's excellent score accentuates this feeling, just like Zimmer's did for the earlier Bat entry.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    bondjames wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @Seven_Point_Six_Five, honestly, that intensity and high stakes feel was my major takeaway from this. Every action sequence felt like it had grandiose emotion and even bigger stakes driving it all. It's one rollercoaster of a film.
    I very much agree. For me it is similar to TDK in that regard. There is a sense of foreboding to it from the very first scene and Balfe's excellent score accentuates this feeling, just like Zimmer's did for the earlier Bat entry.

    Agreed, that's another one that had me on the edge of my seat (a term that is widely overused) almost the whole time. It's much appreciated and refreshing.
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    So tired this morning, but that was worth it. I'm still out of it, was such a late night going out to see it and I demand another viewing to get all my thoughts together, but I'm certain that's easily my favorite in the series. Tense and nerve-wracking without being too overly dramatic, the action scenes were stunning (and expertly bled into the next one, the pacing for them was expertly done), the cast was in fine form as always, and as many of you echoed, I felt a real high-stakes feeling for all of the characters during this mission. Already dying to see this one once again.

    It might've been noted, and it may not even be an easter egg, but this little bit made me think of M:I 2:
    When Ethan takes the helicopter deep into the valley during the finale, he gets some sort of automated "Terrain, terrain, pull up, pull up" message, reminiscent of the plane crash from the opening of M:I2.

    And I will say that:
    It was wildly obvious from the opening minutes that Walker would end up being Lark, but was that supposed to be him hiding in the shadows firing at Ethan and Benji in the opening? Sounded like he had a British accent, but nothing was brought up about it after that, unless I missed a key moment. I sort of wish he could have continued to be the bad guy for the series, but his death scene was too damn cool.

    I thought that ...
    The person hiding in the shadows firing at Cruise and co wasn’t Cavill but Zola played by Frederick Schmidt.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    The following is a link to an article written by Scriptshadow. I often read his articles as he usually takes the perspective of how a film works, or doesn't, via the script/story (rather than what we see on a screen via the director).

    This link is about M:I and I'd be interested to hear thoughts on it from those of you who have seen the film.

    I haven't yet seen it. But I'm not afraid of anything spoillery either.

    This article does sum up, however, why I like this series-- but not love it. In fact the last two I always mix up-- they feel like the same film to me.

    (I definitely think the third one is by far the best since it had emotional stakes to it and it separated itself from the rest of the franchise).

    Anyways, here's the link and look forward to hearing your thoughts:

    http://scriptshadow.net/movie-review-mission-impossible-fallout/
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,231
    peter wrote: »
    The following is a link to an article written by Scriptshadow. I often read his articles as he usually takes the perspective of how a film works, or doesn't, via the script/story (rather than what we see on a screen via the director).

    This link is about M:I and I'd be interested to hear thoughts on it from those of you who have seen the film.

    I haven't yet seen it. But I'm not afraid of anything spoillery either.

    This article does sum up, however, why I like this series-- but not love it. In fact the last two I always mix up-- they feel like the same film to me.

    (I definitely think the third one is by far the best since it had emotional stakes to it and it separated itself from the rest of the franchise).

    Anyways, here's the link and look forward to hearing your thoughts:

    http://scriptshadow.net/movie-review-mission-impossible-fallout/

    Pretty poor review, to be honest. It sounds like it's being written by someone who won't like these kinds of films no matter how good they are. Also, spoilers....

    The paragraph about a certain plot point -
    Hunt being John Lark
    is a giveaway as to how little attention was being paid and what the films are actually trying to do. It's described as a "forced false plot point" despite the fact that we've had three films where the competence/intentions of the main character is questioned. Nothing forced about it.
  • patbpatb
    Posts: 4,617
    I think it's interesting that , in mainstream media, MI is being openly compaired to Bond as a big, adverture franchise. Irrespective of individual opinion, the fact that there is a debate , in itself, shows how far MI has come.

    Also interesting that it does seem that the lead and director are all ready lined up for the next MI. They really do have momentum.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    patb wrote: »
    I think it's interesting that , in mainstream media, MI is being openly compaired to Bond as a big, adverture franchise. Irrespective of individual opinion, the fact that there is a debate , in itself, shows how far MI has come.

    Also interesting that it does seem that the lead and director are all ready lined up for the next MI. They really do have momentum.

    It’s always been compared in that way. M:I and, in particular, M:I 2 far outstripped Bond at the BO.

    However, with these three latest entries they’ve solidified their staying power (unlike say, Bourne). It will interesting to see what they can do post-Cruise. They stand a better chance than the aforementioned Bourne Imo.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,454
    Yeah, because Bourne was more about the character from the start, whereas Mission Impossible is supposed to be a team, even if Cruise does take centre stage more often than not.
  • valentinzukovskyvalentinzukovsky
    Posts: 503
    Went to see it the other night and now i want Chris Mcquarrie to make a Bond film one day, he'd knock it out of the park .
  • vzokvzok
    Posts: 4,045
    RC7 wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    I think it's interesting that , in mainstream media, MI is being openly compaired to Bond as a big, adverture franchise. Irrespective of individual opinion, the fact that there is a debate , in itself, shows how far MI has come.

    Also interesting that it does seem that the lead and director are all ready lined up for the next MI. They really do have momentum.

    It’s always been compared in that way. M:I and, in particular, M:I 2 far outstripped Bond at the BO.

    However, with these three latest entries they’ve solidified their staying power (unlike say, Bourne). It will interesting to see what they can do post-Cruise. They stand a better chance than the aforementioned Bourne Imo.

    How do you think they will handle the day Tom Cruise has to step down as team leader? Bourne hit a brick wall when the lead actor was changed and never really recovered.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    They will obviously have to try and phase him out as movies go by. I mean, Rebecca Ferguson is getting a lot of recognition. I'd love to have her take over from Cruise after the latter calls it quits.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited July 2018 Posts: 15,723
    vzok wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    I think it's interesting that , in mainstream media, MI is being openly compaired to Bond as a big, adverture franchise. Irrespective of individual opinion, the fact that there is a debate , in itself, shows how far MI has come.

    Also interesting that it does seem that the lead and director are all ready lined up for the next MI. They really do have momentum.

    It’s always been compared in that way. M:I and, in particular, M:I 2 far outstripped Bond at the BO.

    However, with these three latest entries they’ve solidified their staying power (unlike say, Bourne). It will interesting to see what they can do post-Cruise. They stand a better chance than the aforementioned Bourne Imo.

    How do you think they will handle the day Tom Cruise has to step down as team leader? Bourne hit a brick wall when the lead actor was changed and never really recovered.

    Keep the recurring actors (Rhames, Ferguson, Pegg) and get a 30 or 40 years old actor who can seriously kick-ass as a new team leader (that way they can give a small appearance for Cruise as Hunt if needs be, as the IMF secretary for example).

    My #1 choice for whoever may replace Cruise as the central role & is young enough to make several films is Iko Uwais of ''The Raid''. Don't Asian-ize the entire franchise (keep it international like it is now with hardly any scenes set on US soil), so you get big money from Asia and everywhere else like the past 3 films.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    They will obviously have to try and phase him out as movies go by. I mean, Rebecca Ferguson is getting a lot of recognition. I'd love to have her take over from Cruise after the latter calls it quits.
    I thought Ferguson was bloody brilliant in MI: Fallout.
    I just love that scene when she's strapped to the chair, panicking about what was happening to Benji behind her. Not only did it solidify her as one of the team but it also gave her an opportunity to showcase her acting chops.

    She has great chemistry with Cruise too. It doesn't hurt that she's incredibly easy on the eyes - a magnetic screen presence as Ilsa Faust.
    --

    RE: Bourne - they could have continued on with those but they made some errors, notably Renner. As Cruise himself learned, this guy is supporting material at best. Moreover, they kept retreading when they should have moved on and brought Bourne in from the cold. The issue with series like Bourne and the Jack Ryan films are that the film makers feel they can just insert some up and comer and be on their way. One can't. When a series has been defined by its lead for so long and so memorably it's critical to reboot and reinvest, not just recast. One must reimagine imho.

    RE: MI - yes, I firmly believe it can survive Cruise and they've arguably set it up nicely for that to occur after the next one.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    bondjames wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    They will obviously have to try and phase him out as movies go by. I mean, Rebecca Ferguson is getting a lot of recognition. I'd love to have her take over from Cruise after the latter calls it quits.
    I thought Ferguson was bloody brilliant in MI: Fallout.
    I just love that scene when she's strapped to the chair, panicking about what was happening to Benji behind her. Not only did it solidify her as one of the team but it also gave her an opportunity to showcase her acting chops.

    She has great chemistry with Cruise too. It doesn't hurt that she's incredibly easy on the eyes - a magnetic screen presence as Ilsa Faust.
    Well put, sir. Well put.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited July 2018 Posts: 15,723
    @bondjames Did you know Cruise specifically asked for Ferguson to be cast in Rogue Nation because he thought she looked similar to his childhood crush, Ingrid Bergman?
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Hence the name Ilsa and the scene set in Casablanca. ;)
  • patbpatb
    Posts: 4,617
    If true, then Cruise deserves even more credit. RF brings real class to the series and takes it up a level. I really hope they can keep her for the next movie.

    I don't think they can phase Cruise out on a gradual level, he is either the boss or he's not there. The way the movie industry is going , together with wider culture, there is no reason why RF can't lead the team but the supporting cast would need bulking up with new talent.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    patb wrote: »
    If true, then Cruise deserves even more credit. RF brings real class to the series and takes it up a level. I really hope they can keep her for the next movie.

    I don't think they can phase Cruise out on a gradual level, he is either the boss or he's not there. The way the movie industry is going , together with wider culture, there is no reason why RF can't lead the team but the supporting cast would need bulking up with new talent.
    Oh it definitely is true. Rebecca Ferguson herself stated that in many interviews.

    As for phasing out, I wasn't exactly talking about giving him less screentime, but have Rebecca Ferguson shine more and more, and give Cruise somewhat of a less of an importance so he wouldn't outshine anybody. Obviously, the post-Cruise M:I films will have to think less on the stunts, and more on the ingenious of Holmesian mind games the way the television series was, find ways to spark super creativity so it won't put the audiences off but sway them. That isn't to say M:I should cease being an action-adventure spy fantasy, on the contrary. Action should still be the main part of the whole thing.
  • patbpatb
    Posts: 4,617
    Yes, the think the team dynmic has been strong over the last 3 movies. If Cruise is to leave, they need to do their best to keep the team in place. McQ really does seem to understand the MI DNA and I'm sure you could come up with a good way to remove Cruise.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,592
    Cruise is MI. I don't want to see Hunt recast or the series to continue with a different lead. They'd be better off with a TV reboot.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2018 Posts: 23,883
    DaltonCraig007 wrote: »
    @bondjames Did you know Cruise specifically asked for Ferguson to be cast in Rogue Nation because he thought she looked similar to his childhood crush, Ingrid Bergman?
    I didn't know that @DaltonCraig007, but she definitely reminds me of a young Ingrid, and I've mentioned that before.
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Hence the name Ilsa and the scene set in Casablanca. ;)
    I saw Casablanca for the first time after MI:RN and picked up on that as well as the visual similarities
    ---

    I can live with Ferguson running the show post-Cruise. This role was made for her and she's almost definitive in it. Other female butt kickers are pretenders as far as I'm concerned. I agree that she brings a certain old flavour dignified style, presence and cool to the proceedings as well. A sort of modern day Mrs. Peel.
  • CraterGunsCraterGuns
    edited July 2018 Posts: 618
    Cruise is MI.
    And that's really my problem with the franchise. Really just can't stand the guy, even though he's a decent actor and I give him props for the stunt stuff.

    Literally the only thing I remember about the last one (ROGUE NATION, right?) is Rebecca Ferguson.

    Will see this on HBO, like all the rest.
  • dragonskydragonsky
    Posts: 2,491
    thelivingroyale wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/jul/30/mission-impossible-tom-cruise-reliable-franchise

    Interesting line she throws out at the top - ‘an unlikely 22-year phenomenon that shows no signs of tiring’. I think it’s very clear it did indeed run out of steam post-III. They went away, figured out what worked, honed their USP and returned 5 years later with a finely tuned, genuinely exhilarating action film.

    Haven't seen the new one yet, but my problem with Rogue Nation was that after they'd figured out what worked and delivered with GP, they'd stopped taking any real risks with the sort of film it was. RN was really well made and well done in pretty much every way but I just felt bored. The stunts were cool but it felt like I'd seen it all before, exact same sort of tone/story as the last one. What made GP so great for me was how fresh and different it felt at the time (coming out at a time where dark and gritty was what most blockbusters were going for), and what I admired about the first few was how different they all were. RN played it pretty safe I thought.

    This seems like it'll feel more fresh though, with the talk of it being darker and them fleshing out Hunt's character more. Seems like a different sort of film. I'll probably wait until it's on Sky to catch it though.

    Agreed.

    Dare I say I share the same opinion for Fallout as well
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    @DaltonCraig007, I'm curious. Have you seen Fallout yet? I don't remember seeing your review and then I noticed that its French release date is showing as August 1st. Is that true? Surprising given the film had its global premiere (and had major filming) in Paris.
  • ZekidkZekidk
    edited July 2018 Posts: 3,278
    Saw it with my wife yesterday. Expected to be blown away. I wasn't. Didn't get the same feeling aftwards, like when I for example left the theater after watching 'The Dark Knight', or even Ghost Protocol.

    The stunts and action setpieces are fantastic, but in my opinion III has a better story and a better villain and GP still has the stunt to be beaten.

    It was marginally better than Rogue Nation, though. I think.

    One thing that struck/annoyed me was that most close-ups of the women were slightly out of focus. Clearly a creative choice. Like the artificial grain.

    Next time, I would like a great story first and foremost, and great action setpieces secondly.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited July 2018 Posts: 15,723
    @bondjames I'll be seeing it tomorrow at 1:30pm my time. And yes, the release date for France is August 1st.

    Every film this month that I want to see are slightly delayed in France. Equalizer 2 on the 15th, The Meg on the 22nd, Mile 22 on the 29th. Only Kin is releasing here before North America. I also hope to be able to see the JCVD revenge action flick The Bouncer on the 22nd.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I can't believe EQ2 is releasing after MI: Fallout in France @DaltonCraig007. These staggered release schedules are truly annoying and make no sense to me. I may have benefited now, but if they keep the normal 2 week stateside delay for B25, I'll be late to that party next year.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    bondjames wrote: »
    I can't believe EQ2 is releasing after MI: Fallout in France @DaltonCraig007. These staggered release schedules are truly annoying and make no sense to me. I may have benefited now, but if they keep the normal 2 week stateside delay for B25, I'll be late to that party next year.

    I believe that two week delay was confirmed when they dated the film, sadly. Going to be another painful two weeks dodging spoilers before we get to see it.
Sign In or Register to comment.