It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Acting is part of moviemaking if acting is bad obviously the film will suffer from it.
I have seen way, way WAY worse acting. And Cruise is limited to begin with, but he's not as wooden as say Jim Caviezel.
You shouldn't have to take one or the other, necessarily. But story always comes over style. MI is efficient if unremarkable in that regard, but every film, save for two and the more personal three, manages to effectively up the stakes storywise so it isn't just a stunts reel. Woo's "visual identity", as you put it, was completely wrong for an MI film. De Palma's was pitch perfect, Bird's was suitably animated, and McQuarrie's is rooted in the shooting styles of the 70s films he loves so much. It's very much a strong style, it's just not "in your face" as Woo's was.
Good job the acting is always pretty stellar in MI, then.
Cruise certainly has become inseparable from his "movie star" persona, but underneath it he is a fine actor, with very decent range. Just look at all the directors he has worked with in his career.
Mabey should do something with high roads, trucks and Canada (actres/actors). Killing of Luther.
Protocol is great but Rogue just pips it for me, although Fallout is also excellent but perhaps doesn't align to my taste as much. All brilliant though.
Don't what you mean about the acting to be honest. I can't think of any bad acting in them, and someone like Ferguson is doing fantastic work.
I don't think they've done that a few films, what they really need to stop doing is 'the bad guy needs something really bad but in order to catch him we're going to need to take the bad thing and actually give it to him' "Whaaat!! But we can't have it out in the open! Ethan are you mad?" etc.
That is genuinely the plot to every single one :D
Collateral is great. ;)
:))
This is true.
Although I've complained about the plots always being the same or using the same device, I do think the stories actually are rather remarkable. No, they're not plots that really fascinate but in terms of being incredibly well-constructed action movies they're actually rather genius. The weighting and plotting involved is perfect and very elegantly done. I've said it before but listen to the Empire podcasts with McQuarrie because it really is fascinating to hear how he tailors them and has to think about so many elements to make these stories work while he's shooting them.
They're a long listen, but what the hell else have we gotta do?
:)
https://www.empireonline.com/movies/news/mission-impossible-fallout-spoiler-special-ft-christopher-mcquarrie-part-1/
https://www.empireonline.com/movies/news/empire-podcast-christopher-mcquarrie-spoiler-special/
That too. :))
I used the word efficient above because the films very rarely, if ever, feel like they have any fat on them, which can be a big issue when it comes to rip-roaring action adventures. You never want them to be dull!
and they even stopped to be cool. There’s no sex appeal, the glamour feels forced. I don’t like them, those films have no flavor nor identity. I don’t care if the story works or if the action is great (which always is!) as a cinematic experience they feel empty. They are innocent and enjoyable films that I forget after a couple of hours and there’s always something missing. Something that’s not missing even in the worst JB film.
*here I’m talking about the last three even tho Fallout was a slight improvement from this standpoint.
I didn’t say that.
So it would seem.
I think we can spot it when someone is trying to be provocative.
:)
Cruise4lyfe
I'd say the same of QoS and SF as far as sex appeal, for the better part of SP too. The MI films never use that as an emphasis at all, so this point is a bit moot. There are hints of a potential romance with Hunt and Ilsa, but would it really add anything in exploring that? Even III focused more on an actual relationship with Hunt and his wife. It's interesting to explore how his devotion to his job has affected his personal life.
And I will argue the MI series does have an identity: incredible stunts and action, the best in the movies right now, IMO. The Craig films haven't come up with anything close to rivaling the scene where Hunt clings to the side of the plane at the beginning of Rogue Nation.
Oh come on. As I said, enjoyable but forgettable.
Opinions aren't facts ey.
Good points.
Many thanks I didn’t know that.
Chill guys. I like you both. Please don't fight ;)
I won’t! :D
Yeah, and 2 isn't even a bad film as such, it's just a bit weaker and sillier than the others. I think 3 is probably my least favourite in fact because it's a bit bland and becomes quite flat towards the end (and it thinks its being really clever with the whole mystery behind the rabbit's foot thing, but it just feels a bit studenty clever-clever): JJ Abrams didn't quite get a handle on blockbusters until Star Trek. But again: still not bad at all.
Yeah it's a very strong series, and three properly excellent ones in a row means the audience will flock to the next one enough for the studio to feel confident making the next two at once. People trust it to deliver.
https://variety.com/2020/film/box-office/mission-impossible-sequels-get-pushed-back-1234589362/