Mission: Impossible - films and tv series

1187188190192193306

Comments

  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    I don't consider III to be as bad as II though.

    MI movies are not about the acting btw. The only thing they must stop doing is IMF going rogue.

    Acting is part of moviemaking if acting is bad obviously the film will suffer from it.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    matt_u wrote: »
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    I don't consider III to be as bad as II though.

    MI movies are not about the acting btw. The only thing they must stop doing is IMF going rogue.

    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.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited April 2020 Posts: 8,216
    matt_u wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    M:I-2 is a product of its time and is still the coolest and sexiest entry. At least Cruise played Ethan Hunt and not just Tom Cruise. The first two are the best only because you can feel the hand of a director with a strong visual identity behind it all.

    A visual identity is nothing without a strong story. And I disagree with you about him playing Ethan Hunt; he was Ethan Hunt in the first, third, all the way through to the last film. There's a consistency in the potrayal there. Two sticks out like a sore thumb in that regard. It's almost a totally different character.

    Since those stories are always the same old stupid recycled stuff injected with a bit of silly humor in and there I’d take a strong visual identity that resonates within the body of work of its director over “story” any time.

    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.
    matt_u wrote: »
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    I don't consider III to be as bad as II though.

    MI movies are not about the acting btw. The only thing they must stop doing is IMF going rogue.

    Acting is part of moviemaking if acting is bad obviously the film will suffer from it.

    Good job the acting is always pretty stellar in MI, then.
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    I don't consider III to be as bad as II though.

    MI movies are not about the acting btw. The only thing they must stop doing is IMF going rogue.

    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.

    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.
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited April 2020 Posts: 4,515
    I finaly whatched Next Three Days and thinking or Paul Haggis be intrestintg to take over as directer and writing the movie. Mabey even some other crew members, include return of Danny Elfman. Elfman is not fan any more of doing more then once score in row but will he be intrest do another mission impossible movie after that long time. Bring in actor or actres as villian who don't expect in this.

    Mabey should do something with high roads, trucks and Canada (actres/actors). Killing of Luther.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited April 2020 Posts: 16,368
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    M:I-2 is a product of its time and is still the coolest and sexiest entry. At least Cruise played Ethan Hunt and not just Tom Cruise. The first two are the best only because you can feel the hand of a director with a strong visual identity behind it all.

    It doesn't "feel" like a MI film at all. My personal favorite remains IV.

    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.
    matt_u wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    M:I-2 is a product of its time and is still the coolest and sexiest entry. At least Cruise played Ethan Hunt and not just Tom Cruise. The first two are the best only because you can feel the hand of a director with a strong visual identity behind it all.

    A visual identity is nothing without a strong story. And I disagree with you about him playing Ethan Hunt; he was Ethan Hunt in the first, third, all the way through to the last film. There's a consistency in the potrayal there. Two sticks out like a sore thumb in that regard. It's almost a totally different character.

    Since those stories are always the same old stupid recycled stuff injected with a bit of silly humor in and there I’d take a strong visual identity that resonates within the body of work of its director over “story” any time. And the last two feel too much like “let’s celebrate Cruise” for me. He’s a legend and he’s great I really liked him but now I just can’t stand him in this role. Plus, acting in those films is pretty bad. Not F&F level obviously but compared to the Craig era we’re talking about different championships.

    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.
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    I don't consider III to be as bad as II though.

    MI movies are not about the acting btw. The only thing they must stop doing is IMF going rogue.

    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
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    matt_u wrote: »
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    I don't consider III to be as bad as II though.

    MI movies are not about the acting btw. The only thing they must stop doing is IMF going rogue.

    Acting is part of moviemaking if acting is bad obviously the film will suffer from it.

    Good job the acting is always pretty stellar in MI, then.
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    I don't consider III to be as bad as II though.

    MI movies are not about the acting btw. The only thing they must stop doing is IMF going rogue.

    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.

    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.

    Collateral is great. ;)
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,216
    mtm wrote: »
    ...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

    :))

    This is true.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,368
    matt_u wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    M:I-2 is a product of its time and is still the coolest and sexiest entry. At least Cruise played Ethan Hunt and not just Tom Cruise. The first two are the best only because you can feel the hand of a director with a strong visual identity behind it all.

    A visual identity is nothing without a strong story. And I disagree with you about him playing Ethan Hunt; he was Ethan Hunt in the first, third, all the way through to the last film. There's a consistency in the potrayal there. Two sticks out like a sore thumb in that regard. It's almost a totally different character.

    Since those stories are always the same old stupid recycled stuff injected with a bit of silly humor in and there I’d take a strong visual identity that resonates within the body of work of its director over “story” any time.

    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.

    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?
    :)

    309032d5af16508b5fbb88ef85a63bd7.jpg


    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/
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    mtm wrote: »
    ...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

    :))

    This is true.

    That too. :))
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,216
    I've had a good listen to them, @mtm and would similarly recommend them. I don't think the scripts are going to win awards (just like most of Bond's wouldn't) but if you're looking at it from the POV of crafting something to satisfying the huge array of elements, then yes....remarkable is a pretty apt descriptor.

    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!
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited April 2020 Posts: 4,343
    We are looking different films then. They are just empty boxes mixed with recycled stuff and stupid humor*.There are no emotions, the characters are mostly two dimensional, compared to the Craig era for example the artistic value is definitely inferior - production design, photography, costumes -
    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.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    edited April 2020 Posts: 3,497
    The worst JB movies are also horrible. Like, during Brosnan's tenure they forced the cliché Bond down our throats and we ended with cheap CGI & invisible cars. No franchise is perfect.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    The worst JB movies are also horrible. Like, during Brosnan they forced the cliché Bond down our throats and they ended with cheap CGI & invisible cars. No franchise is perfect.

    I didn’t say that.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,216
    matt_u wrote: »
    We are looking at different films then.

    So it would seem.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    matt_u wrote: »
    We are looking at different films then.

    So it would seem.

    ZRq9yzO.gif
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,368
    matt_u wrote: »
    We are looking different films then. They are just empty boxes mixed with recycled stuff and stupid humor*.There are no emotions, the characters are mostly two dimensional, compared to the Craig era for example the artistic value is definitely inferior - production design, photography, costumes -
    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 think we can spot it when someone is trying to be provocative.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    mtm wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    We are looking different films then. They are just empty boxes mixed with recycled stuff and stupid humor*.There are no emotions, the characters are mostly two dimensional, compared to the Craig era for example the artistic value is definitely inferior - production design, photography, costumes -
    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 think we can spot it when someone is trying to be provocative.

    :)
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,395
    I think the mission series is a fine franchise. Only the second film is a dudd for me, all the others are solid 8 out of 10 material. Tom Cruise can be proud of his hard work.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    I think the mission series is a fine franchise. Only the second film is a dudd for me, all the others are solid 8 out of 10 material. Tom Cruise can be proud of his hard work.

    Cruise4lyfe
  • Posts: 1,917
    matt_u wrote: »
    We are looking different films then. They are just empty boxes mixed with recycled stuff and stupid humor*.There are no emotions, the characters are mostly two dimensional, compared to the Craig era for example the artistic value is definitely inferior - production design, photography, costumes -
    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'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.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    mtm wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    We are looking different films then. They are just empty boxes mixed with recycled stuff and stupid humor*.There are no emotions, the characters are mostly two dimensional, compared to the Craig era for example the artistic value is definitely inferior - production design, photography, costumes -
    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 think we can spot it when someone is trying to be provocative.

    Oh come on. As I said, enjoyable but forgettable.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    edited April 2020 Posts: 3,497
    matt_u wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    We are looking different films then. They are just empty boxes mixed with recycled stuff and stupid humor*.There are no emotions, the characters are mostly two dimensional, compared to the Craig era for example the artistic value is definitely inferior - production design, photography, costumes -
    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 think we can spot it when someone is trying to be provocative.

    Oh come on. As I said, enjoyable but forgettable.

    Opinions aren't facts ey.
  • Posts: 4,615
    Surely, the impressive thing over the long term, is the "average" quality if that makes sense. General view is 2 was the weakest but still not a real real stinker and the average is lifted by the consistent quality of the last three. Keeping the quality up is a major achievement as the series extends. Doing this when they are shooting two will be interesting. When you consider as with TMFU, all they started with was the orignal TV series (with no original actors) it really is a lesson in how to create a major movie franchise (and obvioulsy, alot of cash)
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,216
    BT3366 wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    We are looking different films then. They are just empty boxes mixed with recycled stuff and stupid humor*.There are no emotions, the characters are mostly two dimensional, compared to the Craig era for example the artistic value is definitely inferior - production design, photography, costumes -
    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'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.

    Good points.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    We are looking different films then. They are just empty boxes mixed with recycled stuff and stupid humor*.There are no emotions, the characters are mostly two dimensional, compared to the Craig era for example the artistic value is definitely inferior - production design, photography, costumes -
    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 think we can spot it when someone is trying to be provocative.

    Oh come on. As I said, enjoyable but forgettable.

    Opinions aren't facts ey.

    Many thanks I didn’t know that.
  • Posts: 6,709
    You two are really going at it today, aren't you?

    Chill guys. I like you both. Please don't fight ;)
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    Univex wrote: »
    You two are really going at it today, aren't you?

    Chill guys. I like you both. Please don't fight ;)

    I won’t! :D
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited April 2020 Posts: 16,368
    patb wrote: »
    Surely, the impressive thing over the long term, is the "average" quality if that makes sense. General view is 2 was the weakest but still not a real real stinker and the average is lifted by the consistent quality of the last three. Keeping the quality up is a major achievement as the series extends. Doing this when they are shooting two will be interesting. When you consider as with TMFU, all they started with was the orignal TV series (with no original actors) it really is a lesson in how to create a major movie franchise (and obvioulsy, alot of cash)

    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.
    patb wrote: »
    Surely, the impressive thing over the long term, is the "average" quality if that makes sense. General view is 2 was the weakest but still not a real real stinker and the average is lifted by the consistent quality of the last three. Keeping the quality up is a major achievement as the series extends. Doing this when they are shooting two will be interesting. When you consider as with TMFU, all they started with was the orignal TV series (with no original actors) it really is a lesson in how to create a major movie franchise (and obvioulsy, alot of cash)

    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.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    Univex wrote: »
    You two are really going at it today, aren't you?

    Chill guys. I like you both. Please don't fight ;)

    9coOE49.gif
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited April 2020 Posts: 15,715
    Mission: Impossible’ sequels get pushed back to Nov. 19, 2021 and Nov. 4, 2022.

    https://variety.com/2020/film/box-office/mission-impossible-sequels-get-pushed-back-1234589362/
Sign In or Register to comment.