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
I think it's stupid, and more of a Bond knockoff and not really an M:I film at all*, but it is watchable 90s fun. Probably better post-pub.
*I would say that even despite that, the climax does at least feature Ethan pulling a clever spy trick on the baddie, which is more of an M:I ending than MI3 has.
Oh that does add up.
Can't say I'm a fan of MI2 - waaaay too John Woo. That's what they wanted, apparently, and that's what they got. However, I'm with you on Ms Newton and her character. Looking a little more recently, I'd have liked seeing Paula Patton return. They certainly set it up, and then...nope. When she takes a very brief moment to remove her dress shoes before taking off after Lea Seydoux's character in MI:GP it is superb ! Of course she should !
And yes, her character was great and had some fine chemistry with Cruise. Paula was excellent too and I loved the hint of attraction shared between her and Ethan without it leaning entirely into relationship territory.
Yeah, I think she'd be even better now in fact, but I think she's moved away from that kind of stuff.
Indeed, unfortunately. She seems to enjoy the sci-fi sandbox afforded to her of late, particularly with Westworld.
Ah yes, here it is: https://decider.com/2020/07/07/thandie-newton-tom-cruise-zit-mission-impossible-2/
I remember being really (jokingly) bitter because Rogue Nation and Spectre came out either the same year or within very close proximity, and I felt like M:I handled the Solomon Lane archnemesis dynamic much better than Bond did with Blofeld in Spectre.
Yeah from memory (which is pretty hazy of 2) it's pretty much that which is the closest thing to a dramatic conversation scene they have I think. There's one where they're sort of hiding in a bath together isn't there?
RN and SP have a ton of eerie similarities and I'd say that the M:I crew handled them infinitely better than the Bond folks did, including the late night London finale (that also involves bombs and glass boxes).
@mtm, the bath scene is actually their first meeting, when she thinks she's robbing some precious jewelry while he's actually testing her to see firsthand her skills. They argue the following night, after their slo-mo, soap opera-esque car chase and post-sex. They're clearly hitting it off but then he reveals the target he wants her help with is her ex-boyfriend, Ambrose, which is when the two have a row.
In my opinion, given the comparison, Spectre crumbled under the weight of expectation and legacy, which M:I didn't seem to have as much of a problem with.
Because of that, part of looking forward to a new installment was seeing a new director bring their own take. And McQuarrie having become the main director of the latter half of the series kind of bums me. I guess Cruise is happy to keep working with him.
I’m not talking about merely him being religious. He’s in a position of leadership and influence in what I consider to be a cult.
https://pagesix.com/2019/03/27/scientologists-consider-tom-cruise-to-be-a-deity/amp/
Don't you dare call my beloved Tom a cult leader. Where do you live?
We know where he lives. This is blasphemy.
Yeah that’s the issue, he’s really high up. This article goes into a lot of detail about the whole thing.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/tom-cruises-dark-twisted-journey-to-scientologys-top-gun
That’s why I always feel a bit grim when any mention of that stuff is just dismissed with “well he’s a weirdo but he makes good films”. I just don’t think odd/weird is a strong enough word. I think it downplays the extent of what he’s involved in and the glimpses behind the movie star PR that we’ve been given. I had a similar moment to the author of that article watching Fallout. He’s racing through Paris on that nineT, no helmet, I’m sat there with my mouth open. Then it reminds me of an article I read about how some of his motorbikes were made for free by scientology slaves.
He does make good films, I’ll definitely watch the new MI at some point, and he is probably one of the last real “movie stars” around. And of course, we can separate the art and the artist, I get that. But I guess what bugs me about Cruise is that in his case, I never see much acknowledgement of what the artist actually seems to be like. All the unsavoury stuff just gets distilled down to him being “religious” and jumping on that sofa.
He just gets better and better! :-bd