Mission: Impossible - films and tv series

1274275277279280306

Comments

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    thedove wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I just can't get over how breathtaking and intense that train toppling bit was. Watching them work through each carriage as they collapsed was a masterclass in tension.

    I better put this as a spoiler just in case
    the whole piano sequence was bloody brilliant and well delivered!
    One of the best minor bits in it, for sure! Talk about nail-biting stuff, as Grace clearly doesn't want to make the jump and juuuuuust ends up missing the falling piano by inches. That might've been the moment I gasped out loud, either that or one of their exterior transitions from carriage to carriage when it looked like they were going to fall.
  • DraxCucumberSandwichDraxCucumberSandwich United Kingdom
    Posts: 208
    thedove wrote: »

    I better put this as a spoiler just in case
    the whole piano sequence was bloody brilliant and well delivered!

    I love how that sequence is built upon character and pure suspense as well as action.
    You can see the piano hanging by a meagre hook. You know it’s going to come down. You don’t know when. You know Grace is terrified, almost petrified. She has to act. She doesn’t want to. She has to trust Ethan. It’s brilliant

  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    Zekidk wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    the train toppling over the destroyed bridge
    Time to revisit one of the best action games ever made
    Revisiting-Uncharted-2-Among-Thieves.jpg


    That was one hell of a way to open up the game.
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited July 2023 Posts: 4,520
    In The Netherlands (Release date: 12 July) movie opens with 136 screens and $2,570,093. Very good with keeping in mind that Fallout in begin August 2018 starts with 207 screens and delieverd $2,321,384 (In total movie did almoost 6,7 million). Top Gun 2 starts with $2,417,798 with 134 screens (End with 15 million). Mi7 only have 8 days before Opperheimer and possible reasen for less screen. Already sade before September mabey have been better option with NTTD (24 million) in mind.

    Today i have seen some street promotion that promoted Imax version of the movie.

    IMG-20230717-231006.jpg
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    @M_Balje, did you go and see it? Would love to hear your thoughts.
  • Posts: 3,276
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I'm sure many of us were thinking of that sequence, @Zekidk. Did the Uncharted movie try to adapt that as well? I didn't bother watching it myself, saw Tom Holland was playing Drake and that was all I needed to hear.
    No, the movie had the plane sequence from the third game as major stunt piece. Didn't like the movie, btw. Spiderboy didn't really do it for me.
  • edited July 2023 Posts: 255
    Don't understand why the shot at 2:27 isn't in the movie



    Also the part at 1:12-1:14 isn't in the film

  • Posts: 2,165
    @Bernie99 If you’re trying to get the runtime down, little cuts like this all add up, even if they are cool. Shame theyre not in the movie, but Bond is the same. The opening chase in SF was heavily cut down, for example, with shots in the trailer not in the film.
  • Posts: 4,409
    I was eagerly anticipating Dead Reckoning, and I couldn't help but feel an overwhelming sense of disappointment after watching the film. The plot was an absolute mess, convoluted beyond comprehension, and it didn't do itself any favors with an excessive number of characters.

    To exacerbate matters, the movie also relied on cringe-inducing soap opera flashbacks to flesh out a villain from Ethan's past, which felt like a mishmash of the worst ingredients from the Daniel Craig era of Bond films. The villain himself was lousy and lacked depth, while the writing overall was downright awful. It seemed as though the film had been ADR-ed to death, as if they only pieced together the plot during the post-production stage.

    The directing in Dead Reckoning was shockingly poor, especially when compared to the strength displayed in its predecessor. It led me to believe that Rob Hardy, who worked on the previous film, was the secret ingredient that was sorely missed. This installment appeared flat and ugly, resembling a generic Hollywood product. McQuarrie's excessive use of unflattering close-ups only added to the film's lackluster visual appeal, and the dialogue scenes were hideously edited. I genuinely felt like I was watching a David Yates film. One of those phoney, the inauthentic Fantastic Beasts film. McQuarrie was channeling Nolan with Fallout, here he exposes himself as nothing more than a journeyman.

    Despite boasting about practical stunts, the film relied heavily on unimpressive CGI. The car on the Spanish Steps in Rome and the entire train finale were particularly guilty of featuring jarring and unconvincing visual effects. These choices detracted from the film's credibility and left a sour taste in my mouth. It was really giving Die Another Day at times.
    The narrative took numerous missteps, none more glaring than the senseless killing of Ilsa without any real stakes, only to introduce a nearly identical replacement character who I truly do not care one iota about. It felt like a big missed opportunity to create meaningful character development or compelling storylines. Also, the general ensemble nature of the cast detracts from the principal reason I am watching this film: Tom Cruise. I feel he barely got a great dialogue scene in the film.
    Overall, Dead Reckoning fails on multiple fronts. Its messy plot, overwhelming number of characters, cringe-inducing flashbacks, lackluster villain, poor writing, and unimpressive visuals all contribute to a disappointing cinematic experience. I can't help but compare it unfavorably to Fallout and (my favourite) Rogue Nation. The box office numbers prove that this franchise is getting stale. They should make Tom Holland the new lead or do something else.

    930884d9578adf806f89d049ee5969af0dea9a45.gif
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    edited July 2023 Posts: 1,649
    I was eagerly anticipating Dead Reckoning, and I couldn't help but feel an overwhelming sense of disappointment after watching the film. The plot was an absolute mess, convoluted beyond comprehension, and it didn't do itself any favors with an excessive number of characters.

    To exacerbate matters, the movie also relied on cringe-inducing soap opera flashbacks to flesh out a villain from Ethan's past, which felt like a mishmash of the worst ingredients from the Daniel Craig era of Bond films. The villain himself was lousy and lacked depth, while the writing overall was downright awful. It seemed as though the film had been ADR-ed to death, as if they only pieced together the plot during the post-production stage.

    The directing in Dead Reckoning was shockingly poor, especially when compared to the strength displayed in its predecessor. It led me to believe that Rob Hardy, who worked on the previous film, was the secret ingredient that was sorely missed. This installment appeared flat and ugly, resembling a generic Hollywood product. McQuarrie's excessive use of unflattering close-ups only added to the film's lackluster visual appeal, and the dialogue scenes were hideously edited. I genuinely felt like I was watching a David Yates film. One of those phoney, the inauthentic Fantastic Beasts film. McQuarrie was channeling Nolan with Fallout, here he exposes himself as nothing more than a journeyman.

    Despite boasting about practical stunts, the film relied heavily on unimpressive CGI. The car on the Spanish Steps in Rome and the entire train finale were particularly guilty of featuring jarring and unconvincing visual effects. These choices detracted from the film's credibility and left a sour taste in my mouth. It was really giving Die Another Day at times.
    The narrative took numerous missteps, none more glaring than the senseless killing of Ilsa without any real stakes, only to introduce a nearly identical replacement character who I truly do not care one iota about. It felt like a big missed opportunity to create meaningful character development or compelling storylines. Also, the general ensemble nature of the cast detracts from the principal reason I am watching this film: Tom Cruise. I feel he barely got a great dialogue scene in the film.
    Overall, Dead Reckoning fails on multiple fronts. Its messy plot, overwhelming number of characters, cringe-inducing flashbacks, lackluster villain, poor writing, and unimpressive visuals all contribute to a disappointing cinematic experience. I can't help but compare it unfavorably to Fallout and (my favourite) Rogue Nation. The box office numbers prove that this franchise is getting stale. They should make Tom Holland the new lead or do something else.

    930884d9578adf806f89d049ee5969af0dea9a45.gif

    I see where you're coming from with these complaints. They didn't spoil the movie for me but I did notice the same things you've pointed out as issues. I don't agree with the franchise going stale (I think 6 was potentially its best, so we've been doing well) nor do I agree with casting Tom Holland, though I have touted him as potentially becoming the "next Tom Cruise" before due to his stunt work commitment. My chief feeling is that I'm not itching to watch this one again like I am the other six. So something has gone wrong.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,413
    It's not feeling like a story which needed two films just yet.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    I did get a chuckle out of going from "this one's a bomb" to "they should cast Tom Holland," considering one of the main reasons people flock to this series is Tom Cruise's star power and also considering how virtually every non-Spiderman film Tom Holland is leading is a gigantic dud across the board.
  • Posts: 3,276
    They should make Tom Holland the new lead
    I think the character needs a little more testosterone. He reminds me of a young Michael J. Fox.

  • edited July 2023 Posts: 2,165
    Zekidk wrote: »
    They should make Tom Holland the new lead
    I think the character needs a little more testosterone. He reminds me of a young Michael J. Fox.

    They already have an excellent actor to lead any Cruise-less future MI movies…
    Rebecca Ferguson / Ilsa Faust, and they have “killed her off”.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 2,044
    I thought the rumour then was, Jeremy Renner was going to replace Tom Cruise.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited July 2023 Posts: 4,343
  • edited July 2023 Posts: 4,617
    @Pierce2Daniel largely agree with all your comments (nice to see I'm not alone) and yet, many people seem to love this film. It leads to a possible wider debate about what (new and old) audiences want from a move. Is tight plot, character developmemt, skilled direction, smart dialogue "old hat" - replaced by a series of death defying stunts/action and destruction and wafer thin connecting plot? (in risk of becoming a circus?) Has MI gone stale or are they cleverly following the market trends? The original movie was released in 1996. For me, it's one of (if not the) best but I'm sure many would find it slow and lacking in parachute stunts, motorbike jumps, car chases etc etc Of course, the two are not mutually exclusive but, for me, DR is too much of the latter and not enough of the former.

    Re a replcement, it seems that, with every movie, the focus is more and more on Cruise and his stunt work, making it harder and harder to find a replacement.
    logic would dictate a member of the team taking over but that option has now gone.
    I fear, with Cruise producing and his tight friendship with McQ, TC could become the Andy Murray of action movies, rather than a considered and timely retirement from the franchise and making room for new talent and opportunities.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,433
    What logic would dictate that a member of the team take over? Why not just have a new Ethan Hunt and reboot? Or have a different lead character, many from the TV show have not been used and could be in a future film series.

    To those that think the cast was large, the TV show had large casts too. I laugh at those saying the close up work is boring. To me it's a cool old school technique. But then again I loved the movie and am eagerly looking forward to the next one.
  • edited July 2023 Posts: 4,617
    Unlike Bond, MI is more than just Hunt, the team dynamic both enables a new leader without a reboot and offers emotional and plot opportunities re the intro and character arc of a new leader. A reboot IMHO is something forced on writers when there are no other options
    PS of course, the other option is to assume there are other IMF teams around the World and focus on them
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    There is no Mission Impossible without Tom.
    The stunts that he performs for real are the only selling point of the franchise.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,188
    I thought the rumour then was, Jeremy Renner was going to replace Tom Cruise.

    Just a theory of mine, but I think that’s why they got rid of Renner because Cruise got annoyed with the rumor of him taking over down the line. Keep in mind, GHOST PROTOCOL was made after Cruise had a string of box office disappointments, which included MI3 (still the lowest performing of the series). The rumor was that Cruise would step down and Renner would take over. But GP and Cruise’s career rebounded big time, and he decided to stay. By FALLOUT, they only offer Renner a cameo where he dies at the beginning. Renner turned that down, not wanting to come back only for his character to die. Only, they never ask him back.

    I think Cruise killing off Renner’s character was a way to crush those old rumors from 2011, even though I don’t think there was a chance of Renner taking over by 2018. But Cruise is known to have a fragile ego, so it wouldn’t surprise me that’s why he got rid of Renner.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 2,044
    I thought the rumour then was, Jeremy Renner was going to replace Tom Cruise.

    Just a theory of mine, but I think that’s why they got rid of Renner because Cruise got annoyed with the rumor of him taking over down the line. Keep in mind, GHOST PROTOCOL was made after Cruise had a string of box office disappointments, which included MI3 (still the lowest performing of the series). The rumor was that Cruise would step down and Renner would take over. But GP and Cruise’s career rebounded big time, and he decided to stay. By FALLOUT, they only offer Renner a cameo where he dies at the beginning. Renner turned that down, not wanting to come back only for his character to die. Only, they never ask him back.

    I think Cruise killing off Renner’s character was a way to crush those old rumors from 2011, even though I don’t think there was a chance of Renner taking over by 2018. But Cruise is known to have a fragile ego, so it wouldn’t surprise me that’s why he got rid of Renner.

    Yeah. I can't bet against this theory.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,413
    I think Cruise killing off Renner’s character was a way to crush those old rumors from 2011, even though I don’t think there was a chance of Renner taking over by 2018. But Cruise is known to have a fragile ego, so it wouldn’t surprise me that’s why he got rid of Renner.

    I don't think Renner's presence would affect his ego at all; there's no reason for that to happen. Cruise is a much bigger movie star; why would he feel threatened by the guy who killed the Bourne films? He didn't want to hand over because it's his series of films: he literally started the series.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,188
    mtm wrote: »
    I think Cruise killing off Renner’s character was a way to crush those old rumors from 2011, even though I don’t think there was a chance of Renner taking over by 2018. But Cruise is known to have a fragile ego, so it wouldn’t surprise me that’s why he got rid of Renner.

    I don't think Renner's presence would affect his ego at all; there's no reason for that to happen. Cruise is a much bigger movie star; why would he feel threatened by the guy who killed the Bourne films? He didn't want to hand over because it's his series of films: he literally started the series.

    Like I said, fragile ego.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    I don't even think that's a theory, it seems most likely that that's what happened, as Cruise was announcing around that same time that he wasn't leaving the series anytime soon (which was probably a statement justified by the early rumors of Renner taking over). I'm glad that wasn't the case as Renner is clearly no leading man.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,216
    mtm wrote: »
    I think Cruise killing off Renner’s character was a way to crush those old rumors from 2011, even though I don’t think there was a chance of Renner taking over by 2018. But Cruise is known to have a fragile ego, so it wouldn’t surprise me that’s why he got rid of Renner.

    I don't think Renner's presence would affect his ego at all; there's no reason for that to happen. Cruise is a much bigger movie star; why would he feel threatened by the guy who killed the Bourne films? He didn't want to hand over because it's his series of films: he literally started the series.

    Like I said, fragile ego.

    I find it amazing when people snipe at extremely successful people who truly put 100% into whatever they are doing. More often than not the person being critical needs to look in a mirror to see a fragile ego.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited July 2023 Posts: 16,413
    mtm wrote: »
    I think Cruise killing off Renner’s character was a way to crush those old rumors from 2011, even though I don’t think there was a chance of Renner taking over by 2018. But Cruise is known to have a fragile ego, so it wouldn’t surprise me that’s why he got rid of Renner.

    I don't think Renner's presence would affect his ego at all; there's no reason for that to happen. Cruise is a much bigger movie star; why would he feel threatened by the guy who killed the Bourne films? He didn't want to hand over because it's his series of films: he literally started the series.

    Like I said, fragile ego.

    You've just made that up, though. There are much more logical reasons for him to stay the star. And having made four massive movies in the series since, his reasoning has been shown to have been correct.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,188
    talos7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I think Cruise killing off Renner’s character was a way to crush those old rumors from 2011, even though I don’t think there was a chance of Renner taking over by 2018. But Cruise is known to have a fragile ego, so it wouldn’t surprise me that’s why he got rid of Renner.

    I don't think Renner's presence would affect his ego at all; there's no reason for that to happen. Cruise is a much bigger movie star; why would he feel threatened by the guy who killed the Bourne films? He didn't want to hand over because it's his series of films: he literally started the series.

    Like I said, fragile ego.

    I find it amazing when people snipe at extremely successful people who truly put 100% into whatever they are doing. More often than not the person being critical needs to look in a mirror to see a fragile ego.

    I’m not being critical.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,188
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I think Cruise killing off Renner’s character was a way to crush those old rumors from 2011, even though I don’t think there was a chance of Renner taking over by 2018. But Cruise is known to have a fragile ego, so it wouldn’t surprise me that’s why he got rid of Renner.

    I don't think Renner's presence would affect his ego at all; there's no reason for that to happen. Cruise is a much bigger movie star; why would he feel threatened by the guy who killed the Bourne films? He didn't want to hand over because it's his series of films: he literally started the series.

    Like I said, fragile ego.

    You've just made that up, though. There are much more logical reasons for him to stay the star. And having made four massive movies in the series since, his reasoning has been shown to have been correct.

    Maybe you’re misreading or I didn’t convey better, or both.

    I never said Cruise was going to leave or had any intention.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited July 2023 Posts: 16,413
    I'm pretty sure that Renner wasn't in Fallout because of a scheduling conflict. I don't recall talk of Brandt being killed off- and even if it was considered, that doesn't mean it would have happened, because that's how these movies are made. Making up stories about egos is silly.

    Here you go: you're right about his death being considered, but he also couldn't do because of The Avengers. No need to bring egos into it.
    https://collider.com/why-jeremy-renner-isnt-in-mission-impossible-fallout/
Sign In or Register to comment.