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
Same, along with how much I enjoyed the text/score immediately after the gun barrel. Helped me forgive it a little bit more.
For me Renner is charismatic enough to carry the franchise after Cruise. After all, he starred in my second favorite Bourne movie. The problem is that Renner's character has been transformed into a Moaning Minnie and bureaucrat in "Rogue Nation".
By the way, didn't "SPECTRE" finally surpass "Rogue Nation" at the box office?
But then again I figure that SP cost a wee bit more to make and to promote so in a sense it is an empty victory.
I have never considered the 007 series a something arty they are at best adventure movies and lately the adventure has been sorely missed by the 007 series while the MI series has done everything, that 007 used to do the best, better.
And the 007 may live on in a new 007 after Craig has left I may be less convinced that the MI series will do so well when Cruise calls it a day. But that does not alter the fact that MI 3-5 were improving with each movie. So I look forward to MI-6 in sense That I care less for the next 007 movie unless they get their head out of their arses and stop making the damn movies by committee and get a decent story that is more about the job and less about the characters feeling.
And for the record I agree with the lass not sleeping with 007 in QoB, anybody who is cavalier in dumping his best friend in a container after him being killed is not somebody to sleep with. In SF he died and came back but that changed nothing in the baddies intentions, he still killed M. With SP I found the man devoid of any humanity, no wonder there were no other people in any big action scene as 007 was no longer from this world his actions were no longer in this place. I miss the other Bonds who took their place and responsibility among society. Mendes Bond seems so remote from humans and society. I really do not like that. In that sense MI has way more life to it.
Has surpassed MI the 007 series, Not by a long shot but these last two movies from the folks of EON have not really given the MI series a lot of competition. Hadn't it been for the brilliant Olympic games bit I am sure that SF would have done a lot less at the cinema. And do not forget Adele, her name is worth gold.
Actually no, the last Bond movies take a good deal from the source material (directly or indirectly). Whether they used it to the best effect is debatable, but they still use the source material. As for the Bond franchise meandering... Judging by the success of the Craig movie, I have to disagree. Heck, even the Brosnan ones were popular! Whether they are good or not is a different debate: they are however, entertaining enough to bring a lot of money.
(And before people accuse me of making an appeal to popularity, I am not talking about the quality of the movies now, but simply about the statement about the entertaining value of said movies. People found Independence Day entertaining when it was released, I didn't. But my personal appreciation of the movie meant nothing to its then popularity.)
I don't disagree with that and have advocated it vociferously. Bond aside, I still don't think M:I has left any real mark on the cinematic landscape other than to be slick action based films. SP still delivers it's take on the legacy regardless of whether people love or hate it.
"Mission: Impossible is like the Benjamin Button of franchises. While most are a series of diminishing returns, losing a little more zeal and relevance with each new sequel, Mission: Impossible only improves the longer it runs. Undoubtedly, much of that credit is owed to the series headliner Tom Cruise, who has shepherded the franchise from a paranoid Brian de Palma thriller to the massive Kremlin-demolishing action behemoth it became in the 20 years since. Indeed, it was Cruise who brought on his frequent collaborator Christopher McQuarrie to write and direct Rogue Nation, and set a new course for the franchise in the process.
Mission: Impossible traditionally brings on a new director to helm each installment, every one of them bringing their unique sensibilities to the proceedings, but McQuarrie pulled off something much more interesting. With Rogue Nation, he culled the best qualities of the previous films and combined them to create the ultimate Mission: Impossible movie. And he did it without hack callbacks that reek of fanservice. Instead, the few callbacks felt earned and at home because they’re in the very DNA of the franchise.
Ethan Hunt continues to be one of the great American action heroes, but now he’s surrounded by an ensemble of allies collected over the last two decades. Ving Rhames‘ Luther, Simon Pegg’s Benji, Jeremy Renner‘s Agent Brandt, and now, Rebecca Ferguson‘s wonderfully classy ass-kicker Isla Faust all highlight Ethan’s different attributes, allowing the character to be infinitely more interesting than when he was a one-man-show with a rotating troupe of teammates. That ensemble only allows Ethan to be more fun and more invested as he has friends to joke with, or sometimes rescue as the story dictates. The set-pieces are executed with technical precision and have never played better because now Ethan has a reason to fight beyond just being the “good guy”. Mission: Impossible only continues to improve, and with a sixth film cued up to film next year, we won’t have to wait very long to see if that trend continues."
There is a very interesting couple of seconds within the fight over the flute where Hunt and the bad guy are kneeling on the gantry and as they stand, the bad guy is much taller than Hunt. A look comes over Hunt's face as if to say, "God, this guy's much taller than me"
its a step change for Hunt (and Cruise ) as its the first time they reference his height and make him the underdog. To do so shows a new level of confidence both in the writer and Cruise.
That's something Cruise wouldn't have done in the earlier MI films where he was more of a super agent. That's what I meant before about the new found human weariness in the portrayal, which I welcome. Roger Moore used to do that very well also.
I find the original Tom Cruise much better than some of the Bond films, like Goldeneye released year before and Mission Impossible 3 is worse than any of the Craig films or Brosnan's first Bond, Goldeneye.
But I do enjoy them all for what they are. Both Bond and Mission Impossible franchises.
I still think MI:2 is the worst by far. Shame on Woo
I'm not a fan of MI3 either. I recently watched it again, and although the tension and action sequences are there, I don't like the emotion in the film. I realize the stakes are higher due to the family component, but it just grates me and is not my cup of tea in this genre. I much prefer the possibility of violence towards a loved one (the original Die Hard nailed it imho in this respect with Holly Gennero always being potentially at risk) rather than the actual threat.
Moreover, the Hunt strapped to a chair sequence reminded me (uncomfortably) of the SP torture scene, but the with tables reversed.
No question about that. Mission: Impossible 2 is, by a fairly wide margin I'd guess (haven't seen the pre-Ghost Protocol films in quite some time) the worst of the five films. It was also a fairly odd choice of direction after the rather low-key original film.
I'm not sure how much fault Woo has in that, though, as I imagine that he pretty much turned in the type of film that Cruise and company hired him to make.
I enjoyed MI:3 at first, actually saw it twice in two days opening weekend. I haven't seen it in awhile as well. I did enjoy the Vatican scene and looking back on it, it looks like they wanted to choose the safe route after MI:2. But what lacks is the lack of break in during which Hunt steals the rabbit foot. I think a few minutes of watching a suspenseful break-in scene could have had it better IMO.
I think its the scenes themselves that don't work well for me in MI:2. Save for the break-in at Biocyte (or whatever it was called) it all just felt bland for me and it never felt like I was watching an MI film.