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
Alot of them are highly critically rated and that's what I was going off of. My kids watched them over spring break and I had an interest in it too. Just couldn't get into them once they really got going. I never read the books and with the exception of the very last one in which there was actual action, just boring. I do admire the production value, sets etc. That was all very well done throughout the series
'Prisoner of Azkaban' is probably still the best one, Director Alfonso Cuaron would still be one of my top choices for next Bond helmer!
I think they're overall good movies, they have their fans obviously, especially since they have a big fanbase coming from the source material, but I don't think they're overrated as films. Their fame owes almost everything to the source material, for one, and I don't think they ever been considered their own thing (unlike say LOTR, the MCU, A Clockwork Orange, The Godfather, James Bond, etc.). I'd also argue that the Potter fanbase comes in large part from the books, which of course puts the adaptations in a more critical light.
My wife loves the films and the books. Any questions I have regarding them I ask her...😁
They are certainly entertaining. That said I never felt like rereading or rewatching any of them.
'
I know mate, it's my sister-in-law with me, she read all the novels and has all the movies!
My favourites are Half-Blood Prince and Goblet of Fire, followed closely by Prisoner of Azkaban in third.
I would say though that they should kept it to the HP films because those Fantastic Beasts outings are mediocre at best, so far. They have the Hobbit syndrome, prequeling a far better series, but at least The Hobbit had some decent source material.
I liked all of the films, but most of all the first two since they were closest to the books. I also didn't like splitting up the final novel into two movies. But yes, I enjoyed watching all of them again at some time last year or so. Still I haven't so far seen any reason to get into that Fantastic Beasts or whatever it's called extension. Maybe because I also found the Star Wars franchise so disappointing right when it went beyond the three original films.
I think the last HP novel needed some trimming, but I guess people wanted something longer, since it was the last one. Hence the story had to be split into two movies.
Talking of children movies, here's one controversial opinion from my five year old son: Sonic the Hedgehog is the best film ever. Take that Citizen Kane!
He’s right. Jared Leto take note.
If Citizen Kane is the greatest movie ever, where’s the humor? A title that high should have more laughs than just one scene.
It's either one of the weakest or the very strongest. As a sort of goodbye to the old TV series, it's probably the best they could've made. Relatively simple, devoid of gun violence, low-key spy stuff and an unceremonious kiss goodbye to Phelps, allowing Cruise to take over. But here the problem begins. Forgetting the ballet dance of M:I2 for a brief moment, I'd say that M:I3 is where the series finally found its recipe. And in my humble opinion, the films just kept getting stronger from thereon. Tonally balanced, neat spy stuff with cool teams, Cruise on fire, awesome scores, and some of the coolest and most refined action thrills in any films series in a long time. Say what you want about Cruise, the man is nothing if not completely committed to performing his own crazy stunts, which still make me gasp for air. (The only other time I have ever done that in this century was during the Parcours run in CR.) These latter films are nothing like the TV series and, truth be told, they don't have to be. '60s TV stuff (and '80s TV stuff) is different from 21st-century cinema stuff. Clearly, M:I1 doesn't fit in the M:I3-4-5-6 playbook. And I happen to prefer the latter.
Look, I will admit that the Langley scenes are absolutely perfect. Czerny, Regrave and Rhames are a delight. But that's where the compliments more or less end. The film looks ugly in my opinion. Elfman's score has a few good moments but feels "off" most of the time (and very often the music sounds false on the final print, which, of course, is not Elfman's fault.) Jean Reno, an actor I usually like, is absolutely terrible in this film. Emmanuelle Béart's performance feels overly dramatic (except for the Langley scenes) and Voight is overdoing his 'villain' act. The action is... where? I get it, it's a spy film, not an action film, but again, seeing what the later films pulled off, I regret that there's so little of it in this film. The Prague set-up is De Palma's worst hour as a Hitchcock wannabe. I'm usually a fan of De Palma's, but he doesn't make me happy in this film. The TGV fight is too little too late.
As a standalone film, I think M:I works miracles. But it feels like a film from a different series, a different era, a different reality, the same way The Detective is totally different from Die Hard, despite the literary connection. I don't hate this film, just so we're clear. But winding back from the splendour of films 3 to 6, I consider M:I the ugly duckling of the series.
And yes, I have left M:I2 outside this discussion on purpose. ;-)
I don’t think that’s controversial at all.MI:3 is commonly regarded as the one where the series found its feet.
One thing I do regret seeing is that with the latter films M:I started to put far more emphasis on Tom Cruise doing crazy stunts as a selling point.
“LOOK AT CRUISE HANG ONTO AN AIRPLANE!”
All I see is a rich aging movie star battling mid-life crisis in the only way he thinks he can.
Credit to the guy.He literally risks his life for our entertainment.I hope he keeps making Mission Impossible movies well into his sixties!
I also wish we’d see a TV reboot of M:I. Less focus on the action and more on the team and the heist. Supposedly Cruise has prevented Paramount from doing that, which is a shame.
M:I would be perfect for a modern reboot on one of the streaming services. So many possibilities and chances for good writers to contribute a modern feel while maintaining what made the original series so involving when at its best.
If they really wanted a connection to the films, they should pick Jeremy Renner as the new team leader. Maybe even Simon Pegg to show his character having risen in the ranks of IMF.
Interesting, @j_w_pepper! If I recall correctly, the script was first given to Graves, Nimoy, Landau, ... all of whom hated it with passion on the basis of what little respect their characters were given. After all, they all get killed in the film and Graves is the villain! So they declined, forcing the filmmakers to hire other actors, and thus we're blessed with the likes of Voight, Scott-Thomas, Estevez, ... none of whom a big enough celebrity to upstage Cruise, of course. But over the years, the teams have grown more interesting, more solid, more likeable, IMO.
There’s two issues with Phelps becoming the villain. One is the writing for sure, but more importantly is the way John Voight plays him from the very beginning. He just exudes EVIL when he’s smoking his cigarette. He never feels like he was ever a good guy. The guy kills his wife instantly and without remorse! It just makes me wonder that if Graves had actually returned to the part would he have played it differently enough and push to make his Phelps more ambiguous? It is a strange choice to turn the series hero into a villain.
It’s like the equivalent of starting a Star Trek film where the TOS cast dies 15 minutes into the movie and we follow Lt. Ethan Hunt from there on. Later he finds out Captain Kirk was the man who betrayed and murdered his fellow crew and Hunt kills Kirk at the end.
I like the movie, but I treat it as a separate entity rather than a continuation of the TV show. It just doesn’t work as one. I can imagine if Twitter existed in 1996 we would have seen an even bigger outrage by the fanbase.
M:I-III definitely established the formula of what the M:I movies have become, but I do find it the weakest. Ghost Protocol took that formula and really made it work.
It would be nice to see Spielberg and Cruise round out a sci-fi trilogy (Minority Report, War of the Worlds, ...?)
I agree with this ranking, except I might put some of the very best original tv episodes ahead of Ghost Protocol.
What I see are action shots that I've never seen in any other movie. In Fallout, the helicopter stuff and the motorcycle chase are shot in ways that I don't think have ever been done, and if so, not without noticeable CGI. Cruise's enthusiasm for doing the stunts absolutely pays off in the cinematography. The Burj Khalifa climb as well. All of this stuff is done pretty matter-of-factly and not, in my view, in a grandiose way. I suppose it's in the eye of the viewer, but the action with Cruise is more seamless and immersive to me when Tom just does the stuff.
One exception to that may be the takeoff in Rogue Nation, where it does seem to be "look at Tom Cruise, he's actually doing this" but as a pre-titles kind of scene, I think it's fine.
Anyway, my rankings:
MI5
MI4
MI3
Fallout
MI
MI2
The top four are pretty untouchable, and the original is great too. Fallout could have been the best for me, but they inexplicably decided not to do any kind of infiltration scene (?!), which I always thought was kind of a must with these movies.