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 do think it's quite interesting how that first mission in Prague (filmed in the same location as Bond's hotel in Casino Royale incidentally: he even walks down those very recognisable staircases) actually played with the whole setup of M:I more than we've possibly even seen since. It seems like a standard IMF heist mission, but the whole mission is actually a mission-within-a-mission: they think they're the heroes of this con but they're actually being strung along themselves and are the victims of another con being played out by an entirely different IMF team! It's a rather neat play on the format which you'd think would happen in a sequel or something after the whole concept of what the IMF do has been established: it's rather clever that they're able to do both at the same time.
For comparison, I didn't like the Mandarin twist when Iron Man Three first came out, but a recent rewatch changed my mind on that.
Personally I enjoyed MI 96 despite its obvious de Palma style (which I hated in The Untouchables).
2 and 3 were terrible. Things have picked up a bit more recently. My issues with the films now are (1) I do not want to see Simon Pegg in another film ever again, I’ve seen enough of him for one lifetime thank you very much, and (2) Tom C’s face gets more weirdly and supernaturally frozen in time with every passing year. He’s so well-preserved now that I actually find it off-putting, because a part of my brain is thinking “he shouldn’t look like that”
They're only controversial because of something outside of the film. Within the films themselves they're great reveals, and I think a film just has to make sense in relation to itself (possibly to its sequels, but even then I think the line is blurred).
I think Blofeld turning out to be Bond's adoptive brother is bad because it's a naff plot twist that actually doesn't add any drama and it makes Bond's world smaller. I don't think it's bad because it changes something from the Fleming books, because I don't care about the Fleming books when I'm watching a Bond film: they're different things.
I think if you had to push me I'd say Phelps is a codename anyway. He's so different (and younger) in the movie that I'd say it's a different person.
I'm a huge fan of the original TV series and never really had a problem with Phelps in M:I, probably because the TV series and the film series never really feel that connected - Phelps in the film just feels like a totally different character - perhaps they should have renamed him? However I'm sure they named him Phelps purely just to wrongfoot the audience - while since I've seen it, but I believe the reveal happens when Hunt works it out that Phelps is a bad 'un.
Other team members going rogue is an interesting hypothetical, yeah.
Nah, it works better with Hunt being setup as the rogue agent with Kitteridge convinced it's him.
But Kitteridge is the obvious apparent candidate: there isn't really a twist there if it's him. Jon Voight works as the baddie. The only shame is they kept having IMF agents, and then latterly other ostensibly friendly secret agents, turn bad as the main villains! Finding baddies is hard, but they need to spread their net a bit wider. Is Ghost Protocol the only one where another spy isn't the lead protagonist? Even Hoffman in MI3 isn't actually the main baddie who initiates the plot.
The old 60s team going rogue would have been good: Bain and Landau were great. Part of what used to put me off the TV show was their smugness at the plans never really suffering any hiccups: I found the show quite boring at times because there was no jeopardy (although I've read that they did change this policy a bit through the run of the show). Part of the fun of a heist movie is that you see the plan, and when they try to carry it out it goes wrong and they have to get it back on track. The TV show episodes I saw didn't do that enough and so -shoot me- I think the movie series is more successful at that sort of thing.
I think if it's useful to the plot then it's sort of thing McQuarrie might do (as he's very much into the history of the series and show: he even tried to put Dan Briggs in one and obviously he's bringing back Kitteridge) but I don't think he'd put it in unless it's got a reason to be there.
Yeah, lovely, that would be good. The bad guys are definitely an issue. Lane is a great, creepy baddie, but his motivation is just exactly the same as the baddie from Ghost Protocol. But it's hard: Bond has the same problem- finding a baddie whose plan is relatable to the audience and has an immediate effect.
The first M:I film is more about Phelps' betrayal of Ethan and Ethan clearing his name than it is the recovery of the NOC list, because we never see any of those agents on the list and although we don't want them to die we don't care about them in the same way we care whether Ethan survives on the outside of that train or not. Likewise I think the end of Fallout is more effective than, say Thunderball, because all of Ethan's friends plus his wife are all right next to the nukes and will die if they go off- whereas in Thunderball we never even see Miami which is where the nuke is. And in movies you care more about the one character you're looking at than the ten million you can't see. So that's why I reject Bond fans saying that recent Bond movies are too personal, because they've got to be personal. And yeah, that's why I think it's hard making baddies and evil plans for these movies. I have no idea what you do next: good luck McQ! :D
The difference with the Star Trek comparison is the original Enterprise crew was really beloved. They inspired a huge cottage industry in large part because the characters themselves were so well liked along with the technology and stories, so there was no way they'd do that. There was a lot of uproar about how Kirk died in Generations, and they killed off Spock for a while.
Very little was known of the television MI crew, although they did some stories in later seasons about their personal lives. It's like they did their missions and went back into a hibernation chamber until needed again. Phelps was maybe the most stoic character of all, and his death in the '96 film paved the way for Cruise to become the main man rather than the point man. It pissed off the original cast and some fans, but the box office spoke for itself.
Agree 110 percent on Simon Pegg. The rumors of the Luther character being knocked off in the next films is much worse considering they started together; get rid of Pegg if you have to sacrifice somebody.
I thought Cruise looked more his age in Fallout, at least facially. The guy is in freakishly good physical shape, as we all could be if we were in his position and especially if you want to HALO jump and hang off of helicopters by a rope.
I think it's quite funny in a way that he's like the modern Leonard Nimoy: in both Star Trek and Mission: Impossible :)
Rhys Meyers was definitely underutilized and almost unnecessary in Mission: Impossible 3 but damn if I don't love the sequence outside the Vatican City walls, the faux Italian argument between he and Ethan.
Pegg was at his best in Ghost Protocol. I found him pretty annoying in Fallout.
What'd he do exactly? Haven't read up on him too much but I've realized in the last many years that Hollywood isn't necessarily kicking down his door anymore, either.
Alcoholism took a firm hold on him, unfortunately. He's gotten a hold on in it now as far as I know, thankfully.
He's called Jim Phelps, don't bring codenme theory into M:I!
Oh that's a shame, I didn't know that.
Yes that was a good bit. I want to like the rest of the Vatican sequence but I don't find their plan all that interesting after that point, and although Hoffman's obviously great I find the Davian plot kind of dull.
The Vatican scene is the best part of MI 3 IMO. They should have ditched the car chase in Shanghai and instead we see Hunt break into the facility. Luther said it makes Langley look like a cakewalk but we never see it. Maybe because they didn't want to replicate the pharmaceutical break-in scene from the previous film.
Yeah it tries to be clever-clever and cute by doing Ethan's break-in offscreen, but I just find it grating. A bit like the Rabbit's Foot being unexplained: you can tell it's supposed to be some clever inversion of the format but just draws attention itself as such and as a result I find it's just irritating. It feels like a film student trying to break convention, which is weird as Abrams was very experienced by then even if it was the film movie he directed.
I think MI3 is my least favourite of the films: it doesn't even have a distinct flavour like Woo brought to his and just doesn't offer anything really very original or memorable or clever: and M:I should always have something clever in it. The action in it is... fine but pretty average.
That was always my assumption - a rooftop assault at night, breaking through glass windows for what was certainly a biohazard item or weapon of some kind. Too similar to the big sequence in the previous film but damn, every time I see it I wish we could've saw what went down inside instead of that rather mediocre car chase that comes after (although Ethan running through the streets to ensure the device isn't run over is a nice touch).