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 love how that sequence is built upon character and pure suspense as well as action.
That was one hell of a way to open up the game.
Today i have seen some street promotion that promoted Imax version of the movie.
Also the part at 1:12-1:14 isn't in the film
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.
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.
They already have an excellent actor to lead any Cruise-less future MI movies…
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.
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.
PS of course, the other option is to assume there are other IMF teams around the World and focus on them
The stunts that he performs for real are the only selling point of the franchise.
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.
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.
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.
I’m not being critical.
Maybe you’re misreading or I didn’t convey better, or both.
I never said Cruise was going to leave or had any intention.
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/