Has Mission Impossible surpassed Bond?

17810121322

Comments

  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    Sark wrote: »
    It implies more or less that both franchises are of the same age, and have a similar nr of films under their belts.

    No it doesn't.

    And the fact that youre giving SF "evergreen" status demonstrates your lack of objectivity.

    Thank you for your, let me count, 19 words. Minus "Skyfall" and "Casino Royale" the core of my post still holds. Obviously you will say it doesn't. But I don't care. Bottomline: "M:I" has NOT surpassed "Bond". End of story. Finished. Over. Next topic.

    If you're calling me succinct I'll take that as a compliment.

    You claimed that the question implies something. I said it doesn't imply anything of the sort. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Has the OP explained what he meant and what he implied by the question?

    SF is 3 years old. We won't know whether it has 'evergreen' status like the old Bond greats for at least a decade. If someone thinks otherwise they either have a crystal ball or are letting their personal opinions cloud their judgement.

    If you think this topic is finished, why keep posting in it?

    I'm of two minds on this topic: has M:I surpassed Bond in making great movies? I'd say yes. I'd far rather watch MI4 and MI5 in an evening than SF and SP.

    But Bond still reigns as the cultural icon. There's no website about the "Ethan Hunt lifestyle". There's (to my knowledge) no websites devoted to obsessively chronicling Hunt's wardrobe. No one has ever said "ever man wants to be Hunt, and every woman wants him."
  • Skyfail wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    Skyfail wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    How can a vacuous Hollywood franchise that has a rate of 2 genuine turds in 5 films possibly sit above a series of movies that boasts the likes of FRWL, GF, OHMSS, TSWLM, TLD, CR, SF and SP..???

    SF,
    yup .

    I'm no big fan of SF, but it surely rates as classier cinema than 'M:I II'...

    His name is Fail....Sky Fail.

    its better than " Fan...blind fan"
    is it not ?

    Well, since when has "fan" become a dirty word? Fans are by no means professional journalists...or people who work for a movie company. At least not with something that's related to Bond. They do share one thing: Love for the franchise. And that's off course less objective than whatever professional is doing.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    AceHole wrote: »
    Skyfail wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    How can a vacuous Hollywood franchise that has a rate of 2 genuine turds in 5 films possibly sit above a series of movies that boasts the likes of FRWL, GF, OHMSS, TSWLM, TLD, CR, SF and SP..???

    SF,
    yup .

    I'm no big fan of SF, but it surely rates as classier cinema than 'M:I II'...
    MI-1 was actually one of the earlier films to mess with franchise tropes in a dangerous fashion (Phelps going rogue). Arguably the same poor decision was taken by EON with the infamous 'brother' connection in their recent effort.

    I like MI-1 very much now. I think it's a film that's far ahead of its time, visually and story wise. I didn't like it when it was released because it seemed a little too character driven and artsy even, but I think it's aged very well......certainly better than the generic 90's Bond fare. What they did then with that film is all the rage these days.

    As I said before, MI has not surpassed Bond, but there are recent MI films that have certainly surpassed recent Bond films, and the rate of consistency of late has been better imho.
  • Posts: 582
    bondjames wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    Skyfail wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    How can a vacuous Hollywood franchise that has a rate of 2 genuine turds in 5 films possibly sit above a series of movies that boasts the likes of FRWL, GF, OHMSS, TSWLM, TLD, CR, SF and SP..???

    SF,
    yup .

    I'm no big fan of SF, but it surely rates as classier cinema than 'M:I II'...
    MI-1 was actually one of the earlier films to mess with franchise tropes in a dangerous fashion (Phelps going rogue). Arguably the same poor decision was taken by EON with the infamous 'brother' connection in their recent effort.

    I like MI-1 very much now. I think it's a film that's far ahead of its time, visually and story wise. I didn't like it when it was released because it seemed a little too character driven and artsy even, but I think it's aged very well......certainly better than the generic 90's Bond fare. What they did then with that film is all the rage these days.

    As I said before, MI has not surpassed Bond, but there are recent MI films that have certainly surpassed recent Bond films, and the rate of consistency of late has been better imho.

    I think the first M:I film is the best of the 5. I don't see the Phelps in the film as the same character as the Phelps in the TV series.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,367
    MI:3
    MI:5
    MI:4
    MI:1
    MI:2
  • Posts: 582
    MI:1
    MI:3
    MI:5
    MI:4
    MI:2
  • 01) M:I - RN
    02) M:I - 3
    03) M:I - GP
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    04) M:I - 1
    05) M:I - 2

    What I disliked about "M:I 1" is how it confused me. There are simply...too many plot twists and turns in this first film. On top of that, Tom Cruise simply isn't a very good actor (I think he only excelled in "Magnolia" and "Eyes Wide Shut").

    When Ethan (Tom Cruise) loses his mentor, loses his 3 team-members, fails at finishing an important mission and his chief officer tells he's the suspect - he finds the person behind these, Tom Cruise just stays.....cool and...sorry, for me that's a bit unbelievable. At least Daniel Craig is way more capable of showing off emotions.
  • Posts: 498
    MI:3
    MI:5
    MI:4
    MI:1
    MI:2

    Same
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,168
    Skyfail wrote: »
    MI:3
    MI:5
    MI:4
    MI:1
    MI:2

    Same

    Ditto!

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I'm surprised a lot of you like MI3. I thought it was soap opera sap personally. I'm glad they ditched the wife.
  • Posts: 498
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm surprised a lot of you like MI3. I thought it was soap opera sap personally. I'm glad they ditched the wife.

    I felt the relationship between Hunt and his wife was beautifully done ,you actually care for the characters somewhat similar to CR ( though CR has It better)
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Skyfail wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm surprised a lot of you like MI3. I thought it was soap opera sap personally. I'm glad they ditched the wife.

    I felt the relationship between Hunt and his wife was beautifully done ,you actually care for the characters somewhat similar to CR ( though CR has It better)
    It's interesting that you mention CR, because I remember that these two films came out in the same year.

    I was able to buy the CR relationship because DC sold it well. His unbridled machismo charisma allowed me to accept his tenderness in the situation and also still accept him as a trained Govt. killer/assassin at the same time.

    With MI3, for me, the problem was I couldn't buy Cruise in that scenario. He appeared more emotional but without the manliness/masculinity that DC brought. Sort of like how I felt with Brosnan towards Elektra in TWINE (my absolute bottom Bond film). So all of a sudden I see Cruise not as a trained govt. spy, but more as a emotional love sick puppy..

    I did not feel that way about DC in CR or in QoS.

    So I understand that if you connected with the relationship, then it worked for you.....otherwise it didn't.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,367
    The relationship in MI:3 is done much better than the one in CR.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    The relationship in MI:3 is done much better than the one in CR.
    I'm surprised to hear this really. What do you think of TWINE?
  • TubesTubes The Hebrew Hammer
    Posts: 158
    The naff bits of M:I-3 didn't affect the movie as much as the naff bits of the previous two. M:I-3 is also helped by having Phillip Seymour Hoffman as the villain. Having never held it to much high regard, rewatching M:I-3 with the rest of the series in July led to me gaining greater appreciation for it.

    That said, Ghost Protocol and Rogue Nation smoke the first three films.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    I agree about Philip Seymour Hoffman. Chilling. Truly. That capture scene when he turns the tables on Hunt is a treat.
  • The relationship in MI:3 is done much better than the one in CR.

    In hindsight, you have to blaim Ian Fleming for writing such a crap love story.

    *not*
  • TubesTubes The Hebrew Hammer
    Posts: 158
    The only bit I really didn't like about 3 was that the Rabbit's Foot theft happens offscreen. Elaborate setpieces involving breaking into secure locations was/is the hook for the M:I series and not showing it seems like a cop out from Orci/Kurtzman/Abrams.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited November 2015 Posts: 8,367
    The relationship in MI:3 is done much better than the one in CR.

    In hindsight, you have to blaim Ian Fleming for writing such a crap love story.

    *not*

    If only they'd have followed the Fleming story, it might have worked.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited November 2015 Posts: 8,367
    bondjames wrote: »
    The relationship in MI:3 is done much better than the one in CR.
    I'm surprised to hear this really. What do you think of TWINE?

    TWINE is in my bottom three:

    TWINE
    LTK
    DAD

    In no particular order.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    The relationship in MI:3 is done much better than the one in CR.
    I'm surprised to hear this really. What do you think of TWINE?

    TWINE is in my bottom three:

    TWINE
    LTK
    DAD

    In no particular order.
    Ok. Thanks. I was just wondering if you were totally the opposite of me..... I couldn't buy Hunt's romance (without losing respect for his spy bona fides) in MI3 & similarly lost respect for Brosnan's Bond in TWINE for the same reasons. I think in both cases it was the acting (by the male leads) as well as their somewhat refined looks that makes it less credible for me (not sure....).

    I actually may agree with you that the way they sold the marriage/romance in MI3 (plot wise) may be more credible than the whirlwind romance in the later half of CR, but I just bought into it more due to the leads.
  • Posts: 498
    I think what made me really love MI:3 was you actually feel for hunt when he is trying to save his wife , and how threatening the villain was.

    I do like TWINE.
  • Posts: 5,767
    On top of that, Tom Cruise simply isn't a very good actor (I think he only excelled in "Magnolia" and "Eyes Wide Shut").
    And Collateral, and Lions for Lambs. He is the better the less he has a say in it. That´s what I find problematic with a lot of his films. Cruise is a great performer and for sure has charisma, but he has too much influence in most of his films, and the films express that in the end, as good as they may otherwise be.

  • edited November 2015 Posts: 11,119
    The relationship in MI:3 is done much better than the one in CR.

    In hindsight, you have to blaim Ian Fleming for writing such a crap love story.

    *not*

    If only they'd have followed the Fleming story, it might have worked.

    :-L

    What the hell....are we going to downgrade "CR" too and call it worse than "M:I 3". It seems all Bond fans are turning to 'The Dark Side'. Some people in here need to be forced in a torture chair. And I know how to destroy someone's balls. Anyone?? >-)
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,367
    The relationship in MI:3 is done much better than the one in CR.

    In hindsight, you have to blaim Ian Fleming for writing such a crap love story.

    *not*

    If only they'd have followed the Fleming story, it might have worked.

    :-L

    What the hell....are we going to downgrade "CR" too and call it worse than "M:I 3". It seems all Bond fans are turning to 'The Dark Side'. Some people in here need to be forced in a torture chair. And I know how to destroy someone's balls. Anyone?? >-)

    :-t
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,346
    e31.jpg
  • Posts: 498
    The relationship in MI:3 is done much better than the one in CR.

    In hindsight, you have to blaim Ian Fleming for writing such a crap love story.

    *not*

    If only they'd have followed the Fleming story, it might have worked.

    :-L

    What the hell....are we going to downgrade "CR" too and call it worse than "M:I 3". It seems all Bond fans are turning to 'The Dark Side'. Some people in here need to be forced in a torture chair. And I know how to destroy someone's balls. Anyone?? >-)

    :-t

    I laughed way too hard at that
  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    Gustav you seem to have an intolerance of dissenting opinions that's a little concerning.
  • Sark wrote: »
    Gustav you seem to have an intolerance of dissenting opinions that's a little concerning.

    Well, perhaps I feel a little bit depressed? It hurts me a bit to see people dissecting our 'own' new Bond film to death, until nothing 'fun' and 'exciting' is left of it.

    And frankly, I saw the same thing shortly after "Skyfall" premiered. I think we lost the ability to simply feel entertained. And perhaps one reason for it that we can't live in the moment anymore. Everything has to be discussed....to death sometimes.

    You know, I'm not a movie professional. But I am a Bond fan. And I really think we should be a bit more positive-spirited about our own Bond franchise. Perhaps I'm harsh to some people. But if you're a forummember in here long enough, you would have known I'm a staunch, at times objective, but especially now a very proud and subjective defender of Mr Bond.

    One more thing, if there was social media back in the 1960's, then Bond would have died after "OHMSS".

  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    I was greatly entertained by Spectre, as I am by nearly all of the Bond films. That doesn't mean I don't recognize and comment on their flaws, nor that I don't commend other franchises when they up their game. For one example; I remember posters (and you specifically) saying they thought the Rome chase would be the best car chase in franchise history, and one of the best in cinema history. I think anyone with a modicum of objectivity would say that it's neither of those things and that RN's Morocco chase was better.
Sign In or Register to comment.