Has Mission Impossible surpassed Bond?

11617182022

Comments

  • edited January 2016 Posts: 4,602
    delete
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Sark wrote: »
    Unlike all us other people, who don't really like Bond. ;)

    It's the stance du jour to have a pop at Bond.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2016 Posts: 23,883
    We all like Bond.

    I'm willing to voice my criticisms where I see fit. EON and Bond don't get a pass from me just because I've been a fan since childhood. They were putting out a substandard product as far as I was concerned in the late 90's / early 00's (especially in comparison to what I expected from them) and I called it as such then.

    I am expecting a more integrated and better thought out effort for the next film, and I'm confident they will give us something to rival CR for Craig's sendoff, whether they continue this plot line or not.
  • Posts: 5,767
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Bond is a character from DN. He's not always as good a character but give or take he's been pretty good overall. I haven't seen the latest M:I but the ones I saw Ethan was basically Cruise. I don't think M:I is about character thought. From the early t.v. series it has always been about suspense and manipulation. But that's the thing: I could never see pass Cruise. So far anyway.
    In a similar vein I could say I could never see past Mendes.

  • Posts: 14,854
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Bond is a character from DN. He's not always as good a character but give or take he's been pretty good overall. I haven't seen the latest M:I but the ones I saw Ethan was basically Cruise. I don't think M:I is about character thought. From the early t.v. series it has always been about suspense and manipulation. But that's the thing: I could never see pass Cruise. So far anyway.
    In a similar vein I could say I could never see past Mendes.

    Maybe. I was not a fan of Mendes (American Beauty is the most overrated movie to win an Oscar with Titanic imo) but was actually surprised on how well he turned out. I don't see Mendes too much in his Bond movies.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,006
    [CR.

    [/quote]

    If RN is what we expect from Bond you can count me out. It's a really well executed film and I applaud Cruise's insistence on stunt work, plus his abilities as a producer, but Bond it is not. SP is rich with class and style in a way a MI never will be. [/quote]

    OK, you're out ;)

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2016 Posts: 23,883
    I just watched MI2 yesterday. I've had the blu ray in the MI Extreme Trilogy for some time, but just never got round to it. Overall my impressions haven't really changed. There is some great action choreography in the film, and a lot of money up on the screen, but it doesn't engage me like the other four films.

    Tom Cruise is arguably at his most stylish in this one, with the long hair and deep tan, but there's something almost 'music video' about the whole thing. John Woo takes it all to very artificial levels with his slow motion and white doves, and at some points it gets a little distracting. It's also very much a Cruise film compared to the others and he's more of a superman here than in the others as well.

    Dougray Scott continues to annoy the heck out of me. What's with his continued frowning, brooding & looking like he's severely constipated throughout the film? I recall he was mentioned for Bond around this time, & based on this performance, I was sincerely hoping that was a sick joke. I remember wanting Pierce to stay instead, and that's saying something given the Bond installment around this time was TWINE (my worst Bond ever).

    Thandi Newton was much better this time. Her Nyah has some good interplay & chemistry with Hunt & her opening heist scene in Spain is very nicely done. I would like a jewel thief adversary for Bond in a future film, and I think they were thinking about this at one point, for Dalton's third.

    Hans Zimmer's score is quite different from what he delivers today, but memorable. Like the film, it's stylized, & is reminiscent to some extent of Arnold's earlier work for Bond during Brosnan's run, so perhaps this was an 'in' sound at the time. I still prefer Elfman's work for MI1.

    Overall a decent effort, but I still rank it last because it drags a lot in places. Best scene was when Ambrose kills his #2 Stamp while thinking he's Hunt - then they flash to Hunt making his escape with the antidote.

    Overall MI ranking:
    1. MI-RN
    2. MI-GP (well ahead of the rest)
    --
    3. MI1 (great spy caper with some dated tech)
    4. MI3 (Hoffmann delivers but it's a bit too emotional for me despite great action in parts)
    5. MI2 (overstylized but distinct - drags in places)

    PS: great quote for the 'Cruise haters' from the film below delivered by Scott's character about impersonating Hunt which shows that he's not above poking fun at himself, even when at the top of his game:

    "You know, that was the hardest part about having to portray you, grinning like an idiot every fifteen minutes."

    Another quote that stood out because I found it surprising in a major motion picture:

    "You know women mate. Like monkeys, they are - won't let go of one branch until they've got hold of the next."
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited January 2016 Posts: 5,131
    Whilst MI5 lacks the directorial flair of the 1996 De Palma original this is certainly the best of the 4 sequels. The action sequences are actually original, fresh and thrilling and the more comedic tone actually blends well with the espionage. Is Cruise still an A list action star........yes. Doe's it surpass Bond.....not even close 7.0/10.
  • Posts: 11,189
    @bondjames. I know what you mean. The sequence with Cruise hanging from the mountain in Mi2 feels like a long advert.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,894
    Naturally, I think Bond is better overall. But comparing the MI Films against the recent Bonds, then I would say that on the MI films have had more thrilling action sequences, and better handled drama.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,427
    As much as I enjoyed RN, it will never hold any shed of light to Bond. Give me Spectre any day of the week over RN.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Naturally, I think Bond is better overall. But comparing the MI Films against the recent Bonds, then I would say that on the MI films have had more thrilling action sequences, and better handled drama.

    I take you your not including CR as recent anymore then?
  • Posts: 4,602
    The crane sequence in CR was very well done and just the type of thing that Cruise would be up for, just as the Atlas scene in MI would have worked very well in Bond but its interesting to consider whether DC would have been "up for it"
    Since then, Bond has lacked a really stand out action sequence. Obviously the PTS with the helicopter in SP was good but, somehow, IMHO it lacked the wow factor of the Atlas scene. Perhaps because of the fast editing, you dont really get to take in what is happening. Its the simplicity and clarity of the Atlas scene than makes it great for me,
  • Posts: 1,098
    patb wrote: »
    The crane sequence in CR was very well done and just the type of thing that Cruise would be up for, just as the Atlas scene in MI would have worked very well in Bond but its interesting to consider whether DC would have been "up for it"
    Since then, Bond has lacked a really stand out action sequence. Obviously the PTS with the helicopter in SP was good but, somehow, IMHO it lacked the wow factor of the Atlas scene. Perhaps because of the fast editing, you dont really get to take in what is happening. Its the simplicity and clarity of the Atlas scene than makes it great for me,

    Yes, the crane action sequence in CR was very well done, and has a very high view count on You Tube, compared to other recent Bond action sequences.

  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,894
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Naturally, I think Bond is better overall. But comparing the MI Films against the recent Bonds, then I would say that on the MI films have had more thrilling action sequences, and better handled drama.

    I take you your not including CR as recent anymore then?

    Put it this way, if we say since 2006, then I would rather watch MI3, MI:GP or MI:RN than CR, QOS, or SF.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2016 Posts: 23,883
    mepal1 wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    The crane sequence in CR was very well done and just the type of thing that Cruise would be up for, just as the Atlas scene in MI would have worked very well in Bond but its interesting to consider whether DC would have been "up for it"
    Since then, Bond has lacked a really stand out action sequence. Obviously the PTS with the helicopter in SP was good but, somehow, IMHO it lacked the wow factor of the Atlas scene. Perhaps because of the fast editing, you dont really get to take in what is happening. Its the simplicity and clarity of the Atlas scene than makes it great for me,

    Yes, the crane action sequence in CR was very well done, and has a very high view count on You Tube, compared to other recent Bond action sequences.
    I agree. The crane sequence is one of the best in the last 20 years, if not the best, and it definitely probably inspired Cruise to up his game in MI-GP. On my last watch I noticed a lot of the work was done the old fashioned way, with stuntmen up on the crane and filming angles that effectively hides this fact, like they used to do in the old days.

    I liked the SF pretitles as well (apart from the CGI face replacement and watch insertion). Some of the distance shots of Craig on the bike in SF seemed real enough, because his 'face' was a small part of the shot. It's only the close up that looked 'off', similar to the ridiculous CGI closeup of Hinx's face during the SP chase when he's in the Jag on the embankment. Both unecessary imho.

    I believe that some of Glen's brilliant aerial work on LTK, TLD & OP would still look great in a modern Bond film today, with a few modernizing directorial touches. They almost pulled it off in TDKR's opener, which was incredible except for Bane's voice which was too dialed up. So even if Craig is not willing or able to do what Cruise does (and who could blame him), there is still a way to make an action sequence enticing & engaging with live stuntmen, aerial work & proper direction. MI, CR, & TDKR have shown that recently. Even TDK's truck flip & helicopter chase was superb and done for real.

    There's no substitute for real stuntmen (or actors, in the case of Cruise) yet. CGI doesn't quite cut it. To this day I'm blown away by the almost 40 yr old MR pretitles sequence.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,516
    @bondjames, where is the Hinx CGI face replacement at exactly? I always try and catch it when I see the film and never can.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2016 Posts: 23,883
    @Creasy47, it's near the end when they are racing on the Embankment on a 40 degree or so angle. There is a closeup of Hinx's face through the car windshield and it is almost identical to Bond's on the bike in SF - obvious CGI. I thought to myself, why are they doing this again - it's not necessary for the scene.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,694
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @bondjames, where is the Hinx CGI face replacement at exactly? I always try and catch it when I see the film and never can.
    It's so quick in a car window- I know I saw it, but I figured it was just glass distortion. I guess it was Hinx's face on the stunt driver....
  • Posts: 4,602
    Yes, I saw it and its a shame as for a second it takes you out of the movie. Using CGI to mask something that they eye is not looking for, IMHO is a much more rewarding way of using CGI rather than using it to insert something that the audience is looking directly at.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,516
    bondjames wrote: »
    @Creasy47, it's near the end when they are racing on the Embankment on a 40 degree or so angle. There is a closeup of Hinx's face through the car windshield and it is almost identical to Bond's on the bike in SF - obvious CGI. I thought to myself, why are they doing this again - it's not necessary for the scene.

    I'll be sure to check it out the next time I see it. Hopefully I forget by that time, because that's sure to take me out of the experience if it's as bad as you all say.
  • edited January 2016 Posts: 5,767
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    @Creasy47, it's near the end when they are racing on the Embankment on a 40 degree or so angle. There is a closeup of Hinx's face through the car windshield and it is almost identical to Bond's on the bike in SF - obvious CGI. I thought to myself, why are they doing this again - it's not necessary for the scene.

    I'll be sure to check it out the next time I see it. Hopefully I forget by that time, because that's sure to take me out of the experience if it's as bad as you all say.
    It´s not as bad as some say. It looks weird, but I wouldn´t even be sure that it´s definitely CGI. People are incredibly quick these days to scream obvious CGI even in scenes where it´s not.
    I watched SP three times, and even after I had read some comment concerning this scene I wasn´t drawn towards Hinx´ face that much in that moment.
    On the other hand, I hear only praise about SP´s pts helicopter fight, while there I found the constant switch between live helicopter wide shots and green screen close-ups much more jarring than any fight scene of, say, the Moore era, where it doesn´t even bother me that sometimes I can easily discern the stuntmen.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2016 Posts: 23,883
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    @Creasy47, it's near the end when they are racing on the Embankment on a 40 degree or so angle. There is a closeup of Hinx's face through the car windshield and it is almost identical to Bond's on the bike in SF - obvious CGI. I thought to myself, why are they doing this again - it's not necessary for the scene.

    I'll be sure to check it out the next time I see it. Hopefully I forget by that time, because that's sure to take me out of the experience if it's as bad as you all say.
    I'm not suggesting it's all bad - just that it wasn't necessary. I was bored during that sequence anyway, so I noticed it. I suppose if one is fully engaged in the chase, then it may be missed. Don't get me wrong, it's not a major misstep, just an unecessary inclusion that should have been avoided then, and in the future, imho.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,516
    @bondjames, sounds like Hinx's face in that scene did the same thing for you as Craig's face in SF's PTS did for me: unnecessary CG that took me right out of the moment.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2016 Posts: 23,883
    @Creasy47, the SF PTS CGI was definitely more offensive than the SP one, at least for me, because I was fully engaged in the sequence until that point. The same goes, to a lesser extent, for the QoS posttitles bell tower fall with Mitchell, which did seem CGI even though it was very well done.

    I just wish they would dial back their ambition and keep the sequence as real as possible, even if it's less ornate.

    The QoS pretitles car chase comes to mind as an excellent sequence that didn't have any apparent CGI, but which still was very intense and grand.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,516
    I was never bothered by the CGI in that fall from the bell tower in QoS, then I saw some sort of featurette a few months back that showed why: it wasn't. I don't know what exact blending of practical effects vs. CG that scene had, but it was impressive to learn that the fall does actually occur between the actors.

    Agreed on the PTS for QoS: intense, loud, brutal, realistic. That's what I loved throughout CR, and that's what I loved in QoS (minus the free-fall scene, of course). Once we got to SF (which, to me, has such dodgy CG at times - the komodo dragons, Craig's face in the PTS, Bond falling off the train tracks, the helicopters, Patrice's fall - and then other times, it excels, like the MI-6 explosion) and SP (the PTS helicopter work, the final deaths of Marco, Hinx, and C, more CG animals, the MI-6 destruction), I was rather upset at the over-usage of CG when it wasn't utilized this much in the former two films. I hope with a budget reduction, they keep the CG to a minimum and make it all look raw and realistic once again.
  • edited January 2016 Posts: 5,767
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I was never bothered by the CGI in that fall from the bell tower in QoS, then I saw some sort of featurette a few months back that showed why: it wasn't. I don't know what exact blending of practical effects vs. CG that scene had, but it was impressive to learn that the fall does actually occur between the actors.

    Agreed on the PTS for QoS: intense, loud, brutal, realistic. That's what I loved throughout CR, and that's what I loved in QoS (minus the free-fall scene, of course). Once we got to SF (which, to me, has such dodgy CG at times - the komodo dragons, Craig's face in the PTS, Bond falling off the train tracks, the helicopters, Patrice's fall - and then other times, it excels, like the MI-6 explosion) and SP (the PTS helicopter work, the final deaths of Marco, Hinx, and C, more CG animals, the MI-6 destruction), I was rather upset at the over-usage of CG when it wasn't utilized this much in the former two films. I hope with a budget reduction, they keep the CG to a minimum and make it all look raw and realistic once again.
    I guess I´m lucky then I bought a cheap 32" tv, because I find the komodo dragons and the helicopters in SF not in the least dodgy (but the MI6 explosion). Perhaps I´ll like SP better when I watch it on that tv ;-).

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2016 Posts: 23,883
    boldfinger wrote: »
    I guess I´m lucky then I bought a cheap 32" tv, because I find the komodo dragons and the helicopters in SF not in the least dodgy (but the MI6 explosion). Perhaps I´ll like SP better when I watch it on that tv ;-).
    I have a larger tv, but am hoping for a similar positive reappraisal on the 'smaller' screen. I think it may work better, but fear the yellow haze is inevitably still going to be a bother, unlike with QoS where the colours all just 'pop' on blu.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,694
    I can make movies look however I want with my TV. Except The Matrix- can't totally get rid of the green haze without messing up the 'real life' sequences...
  • Posts: 5,767
    chrisisall wrote: »
    I can make movies look however I want with my TV. Except The Matrix- can't totally get rid of the green haze without messing up the 'real life' sequences...
    Changing the setting for different films is not how I will have it. One setting has to suffice for all.

Sign In or Register to comment.