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
I think a lot of fans prefer two types of Bond films: the silly 1960s ones, and the newer ones that feel as serious as they wrongly thought the 1960s ones were when they saw them as children.
I may not think Spectre as top tier Bond, but at least I remember the film (warts and all); all I can recall from the last M:I film is the jump from a plane, fight in the toilet and a helicopter chase. Ask me what the story was about and I will stare blankly ahead.
Not for me.
I am sure many general film fans would say the same of SP and most of the Craig films as well. Could any remember 9 Eyes or just what QoS was about? I think the MI stunts leave most of those in recent Bond films in the dust. SF in particular suffers from lack of memorable action.
There's a definite irony to Bond fans describing another series as silly films that kind of run together!
Much as i enjoy the MI films they don't provide much nourishment in terms of their content. The characters are thin and the dialogue is mostly exposition. Great action and stunts but the memory of them fades very quickly because they don't provide much else.
Is Fallout a better film than SP though ?
In terms of hitting the goals it sets for itself as a piece of entertainment, absolutely. Fallout had me walking out of the cinema quite exhilarated, while I was perplexed at SP by the end.
I don't think the plots of the M:I films are any more vanilla than Bond, they're just more action-oriented. I've never considered Bond to be an action franchise, really - despite the presence of action in them.
After (almost) 25 Bond films, I’m sure there is a mixing up of stories that the general audience will suffer from.
But after seeing one M:I, film, I will be hard pressed to tell you anything about this film 24 hours later.
For whatever reason, in my perspective, the Bond films, generally, are of a more unique quality and therefore, to me, far more memorable than any of the M:I films— Except for No. 3. Once again, in my view only, this was an elevated story with more depths and stakes. It’s memorable and I can re-watch it, and find immense enjoyment in it, almost as much as any Bond film.
(Watching Fallout on RTÈ as I type this. A wonderful way to spend a locked down Saturday night!)
Here’s how I’d rank them:
Mission: Impossible (1996)
Ghost Protocol (2011)
Mission: Impossible II (2000)
Rogue Nation (2015)
Marriage: Impossible (2006)
Here’s my ranking:
Ghost Protocol (2011)
Mission: Impossible (1996)
Rogue Nation (2015)
Mission: Impossible 2 (2000)
Mission: Impossible III (2006)
No, is my answer to that, my friend!
Bottom line, is that Ethan Hunt is just not that interesting a character compared to Bond!
But again, while there are certain qualities that overlap, I find them very different beasts. That is why I enjoy them both very much. M:I has grown into something built around action and exhilaration, while Bond is something with a bit more finesse and character. That doesn't excuse the very limp attempts at action in Spectre, of course. But there's room for both and thankfully both satisfy different senses for me. Win win.
SP was built up to be something on the level of OHMSS, the return of the series' most iconic villain and a bit more flavor of previous Bond adventures and for the most part doesn't deliver. We get a world record explosion, Brofeld and a limp conclusion. Some good stuff scattered here and there but it really limps along.
Fallout disappointed me in the wake of the two previous MI entries, which were some of the most fun I've had in a cinema. They try adding more layers and personal stakes and I didn't find any of them that involving. Add in touches that were kind of rehashed such as with the Ilsa character's conflicts, Hunt's ex-wife and the race to stop the ticking bomb finale, and even some deja vu in the stunts.
I actually waited a year until a Black Friday sale to even buy Fallout on Blu-ray. SP I bought on opening weekend. But I'd still favor Fallout over SP in terms of rewatchability.
Nobody goes to these movies because of Ethan Hunt, it's really just the set pieces and Tom Cruise's star power that drive it. In fact, one of the ideas with GHOST PROTOCOL was that it might have been Cruise's last film, with Jeremy Renner taking over the franchise, as Cruise's star power had taken a dip with M:I-3 being the lowest box office of the franchise. But since the films got popular again, no need for Renner (that guy can't catch a break can he?).
One thing I don't like about the recent films is Christopher McQuarrie becoming a regular director. I miss each film having a new director to give a different perspective, as it made the films not feel the same. Bringing back McQuarrie takes away from that.
I don’t see that, but Hunt not being as well defined a character as Bond isn’t a negative. M:I has different priorities from Bond films.
Agreed; Bond was never the pure good guy Hunt was. Closest Bond ever got to Hunt was maybe FYEO....
The McQuarrie-directed sequels have all been fun to varying degrees but I do think they lack something in the character/story departments. The "plots" are now just a series of goofy twists and they still haven't given Ethan or his crew/wife enough development to justify the constant attempts to make us care about them.
But I still enjoy what they have to offer despite their flaws and I do think that compared to the vast majority of other cinema, especially blockbusters, they remain a superior product. Which I suppose is how I feel about SP really.
That's because Cruise wants to play himself and not a character. That would be too revealing.
"exploration of another countries culture" might be a bit much, but I still like the PTS a lot for the reasons you mentioned. Or rather the other way around: I have been to Mexico City before and looking out for places I've been (and realizing how they fudged the geography for that scene) was something I haven't had for a lot of other films and quite enjoyed.
And that PTS is just great in general (I think they overdo the helicopter stuff, but other than that..).