Mission: Impossible - films and tv series

1152153155157158301

Comments

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    I have no issue with the films, Bond or M:I, giving a more personal story to the characters. If it's done well enough then I can applaud them for pulling it off. The problem with M:I-3 is that the personal angle with Hunt was so dull. Same thing with TWINE. That film actually had an excellent concept in its ambition to give Brosnan his OHMSS, but again, dull as dishwater.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,034
    But it's at least better than that awful Abrams film, aka MARRIAGE: IMPOSSIBLE.
    Spot on! :))

    Nah, that criticism is massively overblown. Never really understood why people damn the flick for an aspect that is only takes up a small fraction of the runtime.

    M:I-3 is a great flick, with great set-pieces, a great score, and the best baddie of the series so far.
    I couldn't disagree more. It's a very confused film that departs from the source material as well as the general concept of what Mission: Impossible should be, and just focuses on the melodramatic life of Ethan Hunt who couldn't put two and two together. If the second film took a giant leap from bastardizing the material by making a very ridiculous OTT actioner with it, the third film made just as ridiculous choices by veering into the exact opposite direction. There's nothing about it I don't hate.

    IMF has a mole, a simple simpleton villain escapes and threatens Ethan's life and his wife, trust issues and pretentious red herrings (Hell, I've always known Fishburne's character isn't the villain), shakycam nonsense, overreacting agent who's bound to be a professional yet acts nothing like it but gets agitated every two seconds, and - of course - a plot device that isn't even disclosed. Rabbit's Foot. What the hell is it, anyway?

    A Mission: Impossible film should be about chasing that MacGuffin and stopping it from bringing harm upon innocent lives. Not about Ethan Hunt's personal life that doesn't seem to work out. I'm glad Fallout finally closed that chapter, and now we get to just enjoy the spy thrillers the franchise is made for.

    Memoirs of a Semi-Retired Agent Not Accustomed To Civilian Life? No thanks. Save all that "lovey dovey" dialogues for chick flicks. That's why the third film is by far the weakest, and I'd rather take that ridiculous John Woo film with hardened slow motions and dual Berettas in shootouts over any melodramatic Bourne ripoff.

    Repetition doesn't reinforce the points already outlined above, I'm afraid. Again, the retractors always zoom in on a part of the film that only takes up a fraction of the runtime and is surrounded by pretty solid stuff. Once we get past the first twenty-minutes there's very little difference between the third film and FALLOUT in terms of the motifs explored. Unfortunately, it seems that people are unable to get past that.

    I don't see any confusion with the film. It sets out to do a very specific thing - give Ethan a bit of humanity - and succeeds. And despite arguments to the contrary it doesn't really do it by detracting from the mission at hand. It's arguably the film that allowed the successors to build on the character into what McQuarrie achieved with FALLOUT.

    Each to their own, of course but the criticism of M:I-3, seems pretty numb-skulled to me.

    No repetition. Just what's out there in plain sight. I fail to see anything solid outside what Hunt and his team played in the Vatican and those highlighted moments even are, what, three minutes on run time?

    Fallout is dialed down on the personal angle by a wide margin in comparison to the third film. Some unnecessary nightmares here and there, but we don't see Hunt break character by overreacting out of the ordinary whereas the third film overdoes it. It drifts away from the mission with everything it has, and doesn't focus on the real threat that's supposed to be the said Rabbit's Foot.

    The first film showed more character development in Hunt's personality that tied in with the fourth and beyond smoothly. The third one, however, was made to appeal to those who enjoy soap operas. But, in all fairness, those who like it, it's fine by me. To go out of their way to tell me it had great set-pieces? I'd say we've been watching two different films.

    Judging from the rest of the comment, I'd say we have been watching separate films indeed. Hoffman alone gives the film merit for me. He's immense - creepy and straight up horrible. It's telling that people write the film off without even being able to remember that he was present during the film's climax.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    But it's at least better than that awful Abrams film, aka MARRIAGE: IMPOSSIBLE.
    Spot on! :))

    Nah, that criticism is massively overblown. Never really understood why people damn the flick for an aspect that is only takes up a small fraction of the runtime.

    M:I-3 is a great flick, with great set-pieces, a great score, and the best baddie of the series so far.
    I couldn't disagree more. It's a very confused film that departs from the source material as well as the general concept of what Mission: Impossible should be, and just focuses on the melodramatic life of Ethan Hunt who couldn't put two and two together. If the second film took a giant leap from bastardizing the material by making a very ridiculous OTT actioner with it, the third film made just as ridiculous choices by veering into the exact opposite direction. There's nothing about it I don't hate.

    IMF has a mole, a simple simpleton villain escapes and threatens Ethan's life and his wife, trust issues and pretentious red herrings (Hell, I've always known Fishburne's character isn't the villain), shakycam nonsense, overreacting agent who's bound to be a professional yet acts nothing like it but gets agitated every two seconds, and - of course - a plot device that isn't even disclosed. Rabbit's Foot. What the hell is it, anyway?

    A Mission: Impossible film should be about chasing that MacGuffin and stopping it from bringing harm upon innocent lives. Not about Ethan Hunt's personal life that doesn't seem to work out. I'm glad Fallout finally closed that chapter, and now we get to just enjoy the spy thrillers the franchise is made for.

    Memoirs of a Semi-Retired Agent Not Accustomed To Civilian Life? No thanks. Save all that "lovey dovey" dialogues for chick flicks. That's why the third film is by far the weakest, and I'd rather take that ridiculous John Woo film with hardened slow motions and dual Berettas in shootouts over any melodramatic Bourne ripoff.

    Repetition doesn't reinforce the points already outlined above, I'm afraid. Again, the retractors always zoom in on a part of the film that only takes up a fraction of the runtime and is surrounded by pretty solid stuff. Once we get past the first twenty-minutes there's very little difference between the third film and FALLOUT in terms of the motifs explored. Unfortunately, it seems that people are unable to get past that.

    I don't see any confusion with the film. It sets out to do a very specific thing - give Ethan a bit of humanity - and succeeds. And despite arguments to the contrary it doesn't really do it by detracting from the mission at hand. It's arguably the film that allowed the successors to build on the character into what McQuarrie achieved with FALLOUT.

    Each to their own, of course but the criticism of M:I-3, seems pretty numb-skulled to me.

    No repetition. Just what's out there in plain sight. I fail to see anything solid outside what Hunt and his team played in the Vatican and those highlighted moments even are, what, three minutes on run time?

    Fallout is dialed down on the personal angle by a wide margin in comparison to the third film. Some unnecessary nightmares here and there, but we don't see Hunt break character by overreacting out of the ordinary whereas the third film overdoes it. It drifts away from the mission with everything it has, and doesn't focus on the real threat that's supposed to be the said Rabbit's Foot.

    The first film showed more character development in Hunt's personality that tied in with the fourth and beyond smoothly. The third one, however, was made to appeal to those who enjoy soap operas. But, in all fairness, those who like it, it's fine by me. To go out of their way to tell me it had great set-pieces? I'd say we've been watching two different films.
    Judging from the rest of the comment, I'd say we have been watching separate films indeed. Hoffman alone gives the film merit for me. He's immense - creepy and straight up horrible. It's telling that people write the film off without even being able to remember that he was present during the film's climax.
    I remember it well alright. Hoffman did show great screen presence on his part, as I said, but I don't find it believable for a moment that someone like him could get to Hunt easily whereas the likes of Solomon Lane couldn't with an entire counter-intelligence organization at their disposal. I write off the film because it doesn't hold the plot together nor try to appeal to its own title. What was this impossible mission? Save Julia?
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    You know what was worse about that scene? Luther saying Ethan's name. Suddenly Ethan isn't the only incompetent agent.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    You know what was worse about that scene? Luther saying Ethan's name. Suddenly Ethan isn't the only incompetent agent.
    +1. Exactly. Thank you.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    One of the things that concerned me about the trailers for FALLOUT were bits like Hunt looking like he's having yet more scenes of losing his cool.

    "Ethan, that's not who we are!"
    "Maybe we need to reconsider that!"

    We literally had that already with the 3rd film! To my relief, it was just a fake-out.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2018 Posts: 23,883
    I think one of the things they forgot in MI:3 was a sense of style. In Fallout, they hit the emotional notes but balanced it with some flair. It didn't hurt that Ferguson (who reaks of cool style) was in the film. MI:3 lacks that. Even the Vatican scenes don't convey that. I think it's because Cruise is too earnest in the film. In the earlier and later efforts he at least conveys some cool. In MI:3 he's all teary eyed passion, right from the opening scene.

    Also, I can't help but think they laid it on a little thick. Even the suspenseful scenes with Hoffman are a bit soapy.

    You have a wife … girlfriend? Because if you do, I’m gonna find her, whoever she is. I’m gonna hurt her. I’m gonna make her bleed, and cry, and call out your name. And then I’m gonna find you, and kill you right in front of her.”

    It's like having a pregnant woman in a hijack or disaster film. All a bit much.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited August 2018 Posts: 8,034
    But it's at least better than that awful Abrams film, aka MARRIAGE: IMPOSSIBLE.
    Spot on! :))

    Nah, that criticism is massively overblown. Never really understood why people damn the flick for an aspect that is only takes up a small fraction of the runtime.

    M:I-3 is a great flick, with great set-pieces, a great score, and the best baddie of the series so far.
    I couldn't disagree more. It's a very confused film that departs from the source material as well as the general concept of what Mission: Impossible should be, and just focuses on the melodramatic life of Ethan Hunt who couldn't put two and two together. If the second film took a giant leap from bastardizing the material by making a very ridiculous OTT actioner with it, the third film made just as ridiculous choices by veering into the exact opposite direction. There's nothing about it I don't hate.

    IMF has a mole, a simple simpleton villain escapes and threatens Ethan's life and his wife, trust issues and pretentious red herrings (Hell, I've always known Fishburne's character isn't the villain), shakycam nonsense, overreacting agent who's bound to be a professional yet acts nothing like it but gets agitated every two seconds, and - of course - a plot device that isn't even disclosed. Rabbit's Foot. What the hell is it, anyway?

    A Mission: Impossible film should be about chasing that MacGuffin and stopping it from bringing harm upon innocent lives. Not about Ethan Hunt's personal life that doesn't seem to work out. I'm glad Fallout finally closed that chapter, and now we get to just enjoy the spy thrillers the franchise is made for.

    Memoirs of a Semi-Retired Agent Not Accustomed To Civilian Life? No thanks. Save all that "lovey dovey" dialogues for chick flicks. That's why the third film is by far the weakest, and I'd rather take that ridiculous John Woo film with hardened slow motions and dual Berettas in shootouts over any melodramatic Bourne ripoff.

    Repetition doesn't reinforce the points already outlined above, I'm afraid. Again, the retractors always zoom in on a part of the film that only takes up a fraction of the runtime and is surrounded by pretty solid stuff. Once we get past the first twenty-minutes there's very little difference between the third film and FALLOUT in terms of the motifs explored. Unfortunately, it seems that people are unable to get past that.

    I don't see any confusion with the film. It sets out to do a very specific thing - give Ethan a bit of humanity - and succeeds. And despite arguments to the contrary it doesn't really do it by detracting from the mission at hand. It's arguably the film that allowed the successors to build on the character into what McQuarrie achieved with FALLOUT.

    Each to their own, of course but the criticism of M:I-3, seems pretty numb-skulled to me.

    No repetition. Just what's out there in plain sight. I fail to see anything solid outside what Hunt and his team played in the Vatican and those highlighted moments even are, what, three minutes on run time?

    Fallout is dialed down on the personal angle by a wide margin in comparison to the third film. Some unnecessary nightmares here and there, but we don't see Hunt break character by overreacting out of the ordinary whereas the third film overdoes it. It drifts away from the mission with everything it has, and doesn't focus on the real threat that's supposed to be the said Rabbit's Foot.

    The first film showed more character development in Hunt's personality that tied in with the fourth and beyond smoothly. The third one, however, was made to appeal to those who enjoy soap operas. But, in all fairness, those who like it, it's fine by me. To go out of their way to tell me it had great set-pieces? I'd say we've been watching two different films.
    Judging from the rest of the comment, I'd say we have been watching separate films indeed. Hoffman alone gives the film merit for me. He's immense - creepy and straight up horrible. It's telling that people write the film off without even being able to remember that he was present during the film's climax.
    I remember it well alright. Hoffman did show great screen presence on his part, as I said, but I don't find it believable for a moment that someone like him could get to Hunt easily whereas the likes of Solomon Lane couldn't with an entire counter-intelligence organization at their disposal. I write off the film because it doesn't hold the plot together nor try to appeal to its own title. What was this impossible mission? Save Julia?

    Except he did though, didn't he?

    Ah, it does hold its own plot together. You not liking the plot and the plot being good are not mutually exclusive. Same goes for my flipside. As I said, the film succeeded in doing exactly what it set out to do. The criticisms of it are still extremely flakey and blown way out of proportion, for me.

    The impossible mission? Stop an arms dealer from acquiring then selling a potentially devastating weapon and save your wife from a nasty end while being painted as a traitor by your own organisation? Seems pretty difficult, at least. About as difficult as preventing a terrorist organisation from getting its hands on loads of money while also being painted as a traitor, like in ROGUE NATION.

    Look, I get that people don't like the melodramatic aspect of it. It's not the best for my eyes either. As I said above, the rooftop stuff between Ethan and Julia is a bit on the sappy side and only really made bareable by two good actors. But, not for a minute after that did I feel that the melodramatic stuff was enough of a main focus to take away from any of the other stuff I liked in the film, and that seems to be where the difference of opinion lies.

    I like the Vatican stuff. I like the Bridge battle. I like the low-key finale, preceeded by Tom's best running until FALLOUT came along.

    The only one I really have ever had trouble with was the second one. It was rubbish when it came out and has only gotten worse - Newton being a bright spark amidst a load of dull nonsense.

    Re: M:I-3, I guess it just comes down to tolerance levels and there's a lot more there that I like rather than dislike. If "soap operas" were that loud I'd probably stop berating those who watch them.

    At least we can certainly agree that FALLOUT is superior, all the same.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    Dougray Scott and Richard Roxburgh had more chemistry than Cruise and Monaghan. That's how much that whole crux failed for me.

    And that ending at the offices. It's sooooooooooo TV, I expected it to cut straight to the ABC News team announcing "We hope you enjoyed the third season finale of MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE. Stay tuned for an interview with J.J. Abrams on the direction of the next season. Tonight at 11!!!"
  • edited August 2018 Posts: 646
    I'm not looking to rain on anyone's parade who likes M:I-3 but there's clearly a reason why it was GHOST PROTOCOL (and not M:I-3) that set a new standard and new direction for the M:I franchise. Let's face it - prior to GP this was a confused franchise without a clear direction. If M:I-2 went too far in one direction then M:I-3 went too far in the other. There's no arguing that the first 3 films were pretty divisive for fans and just overall inconsistent. But with GP they struck gold - they found their groove, everything clicked, and they knew this was the correct direction for the franchise. Hence ROGUE NATION. Hence FALLOUT. One need only look at the box office numbers and the response of the critics for the last 3 films to see that this is indeed the "correct" approach. With the first 3 films they were testing the waters, with the last 3 films they've been firing on all cylinders.

    As I mentioned already when I went into the theater to see GP I didn't have particularly high expectations. M:I-3 left me nonplussed. CR ran circles around it in 2006! So I basically went into GP just to see the Burj Khalifa scene, since it was so heavily advertised everywhere and talked about. So I figured I better see this death-defying spectacle on the big screen. But when I walked out of the movie theater I was completely enthralled by what I had just seen. Within a day or so I was back in the movie theater seeing it a second time. It wasn't just the Burj Khalifa scene (spectacular as it was), it was the whole tone and flow of the film. This time it felt different, unlike what the previous M:I films gave me. It was just a grand and exciting adventure! I wanted more! The break-in into the Kremlin scene (with the fake projector wall) was as suspenseful to me as the break into the CIA room in the first film, and the crazy fight in that automated moving parking garage at the end was one of the most inventive and exciting things I had seen. This film had a creative energy that I hadn't witnessed in the previous films.

    You can bet I was back in the movie theater when ROGUE NATION came out, but honestly I didn't expect it to top GP. I honestly thought at the time that GP was a fluke, a one-off. But then RN blew my mind and managed to top GP! And now FALLOUT has topped RN! It's a crazy exciting time to be a fan of this franchise.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited August 2018 Posts: 8,087
    JBR are back with a comprehensive comparison of Fallout and Bond 25!

  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,034
    JBR are back with a comprehensive comparison of Fallout and Bond 25!


    That was a good listen.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I'm not looking to rain on anyone's parade who likes M:I-3 but there's clearly a reason why it was GHOST PROTOCOL (and not M:I-3) that set a new standard and new direction for the M:I franchise. Let's face it - prior to GP this was a confused franchise without a clear direction. If M:I-2 went too far in one direction then M:I-3 went too far in the other. There's no arguing that the first 3 films were pretty divisive for fans and just overall inconsistent. But with GP they struck gold - they found their groove, everything clicked, and they knew this was the correct direction for the franchise. Hence ROGUE NATION. Hence FALLOUT. One need only look at the box office numbers and the response of the critics for the last 3 films to see that this is indeed the "correct" approach. With the first 3 films they were testing the waters, with the last 3 films they've been firing on all cylinders.

    As I mentioned already when I went into the theater to see GP I didn't have particularly high expectations. M:I-3 left me nonplussed. CR ran circles around it in 2006! So I basically went into GP just to see the Burj Khalifa scene, since it was so heavily advertised everywhere and talked about. So I figured I better see this death-defying spectacle on the big screen. But when I walked out of the movie theater I was completely enthralled by what I had just seen. Within a day or so I was back in the movie theater seeing it a second time. It wasn't just the Burj Khalifa scene (spectacular as it was), it was the whole tone and flow of the film. This time it felt different, unlike what the previous M:I films gave me. It was just a grand and exciting adventure! I wanted more! The break-in into the Kremlin scene (with the fake projector wall) was as suspenseful to me as the break into the CIA room in the first film, and the crazy fight in that automated moving parking garage at the end was one of the most inventive and exciting things I had seen. This film had a creative energy that I hadn't witnessed in the previous films.

    You can bet I was back in the movie theater when ROGUE NATION came out, but honestly I didn't expect it to top GP. I honestly thought at the time that GP was a fluke, a one-off. But then RN blew my mind and managed to top GP! And now FALLOUT has topped RN! It's a crazy exciting time to be a fan of this franchise.
    This reflects my opinion entirely and completely. It's precisely how I feel, although I very much liked the first film too.

    McQuarrie also recently said that Cruise and he realized that GP showed them the way forward, in terms of overall approach. It was where it all clicked.
  • DoctorNoDoctorNo USA-Maryland
    edited August 2018 Posts: 754
    My ranking is RN is still tops. It’s lighter and more fun for repeat viewings, more Ferguson, better score. But Fallout is great too... the middle of the movie especially, Paris and London. The ending for me while good just need some editing and focus. In many ways Fallout is better than RN, but I love RN all the way through.

    RN
    FO
    GP: the first act is a little hokey, the second is superb, the third is terrible and sinks it
    MI: just watched this again after Fallout and it felt like watching a tv show. People must have nostalgia goggle to rank this high. It’s still entertaining though and the CIA computer break in scene is still great.
    MI3: I’m with others, this movie is overwrought (to point of creepy); and often mediocre though it does have its moments and did seem to make up for MI2

    MI2: saw it once in theaters. Never again.

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    I'm not looking to rain on anyone's parade who likes M:I-3 but there's clearly a reason why it was GHOST PROTOCOL (and not M:I-3) that set a new standard and new direction for the M:I franchise. Let's face it - prior to GP this was a confused franchise without a clear direction. If M:I-2 went too far in one direction then M:I-3 went too far in the other. There's no arguing that the first 3 films were pretty divisive for fans and just overall inconsistent. But with GP they struck gold - they found their groove, everything clicked, and they knew this was the correct direction for the franchise. Hence ROGUE NATION. Hence FALLOUT. One need only look at the box office numbers and the response of the critics for the last 3 films to see that this is indeed the "correct" approach. With the first 3 films they were testing the waters, with the last 3 films they've been firing on all cylinders.

    The first three films certainly don't have much connective tissue. They really do feel like Tom Cruise just handing the keys to each director to do their own unique take without regard to what came before. It was even weirder to watch M:I-3 this time and see Simon Pegg who is only a cameo and they hadn't nailed his character Benji yet as he was just someone that delivered exposition. That new team introduced along with the "M" of the IMF played by Laurence Fishburne disappear off the face of the earth by GP.

    I do hope Renner's schedule is more open to do the next one, I liked how he played as sort of a foil as much as an ally to Cruise. I'm glad he turned down doing a cameo where he would have been killed, I don't want anyone in the team lost. I'm even bummed that Alec Baldwin is gone after only two appearances.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,087
    Mission Impossible Fallout passes 200 million at the domestic boxoffice, surpassing SPECTRE in the US.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,473
    It's had some pretty good legs in its domestic run, that's for sure. Just opened in China too, with a franchise best $28 million Friday.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,087
    Yes, and 77 million for the weekend in China!
  • TheSharkFromJawsTheSharkFromJaws Amity Island Waters
    edited September 2018 Posts: 127
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    My ranking is RN is still tops. It’s lighter and more fun for repeat viewings, more Ferguson, better score. But Fallout is great too... the middle of the movie especially, Paris and London. The ending for me while good just need some editing and focus. In many ways Fallout is better than RN, but I love RN all the way through.

    RN
    FO
    GP: the first act is a little hokey, the second is superb, the third is terrible and sinks it
    MI: just watched this again after Fallout and it felt like watching a tv show. People must have nostalgia goggle to rank this high. It’s still entertaining though and the CIA computer break in scene is still great.
    MI3: I’m with others, this movie is overwrought (to point of creepy); and often mediocre though it does have its moments and did seem to make up for MI2

    MI2: saw it once in theaters. Never again.
    I'm inclined to agree, Rogue Nation remains the best of the franchise. I don't want to use the word "disappointed" with Fallout, as the film was excellent, but I feel like I just was hoping for a bit more based on the overwhelmingly positive reactions. There were some incredible action sequences in Fallout (I still can't believe the one-shot skydiving sequence was done for real, with Tom Cruise himself no less), but Rogue Nation just feels tighter and overall more thrilling from beginning to end.

    I actually re-watched Ghost Protocol recently and something just felt...off. I remember absolutely loving every second of it in the theater and still loved it the couple times I saw it on Blu-Ray, but after a few years (and McQuarrie's two films), it just didn't feel the same. The film is utterly ridiculous and cartoony, which I acknowledge is probably intended as part of the fun, but for whatever reason it just didn't work with me anymore. Maybe I was just in a bad mood. And apart from the Burj Khalifa set-piece, there's no standout sequence to point to, unlike both Rogue Nation and Fallout, which have numerous impressively put-together action segments. Ghost Protocol is fine, and still a fun action movie, but is far behind its two successors.

    My ranking would be the exact same.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Mission Impossible Fallout passes 200 million at the domestic boxoffice, surpassing SPECTRE in the US.
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    It's had some pretty good legs in its domestic run, that's for sure. Just opened in China too, with a franchise best $28 million Friday.
    Yes, and 77 million for the weekend in China!
    The incredible thing about this franchise is its consistency (ignoring currency effects) at the box office. The last three have been very predictable in terms of their gross, both domestically and in nearly all major markets. That is a sign of a franchise that isn't relying on a fluke. They have something which the public is buying into consistently. This film's gross would be far higher if it wasn't for the inflated US $.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,087
    According to estimates Fallout could finish around the 160 million mark in China, and 750 million globally. That would make it Tom Cruise most successful film of his career, unadjusted for inflation ofcourse. Bet he's glad for this after the flop Mummy film last year.

    Now I bet Paramount are eager to hurry another MI film into development for 2021!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2018 Posts: 23,883
    According to estimates Fallout could finish around the 160 million mark in China, and 750 million globally. That would make it Tom Cruise most successful film of his career, unadjusted for inflation ofcourse. Bet he's glad for this after the flop Mummy film last year.

    Now I bet Paramount are eager to hurry another MI film into development for 2021!
    I was sure $700M was possible but $750M would be fantastic. The Chinese numbers would have been higher if not for the trade war which has suppressed their currency.
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    My ranking is RN is still tops. It’s lighter and more fun for repeat viewings, more Ferguson, better score. But Fallout is great too... the middle of the movie especially, Paris and London. The ending for me while good just need some editing and focus. In many ways Fallout is better than RN, but I love RN all the way through.

    RN
    FO
    GP: the first act is a little hokey, the second is superb, the third is terrible and sinks it
    MI: just watched this again after Fallout and it felt like watching a tv show. People must have nostalgia goggle to rank this high. It’s still entertaining though and the CIA computer break in scene is still great.
    MI3: I’m with others, this movie is overwrought (to point of creepy); and often mediocre though it does have its moments and did seem to make up for MI2

    MI2: saw it once in theaters. Never again.
    I'm inclined to agree, Rogue Nation remains the best of the franchise. I don't want to use the word "disappointed" with Fallout, as the film was excellent, but I feel like I just was hoping for a bit more based on the overwhelmingly positive reactions. There were some incredible action sequences in Fallout (I still can't believe the one-shot skydiving sequence was done for real, with Tom Cruise himself no less), but Rogue Nation just feels tighter and overall more thrilling from beginning to end.

    I actually re-watched Ghost Protocol recently and something just felt...off. I remember absolutely loving every second of it in the theater and still loved it the couple times I saw it on Blu-Ray, but after a few years (and McQuarrie's two films), it just didn't feel the same. The film is utterly ridiculous and cartoony, which I acknowledge is probably intended as part of the fun, but for whatever reason it just didn't work with me anymore. Maybe I was just in a bad mood. And apart from the Burj Khalifa set-piece, there's no standout sequence to point to, unlike both Rogue Nation and Fallout, which have numerous impressively put-together action segments. Ghost Protocol is fine, and still a fun action movie, but is far behind its two successors.

    My ranking would be the exact same.
    I agree that RN is probably still the best. That film just grows on me with every viewing. When I first saw it in 2015 I didn't think it was as good as GP, but over time I've grown to like it more. I still think very highly of GP though. It has some great moments in it: Hunt escaping from the Moscow hospital, Burj, the sandstorm chase and of course the fantastic finale in the parking garage. That final fight is just so reminiscent of the best of Bond from the past for me. I learned so much about the world from early Bond films and I learned about those sort of parking garages in this film, as well as the fact that Dubai has crazy sandstorms!

    My ranking would be similar but I put MI2 above MI3. The soapiness is very difficult for me to endure.
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Posts: 4,442
    Top Gun 2 is delayd and because Tom Cruise mabey whant to have more then year for production of Mi7, mabey the 7th movie will be released in December 2021. Mi4 whas released in December 2011, it be 10 years. 25,5 years of the first movie.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,034
    For me, it's looking a bit like...

    Rogue Nation 9/10
    Fallout 9/10
    M:I -3 7/10
    Ghost Protocol 7/10
    M:I 7/10


    M:I- 2 4/10
  • edited September 2018 Posts: 252
    Monster start in China for #MissionImpossibleFallout with $77.3M opening wknd over 3-day FRI-to-SUN period. Last #MissionImpossible did $86M over 6-day TUE-to-SUN debut week in SEP 2015. Intl cume now $442.7M shooting global up to $647M thru today. May shatter $700M next wknd.

    So i think 770M Total is possible, another 20 Mio. from Domestic, another 20 from OS withouth China, and 100 Mio. from China

    Chinese Audience like M:I

    Douban ratings for MI6 and some similar and recent movies.

    MI4 - 8.2
    MI6 - 8.1
    MI5 - 7.7
    Skyfall - 7.0
    JW2 - 6.8
    Spectre - 6.2
    The Meg - 6.0
    The Mummy - 4.7

    On other Chinese Rating-Sites Fallout is over 9.0!

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Bernie99 wrote: »
    So i think 770M Total is possible, another 20 Mio. from Domestic, another 20 from OS withouth China, and 100 Mio. from China
    That's a bit of a stretch perhaps, but one never knows. I'd be happy if it can get there.
    Bernie99 wrote: »
    Chinese Audience like M:I
    Quite so. The 3 day total gross for Fallout is very close to SP's entire China gross. The flip is true in the UK, where Bond predictably trounces MI.
    Bernie99 wrote: »
    JW2 - 6.8...
    The Meg - 6.0..
    Dear me! These are rated that high over there?! I guess we'll be getting sequels to both then, regrettably!
    Bernie99 wrote: »
    On other Chinese Rating-Sites Fallout is over 9.0!
    Good to see the love.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited September 2018 Posts: 8,087
    Even just a 2.1 multiplier in China with is pretty mediocre would still get it to 160 million in the territory.
  • The movie deserves that success, i saw it 3 times in IMAX, but i can't wait to see it in my home cinema, Blu Ray should come Dec.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Bernie99 wrote: »
    The movie deserves that success, i saw it 3 times in IMAX, but i can't wait to see it in my home cinema, Blu Ray should come Dec.
    It was truly amazing in IMAX, I agree. I was hoping we could get the home release prior to December, but now that I recall, that's when RN was released as well. I can't wait either.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,473
    I still stand by my estimate that it'll cross $750 million. Don't think it has much in the way of competition in China, and after this weekend it's merely $100 million from its mark. Time will tell.
Sign In or Register to comment.