Mission: Impossible - VII/VIII (2022/23)

1193194196198199221

Comments

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited July 2020 Posts: 7,125
    Yes I loved it at the time for being a spy movie that really revelled in everything that should mean, right down to a woman in a beret and mac walking along a river in an Eastern european city at night following someone (how wonderful was Kristen Scott Thomas in it, incidentally? She kind of feels like Ethan's forgotten lover). For some reason I feel GoldenEye doesn't feel quite as old, somehow. M:I feels like it's from another time even despite all of the impressive effects work etc. Maybe it's the De Palma thing.

    I do think it's quite interesting how that first mission in Prague (filmed in the same location as Bond's hotel in Casino Royale incidentally: he even walks down those very recognisable staircases) actually played with the whole setup of M:I more than we've possibly even seen since. It seems like a standard IMF heist mission, but the whole mission is actually a mission-within-a-mission: they think they're the heroes of this con but they're actually being strung along themselves and are the victims of another con being played out by an entirely different IMF team! It's a rather neat play on the format which you'd think would happen in a sequel or something after the whole concept of what the IMF do has been established: it's rather clever that they're able to do both at the same time.
  • Agent_OneAgent_One Ireland
    edited July 2020 Posts: 280
    '96 is a pretty good film. My only real issue is the character assassination of Jim Phelps.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 7,125
    I've never really cared about that. It's the same as the Mandarin in Iron Man Three: I just can't understand that sort of thing putting folks off a really good film when it works within the film. If it's an issue just say Phelps is a codename: Voight is too young to be the same Phelps anyway.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 6,353
    I understand someone not liking that aspect, but at the same time it never really bothered me personally as I didn't have any sort of emotional connection with the characters in the original show.

    For comparison, I didn't like the Mandarin twist when Iron Man Three first came out, but a recent rewatch changed my mind on that.
  • Agent_OneAgent_One Ireland
    edited July 2020 Posts: 280
    mtm wrote: »
    I've never really cared about that. It's the same as the Mandarin in Iron Man Three: I just can't understand that sort of thing putting folks off a really good film when it works within the film. If it's an issue just say Phelps is a codename: Voight is too young to be the same Phelps anyway.
    I don't get your argument here. When a core part of the plot of both films are controversial reveals, of course it's going to put people off. They're not minor details.
  • edited July 2020 Posts: 518
    An analogy would be a reveal in the first Star Trek movie where it’s shown that McCoy or Scottie or someone was a villain and so Kirk heroically kills them. Might not mean much to people who had not seen the tv series, but it would certainly upset the tv show’s fans.

    Personally I enjoyed MI 96 despite its obvious de Palma style (which I hated in The Untouchables).

    2 and 3 were terrible. Things have picked up a bit more recently. My issues with the films now are (1) I do not want to see Simon Pegg in another film ever again, I’ve seen enough of him for one lifetime thank you very much, and (2) Tom C’s face gets more weirdly and supernaturally frozen in time with every passing year. He’s so well-preserved now that I actually find it off-putting, because a part of my brain is thinking “he shouldn’t look like that”
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited July 2020 Posts: 7,125
    Agent_One wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I've never really cared about that. It's the same as the Mandarin in Iron Man Three: I just can't understand that sort of thing putting folks off a really good film when it works within the film. If it's an issue just say Phelps is a codename: Voight is too young to be the same Phelps anyway.
    I don't get your argument here. When a core part of the plot of both films are controversial reveals, of course it's going to put people off. They're not minor details.

    They're only controversial because of something outside of the film. Within the films themselves they're great reveals, and I think a film just has to make sense in relation to itself (possibly to its sequels, but even then I think the line is blurred).

    I think Blofeld turning out to be Bond's adoptive brother is bad because it's a naff plot twist that actually doesn't add any drama and it makes Bond's world smaller. I don't think it's bad because it changes something from the Fleming books, because I don't care about the Fleming books when I'm watching a Bond film: they're different things.

    I think if you had to push me I'd say Phelps is a codename anyway. He's so different (and younger) in the movie that I'd say it's a different person.
  • Posts: 4,302
    The writers clearly made an educated decision that a very small minority of punters had any sort of connection with the original Phelps character. That decision proved to be correct in additional to the vast majority of calls re MI-1. It set the tone wonderfully for the whole series to come. We have much to thank them for.
  • Posts: 2,361
    patb wrote: »
    The writers clearly made an educated decision that a very small minority of punters had any sort of connection with the original Phelps character. That decision proved to be correct in additional to the vast majority of calls re MI-1. It set the tone wonderfully for the whole series to come. We have much to thank them for.

    I'm a huge fan of the original TV series and never really had a problem with Phelps in M:I, probably because the TV series and the film series never really feel that connected - Phelps in the film just feels like a totally different character - perhaps they should have renamed him? However I'm sure they named him Phelps purely just to wrongfoot the audience - while since I've seen it, but I believe the reveal happens when Hunt works it out that Phelps is a bad 'un.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited July 2020 Posts: 7,125
    Yeah that's a brilliant sequence where Ethan realises Jim is the baddie (all while Jim is telling him how Kitteridge did it): another really stylish bit (with lovely music) that none of them since have quite matched for filmmaking, great though they are.
  • Agent_OneAgent_One Ireland
    Posts: 280
    The problem is that they called him Phelps. Making him an original character would only have been an improvement.
  • Posts: 8,580
    the issue is if Kittredge was the main villain of the first film the film would of worked 10X better plus am I the only one who is curious how the original or hell even the 80's team would of faired going rogue?
  • Agent_OneAgent_One Ireland
    edited July 2020 Posts: 280
    Risico007 wrote: »
    the issue is if Kittredge was the main villain of the first film the film would of worked 10X better plus am I the only one who is curious how the original or hell even the 80's team would of faired going rogue?
    IMO the twist of who's the villain is one of the bets parts of the film. My problem is who they chose to do it with.

    Other team members going rogue is an interesting hypothetical, yeah.
  • Posts: 2,361
    Risico007 wrote: »
    the issue is if Kittredge was the main villain of the first film the film would of worked 10X better plus am I the only one who is curious how the original or hell even the 80's team would of faired going rogue?

    Nah, it works better with Hunt being setup as the rogue agent with Kitteridge convinced it's him.
  • Posts: 4,302
    Has it ever been suggested that "Jim Phelps" is code for the head of the team rather than his personal name (this would explain the time gap and also mean that the guy played by Peter Graves did NOT betray the team).
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited July 2020 Posts: 7,125
    Risico007 wrote: »
    the issue is if Kittredge was the main villain of the first film the film would of worked 10X better plus am I the only one who is curious how the original or hell even the 80's team would of faired going rogue?

    But Kitteridge is the obvious apparent candidate: there isn't really a twist there if it's him. Jon Voight works as the baddie. The only shame is they kept having IMF agents, and then latterly other ostensibly friendly secret agents, turn bad as the main villains! Finding baddies is hard, but they need to spread their net a bit wider. Is Ghost Protocol the only one where another spy isn't the lead protagonist? Even Hoffman in MI3 isn't actually the main baddie who initiates the plot.

    The old 60s team going rogue would have been good: Bain and Landau were great. Part of what used to put me off the TV show was their smugness at the plans never really suffering any hiccups: I found the show quite boring at times because there was no jeopardy (although I've read that they did change this policy a bit through the run of the show). Part of the fun of a heist movie is that you see the plan, and when they try to carry it out it goes wrong and they have to get it back on track. The TV show episodes I saw didn't do that enough and so -shoot me- I think the movie series is more successful at that sort of thing.
    patb wrote: »
    Has it ever been suggested that "Jim Phelps" is code for the head of the team rather than his personal name (this would explain the time gap and also mean that the guy played by Peter Graves did NOT betray the team).

    I think if it's useful to the plot then it's sort of thing McQuarrie might do (as he's very much into the history of the series and show: he even tried to put Dan Briggs in one and obviously he's bringing back Kitteridge) but I don't think he'd put it in unless it's got a reason to be there.
  • Posts: 4,302
    Given the maturity of the series and the "back to back" shoot, I really want a "thanos" this time. A really well written, deeper character who does inflict genuine harm to the team. If I was to by hyper-critical of the series, it would be the bad guys, there is room for improvement IMHO.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 7,125
    patb wrote: »
    Given the maturity of the series and the "back to back" shoot, I really want a "thanos" this time. A really well written, deeper character who does inflict genuine harm to the team. If I was to by hyper-critical of the series, it would be the bad guys, there is room for improvement IMHO.

    Yeah, lovely, that would be good. The bad guys are definitely an issue. Lane is a great, creepy baddie, but his motivation is just exactly the same as the baddie from Ghost Protocol. But it's hard: Bond has the same problem- finding a baddie whose plan is relatable to the audience and has an immediate effect.
    The first M:I film is more about Phelps' betrayal of Ethan and Ethan clearing his name than it is the recovery of the NOC list, because we never see any of those agents on the list and although we don't want them to die we don't care about them in the same way we care whether Ethan survives on the outside of that train or not. Likewise I think the end of Fallout is more effective than, say Thunderball, because all of Ethan's friends plus his wife are all right next to the nukes and will die if they go off- whereas in Thunderball we never even see Miami which is where the nuke is. And in movies you care more about the one character you're looking at than the ten million you can't see. So that's why I reject Bond fans saying that recent Bond movies are too personal, because they've got to be personal. And yeah, that's why I think it's hard making baddies and evil plans for these movies. I have no idea what you do next: good luck McQ! :D
  • Posts: 1,546
    An analogy would be a reveal in the first Star Trek movie where it’s shown that McCoy or Scottie or someone was a villain and so Kirk heroically kills them. Might not mean much to people who had not seen the tv series, but it would certainly upset the tv show’s fans.

    Personally I enjoyed MI 96 despite its obvious de Palma style (which I hated in The Untouchables).

    2 and 3 were terrible. Things have picked up a bit more recently. My issues with the films now are (1) I do not want to see Simon Pegg in another film ever again, I’ve seen enough of him for one lifetime thank you very much, and (2) Tom C’s face gets more weirdly and supernaturally frozen in time with every passing year. He’s so well-preserved now that I actually find it off-putting, because a part of my brain is thinking “he shouldn’t look like that”

    The difference with the Star Trek comparison is the original Enterprise crew was really beloved. They inspired a huge cottage industry in large part because the characters themselves were so well liked along with the technology and stories, so there was no way they'd do that. There was a lot of uproar about how Kirk died in Generations, and they killed off Spock for a while.

    Very little was known of the television MI crew, although they did some stories in later seasons about their personal lives. It's like they did their missions and went back into a hibernation chamber until needed again. Phelps was maybe the most stoic character of all, and his death in the '96 film paved the way for Cruise to become the main man rather than the point man. It pissed off the original cast and some fans, but the box office spoke for itself.

    Agree 110 percent on Simon Pegg. The rumors of the Luther character being knocked off in the next films is much worse considering they started together; get rid of Pegg if you have to sacrifice somebody.

    I thought Cruise looked more his age in Fallout, at least facially. The guy is in freakishly good physical shape, as we all could be if we were in his position and especially if you want to HALO jump and hang off of helicopters by a rope.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 7,125
    I don't mind Pegg. I can see how he might irritate folks but I think it's good to have a team member who has a bit of personality, rather than Jonathan Rhys Meyers or whatever and he's at least not playing it quite as broadly as his Scotty.

    I think it's quite funny in a way that he's like the modern Leonard Nimoy: in both Star Trek and Mission: Impossible :)
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 34,269
    I'm also a fan of Pegg, he doesn't get on my nerves in the films and balances the line between humor and seriousness pretty well.

    Rhys Meyers was definitely underutilized and almost unnecessary in Mission: Impossible 3 but damn if I don't love the sequence outside the Vatican City walls, the faux Italian argument between he and Ethan.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited July 2020 Posts: 6,353
    Rhys Meyers is a very talented guy and I quite liked the pairing of him and Maggie Q; it's such a shame he went off the deep end and burned so many bridges.

    Pegg was at his best in Ghost Protocol. I found him pretty annoying in Fallout.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 34,269
    Rhys Meyers is a very talented guy and I quite liked the pairing of him and Maggie Q; it's such a shame he went off the deep end and burned so many bridges.

    Pegg was at his best in Ghost Protocol. I found him pretty annoying in Fallout.

    What'd he do exactly? Haven't read up on him too much but I've realized in the last many years that Hollywood isn't necessarily kicking down his door anymore, either.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 6,353
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Rhys Meyers is a very talented guy and I quite liked the pairing of him and Maggie Q; it's such a shame he went off the deep end and burned so many bridges.

    Pegg was at his best in Ghost Protocol. I found him pretty annoying in Fallout.

    What'd he do exactly? Haven't read up on him too much but I've realized in the last many years that Hollywood isn't necessarily kicking down his door anymore, either.

    Alcoholism took a firm hold on him, unfortunately. He's gotten a hold on in it now as far as I know, thankfully.
  • Posts: 2,361
    patb wrote: »
    Has it ever been suggested that "Jim Phelps" is code for the head of the team rather than his personal name (this would explain the time gap and also mean that the guy played by Peter Graves did NOT betray the team).

    He's called Jim Phelps, don't bring codenme theory into M:I!
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 7,125
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Rhys Meyers is a very talented guy and I quite liked the pairing of him and Maggie Q; it's such a shame he went off the deep end and burned so many bridges.

    Pegg was at his best in Ghost Protocol. I found him pretty annoying in Fallout.

    What'd he do exactly? Haven't read up on him too much but I've realized in the last many years that Hollywood isn't necessarily kicking down his door anymore, either.

    Alcoholism took a firm hold on him, unfortunately. He's gotten a hold on in it now as far as I know, thankfully.

    Oh that's a shame, I didn't know that.
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I'm also a fan of Pegg, he doesn't get on my nerves in the films and balances the line between humor and seriousness pretty well.

    Rhys Meyers was definitely underutilized and almost unnecessary in Mission: Impossible 3 but damn if I don't love the sequence outside the Vatican City walls, the faux Italian argument between he and Ethan.

    Yes that was a good bit. I want to like the rest of the Vatican sequence but I don't find their plan all that interesting after that point, and although Hoffman's obviously great I find the Davian plot kind of dull.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing South Florida
    Posts: 3,751
    mtm wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Rhys Meyers is a very talented guy and I quite liked the pairing of him and Maggie Q; it's such a shame he went off the deep end and burned so many bridges.

    Pegg was at his best in Ghost Protocol. I found him pretty annoying in Fallout.

    What'd he do exactly? Haven't read up on him too much but I've realized in the last many years that Hollywood isn't necessarily kicking down his door anymore, either.

    Alcoholism took a firm hold on him, unfortunately. He's gotten a hold on in it now as far as I know, thankfully.

    Oh that's a shame, I didn't know that.
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I'm also a fan of Pegg, he doesn't get on my nerves in the films and balances the line between humor and seriousness pretty well.

    Rhys Meyers was definitely underutilized and almost unnecessary in Mission: Impossible 3 but damn if I don't love the sequence outside the Vatican City walls, the faux Italian argument between he and Ethan.

    Yes that was a good bit. I want to like the rest of the Vatican sequence but I don't find their plan all that interesting after that point, and although Hoffman's obviously great I find the Davian plot kind of dull.

    The Vatican scene is the best part of MI 3 IMO. They should have ditched the car chase in Shanghai and instead we see Hunt break into the facility. Luther said it makes Langley look like a cakewalk but we never see it. Maybe because they didn't want to replicate the pharmaceutical break-in scene from the previous film.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited July 2020 Posts: 7,125
    mtm wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Rhys Meyers is a very talented guy and I quite liked the pairing of him and Maggie Q; it's such a shame he went off the deep end and burned so many bridges.

    Pegg was at his best in Ghost Protocol. I found him pretty annoying in Fallout.

    What'd he do exactly? Haven't read up on him too much but I've realized in the last many years that Hollywood isn't necessarily kicking down his door anymore, either.

    Alcoholism took a firm hold on him, unfortunately. He's gotten a hold on in it now as far as I know, thankfully.

    Oh that's a shame, I didn't know that.
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I'm also a fan of Pegg, he doesn't get on my nerves in the films and balances the line between humor and seriousness pretty well.

    Rhys Meyers was definitely underutilized and almost unnecessary in Mission: Impossible 3 but damn if I don't love the sequence outside the Vatican City walls, the faux Italian argument between he and Ethan.

    Yes that was a good bit. I want to like the rest of the Vatican sequence but I don't find their plan all that interesting after that point, and although Hoffman's obviously great I find the Davian plot kind of dull.

    The Vatican scene is the best part of MI 3 IMO. They should have ditched the car chase in Shanghai and instead we see Hunt break into the facility. Luther said it makes Langley look like a cakewalk but we never see it. Maybe because they didn't want to replicate the pharmaceutical break-in scene from the previous film.

    Yeah it tries to be clever-clever and cute by doing Ethan's break-in offscreen, but I just find it grating. A bit like the Rabbit's Foot being unexplained: you can tell it's supposed to be some clever inversion of the format but just draws attention itself as such and as a result I find it's just irritating. It feels like a film student trying to break convention, which is weird as Abrams was very experienced by then even if it was the film movie he directed.
    I think MI3 is my least favourite of the films: it doesn't even have a distinct flavour like Woo brought to his and just doesn't offer anything really very original or memorable or clever: and M:I should always have something clever in it. The action in it is... fine but pretty average.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 6,353
    I think most of the third film works pretty well, personally. It was my favourite of the bunch for a spell, in fact; nowadays, it depends on the day which I like the most. I also like the break-in happening off screen though, so there you go. It also did a lot of heavy lifting in terms of developing Hunt as a character that the last three films have benefited greatly from. Before that, he was a blank canvas. He's still not the most complex of guys, but at least after the third film we had a firmer idea of who he is.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 34,269
    mtm wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Rhys Meyers is a very talented guy and I quite liked the pairing of him and Maggie Q; it's such a shame he went off the deep end and burned so many bridges.

    Pegg was at his best in Ghost Protocol. I found him pretty annoying in Fallout.

    What'd he do exactly? Haven't read up on him too much but I've realized in the last many years that Hollywood isn't necessarily kicking down his door anymore, either.

    Alcoholism took a firm hold on him, unfortunately. He's gotten a hold on in it now as far as I know, thankfully.

    Oh that's a shame, I didn't know that.
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I'm also a fan of Pegg, he doesn't get on my nerves in the films and balances the line between humor and seriousness pretty well.

    Rhys Meyers was definitely underutilized and almost unnecessary in Mission: Impossible 3 but damn if I don't love the sequence outside the Vatican City walls, the faux Italian argument between he and Ethan.

    Yes that was a good bit. I want to like the rest of the Vatican sequence but I don't find their plan all that interesting after that point, and although Hoffman's obviously great I find the Davian plot kind of dull.

    The Vatican scene is the best part of MI 3 IMO. They should have ditched the car chase in Shanghai and instead we see Hunt break into the facility. Luther said it makes Langley look like a cakewalk but we never see it. Maybe because they didn't want to replicate the pharmaceutical break-in scene from the previous film.

    That was always my assumption - a rooftop assault at night, breaking through glass windows for what was certainly a biohazard item or weapon of some kind. Too similar to the big sequence in the previous film but damn, every time I see it I wish we could've saw what went down inside instead of that rather mediocre car chase that comes after (although Ethan running through the streets to ensure the device isn't run over is a nice touch).
Sign In or Register to comment.