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
Comments
The good:
I liked that it was a true team effort at the end. It felt right, particularly compared to the TV show.
The submarine sequence not only reminded me of TND, but 2001 when Dave tries to break into the ship.
The callbacks generally paid off (for me at least, even if I didn't remember them).
There are plenty of places to go for a sequel. This didn't feel like a finale to me.
The bad:
The egos of Cruise and McQuarrie were on full display here. Stunts galore with little purpose to the story. McQuarrie needs NOT to direct the next MI. It's time for someone else in the director's chair.
Way too long. Most of the scenes could have a minute or two cut from them and it wouldn't be much different.
Overall, most of the praises and criticisms I have have already been said. Just have a better plan next time (and hopefully the world won't go through a MI type of event again). And have a new director!
Ideally it would be a TV series revival on streaming, and unlike the original 60s series the new show would actually have the cast going out on location to different countries throughout the world.
It would be nice for Tom Cruise to maybe appear as passing the baton to the new point man of the team. Have his voice be the one giving out the next mission. But I doubt he’d do that. I think he’s one of the few movie stars that have not crossed over onto streaming like so many other big names.
Tom Cruise as the voice of the mission operator is a cool suggestion. That would be a great way to transition from the film franchise to a new tv version. He wouldn't be Ethan Hunt. He'd be anonymous boss guy.
I think it's worth Paramount considering a tv spin off show. But I guess it depends how well MI 8 does at the box office and other factors. If MI 8 underperforms then Paramount may be reluctant to consider a tv version. But you never know.
https://nationalboardofreview.org/2025/05/qa-with-christopher-mcquarrie/
Also, McQuarrie on “poisonous” fan service?
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/mission-impossible-8-chris-mcquarrie-fan-service-1236221346/
Erm, did he not watch his own movie? This one is full of it.
The submarine retrieval was well done and I thought creative in it's execution. I call BS on swimming up with no wet suit and no breathing apparatus for 500 feet. But this is a popcorn movie so I can forgive a jump of logic.
The airplane sequence was interesting and well executed. I wonder how long that took to shoot. It did make me appreciate what the Bond team did way back in 1979 for MR. I thought there were creative bits with the stunts.
If I had to site some bad, I would say that not having a human enemy was problematic. Gabriel was at this point a pissed off former employee so while he did dastardly things I wouldn't call him the enemy. The sequence where Hunt got into the case and let the Entity into his mind was good stuff. But we never really hate the Entity because he doesn't seem real.
Even though I don't like the Entity being the main baddie, I applaud them for trying something different.
I didn't get a sense of Cruise being done with the series. I liked the tease of a new team and one that possibly does more of the heavy lifting next time. Pom is an actor that I really like, she would be someone I could see more of. I really like Haley Atwell and thought she fit in better here.
I would give this 8 out of 10.
There are standout scenes in DR that don’t work for me - the death of my favourite character from the franchise, which I find myself watching having no emotional skin in the game and the final set piece, which to me just looks like a bunch of CGI objects falling, while at no point do I feel the characters are in any danger. I’m not sure if that is personal fatigue with the franchise formula on my part or McQ’s filmmaking, or both.
I could not imagine myself watching DR again at any point - it’s the least rewatchable of the franchise. 2 for me, is ‘so bad it’s good’ and 3 is along similar lines - I will always want to watch them again.
I was expecting DR part 2 from TFR and thankfully I did not get it. Cruise and McQ clearly did their best to course correct with this based on DR’s reception. Considering that some of this had been filmed prior to DR’s release plus we have McQ in the creative driving seat, I honestly could not imagine how this could have turned out any better.
They clearly wanted to tell a story here (in some form), rather than just stitching action scenes together. TFR, for me, felt quite dark in tone and overall, almost unrecognisable as being an MI movie in parts.
After, DR, I’ll take that.
I don’t find it too long, the story worked (albeit with some gratuitous action scenes) and the issues that I had with DR were addressed as much as I could have hoped for. Gabriel was a bit camper in this, which worked for me (as opposed to being wallpaper in DR). Atwell, who I thought was horribly miscast in DR found a lighter touch here. I don’t like the Grace character and feel she has been bolted on at the end of the story but I had zero issues with her in TFR, other than I find Atwell a bit stiff and lacking charisma (in the context of current and past IMF team members).
I was positively surprised with TFR and appreciate that they tried to go in a different direction. It’s not going to be to everybody’s taste, I would suspect.
The cinema I saw it in was about 40% full. The line going in was silent, the audience watched in silence and left in silence. I’m not sure whether DR has killed the buzz for MI or whether there is just franchise fatigue but I cannot see this doing the numbers that DR did globally. The social media word of mouth could seriously impact this.
For me, TFR (after one viewing) is classic MI and sits up there at least as top 4 overall. I will be going back to see it a second time on the big screen. I suspect many will avoid going to see this in cinemas and it will gain a cult following in the years ahead.
I don’t understand the mentality of shitting on a movie that you haven’t seen. Go see it and then comment, otherwise you are adding nothing meaningful to the discourse. You might actually like it, like I did. I would encourage anyone with an interest in MI to see this on the big screen.
I thought given they have to bring some folks up to speed as it continues they did a good job. I think if they cut down on the review or the reminders I think you might end up with a confused audience. I guess they could have assumed people watched the previous one but I think that is dangerous to do.
He was critical of the first half but loved the second half.
Some other reviews I've seen have mentioned the eulogusing of Hunt. A quasi religious figure saving the world.
The bar is high because of the previous films but I certainly don't see it the ways others have stated here.
The movie is the highest opening weekend in the series!
IMDB review
This was a catastrophic mistake because you're underselling your product. A near three hours movie needs more than two action scenes. Christopher McQuarrie and his cowriter Erik Jendresen have given the fanbase less not more! That's incompetent film making because by delaying the action until later you risk the audience getting bored or restless. They're far less likely to invest in the story, in the high stakes, if it plods along with little or no action. Mission Impossible is a spy action franchise so it's imperative you provide sufficient action.
Amazon take heed. Bond 26 needs more than two action scenes and not at the end of the film. Have them spaced out. And Bond 26 doesn't need to be close to three hours. 120 to 130 minutes is enough.
Man, have I got the thread for you! :)>- :-*
It’s done $195m world wide in its first three days, so would need a little over a x5 multiplier to get there.
That’s a big ask, especially in an age where films arent given space to have a full cinema run, and are dumped on VoD platforms within weeks.
DR opened to $235m world wide in its opening weekend, though I am not sure if the territories are the same so makes a direct comparison more tricky. That went on to do $571m.
Looking at the next month of releases, there is nothing really comparable until Ballerina and F1 open (in terms of audience demographics), so I would hope it holds better than DR.
Yeah. Thought so. Thanks for the insight.
There are more than two action sequences, plenty of fisticuffs and some smaller action bits. I really think people are going in expecting way too much. MI was always about tension and the thrills created by the challenge of the mission. To my mind this film delivers on that.
It's a flop but I guess it doesn't matter at this point.
The problem is it’s astronomical $400m budget, and that is before P&A.
The movie will most likely make a profit when all is said and done, same as Dead Reckoning did in the end.
Fully agree - I just booked tickets to see again on Thursday. I recommend watching the movie and not forming views based on 2nd hand opinions.
It’s like if the gun barrel music had used a harp for the guitar part.