Mission: Impossible - films and tv series

1314315316318320

Comments

  • Posts: 404
    Dead Reckoning ending with the team knowing that they had to get to the Sevastapol, so really that's where Final Reckoning should have started. Instead it takes nearly an hour of screen time to get to that point. They really needed a good script editor but I don't suppose anyone was going to question McQ

  • Posts: 4,751
    plus
    they reference that Hunt has had the key for two months!! considering the state of Geo-politics, what has he been waiting for?
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,715
    cooperman2 wrote: »
    Dead Reckoning ending with the team knowing that they had to get to the Sevastapol, so really that's where Final Reckoning should have started. Instead it takes nearly an hour of screen time to get to that point. They really needed a good script editor but I don't suppose anyone was going to question McQ

    They didn't know where it was. Hence why they couldn't start with that right away. Also needed to develop what was at stake prior to getting it all going.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    Posts: 1,930
    Saw it again in 4dx, which was a let down as a cinema experience, but a fun crowd. This movie plays well to the crowd imo, a lot of punchlines and cheers for characters we previously hardly met before. That's great world building. I think the only aspect of FR I hate is the clear retcon of the rabbits foot. I don't mind the Phelps thing, I think it adds a nice little arc to two characters who otherwise were cartoons chasing each other in DR. I don't think I will ever put on DR over FR, unless someone else requests it.
  • Posts: 4,751
    It's interesting to consider, with all the hype and coverage re the recent huge stunts, do they match this in terms of pure tension and viewer involvement?. IMHO, the stakes are far lower but it's just better film making....
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 14,474
    Saw it with family, their suggestion after I mentioned it earlier in the week. Split from work early.

    Had the incredible experience of lightning striking twice. Believe I reported my story earlier on going to Dead Reckoning with the wife. Enjoying it up to the last 20 minutes with the train action--then there was a fire alarm that forced an evacuation of the theater and center. We didn't wait around and moved straight on to dinner at a nice restaurant. So I liked the movie but still haven't gotten around to seeing the ending.

    Final Reckoning. Same theater. 20 minutes in this time, fire alarm, evacuation. Unbelievable. We stuck around, got back in, and enjoyed the rest of the film. (And I likely won't take that chance again in that venue.)


    I thought it was great, didn't mind the slow talky portions as kind of a price to pay for the action. Or repeated dialog to drive points home. What I enjoyed most were the cast and characters not least the return of Kittridge (Ritter!), Donloe. And from more recent films. Also relished the General Sidney character for how he was resolved. So I bought what they were selling and had a fine time with it. MI theme could have kicked in more is my only other thought.

    Won't watch it again any time soon, but when I do I'll be ticking off the Bond comparisons for story content. Cyanide. Tiny "radio". Action in a submarine. Moving around outside aircraft in flight. Other moments.

    Credit to Mr. Cruise for doing it his way, I'm grateful he got this film made and it's available now for all time.

  • edited May 31 Posts: 543
    Wow. Maybe the cinema needs to have a health and safety check! Install a new fire alarm system.

    Final Reckoning is currently on track to make more money than Dead Reckoning, however it will be a miracle if it gets close to one billion. Be interesting to see if it comes close to NTTD box office. 774 million. I consider the James Bond franchise the best comparison. Same genre and appealing to the same demographic.
    patb May 30 Posts: 4,743Flag
    It's interesting to consider, with all the hype and coverage re the recent huge stunts, do they match this in terms of pure tension and viewer involvement?. IMHO, the stakes are far lower but it's just better film making....

    Trivia:
    Tom Cruise put a pound coin in each shoe to maintain balance. 😊
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,858
    patb wrote: »
    It's interesting to consider, with all the hype and coverage re the recent huge stunts, do they match this in terms of pure tension and viewer involvement?. IMHO, the stakes are far lower but it's just better film making....

    I'm old enough to remember watching that in the cinema. My first time ever watching a film with others and...silence. Except for the occasional "wow" or "Oh my God." The decision to not have a soundtrack actually adds tension to this scene.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 14,474
    bondywondy wrote: »
    Wow. Maybe the cinema needs to have a health and safety check! Install a new fire alarm system.
    I should have clarified @bondywondy it was more of a center/complex issue and not the theater chain itself. So an alarm triggers evacuation of many businesses.

    Related to pandemics effects I'm very forgiving of theaters and any incidental shortfalls, want them to succeed and endure. In these cases, I didn't take it as their fault really.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited May 31 Posts: 785
    thedove wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    It's interesting to consider, with all the hype and coverage re the recent huge stunts, do they match this in terms of pure tension and viewer involvement?. IMHO, the stakes are far lower but it's just better film making....

    I'm old enough to remember watching that in the cinema. My first time ever watching a film with others and...silence. Except for the occasional "wow" or "Oh my God." The decision to not have a soundtrack actually adds tension to this scene.

    Same, I still remember the audience's collective gasp when Krieger drops the knife.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Dakato Johnson
    edited May 31 Posts: 7,155
    SPOILERS AHEAD

    This latest movie was so compelling. What got to me especially was how desperate the situation was. AI manipulating information, making everyone paranoid and putting the world on the brink of war, along with radicalized people hoping for the end of civilization... it touches on some contemporary subjects and uses them in a plausible enough way. Then there are also the multiple times in the film when the success of Hunt and the others, and by extension the fate of the entire world, depend on multiple things and people coming together at just the right time (it's really putting the Impossible in Mission: Impossible). Nail-biting stuff, along with scenes like the submarine dive and the ones involving the US government. This movie reminded me of others like Fail-Safe and WarGames. I particularly liked the character of General Sidney and William Donloe's return. The reveal about Briggs felt superfluous and the one about the Rabbit's Foot didn't. I'd place this film above Dead Reckoning, and Dead Reckoning above Fallout.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,296
    Enjoyed the latest one a good bit more than Dead Reckoning. Far too long and the villain is still rather rubbish but the higher highs made up for some of the lower lows. Biplane sequence is exceptional. Still doesn't come close to the superior quality mark of Rogue Nation and Fallout, though.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,670
    mattjoes wrote: »
    SPOILERS AHEAD

    This latest movie was so compelling. What got to me especially was how desperate the situation was. AI manipulating information, making everyone paranoid and putting the world on the brink of war, along with radicalized people hoping for the end of civilization... it touches on some contemporary subjects and uses them in a plausible enough way. Then there are also the multiple times in the film when the success of Hunt and the others, and by extension the fate of the entire world, depend on multiple things and people coming together at just the right time (it's really putting the Impossible in Mission: Impossible). Nail-biting stuff, along with scenes like the submarine dive and the ones involving the US government. This movie reminded me of others like Fail-Safe and WarGames. I particularly liked the character of General Sidney and William Donloe's return. The reveal about Briggs felt superfluous and the one about the Rabbit's Foot didn't. I'd place this film above Dead Reckoning, and Dead Reckoning above Fallout.

    I think Skyfall was basically about AI before we were talking about it so much. Note: in MI:FR they reference AI as having an effect in 2012.
  • WhyBondWhyBond USA
    Posts: 81
    Just saw it. Very enjoyable movie. Not gonna rank the MI movies but I enjoy them as a collective whole. The underwater scenes remind me of Thunderball and I enjoyed the slow moving parts compared to the faster pace of the last few ones. The final plane battle had me on the edge of my seat. I hope they keep making big budget spy movies for the cinema for years to come.

    I am waiting for Mr. Bond to get the ball moving again.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    Posts: 785
    $103 million after a week in theaters with a $400 million budget is a catastrophe. Hollywood needs to get their budgets, runtimes, and egoes under control already.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,715
    slide_99 wrote: »
    $103 million after a week in theaters with a $400 million budget is a catastrophe. Hollywood needs to get their budgets, runtimes, and egoes under control already.

    Yeah. This ain't it chief
  • Posts: 889
    MI 8 is way too long and too sci fi for an action film. Cruise is Cruise. Does his thing and does it very well but these films are getting a bit predictable now
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    edited June 1 Posts: 5,858
    slide_99 wrote: »
    $103 million after a week in theaters with a $400 million budget is a catastrophe. Hollywood needs to get their budgets, runtimes, and egoes under control already.

    Why? I mean of all the things mentioned which one matters to the movie going public?

    I don't care if the studio loses money, I care about being entertained. This movie entertained me, there was no deeper meaning, it was escapist fun.

    If the studio wants to put out a movie with a huge budget that is their issue not mine. If they want the films to be 3 hours that is their call not mine. If they can't or won't control the egos who make the film, again it doesn't really involve me. Except if the ego in question wishes to preach a message at me then I might have to not see the film.

    It is like those who complain at the wages of professional athletes. If a baseball team wants to be $500 million to a ball player, I don't get my knickers in a knot.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Dakato Johnson
    Posts: 7,155
    thedove wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    $103 million after a week in theaters with a $400 million budget is a catastrophe. Hollywood needs to get their budgets, runtimes, and egoes under control already.

    Why? I mean of all the things mentioned which one matters to the movie going public?

    I don't care if the studio loses money, I care about being entertained. This movie entertained me, there was no deeper meaning, it was escapist fun.

    If the studio wants to put out a movie with a huge budget that is there issue not mine. If they want the films to be 3 hours that is there call not mine. If they can't or won't control the egos who make the film, again it doesn't really involve me. Except is the ego in question wishes to preach a message at me then I might have to not see the film.

    It is like those who complain at the wages of professional athletes. If a baseball team wants to be $500 million to a ball player, I don't get my knickers in a knot.

    I agree. Does @slide_99 work for the film industry? If so, such a comment is understandable. Otherwise, I feel inflated budgets are none of our business, unless of course one starts thinking that such matters are going to affect the kinds of movies we want to see get made, but even then, I don't really understand the inclination to think about how much movies cost. Surely there are other things in life to think about?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited June 1 Posts: 18,180
    Finally saw it (was waiting to catch it in IMAX, fully sold out screening at the BFI this afternoon) and I really enjoyed it, I think more than the last one actually. I'd heard that the opening is a bit too slow and talky, and to be honest with those expectations it turned out better than I expected- there's still some fights and laughs and bits of tension even before we get to the submarine.
    It looked great, some good performances, some great action.. yeah I'm happy with that. It absolutely could have been shorter, and it's not Fallout good, but still good.
    chrisisall wrote: »
    I'm one of the few who love SPECTRE despite some dodgy retcons & tie-ins to prior films, but this last M:I film did both incredibly well IMO.

    Yeah I thought the callbacks worked surprisingly well. A couple of bits felt slightly recycled perhaps (the biplane climax is basically the same as Fallout, and the epilogue feels like the one from Ghost Protocol again) but the actual tying back with the history of the series added a fun flavour I thought. Donloe especially.
    Enjoyed the latest one a good bit more than Dead Reckoning. Far too long and the villain is still rather rubbish but the higher highs made up for some of the lower lows. Biplane sequence is exceptional. Still doesn't come close to the superior quality mark of Rogue Nation and Fallout, though.

    Yeah, agree with all this, although I think Gabriel is a decent villain.
    Funny how the stuff about him killing Ethan's girlfriend before the IMF was moved on from; felt like that was going somewhere further in the previous film to me as we didn't really find out much about it, but seemed like it had nowhere to fit in this one.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    Posts: 785
    I don't work in the industry. I just don't understand how it can lose so much money on these big projects and still stay in business.

  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited June 1 Posts: 8,296
    mtm wrote: »
    Enjoyed the latest one a good bit more than Dead Reckoning. Far too long and the villain is still rather rubbish but the higher highs made up for some of the lower lows. Biplane sequence is exceptional. Still doesn't come close to the superior quality mark of Rogue Nation and Fallout, though.

    Yeah, agree with all this, although I think Gabriel is a decent villain.
    Funny how the stuff about him killing Ethan's girlfriend before the IMF was moved on from; felt like that was going somewhere further in the previous film to me as we didn't really find out much about it, but seemed like it had nowhere to fit in this one.

    I thought of this, too. I guess they figured what was there was enough. The only reference to it aside from the flashback was Briggs' somewhat snide remark about Hunt being framed.

    In retrospect, the idea that the IMF recruits were criminals offered a "choice" didn't sit right with me when it was suggested in the prior film, so I can't say I missed the elaboration on it too much. It doesn't really vibe with how the agency presented itself in the prior entries, but I guess McQuarrie was literally throwing everything at these last two that it was inevitable for some of it not to stick.

    If I remember the trailer correctly, there was a flashback/dream sequence of Ethan's deceased girlfriend locking lips with him under the ice. In the film, we just see Grace. Perhaps that subplot was originally more present and they trimmed it out for the reasons you suggest.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited June 1 Posts: 18,180
    Yeah I didn't like 'the choice' stuff either, felt a bit too out of nowhere and I'm not sure it quite tallied with how these characters behave (I'd say it doesn't fit Ethan's character but, to be honest, in that first film he is perhaps slightly a bit of a cocky jerk character in the opening sequence so it's maybe not completely impossible to imagine him coming from the wrong side of the law).
    In TFR though we hear a bit about 'the choice' but it's treated a bit more of just an oath of signing up, and the stuff about them being criminals with no other way out doesn't get mentioned; maybe audiences didn't like that. It makes the whole IMF seem way more rogue than we've seen it be before.

    One thing I didn't quite get:
    Why is Luther ill? Where did that come from?
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,687
    For the first 45 minutes I absolutely HATED it. All that exposition and prolonged platitudes of friendship and how Ethan is the only one who can save the world, even the Entity is given a whole sequence of monologuing. As soon as they reach Alaska it picks up and I felt much better about the rest of the film, though there’s still exposition peppered about its no where as excruciating as those first 45 minutes. I haven’t had time to process the plot because at a certain point I really couldn’t care less and just wanted to see Cruise act like a lunatic on film for entertainment, which he didn’t disappoint.

    If there’s actually gonna be more… please don’t bring back Christopher McQuarrie.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 18,180
    Yeah I thought the double fight in Alaska/sub was surprisingly exciting. I really enjoyed Paris’ character in this, itching to kill people all the time!
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,687
    Oh yeah, one of the oddities of that first hour is when Luther has like 2 minutes to stop the bomb from going nuclear, but he and Ethan take their sweet sweet time to make friendly platitudes to each other hahaha

    “Ethan I know you and what you need to do, and I’m gonna remind you of that and how much I cherish it, and how you’re never gonna stop because it’s in your nature to never stop, not just as an agent but AS A FRIEND. So please, as a friend, let me do the thing that I’m good at, what I was born to do. You don’t need to worry, I’m on the mother******.”
  • goldenswissroyalegoldenswissroyale Switzerland
    edited June 2 Posts: 4,579
    Yes, Paris is awesome. Why not cut some monologues and give her more screentime instead?
  • Posts: 2,062
    thedove wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    $103 million after a week in theaters with a $400 million budget is a catastrophe. Hollywood needs to get their budgets, runtimes, and egoes under control already.

    Why? I mean of all the things mentioned which one matters to the movie going public?

    I don't care if the studio loses money, I care about being entertained. This movie entertained me, there was no deeper meaning, it was escapist fun.

    If the studio wants to put out a movie with a huge budget that is their issue not mine. If they want the films to be 3 hours that is their call not mine. If they can't or won't control the egos who make the film, again it doesn't really involve me. Except if the ego in question wishes to preach a message at me then I might have to not see the film.

    It is like those who complain at the wages of professional athletes. If a baseball team wants to be $500 million to a ball player, I don't get my knickers in a knot.


    When they raise the price of tickets, it will be our business. ;)

    A healthy industry is good for everyone. And if the movies we like make money, it's good for us too. We are going to have more.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 18,180
    Oh yeah, one of the oddities of that first hour is when Luther has like 2 minutes to stop the bomb from going nuclear, but he and Ethan take their sweet sweet time to make friendly platitudes to each other hahaha

    Well I think (in amongst all of the other 'this must be connected to that, but not before this wire is pulled from here' technical exposition in this film) he's pretty done what he needs to do by the time they're talking, but when he disconnects the final detonator it will go off, and he obviously needs to do that before the timer ticks down. So it kind of works.
  • edited June 2 Posts: 4,751
    more thoughts
    considering the very interesting theme in Fallout regarding Ethan never letting a team member down, it would have been far more interesting to then have him in that exact situation where is is genuinely forced to make that decision, they sacrifice Luther as a character with zero involvement from Ethan re decision making.....imagine if Benji went down to the sub with Ethan and (perhaps by falling torpedoes) Benji got stuck/jammed on the way out. Ethan tries to lever him out as their oxygen runs out...leave Benji for the sake of the mission? too melodramatic? I think, for all of the "worlds end" stuff, for the audience, the stakes are more meaningful when dealing with the fate of a loved team member (SF built on that key theme)
    PS the listening station had a working VHF radio and the location of the sub was know (literlly on his wrist) and yet, they take a WW2 era DC3 to knock on his door?
Sign In or Register to comment.