› ›

Mission: Impossible - films and tv series

1…314315316317318320»

Comments

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 18,186
    CraigMooreOHMSS wrote: »
    Regardless of whether people consider it failure or not; I think it's pretty clear that they didn't want to go down the route that other franchises/series have recently regarding the fate of the main character, to varying degrees of success. I don't think that's something that can simply be put down to ego.

    It’s a pretty tedious criticism that it’s all ego, I think. I’m sure all movie stars have plenty of it, but Cruise is trying to please audiences with these films, and he does.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,297
    mtm wrote: »
    CraigMooreOHMSS wrote: »
    Regardless of whether people consider it failure or not; I think it's pretty clear that they didn't want to go down the route that other franchises/series have recently regarding the fate of the main character, to varying degrees of success. I don't think that's something that can simply be put down to ego.

    It’s a pretty tedious criticism that it’s all ego, I think. I’m sure all movie stars have plenty of it, but Cruise is trying to please audiences with these films, and he does.

    Absolutely. I'd say it generally applies to all actors, and even more so for those who transcend into movie stardom the way Cruise does. I couldn't care less about his ego - especially if it gives me things like the biplane sequence or pretty much any of the set pieces from Fallout.

    Interested in seeing what he does next.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited June 4 Posts: 8,695
    I’d like to see Cruise work with interesting directors again like he used to in the 80s and 90s. Back then he sought to work with guys like Scorsese, De Palma, Stone, Crowe, PTA, Spielberg, freakin Kubrick. For the last decade he seems to have settled with just working with McQ, Kosinski and Liman as his go to guys. I understand Tarantino has been wanting to work with Cruise for the longest time. That would be an interesting pairing (IIRC he had Cruise in mind for Cliff Booth).
  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 5,370
    mtm wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    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?
    I think Cruise is far too egoistic to have his character do anything morally questionable...or to fail, for that matter. If ever there were a Mary Sue, it's Ethan Hunt.

    Cruise has played plenty of dodgy characters of dubious morality over the years.

    I think Cruise works best playing those types of characters (it helps that there’s something inherently quite ‘off’ about him/his charisma anyway - again the Patrick Bateman nothing behind the eyes/smile thing).

    As for his ego, I don’t think you become a major actor without having a good amount of it.
  • cooperman2cooperman2 Uk
    Posts: 404
    As much as I enjoy the MI movies I have to agree with @MakeshiftPython. Id like to see Cruise make some different choices going forward. He's a much better actor than he gets credit for and it's time to start showing what he can do. Unfortunately I'm not sure there are that many great directors left anymore, certainly not in the league of those mentioned above.
  • patbpatb
    edited June 4 Posts: 4,751
    There is an irony in that MI is, essentially a story about a team (with all of the story and script options that brings) and yet Cruise (and the huge stunts he does plus his working relationship with McQ) puts a unique focus on him as an individual.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited June 4 Posts: 6,760
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    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?
    I think Cruise is far too egoistic to have his character do anything morally questionable...or to fail, for that matter. If ever there were a Mary Sue, it's Ethan Hunt.

    Cruise has played plenty of dodgy characters of dubious morality over the years.

    I think Cruise works best playing those types of characters (it helps that there’s something inherently quite ‘off’ about him/his charisma anyway - again the Patrick Bateman nothing behind the eyes/smile thing).

    As for his ego, I don’t think you become a major actor without having a good amount of it.

    I agree. Cruise is more interesting playing an unsympathetic character, or at least one with an edge, in supporting roles in other films. When he's well-directed--Rain Man is an example--he's good.

    But in the M:I films and perhaps in life in general, he's just playing the character of "Tom Cruise."
  • patbpatb
    Posts: 4,751
    Yes, agree, he seems to prefer pushing himself physically (via the stunts) rather than dramatically which is a shame as he's hugely talented
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 18,186
    patb wrote: »
    Yes, agree, he seems to prefer pushing himself physically (via the stunts) rather than dramatically which is a shame as he's hugely talented

    I'm sure he will again and he does want to, but apparently a big drive behind the recent Missions and Top Gun etc. was that they were just plain trying to get people to cinemas to watch films as the industry hasn't been too healthy in recent years. I'm sure you could look at that as a massive ego who sees himself as the saviour or however folks might like to spin it, but I think it's fairly laudable.



    This is good watch on the stunt front:

  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,624
    CraigMooreOHMSS wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    CraigMooreOHMSS wrote: »
    Regardless of whether people consider it failure or not; I think it's pretty clear that they didn't want to go down the route that other franchises/series have recently regarding the fate of the main character, to varying degrees of success. I don't think that's something that can simply be put down to ego.

    It’s a pretty tedious criticism that it’s all ego, I think. I’m sure all movie stars have plenty of it, but Cruise is trying to please audiences with these films, and he does.

    Absolutely. I'd say it generally applies to all actors, and even more so for those who transcend into movie stardom the way Cruise does. I couldn't care less about his ego - especially if it gives me things like the biplane sequence or pretty much any of the set pieces from Fallout.

    Interested in seeing what he does next.

    His next will be the Untitled Alejandro G. Inarritu (another working title: Judy).

    My uber-talented acquaintance, and Academy Award winning writer on Birdman, Alexander Dinelaris, co-wrote this, with a cast that includes:
    John Goodman (!)
    Jesse Plemmons (!)
    Riz Ahmed (!)
    Burn Gorman(!)

    Cruise is starting and producing. So, looks like he is balancing his work again between the blockbusters and more intimate projects.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 18,186
    Just been listening to the excellent La La Land release of the first film's score: for my money the Danny Elfman version of the theme still hasn't been bettered.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    edited June 4 Posts: 2,640
    mtm wrote: »
    Just been listening to the excellent La La Land release of the first film's score: for my money the Danny Elfman version of the theme still hasn't been bettered.

    Yes. Elfman's version is the best. I do like Zimmer's rock version too. Larry Mullen Jr. & Adam Clayton's version for the first film is also good...well, you can never go wrong with U2. I think these three versions offered something unique. The rest are pretty much the same or not too different. But yeah, Elfman's version tops it.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,425
    mtm wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    Yes, agree, he seems to prefer pushing himself physically (via the stunts) rather than dramatically which is a shame as he's hugely talented

    I'm sure he will again and he does want to, but apparently a big drive behind the recent Missions and Top Gun etc. was that they were just plain trying to get people to cinemas to watch films as the industry hasn't been too healthy in recent years. I'm sure you could look at that as a massive ego who sees himself as the saviour or however folks might like to spin it, but I think it's fairly laudable.



    This is good watch on the stunt front:


    That's very cool. Even with wires (obviously) that's still a ballsy stunt to do.
    Looked great in the cinema as well.

    Thanks for sharing @mtm
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited June 4 Posts: 4,670
    Benny wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    Yes, agree, he seems to prefer pushing himself physically (via the stunts) rather than dramatically which is a shame as he's hugely talented

    I'm sure he will again and he does want to, but apparently a big drive behind the recent Missions and Top Gun etc. was that they were just plain trying to get people to cinemas to watch films as the industry hasn't been too healthy in recent years. I'm sure you could look at that as a massive ego who sees himself as the saviour or however folks might like to spin it, but I think it's fairly laudable.



    This is good watch on the stunt front:


    That's very cool. Even with wires (obviously) that's still a ballsy stunt to do.
    Looked great in the cinema as well.

    Thanks for sharing @mtm

    This is insane. Has any other A-list actor even attempted stuff like this?
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    edited June 5 Posts: 14,476
    TripAces wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    Yes, agree, he seems to prefer pushing himself physically (via the stunts) rather than dramatically which is a shame as he's hugely talented

    I'm sure he will again and he does want to, but apparently a big drive behind the recent Missions and Top Gun etc. was that they were just plain trying to get people to cinemas to watch films as the industry hasn't been too healthy in recent years. I'm sure you could look at that as a massive ego who sees himself as the saviour or however folks might like to spin it, but I think it's fairly laudable.



    This is good watch on the stunt front:


    That's very cool. Even with wires (obviously) that's still a ballsy stunt to do.
    Looked great in the cinema as well.

    Thanks for sharing @mtm

    This is insane. Has any other A-list actor even attempted stuff like this?
    I really don't think so.

    Honorable mention I would give to Jackie Chan, knowing his unbelievably successful stunts on screen are of course more grounded.

    https://aerodium.technology/reference/jackie-chan-movie-flight-scene


    Total credit to Tom Cruise on his performance and dedication to the film experience.

    Still I'm compelled to repeat cinema legend from the filming of Marathon Man, and a reported exchange between actors Dustin Hoffman and Laurence Oliver. Regarding acting. And by extension stunt work. With the disclaimer.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marathon_Man_(film)#%22Why_don't_you_just_try_acting?%22
    Marathon Man is famous in acting circles for an often quoted exchange between Hoffman and Olivier concerning a perceived difference in their approaches to acting.

    In the usual telling of the story, Hoffman, a proponent of method acting, prepared for a scene in which his character had been awake for three days by doing the same himself. Following much goading and verbal put-downs by Hoffman, who criticized Olivier for not being as committed to his art as Hoffman, Olivier remarked, "My dear boy, why don't you just try acting?"[21] In an interview on Inside the Actors Studio, Hoffman said that this exchange had been distorted; that he had been up all night at a nightclub for personal rather than professional reasons, and Olivier, who was aware of this, was merely joking.


    Also the history of air stunts is rich with examples.

    https://www.efootage.com/videos/108252/airplane-stunt-in-silent-film

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI6STwhPCuI

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited June 5 Posts: 18,186
    Funnily enough it's his tether which sort of catches my eye: you're attached by a line to one aircraft whilst standing on a different aircraft. When you think about it that's kind of bonkers.

    Also you'd imagine a light plane might be buffeted a bit by having a helicopter's blades so close above it? I can't pretend to know about the science though.
    I am looking forward to watching that sequence again though. It's fantastic.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,425
    mtm wrote: »
    Funnily enough it's his tether which sort of catches my eye: you're attached by a line to one aircraft whilst standing on a different aircraft. When you think about it that's kind of bonkers.

    Also you'd imagine a light plane might be buffeted a bit by having a helicopter's blades so close above it? I can't pretend to know about the science though.
    I am looking forward to watching that sequence again though. It's fantastic.

    When this scene played in the cinema when I watched it with my son, you could’ve heard a pin drop. Aside from a few gasps, and a f*ck me! From me.
    Even when you see a video like the one shared by @mtm the actual result on film is simply amazing. The commitment that Cruise puts to his MI films is incredible. Whether it’s his ego or insanity, I find it impressive myself and believe him when he says he does it to entertain the movie goers.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    Posts: 1,936
    When the red plane falls away and the wing flies off and almost hits Hunt, yeah that's cinema baby.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 18,186
    Another mad one (maybe don't watch this if you haven't seen the film yet):




    I thought in the cinema this must surely be CG because no-one would do that, but it looked so real. Apparently they 'chute was stored in a special box in the helicopter because it had been soaked and was so flammable, and everyone in the helicopter was wearing parachutes in case the soaked 'chute went up and set fire to the helicopter.
    Wade Eastwood said he hid the last effects parachute because he didn't want Cruise to do it again :D
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    edited June 6 Posts: 1,936
    Yeah on first watch, that moment blew me away. I knew something was coming when he was still smoking so much, and I didn't think they'd do it, then they did! Very effective. I'm glad that's not how Ethan goes out though, that would have been a little gruesome.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,695
    LucknFate wrote: »
    I'm glad that's not how Ethan goes out though, that would have been a little gruesome.

    Would have been glorious!

    PL8qq8.gif
Sign In or Register to comment.