Has Mission Impossible surpassed Bond?

18911131422

Comments

  • Posts: 582
    Sark wrote: »
    Gustav you seem to have an intolerance of dissenting opinions that's a little concerning.

    Well, perhaps I feel a little bit depressed? It hurts me a bit to see people dissecting our 'own' new Bond film to death, until nothing 'fun' and 'exciting' is left of it.

    And frankly, I saw the same thing shortly after "Skyfall" premiered. I think we lost the ability to simply feel entertained. And perhaps one reason for it that we can't live in the moment anymore. Everything has to be discussed....to death sometimes.

    You know, I'm not a movie professional. But I am a Bond fan. And I really think we should be a bit more positive-spirited about our own Bond franchise. Perhaps I'm harsh to some people. But if you're a forummember in here long enough, you would have known I'm a staunch, at times objective, but especially now a very proud and subjective defender of Mr Bond.

    One more thing, if there was social media back in the 1960's, then Bond would have died after "OHMSS".

    Why would Bond have died after OHMSS if they'd been social media in the '60s? I was thoroughly entertained by Spectre.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    One more thing, if there was social media back in the 1960's, then Bond would have died after "OHMSS".

    Oh heavens, I can only imagine the response...

    #ConneryForever #WeWantConneryBack #SavetheScot #LazenbyWho? #Imposter #GoBacktoAustralia #OnHerMajestysSuckyService #FromRussiaWithHate #DrNoNoNo #ThisCannotBeReal #RIPHopes&Dreams #OurHopeDiesWithTracy
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,340
    Here's a good one. Blofeld doesn't have his scar in this one, What are they racist against people with scars!?! I'm so offended Triggered! #Cut4Blofeld. Ah social media. A wretched hive of scum and villainy. :P
  • Posts: 5,767
    Sark wrote: »
    Gustav you seem to have an intolerance of dissenting opinions that's a little concerning.

    Well, perhaps I feel a little bit depressed? It hurts me a bit to see people dissecting our 'own' new Bond film to death, until nothing 'fun' and 'exciting' is left of it.

    And frankly, I saw the same thing shortly after "Skyfall" premiered. I think we lost the ability to simply feel entertained. And perhaps one reason for it that we can't live in the moment anymore. Everything has to be discussed....to death sometimes.

    You know, I'm not a movie professional. But I am a Bond fan. And I really think we should be a bit more positive-spirited about our own Bond franchise. Perhaps I'm harsh to some people. But if you're a forummember in here long enough, you would have known I'm a staunch, at times objective, but especially now a very proud and subjective defender of Mr Bond.

    One more thing, if there was social media back in the 1960's, then Bond would have died after "OHMSS".
    SF and SP don´t nearly get as much criticism as QoS, and I don´t see you defending that film.

    I think especially when you bring back THE iconic organization from the early Bond films, you cannot avoid building up huge expectations. One basic ingredient of a franchise is that certain elements repeat, one basic ingredient of a new entry in a series is that it keeps the level of or even surpasses the former entries. The same multiplies with an icon like SPECTRR. So what do you expect, people eating blindly out of Eon´s hands?

    It all wouldn´t be a problem if Eon would be more focused, but if you want to please everybody that´s what you get.

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Actually, in the cultural landscape we now live in, if SPECTRE was real, they were more cocky and they could afford to risk some anonymity they probably would have a twitter account and millions of followers right now.

    An explosion would go off in a British Embassy in Paris and seconds later you'd read:

    Not fast enough this time, 007.

    #NumberOneSaysHi #EmpireinRuin #MI6OutofTricks
  • Posts: 1,296
    Does Twitter exist in Bond's world? We know Youtube and google do. It's pretty interesting to think about how twitter would have been abuzz and awash with filth in the wake of Lazneby's shabby perforamnce. For my money he's not that bad and they didn't exactly hold a candle to the Blofeld of Savalas with the new one in my view.
  • Posts: 582
    What is Twitter?
  • Posts: 1,296
    They use hashtags to make it happen. Thats all we know right now

    #SpectreSippyJuice
  • Posts: 5,767
    tigers99 wrote: »
    What is Twitter?
    A forum for twits.

  • Posts: 582
    boldfinger wrote: »
    tigers99 wrote: »
    What is Twitter?
    A forum for twits.

    I thought as much :)
  • Posts: 1,296
    I just checked it out apperently its Twitter.com with a bluebird singing. This has no place in Bond's world unless he has to decrypt hastags from M's past. I'll see what I can do we both know Dr Eliot Carver would of been on social media manipulating just like he controlled his wife; that was a long time ago.
  • Posts: 498
    Sark wrote: »
    I was greatly entertained by Spectre, as I am by nearly all of the Bond films. That doesn't mean I don't recognize and comment on their flaws, nor that I don't commend other franchises when they up their game. For one example; I remember posters (and you specifically) saying they thought the Rome chase would be the best car chase in franchise history, and one of the best in cinema history. I think anyone with a modicum of objectivity would say that it's neither of those things and that RN's Morocco chase was better.

    That's the problem with fans like Gustav ,
    they literally accept anything that EON throws and praises it just because they love the series, while its not bad to love the series.
    its because those fans eon can get away by throwing mediocre products at us because they know they will praise it endlessly and be oblivious to all the faults
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Skyfail wrote: »
    Sark wrote: »
    I was greatly entertained by Spectre, as I am by nearly all of the Bond films. That doesn't mean I don't recognize and comment on their flaws, nor that I don't commend other franchises when they up their game. For one example; I remember posters (and you specifically) saying they thought the Rome chase would be the best car chase in franchise history, and one of the best in cinema history. I think anyone with a modicum of objectivity would say that it's neither of those things and that RN's Morocco chase was better.

    That's the problem with fans like Gustav ,
    they literally accept anything that EON throws and praises it just because they love the series, while its not bad to love the series.
    its because those fans eon can get away by throwing mediocre products at us because they know they will praise it endlessly and be oblivious to all the faults

    @Skyfail, first of all, "mediocre" is an entirely subjective designation; some, many of my greatest friends on here in fact, adored Spectre.

    Secondly, while some people surely have the habit of blindly accepting anything Bond-related that is given to them, I don't think Gustav is the type to be led like a dog with a scent. He, like me is so positive about these films because we love the way they're being made, and how serious and true they adhere to a deeper, more interesting Bond character. Again, that's our subjective feelings on it, and we aren't uncritical about the era either. Many have torn QoS to shreds in the past, and I haven't exactly rolled out the red carpet for SP either. We aren't slaves to EON, and we aren't mindless fools either. I can't speak for Gustav but I can get dressed by myself like a big boy in two minutes flat on a good morning, and don't need any assistance.

    Thirdly, being positive in a time like this one where everyone is being so predictably heinous and negative doesn't seem that illogical, does it? Why the hell can't Gustav love SP the way he does? Have his civil rights been receded? Has his Bond badge of honor been burnt to a crisp? I quite like seeing someone like him being very loud and proud about the film's strengths, because for someone like me who may be on the fence about SP hearing what he feels are the major strengths of the film helps me to see what I might not have connected to on my first viewing. He's given great insight into what he saw as some of Blofeld's motivations during the torture scene, for example, and that has helped me immensely in giving the scene more props than I did initially.

    I like to think that I and many other members helped do much the same with QoS, where we were positive about it as a Bond film, outlined the great things we saw in it and in the process, converted a lot of people who used to write it off as equal or worse to DAD. I think we repeated that with SF in some ways too.

    But I can also see how easy it is to be swept up in the negativity party that everyone is throwing around SP, which I do find entirely undeserved. Of course, while some don't like super positive people like Gustav, super negative people can be just as bad and just as "blind"; you aren't any better than him or others simply because you criticize a film to death; it all comes down to personal choice, where nobody is more right or more wrong about any particular thing. You've made your bed, he's made his, and that's all it really comes down to, so the pillow fighting can stop.

    Of course, with a name like Skyfail it's not surprising to see that some of us would rather hack and slash a film to pieces instead of giving to it the benefit of the doubt or even the slightest iota of positivity in any respect. Cheers.
  • Skyfail wrote: »
    Sark wrote: »
    I was greatly entertained by Spectre, as I am by nearly all of the Bond films. That doesn't mean I don't recognize and comment on their flaws, nor that I don't commend other franchises when they up their game. For one example; I remember posters (and you specifically) saying they thought the Rome chase would be the best car chase in franchise history, and one of the best in cinema history. I think anyone with a modicum of objectivity would say that it's neither of those things and that RN's Morocco chase was better.

    That's the problem with fans like Gustav ,
    they literally accept anything that EON throws and praises it just because they love the series, while its not bad to love the series.
    its because those fans eon can get away by throwing mediocre products at us because they know they will praise it endlessly and be oblivious to all the faults

    Beg your pardon? WTF :-O.

    You should have read my comments, my criticism on three of the four Brosnan films. And also "Quantum Of Solace".

    So I am NOT praising the entire franchise....and certainly NOT every one of those 24 official Bond films.

    Basically you imply something by saying "throwing mediocre products at us". And such a remark IMO smells. Lastly, there is NEVER a problem with fans. Never, if you're for or against a Bond film. It does become a bit irritating though if people can not post a serious set of objective pro's and con's anymore per film.

    And in here, with all due respect for "Rogue Nation" (I liked the film a lot), it has become mostly a huge collections of con's with SP and pro's with RN. Hardly objective! So I am only reacting to that....to counterbalance it a bit.

    Moreover @Sark: You didn't even read my review about "SPECTRE". I certainly had some problems with the film. And I mentioned them fiercefully. But apparently these kind of topics only swarm in negativity.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    I think it's best not to question anyone's motives. Positive or negative.

    Everyone is entitled to an opinion and to be heard. If someone disagrees, then politely state your case and move on. As I mentioned before, everything is subjective here anyway. No one is an arbiter of taste when it comes to Bond. We all have our views. It's the nature of the discourse that's important.

    There is a Spectre appreciation thread for those who are so inclined.
  • Posts: 582
    We take Bond very seriously don't we us Bond fans :)
  • Posts: 498
    @brady ,
    I think Spectre is better than Skyfall in a Bondian aspect ,
    but that isn't my point

    but had the fans been more critical with skyfall with its plot holes and action scenes .
    we would have ended up with a better movie because EON would have known they 'd have step up their game, by making a film with an airtight plot .
    in this they just went with not explaining how Silva was connected with Spectre or how everything went into place ...they made up for all this with that dialogue " the author of all your pain", had the fans been more critical with Skyfall that definitely wouldn't have happened .
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited November 2015 Posts: 28,694
    Skyfail wrote: »
    @brady ,
    I think Spectre is better than Skyfall in a Bondian aspect ,
    but that isn't my point

    but had the fans been more critical with skyfall with its plot holes and action scenes .
    we would have ended up with a better movie because EON would have known they 'd have step up their game, by making a film with an airtight plot .
    in this they just went with not explaining how Silva was connected with Spectre or how everything went into place ...they made up for all this with that dialogue " the author of all your pain", had the fans been more critical with Skyfall that definitely wouldn't have happened .

    Again, where is this magical population that blindly loved SF? Everyone here that I know who liked SF was critical of it as well, including myself. I've said before that SP does many, many things far superior to Skyfall.

    Fans who love that film shouldn't be pointed at when blame needs passed around. Lest you forgot, it was a universal critical and financial behemoth that resonated with millions upon millions of people. THAT was why EON stayed true on their course, and a group of Bond fans trying to shout above the noise about its faults wasn't going to stop that.

    But again, I like how these films have been tackled, so I'm not of that party. That being said, I will also not be marked alongside my good friends as some EON manipulated mule.
  • Posts: 1,296
    None of my friends are eon manipulated mules and I have a lot of friends. I take them tasking on all perspectivse of Bond and none are quite so hard as me. But at the end of a day you take a deep breath and say

    Ok

    You're still my friend but let's not watch a Bond film together any more. :)
  • Here once again my review. I didn't give it 5 stars, or 4.5 (Like The Guardian did). I gave it 3.8 stars (if we have to be picky):
    REVIEW “SPECTRE”: MICKEY MOUSE IS BACK WITH A BANG

    Earlier this year reviewers were positive about Matthew Vaughn’s new comic book adaptation vs. spy spoof “Kingsman: The Secret Service”. Some critics applauded the more comedic approach of the film. It was a return to Roger Moore-esque suaveness and cheesy, though violent, comedy. It was an element that was greatly missed in the recent Bond films with Daniel Craig. Then “Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation” premiered and it got hailed as the best spy-action film of the year. Critics uttered sentences like "Tom Cruise remains the action star without equal”, thus no critics mentioned Cruise’s age of 53, that he was doing his 5th “M:I”-film already (he signed up for a 6th), and what will happen to the franchise when he leaves. Review by Gert Waterink


    It’s a pretty damn old thing
    With Bond it’s an entirely different thing. It’s a 53-year old franchise which formula got shaken and stirred during a whopping portfolio of 24 films, of which “SPECTRE” is the 24th. But like Bond’s past haunting him more than ever in this new adventure, the actual franchise is equally haunted by all its previous films and many other newer franchises who borrow from it. No matter how successful and gracefully old the franchise is, it’s therefore prone to much more criticism and comparisons. Compared to relatively new franchises like “Mission: Impossible”, “The Dark Knight” and “The Fast And The Furious”, the “James Bond”-franchise’s reference point around which criticism –both positive and negative-- is build, is its own past. It’s logical if you are 53 years old, though at times not entirely fair. For a “Mission: Impossible”-film it’s usually a compliment to be compared with a Bond film, but ‘godfather’ Bond doesn’t have that privilege. Critics will never say “This actually is a better Marvel-film!”. It always needs to battle itself, in good and bad times.

    Actor Ben Whishaw commented during the Royal World Premiere in London: “You know what you're going to get, but you know it's also going to be slightly different every time”. And that’s again the case with “SPECTRE”. Sadly, because of the age of the franchise many people have forgotten that adage, and don’t ask themselves anymore what to expect from a new Bond film. Obviously, you have to be prepared for a familiar and slightly formulaic film, of which all ingredients are being blended differently. That was the case with “Casino Royale” and “Skyfall”. So when people call “SPECTRE” an uninspired, sapid copy of its own past, they either hail –-though not really watch-- the oldest Bond films, or they tend to forget the implications of the franchise’s age of 53 (in comparison, “Mission: Impossible” is now 20 years old).

    The build-up to “SPECTRE”
    In any case, after the most violent shake-up of the Bond-franchise with the previous three Bond films, “Casino Royale”, “Quantum Of Solace” and “Skyfall”, Sam Mendes wisely settles the franchise down a bit with “SPECTRE”. During the final scenes of “Skyfall” we got prepared for that. Bond visits the new, more scaled down MI6-offices at Whitehall. He enters Miss Moneypenny’s small office, looks down on her desk and smiles with Connery-esque wit: “I’m looking forward to our time together Miss Moneypenny?!”. He then encounters Gareth Mallory, the new ‘M’, in an office that resembles Bernard Lee’s wooden panelled, dusty post-WW II-designed mission room.

    So is “SPECTRE” a blatant copy of its past? Again, it depends how you look at it. I’d go with a “No”. After “SPECTRE” Her Majesty’s Loyal Terrier has now been completely re-introduced to us. With slow nuance and credibility, with joyous and at times original re-imagined elements from the franchise’s past and with a better sense of continuity. All of which happened over a course of 4 films (which started in 2006, two years before Marvel decided to revel with their universe). Continuity though, has never been a very important element to the Bond franchise. Due to the big financial risks accompanied with the production of a film that wasn’t even a franchise yet (“Doctor No”, 1962), due to the production complexity of bringing Bond to the big screen with a few of Fleming’s earlier novels (“Moonraker”, “Live And Let Die”) and due to several of Fleming’s novels not being fully owned by EON Productions (the very first novel “Casino Royale” & aspects/characters from “Thunderball”), Fleming’s continuity and chronology were soon thrown away for the sake of giving us a Bond film in the first place. So back in 1962 (“Doctor No”) Sean Connery was already the fully rounded agent 007.

    Not with Daniel Craig. We saw Bond earning his 00-licence in (“Casino Royale”), falling in love with a complex girl (“Casino Royale”), battling his own emotions of revenge and anger (“Quantum Of Solace”), and then facing the importance of espionage by witnessing the fall and re-birth of MI6 (“Skyfall”). You almost wánt James Bond to face a little bit less death and destruction, no? A bit like Ethan Hunt’s less complex character, no? (“Skyfall”, “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service” and “Casino Royale” are unique phenomena that are heavy on emotions, but wouldn’t it become a bit uninspiring and joyless to kill off a beloved character at the very end of every Bond film?).

    The organisation is back
    With “SPECTRE” all elements of the Bond-cocktail are in place now. Well, not quite. One important element from Ian Fleming’s novels had to be properly re-introduced: Bond’s antagonist S.P.E.C.T.R.E. (SPecial Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge & Extortion). While James Bond 007 has got his emotions in check now, makes us laugh a bit more, and is now more focused on his mission –rogue or not rogue-, people might have noticed the absence of a larger threat, a so called anti-MI6. So the return of Fleming’s mysterious crime syndicate S.P.E.C.T.R.E. is uttermost welcome. And in this particular film S.P.E.C.T.R.E and its tentacles are an emotional tour-de-force. It is most definitely the haunting ghost of both agent 007 and MI6. But it’s more than that.

    Because for all the good work of Protector Bond, we still live in an era of real-life hostility, intense geopolitical problems and villainous dictators. Not to mention the facilitators of big conflicts, like the crisis in Eastern-Ukraine or the escalating immigrant-crisis in Europe. Ian Fleming knew how to translate such events in a slightly larger-than-life context. And so does Sam Mendes. Hence the return of a slightly more realistic Bilderberg-inspired S.P.E.C.T.R.E. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group) that perfectly channels this reality (off course within a larger-than-life context). And since I am reviewing a film here and not a real-life conflict, “SPECTRE” is particularly an exciting spectacle for those who like to see more death and destruction from Bond’s biggest antagonist. The S.P.E.C.T.R.E.-meeting in Rome is therefore one of the highlights of the film, one that includes a particularly horrifying death, coldly witnessed by Oberhauser. And no, it isn’t a cheesy electrocution, or a moment of shark feeding.

    Talking about Oberhauser…..Christoph Waltz portrays a solid Bond villain. Obviously he isn’t Silva, but that poor guy was living in total rage, whereas Oberhauser seems to have his emotions better in check within his psychotic mindset. Oberhauser isn’t running around like Silva and isn’t gunning down people with core beliefs of that of an Islamic State terrorist. He is less motivated by his past and more motivated by his own psyche. Which makes him credible especially during a torture scene. It gives you the best introduction to an arch nemesis that was absent for such a long time. And this arch nemesis will give you dentist fever, trust me.

    More credible humour?
    “SPECTRE” is a good 4th part of this full-blooded Bond-quadrilogy. It’s Craig’s “Thunderball” or “The Spy Who Loved Me”, slightly more stripped down from unnecessary emotions and character’s complexities, and more upbeat with credible humour (an emotion too…) and larger action sequences as part of the plot. Craig himself though is never copying Sir Moore or Sir Connery. Yes, Bond’s dry wit is back and Daniel Craig utters a few witty one-liners, but they all sound a bit more “street”. Most of the humour works so well, because it’s part of the circumstances/events. When for instance Bond falls on a sofa during the pre-credits sequence, he’s not uttering an appallingly written Brosnan-one-liner. No, instead the audiences can observe a 007 who probably himself thinks “Hell, why couldn’t this be a clean kill”. Same thing occurs with some of the Mickey Mouse-references. Only Daniel Craig can belittle himself with such gusto by saying he’s the one and only Disney character (Did you caught the Topolino/Mickey Mouse references? I did count three). "SPECTRE" definitely is the funniest film of the quadrilogy.

    Action-heavy, in a good way
    Thanks in particular to editor Lee Smith (“The Dark Knight”), a good writing team and a more frivolous and improvising acting style from Daniel Craig, the action sequences top a few of the previous, more recent Bond stunts, and even those from competing 007-inspired spy-franchises. They don’t feel unrelated to the plot. A tense fight sequence between 007 and Monsieur Hinx, without music but with wonderful sound-editing from Oscar-winner Per Halberg ("Skyfall"), feels almost as gripping as the torture scene in "Casino Royale". And the rather long car chase among the banks of the river Tiber in Rome never feels long, due to some smart editing of some light-hearted phone conversation between Bond and Moneypenny.

    Some big but’s
    Still, for a 25th Bond film there are so many types of stunts available from the stuntman’s big hat that haven’t been used before in a Bond film. Free-running was something new in “Casino Royale”, and something as original as that “SPECTRE” won’t offer you.

    “SPECTRE” therefore isn’t a perfect film. Some other examples are the London-based sequences. They felt a bit too contrived at times. And that’s partially because Sam Mendes tried a bit too hard to focus on a 2nd storyline in which the entire MI6-staff played a role. One should not try forcefully to give great actors more screen time. I therefore think it’s inevitable that in the future ‘M’, ‘Q’, Moneypenny and Tanner shine a bit more from behind a desk.

    Moreover, the finale in London was exciting, though not entirely fulfilling. After the blow-up of Oberhauser’s lair, the CNS-program could have been destroyed entirely. By doing so, the personal story between Oberhauser and Bond could have felt a bit more ‘compact’, thus more effective. A dinner table sequence would have been good here, though I did think the ‘fun house’ sequence inside the old MI6-building (A very Fleming-esque sequence nonetheless) worked well enough. But London? We know you exist by now ok?

    Verdict
    Despite this and some other ‘minor caveats’, “SPECTRE” still holds as a ‘TOP 10 Best Bond Entry’ in the EON-led franchise. The film isn’t an ‘état fenomenale’ like its predecessors (“Casino Royale”, “Goldfinger”, “Skyfall”, “The Spy Who Loved Me” and “From Russia With Love”). But who knows, perhaps that can happen in the foreseeable future (“On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”?). Former “Goldfinger” director Guy Hamilton once quoted this: "We're going to take you to wonderful places, we're going to show you beautiful girls, we're gonna have some suspense, we're gonna have some laughs....but...let's enjoyy!" And that’s what I did immensely with possibly the best spy-themed action thriller of 2015.

    My rating: ■ ■ ■ ■ □
  • Posts: 5,767
    But I can also see how easy it is to be swept up in the negativity party that everyone is throwing around SP, which I do find entirely undeserved.
    I have no scientific proof, but perhaps I´m not the only one who felt let down big time in some areas especially with SP, because the very premise to bring back THE icon among Bond villains or organisations screams for the highest expectations, else it makes no sense whatsoever to bring it back.
    I probably will see SP again at least a third time, simply because I cannot believe my own negativity toward a Bond film. But, yeah, as so many of us here, that won´t keep me from uttering my critcism.




    Skyfail wrote: »
    @brady ,
    I think Spectre is better than Skyfall in a Bondian aspect ,
    but that isn't my point

    but had the fans been more critical with skyfall with its plot holes and action scenes .
    we would have ended up with a better movie because EON would have known they 'd have step up their game, by making a film with an airtight plot .
    in this they just went with not explaining how Silva was connected with Spectre or how everything went into place ...they made up for all this with that dialogue " the author of all your pain", had the fans been more critical with Skyfall that definitely wouldn't have happened .
    What do you mean by "more critical"? Eon got Mendes back because he made them billions of dollars. Lamenting fans wouldn´t have changed that a bit, as long as the ticket sales soar, because Eon is most of all an industrial enterprise.
    Besides that, I can clearly recall that SF´s plot holes and such things were harshly critcised on these forums.

  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,423
    We've missed your poise and rationality, on here, of late @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7
  • I saw SP again the other night with my wife & friends, they liked it, I like it more on repeated viewing. I thought about this thread so I watch MI:RN today at home, available on download, but having viewed both again, I do believe RN is better paced, better wriiten & overall you see more money on the screen, the CGI is not as intrusive in RN, both films have plot holes but in RN they just seem less grating, it's not RN's fault, it's the producers of the Bond films, I just think they need new blood, new ideas, brilliant though he is Sam Mendes is not & will never be an action director, as illustrated in SP with some rather lacklustre cutting of the action sequences, there's no tension, the car chase, plane chase & finale for example are just not that exciting.

    As an aside I still like SP better than SF but not as much as MI:RN, maybe I'll change my view over time but I severely doubt it.

    Has It surpassed Bond, no of course not, it doesn't have the history, it's just IMHO Mission Impossible is better at this precise moment based on the most recent films from each prospective franchise, so to EON, your end of year report is, could & must do better.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,111
    I saw SP again the other night with my wife & friends, they liked it, I like it more on repeated viewing. I thought about this thread so I watch MI:RN today at home, available on download, but having viewed both again, I do believe RN is better paced, better wriiten & overall you see more money on the screen, the CGI is not as intrusive in RN, both films have plot holes but in RN they just seem less grating, it's not RN's fault, it's the producers of the Bond films, I just think they need new blood, new ideas, brilliant though he is Sam Mendes is not & will never be an action director, as illustrated in SP with some rather lacklustre cutting of the action sequences, there's no tension, the car chase, plane chase & finale for example are just not that exciting.

    As an aside I still like SP better than SF but not as much as MI:RN, maybe I'll change my view over time but I severely doubt it.

    Has It surpassed Bond, no of course not, it doesn't have the history, it's just IMHO Mission Impossible is better at this precise moment based on the most recent films from each prospective franchise, so to EON, your end of year report is, could & must do better.

    This is spot on.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    talos7 wrote: »
    I saw SP again the other night with my wife & friends, they liked it, I like it more on repeated viewing. I thought about this thread so I watch MI:RN today at home, available on download, but having viewed both again, I do believe RN is better paced, better wriiten & overall you see more money on the screen, the CGI is not as intrusive in RN, both films have plot holes but in RN they just seem less grating, it's not RN's fault, it's the producers of the Bond films, I just think they need new blood, new ideas, brilliant though he is Sam Mendes is not & will never be an action director, as illustrated in SP with some rather lacklustre cutting of the action sequences, there's no tension, the car chase, plane chase & finale for example are just not that exciting.

    As an aside I still like SP better than SF but not as much as MI:RN, maybe I'll change my view over time but I severely doubt it.

    Has It surpassed Bond, no of course not, it doesn't have the history, it's just IMHO Mission Impossible is better at this precise moment based on the most recent films from each prospective franchise, so to EON, your end of year report is, could & must do better.

    This is spot on.
    Agreed. Well said. EON must do much better next time.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,732
    talos7 wrote: »

    Has It surpassed Bond, no of course not, it doesn't have the history, it's just IMHO Mission Impossible is better at this precise moment based on the most recent films from each prospective franchise, so to EON, your end of year report is, could & must do better.

    This is spot on.
    [/quote]
    Rogue Nation is my second favourite MI film, but I still like SPECTRE more just because BOND. Yet I will agree that EON needs to up its game. With 3 years in between films and money to spend, a rock solid script and an Arnold score is really not too much to ask for, or indeed expect.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    bondjames wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    I saw SP again the other night with my wife & friends, they liked it, I like it more on repeated viewing. I thought about this thread so I watch MI:RN today at home, available on download, but having viewed both again, I do believe RN is better paced, better wriiten & overall you see more money on the screen, the CGI is not as intrusive in RN, both films have plot holes but in RN they just seem less grating, it's not RN's fault, it's the producers of the Bond films, I just think they need new blood, new ideas, brilliant though he is Sam Mendes is not & will never be an action director, as illustrated in SP with some rather lacklustre cutting of the action sequences, there's no tension, the car chase, plane chase & finale for example are just not that exciting.

    As an aside I still like SP better than SF but not as much as MI:RN, maybe I'll change my view over time but I severely doubt it.

    Has It surpassed Bond, no of course not, it doesn't have the history, it's just IMHO Mission Impossible is better at this precise moment based on the most recent films from each prospective franchise, so to EON, your end of year report is, could & must do better.

    This is spot on.
    Agreed. Well said. EON must do much better next time.

    Agreed and it'll be shocking if Bond 25 ends up being more of the same lacklustre material as SF and SP considering what tge competition are putting out and how audiences respond to it. MI6 has already been green lit and we know Ferguson is returning as tge female lead and Bourne returns next year...and I have no doubt it's going to show everyone what an action packed spy thriller is suppose to look like. Seriously, Bond 25 is a movie with so many advantages to exploit that it should end up being the best movie of the Craig era but that can only happen if the producers go in with the same hunger and drive they back in '05.
  • I still think the original MI is by far the best entry in the series. The last 3 have certainly been entertaining, but they're strictly very sleek action films with Tom Cruise at the center of it all. They definitely do it well, but it's really just one big set piece following another.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    @bondboy007, I didn't like the original MI when it was released but have grown to really appreciate it over time. It was ahead of its time in many ways, as the character focus and mixing up the formula is all the rage now in the spy world (with insiders as villains etc.) and arguably they did that first. Its contemporary even now, compared to some of the 90's Bond films, and DePalma brought a visual flair to it.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Spectre is so superior to RN it's not even worth discussing.
Sign In or Register to comment.