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

1135136138140141226

Comments

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe "I need a year off" Craig
    Posts: 7,316
    Three of Craig's Bond films are in the top ten most successful British films ever made ! One held the top spot for a long time.
    I don't think given their box office success and critical acclaim, the Bond producers will be changing their formula.

    That's a very easy trap to fall into, and Bond is not without its periods of complacency.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 35,194
    I never understand why I always see posts about Bond needing to be like Mission Impossible, Kingsman, or Fast & Furious. All 4 of these franchises are 1. very popular, 2. very successful and 3. very different from one another. M:I is not the Ethan Hunt franchise, despite Tom Cruise being the very clear leader. So I don't want the James Bond franchise, which has Bond as its core central focus, becoming a team spy effort. Ving Rhames in 6 films by himself has more screentime than Q, Moneypenny and M combined over the course of 10+ films. Similarly, I don't want Bond to copy the CGI heavy action set pieces of Kingsman (and I also don't want to see M:I copy that). Same with Fast and Furious: I don't want Bond or M:I going all 'we're a family' like this franchise.

    All of the franchises above are doing their own thing and are clearly popular and successful, so let's continue letting them have their specific direction and style that they've been doing very well for a while now.

    Excellent stuff, I'm in the exact same boat. I don't see any as a real competition, I simply opt to enjoy all four series. It's better that way than trying to select a reigning favorite and neglecting the others.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 16,632
    Why do we fall, Master Wayne?
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 6,153
  • RC7RC7
    edited July 2018 Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    I disagree. The problem is that Bond has forgotten what it is, and hasn't found a new identity to replace what it used to be with. Each film has a completely different ethos, whereas as MI has picked up a continuity along the way. "Gritty reboot" worked well for CR, but it wasn't the long term fix that they obviously thought it would be, but the bandage that keeps falling off over and over again.

    This is why I actually think Boyle is a good choice for a final Craig film. Each last film in a tenure tonally gives away where the series is headed, whilst remain faithful to what the actor brought to the role. It's sort of like having one foot in and one foot out. Boyle is an obvious choice to remain faithful to the Craig tenure, with introspective character study at the heart, heavy thematic elements etc. But at the same time, unlike others who would approach drama with a certain soberness, Boyle is characterized by a frenzied energy comedic edge which could indicate a shift back to the more lighthearted after a new actor does come in.

    You disagree with what?

    That Bond is simply a part of history and culture and will therefore continue being successful regardless of whatever decisions those behind the films make. I prefer to think of it as a ancient vase which hither to has been mirticuaously cared for and maintained, but at any time can be mishandled or damaged. The thing I have always given EON credit for is that they always seem to feel the heat of the fire rising around them, and react before it's too late. As described, I hope they are able to sense that changing of the tides which has been in motion for the past half decade or so. We are in another situation like 2002 where mainstream cinema has moved on, but where the threat back then was Bourne with its ultra realism, personal emotional storytelling, now it is from the more upbeat and frothy end of the spectrum with Mission Impossible with its explosive, crowding pleasing appeal. It's an exact 180 degree flip.

    That’s not what I said, though, is it? I explained my personal connection with Bond and how M:I to me are just films, where Bond is much more. I signed off by saying ‘Bond is part of culture’, which is simply stating a fact. Whether it remains so in 50 years, 100 years, who knows? But right now it is. That is indisputable.

    I know you derive some twisted pleasure from the idea of Bond imploding, but please don’t decontextualise my comments just to give yourself yet another excuse to rag on Bond.
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I never understand why I always see posts about Bond needing to be like Mission Impossible, Kingsman, or Fast & Furious. All 4 of these franchises are 1. very popular, 2. very successful and 3. very different from one another. M:I is not the Ethan Hunt franchise, despite Tom Cruise being the very clear leader. So I don't want the James Bond franchise, which has Bond as its core central focus, becoming a team spy effort. Ving Rhames in 6 films by himself has more screentime than Q, Moneypenny and M combined over the course of 10+ films. Similarly, I don't want Bond to copy the CGI heavy action set pieces of Kingsman (and I also don't want to see M:I copy that). Same with Fast and Furious: I don't want Bond or M:I going all 'we're a family' like this franchise.

    All of the franchises above are doing their own thing and are clearly popular and successful, so let's continue letting them have their specific direction and style that they've been doing very well for a while now.

    Excellent stuff, I'm in the exact same boat. I don't see any as a real competition, I simply opt to enjoy all four series. It's better that way than trying to select a reigning favorite and neglecting the others.

    Agreed.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    edited July 2018 Posts: 13,384
    Yes Facts can be a trap :D
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 16,632
    talos7 wrote: »

    Thanks, good read. I skipped most of Fallout 's review though for obvious reasons...
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe "I need a year off" Craig
    edited July 2018 Posts: 7,316
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    I disagree. The problem is that Bond has forgotten what it is, and hasn't found a new identity to replace what it used to be with. Each film has a completely different ethos, whereas as MI has picked up a continuity along the way. "Gritty reboot" worked well for CR, but it wasn't the long term fix that they obviously thought it would be, but the bandage that keeps falling off over and over again.

    This is why I actually think Boyle is a good choice for a final Craig film. Each last film in a tenure tonally gives away where the series is headed, whilst remain faithful to what the actor brought to the role. It's sort of like having one foot in and one foot out. Boyle is an obvious choice to remain faithful to the Craig tenure, with introspective character study at the heart, heavy thematic elements etc. But at the same time, unlike others who would approach drama with a certain soberness, Boyle is characterized by a frenzied energy comedic edge which could indicate a shift back to the more lighthearted after a new actor does come in.

    You disagree with what?

    That Bond is simply a part of history and culture and will therefore continue being successful regardless of whatever decisions those behind the films make. I prefer to think of it as a ancient vase which hither to has been mirticuaously cared for and maintained, but at any time can be mishandled or damaged. The thing I have always given EON credit for is that they always seem to feel the heat of the fire rising around them, and react before it's too late. As described, I hope they are able to sense that changing of the tides which has been in motion for the past half decade or so. We are in another situation like 2002 where mainstream cinema has moved on, but where the threat back then was Bourne with its ultra realism, personal emotional storytelling, now it is from the more upbeat and frothy end of the spectrum with Mission Impossible with its explosive, crowding pleasing appeal. It's an exact 180 degree flip.

    That’s not what I said, though, is it? I explained my personal connection with Bond and how M:I to me are just films, where Bond is much more. I signed off by saying ‘Bond is part of culture’, which is simply stating a fact. Whether it remains so in 50 years, 100 years, who knows? But right now it is. That is indisputable.

    I know you derive some twisted pleasure from the idea of Bond imploding, but please don’t decontextualise my comments just to give yourself yet another excuse to rag on Bond.

    Forgive me then, but by the phrase "Bond is a part of culture" I view to be a statement on its permanence or solidity. The thing is, Barbara and Micheal didn't kick off the Brosnan era, dear Cubby was still in the picture even if in a reduced capacity. Babs and Mick saw that era through as an obligation for "the show to go on" after Cubbys passing. It wasn't until Craig stepped in that they got to truly go about things there own way, with a completely clean slate. What is troubling now is that unlike Cubby they don't seem to have that same sensitivity to when they are being passed by. I think of Cubby as someone with a finger on the pulse, and a keen desire to keep up with trends. He was just trying to entertain, and earn a living, I suppose. What specific course the films were on didn't seem to matter to him, as long as they were successful and well received. I don't get this sense from Barbara. There is a closed off, detached quality as if she has no passion for films of a brand or style which is not to her specific appetite. I think the reason some people call the Brosnan film uninspired is because Barbara heart wasn't truly in them. She only make them to honour Cubby. The Craig era was her vision for Bond, and it worries me that she has no desire to adapt once this tenure has run its course. I really hope there is some sort of major shake up somewhere along the road.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited July 2018 Posts: 15,534
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    I disagree. The problem is that Bond has forgotten what it is, and hasn't found a new identity to replace what it used to be with. Each film has a completely different ethos, whereas as MI has picked up a continuity along the way. "Gritty reboot" worked well for CR, but it wasn't the long term fix that they obviously thought it would be, but the bandage that keeps falling off over and over again.

    This is why I actually think Boyle is a good choice for a final Craig film. Each last film in a tenure tonally gives away where the series is headed, whilst remain faithful to what the actor brought to the role. It's sort of like having one foot in and one foot out. Boyle is an obvious choice to remain faithful to the Craig tenure, with introspective character study at the heart, heavy thematic elements etc. But at the same time, unlike others who would approach drama with a certain soberness, Boyle is characterized by a frenzied energy comedic edge which could indicate a shift back to the more lighthearted after a new actor does come in.

    You disagree with what?

    That Bond is simply a part of history and culture and will therefore continue being successful regardless of whatever decisions those behind the films make. I prefer to think of it as a ancient vase which hither to has been mirticuaously cared for and maintained, but at any time can be mishandled or damaged. The thing I have always given EON credit for is that they always seem to feel the heat of the fire rising around them, and react before it's too late. As described, I hope they are able to sense that changing of the tides which has been in motion for the past half decade or so. We are in another situation like 2002 where mainstream cinema has moved on, but where the threat back then was Bourne with its ultra realism, personal emotional storytelling, now it is from the more upbeat and frothy end of the spectrum with Mission Impossible with its explosive, crowding pleasing appeal. It's an exact 180 degree flip.

    That’s not what I said, though, is it? I explained my personal connection with Bond and how M:I to me are just films, where Bond is much more. I signed off by saying ‘Bond is part of culture’, which is simply stating a fact. Whether it remains so in 50 years, 100 years, who knows? But right now it is. That is indisputable.

    I know you derive some twisted pleasure from the idea of Bond imploding, but please don’t decontextualise my comments just to give yourself yet another excuse to rag on Bond.

    Forgive me then, but by the phrase "Bond is a part of culture" I view to be a statement on its permanence or solidity. The thing is, Barbara and Micheal didn't kick off the Brosnan era, dear Cubby was still in the picture even if in a reduced capacity. Babs and Mick saw that era through as an obligation for "the show to go on" after Cubbys passing. It wasn't until Craig stepped in that they got to truly go about things there own way, with a completely clean slate. What is troubling now is that unlike Cubby they don't seem to have that same sensitivity to when they are being passed by. I think of Cubby as someone with a finger on the pulse, and a keen desire to keep up with trends. He was just trying to entertain, and earn a living, I suppose. What specific course the films were on didn't seem to matter to him, as long as they were successful and well received. I don't get this sense from Barbara. There is a closed off, detached quality as if she has no passion for films of a brand or style which is not to her specific appetite. I think the reason some people call the Brosnan film uninspired is because Barbara heart wasn't truly in them. She only make them to honour Cubby. The Craig era was her vision for Bond, and it worries me that she has no desire to adapt once this tenure has run its course. I really hope there is some sort of major shake up somewhere along the road.

    You've spent the entire post after the bold part not answering if Bond is a part of culture or not*. You aren't making us learn anything by saying Barbara and MGW weren't the sole producers pre 1995.

    *And the answer to that is 'yes', if you still haven't figured it out. 24 films and 56 years of history.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe "I need a year off" Craig
    Posts: 7,316
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    I disagree. The problem is that Bond has forgotten what it is, and hasn't found a new identity to replace what it used to be with. Each film has a completely different ethos, whereas as MI has picked up a continuity along the way. "Gritty reboot" worked well for CR, but it wasn't the long term fix that they obviously thought it would be, but the bandage that keeps falling off over and over again.

    This is why I actually think Boyle is a good choice for a final Craig film. Each last film in a tenure tonally gives away where the series is headed, whilst remain faithful to what the actor brought to the role. It's sort of like having one foot in and one foot out. Boyle is an obvious choice to remain faithful to the Craig tenure, with introspective character study at the heart, heavy thematic elements etc. But at the same time, unlike others who would approach drama with a certain soberness, Boyle is characterized by a frenzied energy comedic edge which could indicate a shift back to the more lighthearted after a new actor does come in.

    You disagree with what?

    That Bond is simply a part of history and culture and will therefore continue being successful regardless of whatever decisions those behind the films make. I prefer to think of it as a ancient vase which hither to has been mirticuaously cared for and maintained, but at any time can be mishandled or damaged. The thing I have always given EON credit for is that they always seem to feel the heat of the fire rising around them, and react before it's too late. As described, I hope they are able to sense that changing of the tides which has been in motion for the past half decade or so. We are in another situation like 2002 where mainstream cinema has moved on, but where the threat back then was Bourne with its ultra realism, personal emotional storytelling, now it is from the more upbeat and frothy end of the spectrum with Mission Impossible with its explosive, crowding pleasing appeal. It's an exact 180 degree flip.

    That’s not what I said, though, is it? I explained my personal connection with Bond and how M:I to me are just films, where Bond is much more. I signed off by saying ‘Bond is part of culture’, which is simply stating a fact. Whether it remains so in 50 years, 100 years, who knows? But right now it is. That is indisputable.

    I know you derive some twisted pleasure from the idea of Bond imploding, but please don’t decontextualise my comments just to give yourself yet another excuse to rag on Bond.

    Forgive me then, but by the phrase "Bond is a part of culture" I view to be a statement on its permanence or solidity. The thing is, Barbara and Micheal didn't kick off the Brosnan era, dear Cubby was still in the picture even if in a reduced capacity. Babs and Mick saw that era through as an obligation for "the show to go on" after Cubbys passing. It wasn't until Craig stepped in that they got to truly go about things there own way, with a completely clean slate. What is troubling now is that unlike Cubby they don't seem to have that same sensitivity to when they are being passed by. I think of Cubby as someone with a finger on the pulse, and a keen desire to keep up with trends. He was just trying to entertain, and earn a living, I suppose. What specific course the films were on didn't seem to matter to him, as long as they were successful and well received. I don't get this sense from Barbara. There is a closed off, detached quality as if she has no passion for films of a brand or style which is not to her specific appetite. I think the reason some people call the Brosnan film uninspired is because Barbara heart wasn't truly in them. She only make them to honour Cubby. The Craig era was her vision for Bond, and it worries me that she has no desire to adapt once this tenure has run its course. I really hope there is some sort of major shake up somewhere along the road.

    You've spent the entire post after the bold part not answering if Bond is a part of culture or not*. You aren't making us learn anything by saying Barbara and MGW weren't the sole producers pre 1995.

    *And the answer to that is 'yes', if you still haven't figured it out. 24 films and 56 years of history.

    Answering the question was not the purpose of the post, more of a jumping off point.
  • Posts: 352
    Anyone have screen caps or video of the opening titles sequence?

    How was it? Any details to share?
  • Posts: 2,107
    M_Blaise wrote: »
    SharkBait wrote: »
    I was 11 when the first MI film with Cruise was released.

    I don't care how much money a movie makes. I just find MI movies more even in tone compared to Bond and fun like Bond should be.

    I'm not saying you should care I'm asking if means MI is really the Bond of your generation.

    I like to think so. I mean there hasn't been any other franchise with suchan impact, like the MI films have been. Bourne came and went but the MI franchise still going strong. I don't want to dis Bond, saw my first Bond, when I was five, but there's bothing like MI these days.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    I guess it's like fans who stick with their sports club through thick and thin. While others jump ship on whichever flavour of the month comes along.
  • Posts: 2,107
    Eh, no. The MI club is no sports club. We mainly talk about what crazy stunt TC does next.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Analogy not your strong point I take it :D
  • Posts: 2,107
    Analogy not your strong point I take it :D

    Apparently not.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited July 2018 Posts: 35,194
    Anyone catching the film in IMAX from tonight throughout the weekend has the chance to see a four-minute preview from the upcoming First Man, which looks incredible.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,534
    @Creasy47 I saw the First Man teaser on the big screen yesterday before Hotel Artemis - it looks spectacular.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe Still waiting for the Jena Malone Batwoman movie that's never going to be made.Moderator
    Posts: 12,085
    talos7 wrote: »

    1. Mission: Impossible: Fallout
    2. Mission: Impossible: Rogue Nation
    3. Mission: Impossible
    4. Mission: Impossible III
    5. Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol
    6. Mission: Impossible 2

    The only ones I can agree with them on is Fallout and MI2. This is my ranking:

    1. Mission: Impossible: Fallout
    2. Mission: Impossible III*
    3. Mission: Impossible*
    4. Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol
    5. Mission: Impossible: Rogue Nation
    6. Mission: Impossible 2


    *These two are always switching places.
  • Posts: 1,132
    1. Mission Impossible 3
    2. Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol
    3. Mission Impossible Fallout
    4. Mission Impossible
    5. Mission Impossible Rogue Nation
    6. Mission Impossible 2
  • edited July 2018 Posts: 1,644
    barryt007 wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    tumblr_p3njykG4Yn1rei3gfo3_540.gif

    Looks like Cavill handles the fight scenes very well if this clip is anything to go by.

    Cruise had to stand on a soap box to take on Cavill! "C'mon, bring it on, tall, posh Brit!"

    :P

    Re the New York Post article, the writer asserts the view Craig's films are not fun. The MI films have the fun.

    To give Craig some credit, I doubt many Bond fans saw his Casino Royale press conference and thought "this is going to be another Roger Moore type era!" I didn't. Craig is known for his gritty roles like Our Friends In The North and Layer Cake so he's delivered on the grittier, more character driven Bond. I thought SPECTRE was kinda fun. Hey ho, can't please everyone!
  • Posts: 1,644
    Tom Cruise's height is never an issue. That's why he was ideal to play Jack 'six feet 5 inches' Reacher.

    s-l300.jpg



  • edited July 2018 Posts: 2,107
    I love the smell of sarcasm in the morning.

    Anyyway, I've never seen Cruise film, that I didn't enjoy. Even if it was just him. I don't care about his private life. He's just one of the last real movie stars.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited July 2018 Posts: 35,194
    Sadly I won't get to see it opening weekend, but going next Saturday at least. I cannot wait. First and last theatrical visit for me this year.
  • Posts: 2,107
    Monday for me. I think today was the opening day here. Sadly I am booked for this weekend.
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    edited July 2018 Posts: 5,172
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Sadly I won't get to see it opening weekend, but going next Saturday at least. I cannot wait. First and last theatrical visit for me this year.

    I have to wait till next week too because it opens in Germany on the 2nd of August. The wait is killing me.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    I'll be watching it tomorrow. Looking forward to a great film.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 6,590
    I saw it tonight. I'm not sure if it's the best one yet but it is definitely the most relentless. The action sequences are absolutely spellbinding. Incredibly well put together, with real stakes and strong character throughout.

    Cavill is excellent in it, too. He should play more of these kind of roles. There were strengths in him in Fallout that I didn't think he would have.
  • edited July 2018 Posts: 2,488
    Ok, honestly...I may be hated for this..but I wasn't huge fan of this one..it has to be among the bottom 2 on my ranking tbh :/

    Sorry :/

    Idk, I feel like this movie lacked a big action scene/set piece. Every single movie so far had a big memorable scene from it. This one..doesn't have one.

    The last third of the movie was too long for my taste and it just dragged on for far too long.

    I feel like they shouldn't have spoiled Julia's return to the movie and it should've been a surprise but oh well.

    This movie also had like too many "...wait why are they still alive" moments..like.idk there were couple of situations where they should've died or been hit by a bullet or whatever..

    After rewatching Rogue Nation befre Fallout I realized that Ilsa is not that great of a character actually. I am not a fan of "oh they know I'm a mole but they keep me alive cause they need me but i don't say i'm a mole even tho they know and.." unnecessarily convoluted IMHO.

    There's one great sequence/scene of the movie where the movie shifts its tone (trying to be spoiler free) that I really really liked.

    But overall I feel like the movie lacked some huge action scene and the last third dragged on. There weren't enough big "impossible" tasks in this one and I feel like it's a M:I movie made with the less entertaining parts of the series.

    Still a fun movie and I liked it, but I just didn't love it.

    I feel like they should learn after 6 movies what the fans want, and I really want to see a 7th or even an 8th one.


    Also for my taste...I am not a fan of the car/motor chases.

    So...for the 7th one i want to see a movie with huge set pieces, great memorable action scenes (Ghost Protocol did this perfectly) mask thingies, twists if possible and just generally great energy from the crew that is always there tbh

    edit: If somone has any questions fire away :D
Sign In or Register to comment.