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

1155156158160161213

Comments

  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,277
    peter wrote: »
    Went to see Mission Impossible: Fallout for the 3rd and final time last night, before the film gets removed from my local cinema's schedule (hopefully the Blu Ray release is not too far away). Still a total blast, and the film has a very high rewatchability factor. Bring on M:I:7 !

    Much as i enjoyed MI: Fallout i would have to disagree on the rewatchability of it. Or any MI film for that matter (excluding perhaps the original)

    The MI films are primarily action films and their main draw is the amazing sequences they continue to come up with. But that's it. There is little to no characterization and the dialogue is mostly exposition to get us from one sequence to the next. The characters don't talk to each other, they talk AT each other with dialogue simply there to further the plot.

    Which is why the Bond films will always have a much higher rewatch factor.

    Agreed-- this is a one and done kind of series for me. Watch once. Enjoy it like a boozie night out, and forget almost everything about it by the next morning.

    The stunts are damn fine, and wonderfully executed. Like a fun roller-coaster. Doesn't go beyond that for me.

    Exactly right regarding it being a roller-coaster ride. Great fun but offers little nourishment.

    I remember watching Rogue Nation a second time and it really lost it's lustre 2nd time around. As for a third watch. Nah.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Went to see Mission Impossible: Fallout for the 3rd and final time last night, before the film gets removed from my local cinema's schedule (hopefully the Blu Ray release is not too far away). Still a total blast, and the film has a very high rewatchability factor. Bring on M:I:7 !

    Much as i enjoyed MI: Fallout i would have to disagree on the rewatchability of it. Or any MI film for that matter (excluding perhaps the original)

    The MI films are primarily action films and their main draw is the amazing sequences they continue to come up with. But that's it. There is little to no characterization and the dialogue is mostly exposition to get us from one sequence to the next. The characters don't talk to each other, they talk AT each other with dialogue simply there to further the plot.

    Which is why the Bond films will always have a much higher rewatch factor.
    And yet here I am, anxiously awaiting a 4K release of Fallout so I can view the entire series again in all its high definition glory. I must be a simple sort.

    To each their own of course, but the last three MI films have far higher rewatchability for me in comparison to the Craig era Bond films. I agree with you that characterizations are thin, but I don't think the Bond flicks of late have a great track record on that front either. More pretentious, introspective and moody perhaps, but not necessarily better.

    For me, these recent MI films serve as a nice breezy light weight entertainment compliment to the classic Cubby Bond era films up to and including 1995 (yes, I extended it because I feel GE straddles the old and new nicely).
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,679
    I’m glad it made it to 750 at least. It deserved it
  • Posts: 5,715
    Like the Bond gunbarrel, I get a rush in hearing the MI theme and the fuse being lit

    Yes, this is always a highlight for me as well.

    But like @LeonardPine just said, the re-watches, for me, diminish the WOW factor of the first viewing; I think Leonard nailed it in describing the "lack of nourishment".
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2018 Posts: 23,883
    BT3366 wrote: »
    I'm late. Didn't see Fallout until 2 weeks ago and it meant plowing through the 300+ posts to see what others thought. So I was avoiding spoilers for nearly 5-6 weeks, which wasn't easy, but made it worth the wait.

    I liked it a lot. Not quite as much as GP and RN, but a lot. When this is one of the only series I will go to a cinema for that says a lot and makes it worth the $12 I plunked down for it.

    Like the Bond gunbarrel, I get a rush in hearing the MI theme and the fuse being lit with scenes of what's to come, and get a goofy grin when Cruise and company pull off one of those stunts. It's just a feeling that doesn't come around often, especially in the CGI era and given how the recent Bond films have turned out an action fix.

    I do agree with others it's fine that Fallout went a little more dramatic and less humorous, although I thought that makes those films a little more accessible. I've read numerous criticisms about the stunts having been done before in Bond and other things. Hey, newsflash: the Bonds have been redoing their own stunts for years. Films like TSWLM and FYEO are kind of greatest hits packages of previous Bonds.

    If a series can do similar takes on those and actually make them feel fresh, then bravo. Personally, I never thought oh, Bond already did that, once.

    I do have some criticisms of my own:
    Yet another traitor in the organization. Yawn

    Yet another director played by a noted actor is out to quash the IMF and its activities and later realizes its value. Holy Afterschool Special.

    Ilsa's story is pretty much the same as before. Why repeat it? I was under the impression she was more or less invited to join the IMF after RN. I thought that was a messy part of the story and found her a lot less interesting this time out.

    There were points when I got an AVTAK vibe as far as the team itself feeling old. Sure Cruise still makes Moore look positively geriatric in comparison, but along with Ving Rhames and Simon Pegg they seemed long in the tooth. One of the standout aspects of MI:III, which takes a lot of flack on this board, is the fresh feel of younger team members Maggie Q and Jonathan Rhys Meyers, or Renner and Paula Patton in GP. Renner in particular was missed, but given Cavill was the younger member, at least for a while, it made up for it somewhat.

    Liked the motorcycle chase, but it comes on the heels of an equally impressive such chase in RN.

    But those are pretty minor when you consider the overall good time this was. Now I can't wait to watch it again on video to get a second perspective. Besides, this thread gives me a lot more enjoyment than Bond 25 speculation.
    Very good review. I'm in agreement with a lot of your points (including the criticisms), and also on the ranking for now. I prefer GP and RN I think, but perhaps Fallout will improve once I have a chance to see it again. I can't wait for a revisit.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,277
    bondjames wrote: »
    Went to see Mission Impossible: Fallout for the 3rd and final time last night, before the film gets removed from my local cinema's schedule (hopefully the Blu Ray release is not too far away). Still a total blast, and the film has a very high rewatchability factor. Bring on M:I:7 !

    Much as i enjoyed MI: Fallout i would have to disagree on the rewatchability of it. Or any MI film for that matter (excluding perhaps the original)

    The MI films are primarily action films and their main draw is the amazing sequences they continue to come up with. But that's it. There is little to no characterization and the dialogue is mostly exposition to get us from one sequence to the next. The characters don't talk to each other, they talk AT each other with dialogue simply there to further the plot.

    Which is why the Bond films will always have a much higher rewatch factor.
    And yet here I am, anxiously awaiting a 4K release of Fallout so I can view the entire series again in all its high definition glory. I must be a simple sort.

    To each their own of course, but the last three MI films have far higher rewatchability for me in comparison to the Craig era Bond films. I agree with you that characterizations are thin, but I don't think the Bond flicks of late have a great track record on that front either. More pretentious, introspective and moody perhaps, but not necessarily better.

    For me, these recent MI films serve as a nice breezy light weight entertainment compliment to the classic Cubby Bond era films up to and including 1995 (yes, I extended it because I feel GE straddles the old and new nicely).

    Of course each to their own mate but the first 3 Craig Bonds would almost certainly be the films i'd rather rewatch over repeating MI films.

    As i said, the MI action sequences are thrilling but there's little else to provide nourishment.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    Went to see Mission Impossible: Fallout for the 3rd and final time last night, before the film gets removed from my local cinema's schedule (hopefully the Blu Ray release is not too far away). Still a total blast, and the film has a very high rewatchability factor. Bring on M:I:7 !

    Much as i enjoyed MI: Fallout i would have to disagree on the rewatchability of it. Or any MI film for that matter (excluding perhaps the original)

    The MI films are primarily action films and their main draw is the amazing sequences they continue to come up with. But that's it. There is little to no characterization and the dialogue is mostly exposition to get us from one sequence to the next. The characters don't talk to each other, they talk AT each other with dialogue simply there to further the plot.

    Which is why the Bond films will always have a much higher rewatch factor.
    And yet here I am, anxiously awaiting a 4K release of Fallout so I can view the entire series again in all its high definition glory. I must be a simple sort.

    To each their own of course, but the last three MI films have far higher rewatchability for me in comparison to the Craig era Bond films. I agree with you that characterizations are thin, but I don't think the Bond flicks of late have a great track record on that front either. More pretentious, introspective and moody perhaps, but not necessarily better.

    For me, these recent MI films serve as a nice breezy light weight entertainment compliment to the classic Cubby Bond era films up to and including 1995 (yes, I extended it because I feel GE straddles the old and new nicely).

    Of course each to their own mate but the first 3 Craig Bonds would almost certainly be the films i'd rather rewatch over repeating MI films.

    As i said, the MI action sequences are thrilling but there's little else to provide nourishment.
    We must agree to differ. At least on rewatchability, even if we agree on characterizations being light. As I said, I really don't see Bond films being all that different.

    I agree with you at least that the MI action sequences are indeed thrilling. That's putting it mildly imho. We are certainly on the same page there.
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    edited September 2018 Posts: 2,541
    Like the Bond gunbarrel, I get a rush in hearing the MI theme and the fuse being lit with scenes of what's to come, and get a goofy grin when Cruise and company pull off one of those stunts. It's just a feeling that doesn't come around often, especially in the CGI era and given how the recent Bond films have turned out an action fix.

    With respect I have to disagree Spectre action scenes were dumb but every single action piece was shot real not CGI but Fallout helicopter crash was.


    I do agree with others it's fine that Fallout went a little more dramatic and less humorous, although I thought that makes those films a little more accessible. I've read numerous criticisms about the stunts having been done before in Bond and other things. Hey, newsflash: the Bonds have been redoing their own stunts for years. Films like TSWLM and FYEO are kind of greatest hits packages of previous Bonds.

    Any stunts in particular apart from traditional train fight and Aston Martin Chase's which Craig era have redone.



    If a series can do similar takes on those and actually make them feel fresh, then bravo. Personally, I never thought oh, Bond already did that, once.
    I once said this about the free running scene in CR - it was the 2nd time free running was shot after district b13 but they take it to a whole new level emotionally and physically. I would hardly call fallout footchase a footchase because it involves one person chasing another but all Ethan was doing jumping from one building to other and occasionally running in pretty location.

  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 6,079
    bondjames wrote: »
    Went to see Mission Impossible: Fallout for the 3rd and final time last night, before the film gets removed from my local cinema's schedule (hopefully the Blu Ray release is not too far away). Still a total blast, and the film has a very high rewatchability factor. Bring on M:I:7 !

    Much as i enjoyed MI: Fallout i would have to disagree on the rewatchability of it. Or any MI film for that matter (excluding perhaps the original)

    The MI films are primarily action films and their main draw is the amazing sequences they continue to come up with. But that's it. There is little to no characterization and the dialogue is mostly exposition to get us from one sequence to the next. The characters don't talk to each other, they talk AT each other with dialogue simply there to further the plot.

    Which is why the Bond films will always have a much higher rewatch factor.
    And yet here I am, anxiously awaiting a 4K release of Fallout so I can view the entire series again in all its high definition glory. I must be a simple sort.

    To each their own of course, but the last three MI films have far higher rewatchability for me in comparison to the Craig era Bond films. I agree with you that characterizations are thin, but I don't think the Bond flicks of late have a great track record on that front either. More pretentious, introspective and moody perhaps, but not necessarily better.

    For me, these recent MI films serve as a nice breezy light weight entertainment compliment to the classic Cubby Bond era films up to and including 1995 (yes, I extended it because I feel GE straddles the old and new nicely).

    +1

    The action scenes are rightly held up as being stunning but they're just the very large cherry on top of a really nice cake for me. Great characters, simple but efficient scripting, and great music. Pure escapism. Modern and slick enough to be contemporary but made with a sensibility that is firmly placed in the old school spy genre. A deft balance that makes them all worth rewatching over and over again, save for M:I-2, of course.

    Gotta strongly disagree with anyone who says otherwise.
  • Posts: 5,715
    bondjames wrote: »
    Went to see Mission Impossible: Fallout for the 3rd and final time last night, before the film gets removed from my local cinema's schedule (hopefully the Blu Ray release is not too far away). Still a total blast, and the film has a very high rewatchability factor. Bring on M:I:7 !

    Much as i enjoyed MI: Fallout i would have to disagree on the rewatchability of it. Or any MI film for that matter (excluding perhaps the original)

    The MI films are primarily action films and their main draw is the amazing sequences they continue to come up with. But that's it. There is little to no characterization and the dialogue is mostly exposition to get us from one sequence to the next. The characters don't talk to each other, they talk AT each other with dialogue simply there to further the plot.

    Which is why the Bond films will always have a much higher rewatch factor.
    And yet here I am, anxiously awaiting a 4K release of Fallout so I can view the entire series again in all its high definition glory. I must be a simple sort.

    To each their own of course, but the last three MI films have far higher rewatchability for me in comparison to the Craig era Bond films. I agree with you that characterizations are thin, but I don't think the Bond flicks of late have a great track record on that front either. More pretentious, introspective and moody perhaps, but not necessarily better.

    For me, these recent MI films serve as a nice breezy light weight entertainment compliment to the classic Cubby Bond era films up to and including 1995 (yes, I extended it because I feel GE straddles the old and new nicely).

    +1

    The action scenes are rightly held up as being stunning but they're just the very large cherry on top of a really nice cake for me. Great characters, simple but efficient scripting, and great music. Pure escapism. Modern and slick enough to be contemporary but made with a sensibility that is firmly placed in the old school spy genre. A deft balance that makes them all worth rewatching over and over again, save for M:I-2, of course.

    Gotta strongly disagree with anyone who says otherwise.

    I don’t disagree with any of this, as individual observations (although I find the characters more stock, than three dimensional characterizations); great music and action (goes without saying), but as a whole, I just find them very enjoyable, but very empty. The rollercoaster analogy fits— great and thrilling on the first go around, diminishing returns on the second and third rides. By the time I get home, I forget which rollercoasters I rode on, since one blended into another. The M:I films are like those roller coasters, one blends into the other.

    But it’s great candy.

    Other than the abomination that is the second one.

  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,277
    peter wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Went to see Mission Impossible: Fallout for the 3rd and final time last night, before the film gets removed from my local cinema's schedule (hopefully the Blu Ray release is not too far away). Still a total blast, and the film has a very high rewatchability factor. Bring on M:I:7 !

    Much as i enjoyed MI: Fallout i would have to disagree on the rewatchability of it. Or any MI film for that matter (excluding perhaps the original)

    The MI films are primarily action films and their main draw is the amazing sequences they continue to come up with. But that's it. There is little to no characterization and the dialogue is mostly exposition to get us from one sequence to the next. The characters don't talk to each other, they talk AT each other with dialogue simply there to further the plot.

    Which is why the Bond films will always have a much higher rewatch factor.
    And yet here I am, anxiously awaiting a 4K release of Fallout so I can view the entire series again in all its high definition glory. I must be a simple sort.

    To each their own of course, but the last three MI films have far higher rewatchability for me in comparison to the Craig era Bond films. I agree with you that characterizations are thin, but I don't think the Bond flicks of late have a great track record on that front either. More pretentious, introspective and moody perhaps, but not necessarily better.

    For me, these recent MI films serve as a nice breezy light weight entertainment compliment to the classic Cubby Bond era films up to and including 1995 (yes, I extended it because I feel GE straddles the old and new nicely).

    +1

    The action scenes are rightly held up as being stunning but they're just the very large cherry on top of a really nice cake for me. Great characters, simple but efficient scripting, and great music. Pure escapism. Modern and slick enough to be contemporary but made with a sensibility that is firmly placed in the old school spy genre. A deft balance that makes them all worth rewatching over and over again, save for M:I-2, of course.

    Gotta strongly disagree with anyone who says otherwise.

    I don’t disagree with any of this, as individual observations (although I find the characters more stock, than three dimensional characterizations); great music and action (goes without saying), but as a whole, I just find them very enjoyable, but very empty. The rollercoaster analogy fits— great and thrilling on the first go around, diminishing returns on the second and third rides. By the time I get home, I forget which rollercoasters I rode on, since one blended into another. The M:I films are like those roller coasters, one blends into the other.

    But it’s great candy.

    Other than the abomination that is the second one.

    Is the second one where there is an unintentionally hilarious fight scene that goes on seemingly forever...?
  • Posts: 5,715
    That’s a tricky question @LeonardPine ...
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,277
    peter wrote: »
    That’s a tricky question @LeonardPine ...

    John Woo directed MI:2 in his usual subtle way....
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    I don't know about you all, but I get a kick out of watching Ghost Protocol every time I put it on. Something I can't say about the overglorified Skyfall or its less successful brother, Spectre.
  • Posts: 5,715
    But Tom’s hair looked great (to tell you the truth, all I remember of this one WAS Tom’s hair and a motorcycle standoff and Dougray Scott looking like he was going to cry, and the debate: who’s prettier in this film? Tom or Thandie? And I remember my visceral dislike for the entire film).
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 33,904
    bondjames wrote: »
    Fallout crosses the big 750M mark, with 760M Globally!
    Extremely impressive. I must admit this is certainly higher than I anticipated. @Creasy47 called it. Congratulations to everyone yet again on a well deserved result. Bravo!

    Thanks! Happy to see it reach such a milestone, that's awesome news. Now all that's left to await is the home video release, so I can rewatch it a few dozen times in a week. Can't wait.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited September 2018 Posts: 6,079
    peter wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Went to see Mission Impossible: Fallout for the 3rd and final time last night, before the film gets removed from my local cinema's schedule (hopefully the Blu Ray release is not too far away). Still a total blast, and the film has a very high rewatchability factor. Bring on M:I:7 !

    Much as i enjoyed MI: Fallout i would have to disagree on the rewatchability of it. Or any MI film for that matter (excluding perhaps the original)

    The MI films are primarily action films and their main draw is the amazing sequences they continue to come up with. But that's it. There is little to no characterization and the dialogue is mostly exposition to get us from one sequence to the next. The characters don't talk to each other, they talk AT each other with dialogue simply there to further the plot.

    Which is why the Bond films will always have a much higher rewatch factor.
    And yet here I am, anxiously awaiting a 4K release of Fallout so I can view the entire series again in all its high definition glory. I must be a simple sort.

    To each their own of course, but the last three MI films have far higher rewatchability for me in comparison to the Craig era Bond films. I agree with you that characterizations are thin, but I don't think the Bond flicks of late have a great track record on that front either. More pretentious, introspective and moody perhaps, but not necessarily better.

    For me, these recent MI films serve as a nice breezy light weight entertainment compliment to the classic Cubby Bond era films up to and including 1995 (yes, I extended it because I feel GE straddles the old and new nicely).

    +1

    The action scenes are rightly held up as being stunning but they're just the very large cherry on top of a really nice cake for me. Great characters, simple but efficient scripting, and great music. Pure escapism. Modern and slick enough to be contemporary but made with a sensibility that is firmly placed in the old school spy genre. A deft balance that makes them all worth rewatching over and over again, save for M:I-2, of course.

    Gotta strongly disagree with anyone who says otherwise.

    I don’t disagree with any of this, as individual observations (although I find the characters more stock, than three dimensional characterizations); great music and action (goes without saying), but as a whole, I just find them very enjoyable, but very empty. The rollercoaster analogy fits— great and thrilling on the first go around, diminishing returns on the second and third rides. By the time I get home, I forget which rollercoasters I rode on, since one blended into another. The M:I films are like those roller coasters, one blends into the other.

    But it’s great candy.

    Other than the abomination that is the second one.

    I disagree that they blend into one another. They certainly don't blend into one another any more than any individual Bond era has. There's enough personality traits and stylistic differences to make them all stand out from the previous effort thanks to the variety of directors. McQuarrie did well to not repeat himself as the first returning ship captain too. That's how I see it, anyway.
  • Posts: 5,715
    peter wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Went to see Mission Impossible: Fallout for the 3rd and final time last night, before the film gets removed from my local cinema's schedule (hopefully the Blu Ray release is not too far away). Still a total blast, and the film has a very high rewatchability factor. Bring on M:I:7 !

    Much as i enjoyed MI: Fallout i would have to disagree on the rewatchability of it. Or any MI film for that matter (excluding perhaps the original)

    The MI films are primarily action films and their main draw is the amazing sequences they continue to come up with. But that's it. There is little to no characterization and the dialogue is mostly exposition to get us from one sequence to the next. The characters don't talk to each other, they talk AT each other with dialogue simply there to further the plot.

    Which is why the Bond films will always have a much higher rewatch factor.
    And yet here I am, anxiously awaiting a 4K release of Fallout so I can view the entire series again in all its high definition glory. I must be a simple sort.

    To each their own of course, but the last three MI films have far higher rewatchability for me in comparison to the Craig era Bond films. I agree with you that characterizations are thin, but I don't think the Bond flicks of late have a great track record on that front either. More pretentious, introspective and moody perhaps, but not necessarily better.

    For me, these recent MI films serve as a nice breezy light weight entertainment compliment to the classic Cubby Bond era films up to and including 1995 (yes, I extended it because I feel GE straddles the old and new nicely).

    +1

    The action scenes are rightly held up as being stunning but they're just the very large cherry on top of a really nice cake for me. Great characters, simple but efficient scripting, and great music. Pure escapism. Modern and slick enough to be contemporary but made with a sensibility that is firmly placed in the old school spy genre. A deft balance that makes them all worth rewatching over and over again, save for M:I-2, of course.

    Gotta strongly disagree with anyone who says otherwise.

    I don’t disagree with any of this, as individual observations (although I find the characters more stock, than three dimensional characterizations); great music and action (goes without saying), but as a whole, I just find them very enjoyable, but very empty. The rollercoaster analogy fits— great and thrilling on the first go around, diminishing returns on the second and third rides. By the time I get home, I forget which rollercoasters I rode on, since one blended into another. The M:I films are like those roller coasters, one blends into the other.

    But it’s great candy.

    Other than the abomination that is the second one.

    I disagree that they blend into one another. They certainly don't blend into one another any more than any individual Bond era has. There's enough personality traits and stylistic differences to make them all stand out from the previous effort thanks to the variety of directors. McQuarrie did well to not repeat himself as the first returning ship captain too. That's how I see it, anyway.

    I wont disagree with you that they don't all blend in for you.

    They do for me, especially the last three.

    Honestly, to me, the best M:I film seems to be the one more universally disliked on this forum: the third one. I loved the villain, and the story seemed to have genuine depth and stakes.

    This last one, I felt, tried to mimic the third, and fell short (although I had a helluva fun ride watching it).

    The hammering home that Ethan Hunt was the hero we all needed didn't sit well with me either, in its heavy-handedness. Say it once and then run it thematically through visuals and story-telling.

    But it was like Ethan Hunt's the Second Coming of Christ: his boss tell him he's a saviour, his buddy Ving tells his ex, he's a saviour, his ex then tells Ethan (about ten minutes after her conversation with Ving) that he's a saviour (and I'm pretty sure Benji also said something like this as well. This does stick in my memory since it was so unintentionally funny to my wife and myself).

    In the end, these go down as well as a Looney Tunes cartoon for me. Fun, and I enjoy myself, but mostly forgettable afterwards. When I re-watch, what I tended to enjoy the first time around has become diminished.

    In the end, it's neither here, nor there, and I'm genuinely happy you get something more than I do. It's like me and the Rocky Films: my wife likes enough of the first one-- but after that....

    And she doesn't get my eternal love (and tears-- are you-? You are! you're crying!
    Me: No I'm not! You're imagining things. Again!!
    Wife: (ignoring) But, it's just two guys hugging in the ocean...
    Me: You're stupid...
    Wife: No seriously... is there something you want to tell me?..
    Me: Yah, that you're stupid...)...

    So, I get where you're coming from. I suppose I just see the M:I films differently...
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 6,079
    @peter I also like the third one. Quite a bit. Gets a bad rap from many. Entirely unjustified as far as I'm concerned.

    Ha! I'd probably get along with your wife then. Rocky and Rocky II are great to me, but I lost interest in the series until Balboa and Creed.
  • Posts: 5,715
    @peter I also like the third one. Quite a bit. Gets a bad rap from many. Entirely unjustified as far as I'm concerned.

    Ha! I'd probably get along with your wife then. Rocky and Rocky II are great to me, but I lost interest in the series until Balboa and Creed.

    I haven't understood the bad rap of the third @CraigMooreOHMSS , but, since I'm not savvy enough to comment about the films (I'm just a casual fan), I rarely chat on this thread, although I do enjoy reading the comments.

    And after the crazy/zaniness of the last one, I think I even put 6 above 3.

    However, after the mental orgasm concluded, and I woke up the next day with No.6 in my bed, and not No.3, I was angry and disgusted with myself and took a long hot shower.

    Right now, No. 3 is the pinnacle for me. So the stunts can get crazier than ever, but that one film holds best because of the story.
  • Posts: 3,881
    Hunt also keeps saying "I'm Sorry" a lot in this one, which again is laying it on thick. It's odd that they are calling back to MI3 when 4 and 5 steered away from that tone.

    It's still very well made and I enjoy and admire the craftsmanship of the stunts and action, but a good Bond always has more than that for me.
  • Posts: 444
    The MI films are primarily action films and their main draw is the amazing sequences they continue to come up with. But that's it. There is little to no characterization and the dialogue is mostly exposition to get us from one sequence to the next. The characters don't talk to each other, they talk AT each other with dialogue simply there to further the plot.

    Which is why the Bond films will always have a much higher rewatch factor.

    Pretty much this. I absolutely loved Fallout which might be the exception come the Blu Ray release but for the others when rewatching them I often tend to just skip to the action scenes. All the plot expositions feel the same.

    Most Bond films offer memorable moments away from the action sequences.
  • Posts: 5,715
    Cowley wrote: »
    The MI films are primarily action films and their main draw is the amazing sequences they continue to come up with. But that's it. There is little to no characterization and the dialogue is mostly exposition to get us from one sequence to the next. The characters don't talk to each other, they talk AT each other with dialogue simply there to further the plot.

    Which is why the Bond films will always have a much higher rewatch factor.

    Pretty much this. I absolutely loved Fallout which might be the exception come the Blu Ray release but for the others when rewatching them I often tend to just skip to the action scenes. All the plot expositions feel the same.

    Most Bond films offer memorable moments away from the action sequences.

    Absolutely.
  • edited September 2018 Posts: 1,644
    Some trivia. Tom Cruise isn't the first Hollywood star to hang from a helicopter! Nope. James Coburn was hanging on the side of a helicopter in the 1976 film Sky Riders:



    !!!!

    The ending of Sky Riders is very James Bond in vibe. :)

    Coburn played Derek Flint - an American spoof of Bond - in Our Man Flint and In Like Flint. I don't recall him doing any crazy stunts in those films!
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    edited September 2018 Posts: 5,154
    That's a pretty cool scene.
    And so did Jacky Chan, who probably did every Tom Cruise stunt before him, and then some. Not taking anything away from Tom here, just pointing it out. There are only a handful of guys like that in Hollywood history, no competition necessary.
  • edited September 2018 Posts: 1,644
    Sean Connery hanging onto a moving train and dodging bridges!



    If Sean got the timing wrong - no more Sean! Scary stuff. I think Tom Cruise would be the only modern star do something that crazy.

    I'm not sure what Sean Connery was thinking when he did that. Obviously it was timed to perfection but even so, it is worth risking your life for a film?! I get nervous just watching that scene!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I don't know what you guys are making a big deal about. Roger Moore was skiing off slopes and hanging out of helicopters and planes well into his 50s as Bond. This is such old hat. ;)
  • Posts: 5,767
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    Sean Connery hanging onto a moving train and dodging bridges!



    If Sean got the timing wrong - no more Sean! Scary stuff. I think Tom Cruise would be the only modern star do something that crazy.

    I'm not sure what Sean Connery was thinking when he did that. Obviously it was timed to perfection but even so, it is worth risking your life for a film?! I get nervous just watching that scene!
    That second Bridge almost gave me a heart attack. Such great stuff, and it´s so simple in comparison to a lot of other stunts! Michael Crichton used to make fantastic films.

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Ostandia
    Posts: 39,857


    This was done for real.


  • Sadly not on the official soundtrack
Sign In or Register to comment.