The Mission: Impossible Film Series

http://www.tmz.com/2014/11/03/tom-cruise-plane-stunt-mission-impossible-photo/

Wow! If that really is him on the outside of that plane, it's incredibly dangerous and risky. How could the insurance company or studio have ever allowed him to do that?

Furthermore, if that really is him and not a stunt man, BOND 24 is going to have to step up their game; can't be seen letting Daniel Craig's stuntmen do all the hard work when Cruise is flying around on the outside of a cargo carrier.

Gravy, you forget there's more than one Tom Cruise. The Scientologists have run a successful cloning programme for some years now.

I dunno does it matter that it's 'him'. The idea behind the stunt and its justification in the movie is all important to me. I love that Bond does so much stunt-work for real, but that because the sequences have that grounding element and air of conviction not so much that its actually our man in action etc.

Indeed increasingly these days I find the action overwhelms by being pitched at a scale completely out of step with the larger narrative, the overblown and interminable action sequences of Casino Royale really detract from the main story imo...so its less about what happens and more about why imo.

Like him or not, I have to give him credit for doing a lot of his own stuntwork. That was him on the Burj Khalifa in Dubai.

I'll be there for MI5.

lachesis wrote:

The idea behind the stunt and its justification in the movie is all important to me. I love that Bond does so much stunt-work for real, but that because the sequences have that grounding element and air of conviction not so much that its actually our man in action etc.

It's important for me that the stunt be done for real, and not faked on a green screen. We went from two actors actually dangling out of the back of a C-130 in TLD, to having an entire action sequence in an airplane faked on a green screen in DAD. Granted, two different types of action sequences, but whereas TLD actually dropped a jeep out of the back of the cargo plane, DAD resorts to bad CGI. So, to Cruise up there actually doing the stunt lends the movie some credibility; still don't care to see it in theaters, though.

The distinguished competition in the spy genre.

The plane sequence at the end is great...because he's really hanging there. I'm liking this more than Bond's Mexico shit.

Looks as fun as GHOST PROTOCOL, and if it ends up being that good I'll be satisfied.

Still looking more forward to SPECTRE though, as that's my most anticipated movie of the year.

De Palma's was the only installment with a brain behind it, but I thought the last one was entertaining.

I'll check this one out, especially if it's got Tom Cruise grinning feebly while hanging off of an airplane.

They've changed the cast around again? Only Pegg and Renner to return from Ghost Protocol?

I think this actually looks pretty cool. Hopefully, moving-up the release date by 6 months at the last minute doesn't affect the quality of the film too much. I actually rather like all the MI films (even the John Woo one). They're all kind of different in their own little ways.

Sucks that Paula Patton isn't in this. She was hot as hell in Ghost Protocol.

As far as franchises go, this has been one of the least exciting I have ever seen. Let's start from the beginning:

#1 They commit sacrilege by having Phelps be the villain in the very first film; no respect whatsoever for the source material.

#2 They discard the idea of this being a team effort so that Cruise can star in the movie, undercutting the original premise of the show.

#3 There's very little continuity between films. You get a different IMF director in every film, unlike the Bond series, where we usually get the same "M" for a string of films.

#4 Do you really even know Ethan Hunt? Is this a character that resonates with people? There is so little exposition or writing to bolster the Ethan Hunt character that you could easily replace this character with any number of other actors/actresses and get the same effect, if not better. The character is easily disposable. Cruise may not be, but the character certainly is. Does anyone ever say: "Hey, the new Ethan Hunt movie is coming out in July!" ??? Does anyone refer to the series as 'the next Ethan Hunt' film like they do with James Bond...or Alien...or Indiana Jones...or Harry Potter? You may say: "But these are Impossible Mission films; they're about the team, not about the individual, so why would anyone refer to them as Hunt films?"...well, yeah, they're supposed to be about the team, but they really aren't.

#5 Are there even any special IMF moments in the Cruise series? When you see film retrospectives of the Bond series, usually 3 clips get played: Connery introducing himself to Sylvia Trench, Honey Ryder emerging from the ocean, or Goldfinger telling Bond: "No Mr. Bond, I expect you to die." Are there any such moments in the Cruise films? Nobody seems to really remember them or care about them past the initial release window.

These Cruise films won't stand the test of time.

The series has a few memorable moments. Cruise hanging above the computer terminal in M:I comes to mind.

Rewatched the first last year, and possibly saw the third one when I was younger. But wanting to watch 2-4 before I see this one… Doesn't look too bad...

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

As far as franchises go, this has been one of the least exciting I have ever seen. Let's start from the beginning:

#1 They commit sacrilege by having Phelps be the villain in the very first film; no respect whatsoever for the source material.

It's ballsy. I think they could have handled it much better by having Phelps be a much more disenchanted person who's left because IMF had gone in a direction he was not content with. Instead, they turn him evil and cast Jon Voight. Solid movie, but a very controversial move I'm not a fan of.

Quote :

#2 They discard the idea of this being a team effort so that Cruise can star in the movie, undercutting the original premise of the show.

I think the key to getting into this series of films is that it's very much its own entity, separate from the TV series. By the time we're in movie #5, I think it's pointless to be upset about the films deviating from the TV show. It's never going to happen. The only way that will happen is if it ever returns to TV. Kind of like how STAR TREK is now mindless action extravaganza. I can accept both as such, but they have to be good for what they are otherwise I'm not into it.

Quote :

#3 There's very little continuity between films. You get a different IMF director in every film, unlike the Bond series, where we usually get the same "M" for a string of films.

Is that bad? I kind of like that each film is its own unique thing, much like the ALIEN series. The same spy premise, but done with a different flavor. It couldn't be more clear with the first two films being such a stark contrast with each other.

Quote :

#4 Do you really even know Ethan Hunt? Is this a character that resonates with people? There is so little exposition or writing to bolster the Ethan Hunt character that you could easily replace this character with any number of other actors/actresses and get the same effect, if not better. The character is easily disposable. Cruise may not be, but the character certainly is. Does anyone ever say: "Hey, the new Ethan Hunt movie is coming out in July!" ??? Does anyone refer to the series as 'the next Ethan Hunt' film like they do with James Bond...or Alien...or Indiana Jones...or Harry Potter? You may say: "But these are Impossible Mission films; they're about the team, not about the individual, so why would anyone refer to them as Hunt films?"...well, yeah, they're supposed to be about the team, but they really aren't.

I don't think it really matters. I was a bit surprised that Cruise was back, because I assumed that Renner would take over with GHOST PROTOCOL. Nobody is really going into these films for the characters. It's all about the spectacle, intrigue and seeing how these people get into situations that are "impossible", with Tom Cruise plastered on the poster.

Quote :

#5 Are there even any special IMF moments in the Cruise series? When you see film retrospectives of the Bond series, usually 3 clips get played: Connery introducing himself to Sylvia Trench, Honey Ryder emerging from the ocean, or Goldfinger telling Bond: "No Mr. Bond, I expect you to die." Are there any such moments in the Cruise films? Nobody seems to really remember them or care about them past the initial release window.

These Cruise films won't stand the test of time.

There are memorable moments, I don't think there are any "iconic" moments that reach the heights of GOLDFINGER levels, but that cracking in CIA HQ computer terminal comes pretty damn close. Will these films stand the test of time? Does that even matter?

I thoroughly enjoyed the first two thirds of GHOST PROTOCOL, but hated the plot - it was downright lazy - and the final sequence in India reached DIE ANOTHER DAY levels of silliness. So I'm not sure how I feel about ROGUE NATION. I might see it if I have the opportunity to, but probably won't be upset if I miss it.

Gravity makes a decent point about the characters in this franchise and how they're written.

I couldn't for the life of me remember the names of the villains in this franchise, other than Voight's Jim Phelps. Same goes for the protagonists, other than Hunt, Luther and Benji.

I can't really remember there being a central villain through out GHOST PROTOCOL until the very end. They may want to work on that if they're planning to match 007.

It's a very bland franchise, it seems to lack personality throughout, both on the screen and the director's chair. I'm sure I must have seen them all. Apart from the first one I remember hardly anything about them. De Palma's had at least some charm, in spite of changing so much of the original series. From the others I only recall a number of stunts, too thin for a whole franchise of four films.

Control wrote:

Gravity makes a decent point about the characters in this franchise and how they're written.

I couldn't for the life of me remember the names of the villains in this franchise, other than Voight's Jim Phelps. Same goes for the protagonists, other than Hunt, Luther and Benji.

I can't really remember there being a central villain through out GHOST PROTOCOL until the very end. They may want to work on that if they're planning to match 007.

I'm not a huge Star Trek fan, but I can name Bones, Kirk, Spock, Uhura, Klingons, Romulans, Scotty, Wesley Crusher, 7of9, Data, etc...

People not huge into Bond still can tell you that he likes vodka martinis, shaken no stirred, drives an Aston Martin, has gal pals like Pussy Galore, villains named Odd Job or Jaws or Goldfinger....


Can very many people say the same about the MI film series? I can't remember anything from Ghost Protocol other than the fight between Paula and Lea, and infiltrating the Kremlin. That's it. Have no idea what the plot was. Can't remember it. Don't even know who the villain was. Does anyone know what Hunt's favorite drink is? His favorite color? Any particular witty lines?

The Cruise IMF films are in name only. They were geared exclusively for Cruise to star in, yet he has been a very underwhelming presence in them, but I will give him much credit for being on the outside of that cargo jet flying thousands of feet up in the air. If only other stars would take such risks. I'm sure the studio's insurance carrier was pinching a loaf in their shorts every time he went up.

These are not terrible films; they're just not as good as they could be and should be, and they are too easily forgotten.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Have no idea what the plot was.

Lazy. Ex-Soviet nuclear strategist plans to instigate global nuclear war to wipe out humanity and pave the way for the next stage of human evolution. It was cliched and hackneyed in the 1980s, much less the 2010s. I only remember what it was because it pissed away such a promising set-up with the IMF disbanded and the team without any support. I also remember the prison break, Kremlin infiltration and Dubai sequences being great, but the India scenes stupid because of the magnetic levitation suit, which was DAD levels of silliness.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Don't even know who the villain was.

Michael Nyqvist. As an ex-Soviet nuclear strategist. With the traditional Russian name of "Kurt Hendricks".

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Control wrote:

Gravity makes a decent point about the characters in this franchise and how they're written.

I couldn't for the life of me remember the names of the villains in this franchise, other than Voight's Jim Phelps. Same goes for the protagonists, other than Hunt, Luther and Benji.

I can't really remember there being a central villain through out GHOST PROTOCOL until the very end. They may want to work on that if they're planning to match 007.

I'm not a huge Star Trek fan, but I can name Bones, Kirk, Spock, Uhura, Klingons, Romulans, Scotty, Wesley Crusher, 7of9, Data, etc...

People not huge into Bond still can tell you that he likes vodka martinis, shaken no stirred, drives an Aston Martin, has gal pals like Pussy Galore, villains named Odd Job or Jaws or Goldfinger....


Can very many people say the same about the MI film series?

Can anyone actually say that about the original TV series? Not that I'm throwing that under a bus, but pointing out that even the TV show from the beginning hasn't been a show about characters but character types who pull off crazy convoluted missions. The films did try to inject more character arcs, but I wouldn't call it all that successful because it doesn't work with the concept of M:I and it's not really something people are walking in for.

Quote :

These are not terrible films; they're just not as good as they could be and should be, and they are too easily forgotten.

I feel that they're as good as they can get by the nature of the franchise. They're throwaway blockbusters for the crowd to enjoy and then move on with their lives. They're not meant to be anything much more, so it seems pointless to try to put it up against other film franchise that have higher aspirations with more emphasis on character, whereas M:I, even from the TV show, has really all been about seeing a professional group of agents pulling off crazy missions. Another reason I'm not into M:III-3 is that the whole angle with Hunt having a wife doesn't add anything interesting but that it doesn't feel like it belongs in this series. It was a vain attempt to try to make MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE more like ALIAS and it was pretty lousy. GHOST PROTOCOL thankfully put that aside and only gave Renner his bit of character arc just to explain away why Hunt is going about on missions instead of being a husband.

To my mind, the Dubai sequence in GP is what an MI film should be - one part action movie to one part heist caper. I think it's a good thing that they're trying to establish Renner, Pegg and Rhames as recurring characters because they're meant to be a team, and it gives some leeway to introduce one-off characters whilst preserving the team dynamic.

I do think that's a bit undercut when the trailer only flashes Cruise' name without Renner, Pegg, and Rhames.

Speaking of which, I'm surprised Rhames is back. I thought his character retired IMF after III.

Saw this last night and was quite impressed by it. Maybe as enjoyable as the first one, but definitely better than two and three. Have yet to see GP.

One thing that didn't sit all that well with me was

Spoiler:

Here's an pretty neat video I found about DePalma, Woo, Abrams and Bird's influence on the M:I franchise. Some comparisons to Hitchcock and the Bond, as well. He even starts with a little dig at EON.

"The EON organization is always behind the scenes, threatening to replace any part of the machinery that doesn't serve their idea of the property. They don't like artists or movie stars...they like technicians."

Worth a watch.

https://vimeo.com/134370688