Commander
Posted 09 May 2015 - 11:56 PM
Ghost Protocol is a wonderfully entertaining cartoon. The story and characters are all a bit thin, but when the set-pieces are as inventive and colorful as its setpieces are, that's all you really need.
I don't exactly have high hopes for M:I-5, but I'll see it in the hopes that it delivers more of what Ghost Protocol delivered. I found the trailer a bit underwhelming, though (aside from the plane stunt). The series could do without Simon Pegg.
Commander
Posted 10 May 2015 - 04:43 AM
Calling Ghost Protocol a cartoon is the perfect way of putting it, with all of the negative connotations that such a comparison would bring. It may succeed on a visual level, but in terms of being a "brilliant" or "smart" spy film, I can't agree with that in any way.
The one thing that Ghost Protocol did really well was the team aspect of the film. The team in that film was far and away the best team that they've featured in the franchise, and it's a shame that they didn't bring all of them back. Everything else in Ghost Protocol (aside from Cruise's stuntwork in Dubai) is, at its very best, underwhelming.
Sub-Lieutenant
Posted 10 May 2015 - 11:09 AM
Commander
Posted 10 May 2015 - 11:54 AM
Calling Ghost Protocol a cartoon is the perfect way of putting it, with all of the negative connotations that such a comparison would bring. It may succeed on a visual level, but in terms of being a "brilliant" or "smart" spy film, I can't agree with that in any way.
The one thing that Ghost Protocol did really well was the team aspect of the film. The team in that film was far and away the best team that they've featured in the franchise, and it's a shame that they didn't bring all of them back. Everything else in Ghost Protocol (aside from Cruise's stuntwork in Dubai) is, at its very best, underwhelming.
Nah; it's just lots of fun. It even give Cruise's character a sense of humour, which is a pretty major accomplishment. Not sure it ever set out to be 'smart' so I'm not sure why you feel it failed. Odd to have a go at something being a virtual cartoon of a spy film on a Bond website of all places! 
It's paced well, there are some good jokes, some nice exciting bits, a modicum of drama, a nice bit of tension, original ideas for action, amazing stunts... not sure what you were hoping for to be honest. It never said 'Le Carre' on the tin.
Very likeable film and I'm not sure why Brad Bird doesn't get more of these things to do.
Commander
Posted 10 May 2015 - 12:11 PM
Calling Ghost Protocol a cartoon is the perfect way of putting it, with all of the negative connotations that such a comparison would bring. It may succeed on a visual level, but in terms of being a "brilliant" or "smart" spy film, I can't agree with that in any way.
The one thing that Ghost Protocol did really well was the team aspect of the film. The team in that film was far and away the best team that they've featured in the franchise, and it's a shame that they didn't bring all of them back. Everything else in Ghost Protocol (aside from Cruise's stuntwork in Dubai) is, at its very best, underwhelming.
Nah; it's just lots of fun. It even give Cruise's character a sense of humour, which is a pretty major accomplishment. Not sure it ever set out to be 'smart' so I'm not sure why you feel it failed. Odd to have a go at something being a virtual cartoon of a spy film on a Bond website of all places!
It's paced well, there are some good jokes, some nice exciting bits, a modicum of drama, a nice bit of tension, original ideas for action, amazing stunts... not sure what you were hoping for to be honest. It never said 'Le Carre' on the tin.
Very likeable film and I'm not sure why Brad Bird doesn't get more of these things to do.
The comment that I was originally replying to was the one that called it "smart" and "brilliant". I'm perfectly well aware that it doesn't say "Le Carre" on the tin, but, I would have liked for it to have at least rise to the level of the previous M:I films, which wouldn't have been a difficult task at all for it to achieve.
I would say that Brad Bird doesn't get more to do, at least in terms of live action, due to how bad Ghost Protocol is.
Commander
Posted 10 May 2015 - 07:45 PM
I thought Cruise was distractingly short in MI4-I mean, He's in a Tux wearing 3 inch heels! he looks ridiculous. His trademak running...You can keep The MI series. I've only seen one in a theater, the third and it felt very TV. Just not a fan.
Bond. There is no substitute.
Commander
Posted 11 May 2015 - 09:31 PM
Calling Ghost Protocol a cartoon is the perfect way of putting it, with all of the negative connotations that such a comparison would bring. It may succeed on a visual level, but in terms of being a "brilliant" or "smart" spy film, I can't agree with that in any way.
The one thing that Ghost Protocol did really well was the team aspect of the film. The team in that film was far and away the best team that they've featured in the franchise, and it's a shame that they didn't bring all of them back. Everything else in Ghost Protocol (aside from Cruise's stuntwork in Dubai) is, at its very best, underwhelming.
Nah; it's just lots of fun. It even give Cruise's character a sense of humour, which is a pretty major accomplishment. Not sure it ever set out to be 'smart' so I'm not sure why you feel it failed. Odd to have a go at something being a virtual cartoon of a spy film on a Bond website of all places!
It's paced well, there are some good jokes, some nice exciting bits, a modicum of drama, a nice bit of tension, original ideas for action, amazing stunts... not sure what you were hoping for to be honest. It never said 'Le Carre' on the tin.
Very likeable film and I'm not sure why Brad Bird doesn't get more of these things to do.
The comment that I was originally replying to was the one that called it "smart" and "brilliant". I'm perfectly well aware that it doesn't say "Le Carre" on the tin, but, I would have liked for it to have at least rise to the level of the previous M:I films, which wouldn't have been a difficult task at all for it to achieve.
I would say that Brad Bird doesn't get more to do, at least in terms of live action, due to how bad Ghost Protocol is.
It's better than the two M:I sequels and on a par with the first I'd say.
He said it was a brilliant and smart spy actioner in fact, which it is. It doesn't pretend to be a smart spy film, which is a different thing. Very smartly made, and brilliantly entertaining. You haven't actually managed to say what's wrong with it so far, you just keep saying the same things.
If you really think Bird gets no more work because of how 'bad' Ghost Protocol is, do you not think that all of the reviews would have echoed your point of view? If it's such a certain fact that everyone else knows it to be bad, how come they don't?
Sub-Lieutenant
Posted 12 May 2015 - 12:13 AM
Ghost Protocol was easily the best of the MI series (for me) and has me mad keen for Rogue Nation. The MIs are great action flicks: a lot of fun and just the right amount of spy 'feel'. To me they are not at all in competition with Bond - they are more of a supplementary or complementary franchise.
I have high hopes for Rogue Nation just becuase it has to give me my spy-action fix while I eagerly and impatiently await Spectre's release. Then the studios just need to hurry up and make the Jack Ryan:Shadow Recruit sequel and the purported new Bourne film to fill the gap to Bond 25!
I don't confuse any of these different films or characters with each other, I just have the knack of enjoying them on their own merit; which I am sure is the case with many fans of the spy-action genre. The others are not Bond, I don't want them to be, and they don't want to be either.
Lieutenant
Posted 12 May 2015 - 05:48 PM
I'm waiting for them all but if your looking for comparisons "The Man from U.N.C.L.E." film is cut from "The Ipcress File" and "From Russia with Love" cloth. (with UNCLE's sense of humor from it's second season)
Sub-Lieutenant
Posted 13 May 2015 - 06:11 AM
Now I feel like watching Funeral in Berlin.
Commander
Posted 05 June 2015 - 12:10 AM
Another MI5 Trailer was released today.
Deary me, this does look so very entertaining...
(And as well as not being able to use the Quote function with IE11, I also can't use the Copy and Paste functions either. Anyway, Youtube etc.)
Commander
Posted 05 June 2015 - 01:18 PM
Really looking forward to this one. If I'm critical of anything it's almost too much like Ghost Protocol and the familiar theme of having to go off the grid (the same thing as the first one as well, come to think of it) and the Led Zeppelin music. But once the MI theme kicks in and given the pure sense of fun and the adrenaline rush, there's no reason not to be excited about this.
Now bring on the new SPECTRE trailer.
Sub-Lieutenant
Posted 05 June 2015 - 08:02 PM
Commander
Posted 05 June 2015 - 11:47 PM
Commander
Posted 06 June 2015 - 01:50 AM
Losing interest in this one. I'll see it because I'm a fan of Cruise, but it's really just looking like more of the same nonsense we got with Ghost Protocol.
Commander
Posted 06 June 2015 - 08:00 AM
I have liked all of the Mission Impossible films - MI2 to a lesser extent. This one looks up to the same standard of Ghost Protocol, or better.
Sub-Lieutenant
Posted 07 June 2015 - 12:36 AM
Commander
Posted 07 June 2015 - 05:04 AM
The more that I think about it, the more that Rogue Nation appears to be just another riff on the same tired plot points that Mission: Impossible has been pushing since the beginning. All it's been about is how the IMF is a corrupt and, pardon me, "rogue" organization that can't be trusted. That's been the key theme running throughout all of this. Surely what we'll find out, and I have no knowledge of the script, that Alec Baldwin's character is in fact the leader of the "Rogue Nation", or a higher-up within it, and is ultimately the true villain of the piece. He almost has to be, since he's the biggest name in the film that isn't attached to Cruise's team, and he seems to be filling the same kind of role that Voight and Fishburne filled in their respective films.
That said, it's this type of trope, which is very much cut from the same cloth as the incessant trust and mommy issues of the Bond franchise, that has my enthusiasm for these and the Bond films waning considerably. EON/Paramount, there are other stories within the spy genre to tell other than this one story you keep recycling over and over again. Tell them, or risk losing fans who are tired of your franchises focusing solely on them for well over the past couple of decades. My patience with this type of storyline has, quite frankly, reached its limit, and I'm no longer interested in financially supporting either franchise if they can't respect their audience enough to branch out and tell a different story.
Commander
Posted 07 June 2015 - 07:54 AM
I´m afraid that won´t change in either franchise in the near future.
The basic themes of "trust" and "going rogue since the former good guys-organizations are already infiltrated by the bad guys" are reflecting on contemporary doubts regarding politics and big conglomerates.
I agree with you that this does not feel particularly fresh or exciting anymore - one does not expect anything else from governments, sadly - and to have the new "Mission Impossible"-movie rehash that kind of plot is disappointing to me as well.
However, the "Mission"-pictures, at least IMO, are mostly excuses for over-the-top action sequences, with lots of "wink, wink, we´re only big time entertainment". None of the previous four films even remotely attempted to be anything but pulp fiction, and therefore I do not see or enjoy them for their plots, only for their level of "we dare to go even further".
I also agree that the trailers for the new film do seem to copy the style of the last film - no wonder, since that was mega successful. But even if the hanging on to an airplane in full flight has already been done in OCTOPUSSY - I can´t help but grin with fond anticipation when I see that bit of the trailer.
So, yes, I will want to see this film.
Regarding Bond - well, with the organization of "Spectre" probably having people everywhere, too, the film will have to deal with Mi6 uncovering that conspiracy. I don´t think that the story will repeat the QOS-idea, however, of Bond really going rogue. It will perhaps be more of "Bond, M and Moneypenny" fighting secretly against the enemies within their organization. At some point, this kind of plot will not be repeated in future movies. For now, it is an integral part of the Craig era.
Sub-Lieutenant
Posted 07 June 2015 - 10:29 AM
Commander
Posted 07 June 2015 - 11:36 AM
I´m afraid that won´t change in either franchise in the near future.
I'm well aware that they're not going to change anything. With Bond, remember that this is a franchise produced by people who haven't had an original thought, aside from "let's cast a blonde guy as Bond", in a couple of decades now.
Their problem is going to be whether or not they start losing fans at some point in the near future. I've grown pretty tired of seeing pretty much the same main idea plastered up on the screen film after film after film after film. The Bond people are about ready to lose me, that much is for certain. If we have to go through more of the trust issue crap in SPECTRE, I'm going to have a serious debate with myself inside the theater about whether to just get up and leave and say goodbye to Bond because, quite honestly, at that point all but two films in my now 30 year existence will have no featured that theme as it's central idea. Seriously, people, do something original. Heck, Skyfall was pretty much a remake of a film they had only done four films ago in the franchise.
As for Rogue Nation, I thought it looked entertaining after the first trailer, but after looking at the trailers again and reading more about it and all that, it just seems like old hat now. Yes, it's more of an excuse to have big stunts and to show off Tom Cruise's fearlessness, but they could wrap it up in a package that's a bit different from the others at this point. I'm a huge Tom Cruise fan, and will turn out for pretty much anything that he does, but this is the first time in a long time that I quite simply couldn't care less about his upcoming film. He's a smart enough filmmaker to know that he needs to continue to exploit what (somehow) made the awful Ghost Protocol a huge moneymaker, but at the same time he's also a smart enough filmmaker to know that he shouldn't do the same thing time and time again, which has been the case for the M:I films since the word go.
Commander
Posted 07 June 2015 - 11:48 AM
An entertaining and insightful couple of posts.
Without knowing the first thing about you tdalton, upon reading your post, it appears you may be sounding like a veteran film watcher who has seen the only seven stories in Hollywood and may now be required to start (if not already) watching other types of films for your entertainment.
Bond and the MI series aren't the only one culpable of churning out (variations of) the same story. And so I am not really sure that this is an excuse for laying off one, or any other type of series. This is the world in which we live.
Anyway, please let know that your film viewing net is in fact cast far and wide. Hope you can enjoy both of the above new films this year.
Commander
Posted 07 June 2015 - 04:39 PM
I also agree that the trailers for the new film do seem to copy the style of the last film - no wonder, since that was mega successful. But even if the hanging on to an airplane in full flight has already been done in OCTOPUSSY - I can´t help but grin with fond anticipation when I see that bit of the trailer.
It's undoubtably a more impressive stunt in Octopussy, but if it had been actually Roger Moore hanging on then MI would be looking old hat, but I'm not sure that the star hanging onto a plane has been done before!
Commander
Posted 07 June 2015 - 04:58 PM
True. It´s pretty astonishing that the insurance company allowed Cruise to do that.
Commander
Posted 07 June 2015 - 07:18 PM
Would that just be something that an insurance company would just Not insure?
And if so, would something like that be scheduled for filming right at the end of the production (late finale rewrites, notwithstanding) so that the film could be completed and released with a standin / stuntman / CGI bod doing the job? An awful thought, but no doubt one that is considered by insurance companies and indeed the production companies.
Roger Moore always said, perhaps jokingly, that he always felt safest in the middle of a production schedule, because should something happen to him, at the beginning, they'd just halt the film and at the end, there'd be enough in the can to complete without him.
Commander
Posted 08 June 2015 - 04:22 AM
It is standard procedure to plan shots that could be done with stand-ins last.
I just wonder whether anybody would truly risk the life of a mega star, regardless of whether this particular film might be finished without him?
Well, thankfully Cruise has finished the film and is already on his next one.
Commander
Posted 08 June 2015 - 12:44 PM
An entertaining and insightful couple of posts.
Without knowing the first thing about you tdalton, upon reading your post, it appears you may be sounding like a veteran film watcher who has seen the only seven stories in Hollywood and may now be required to start (if not already) watching other types of films for your entertainment.
Bond and the MI series aren't the only one culpable of churning out (variations of) the same story. And so I am not really sure that this is an excuse for laying off one, or any other type of series. This is the world in which we live.
Anyway, please let know that your film viewing net is in fact cast far and wide. Hope you can enjoy both of the above new films this year.
Already started that process. Smaller, more independent films are really the only place to get any remote kind of satisfaction with regards to film these days. The sad thing is that EON took the risk and hired a brilliant actor to play the part of Bond and, quite frankly, they're squandering that. A guy as talented as Craig, and the audience, deserves better than the three extremely safe films that EON has trotted out there over the past decade.
Quantum of Solace at least has a few nuggets in there that would suggest that there's an attempt to do something more serious and thoughtful with the films, but it doesn't quite go all the way there. The scene towards the end where Bond and Camille are in the burning building and Bond has to wrestle with the idea of killing her so that she doesn't have to face the same fate of burning alive that her family had to face, is the kind of risk-taking that you'd like to see the films taking. It's a tiny, tiny moment within that film, but still the most powerful moment of Craig's tenure. I really wish that they had shown that much foresight when updating Fleming's Casino Royale. Instead of the already extremely tired government agent vs. terrorism motif, there were plenty of other, more interesting directions they could have taken things. Yet they didn't go that route, nor did they really do much to update the script to accommodate Craig, even as he was their first choice all along, considering that Bond seems to be written as younger, and much more brattish, man than Craig attempts to portray him in that film.
Commander
Posted 08 June 2015 - 08:16 PM
The Mission: Impossible franchise has always been driven by set pieces over story. Ethan Hunt has always been a nothing character.
For Rogue Nation, the story looks as forgettable as Ghost Protocol's, but I don't care as long as the action has some imagination and genuine spectacle (which, I'm happy to report, appears to be the case).
Commander
Posted 08 June 2015 - 08:28 PM
I'm not sure I'd say that about DePalma's Mission: Impossible, but it's definitely the case regarding M:I-2 through Ghost Protocol. The story (recovering the NOC List) from the original film left enough of an impression with people for them to immediately recall it when Skyfall "borrowed" it for its opening third. While it can be argued, successfully I would add, that Mission: Impossible is primarily known for its set piece in the CIA vault, it's story isn't the non-starter that it is for M:I-2, M:I-3, and Ghost Protocol.
Commander
Posted 08 June 2015 - 08:46 PM
Would that just be something that an insurance company would just Not insure?
And if so, would something like that be scheduled for filming right at the end of the production (late finale rewrites, notwithstanding) so that the film could be completed and released with a standin / stuntman / CGI bod doing the job? An awful thought, but no doubt one that is considered by insurance companies and indeed the production companies.
Could be right. I understand that Cruise is pretty much the only action star who actually can do this stuff because he's one of the producers, and as such he just tells everyone that he's doing it. On any other movie the star just plain wouldn't be allowed to do it.