284 replies to this topic

[photographer]

After the great success of the new "Star Trek"-movie it looks like that Paramount give the team of "MI-3" a second chance.

Director J.J. Abrams will team up again with Tom Cruise in a fourth installment of the franchise. The movie is slated for a 2011 release.

Edited by the photographer, 18 June 2009 - 11:37 AM.

[The Ghost Who Walks]

The M:I series is in my eyes one of the worst franchises of recent memory, which makes it hard to explain why I have seen all three films...

[DamnCoffee]

I've never really been that into the Mission Impossible franchise, really.

I'll probably check it out.

[Agent 76]

If they could return to the spirit of the tv-series it would be really cool.

[Safari Suit]

Meh. If they were going to bring back DePalma I might be mildly excited.

[Loomis]

Call me insane, but I like all three MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE films. I never saw the TV show.

My favourite is probably MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE II - good clean fun. The first one, while a little dull in parts, is stylish and holds happy memories for me, while the third flick, while scripted on the back of a postage stamp and boasting a coupla "meh" action sequences, is probably the best.

The MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE flicks are not as good as the Bournes or most of the Bonds. Still, they're reasonably well-made and entertaining, and this franchise has never given us a dog like INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL or TERMINATOR SALVATION.

I really don't understand why it's so fashionable to slate the Ethan Hunt franchise.

Anyhoo, I gather that it isn't yet known whether Cruise and Abrams will star in and direct MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE IV, or whether they'll be producing the thing for a new lead and director. Either way, I, for one, am ready for some more IMF thrills n' spills.

[Safari Suit]

I don't think, aside from perhaps the second part it's particular fashionable to "slate" the series. I just don't think there's anything particularly distinctive about the franchise or Ethan Hunt as a character, and as such it's kind of difficult to get particularly worked up about another entry. I feel the same way about the Jack Ryan "series", at least on screen.

I think the first is easily the best. I love the way DePalma subverts audience expectations in classic DePalma fashion. That said I find it one of his less interesting films. The second has some fun nonsense in it (airplane hijaks, motercycle chest bumps) and a lot of tedious nonsense (endless scenes of Tom Cruise running around trying to look cool). The third is better but pretty forgettable, and given that the next one comes from the same team (and that the third film probably got the best reviews) I would be surprised if the fourth isn't more of the same.

[marktmurphy]

I'm sure I'll watch it as I like spy films (can you tell?) but the M:I series has limped on in a very tired way since the second. The first was a strong action blockbuster that pretended it was a serious spy thriller, and as such was a lot of fun (with a cracking score, incidentally); the second is watchable but pretty terrible stuff. However at least those two have some sort of directorial flavour to them: the third was just plain bland and quite unexciting in places. And sadly Cruise himself just gets more and more irritating as the films go on; whenever I see them all I can hear in my head are quotes from the directors saying how amazing Tom is and how he does all his own stunts and all his own -kissing.
I find this to be pretty unexciting news, especially with JJ helming it. Perhaps he's learnt how to be interesting from Star Trek, which was very good. I wish Tom wasn't in it; then it could follow the TV series route a bit more (which is a more interesting concept) and you'd have essentially Ocean's 11 in the spy world, which sounds good to me.

How did they get round the studio and Tom breaking up, then?

[mkr10001]

I like II and III, not sure which i like better though. I like dougray scott in II.
"this is whats known as, getting your gun off"
"thats a raggy nail" lol the first is OK but there's just something about it that doesnt do it for me.

[007luvchild2]

I always liked the "Real" Mission Impossible a la Peter Graves, Martin Landau, Greg Morris, I even liked the ones with Leonard Nimoy and Lesley Ann Warren. I didn't really care that much for the late 88-90 version,however it was watchable and it did have some promising episodes. When the first Mission Impossible movie came out, I was excited. After watching and I don't know if anybody has felt this way, I was so P****d, it just nailed the coffin on my extreme dislike for Tom Cruise. That was my INITIAL reaction to the movie. Thank god the Family channel was showing the 1960's and 70's version of the show at the time. I had to rewatch the movie "Legends" just to find Tom Cruise redeemable because it was hilarious seeing Tim Curry as Lord Darkness man-handled Cruise in that one scene. Mission Impossible II-the only thing I liked in the movie was Thandie Newton, and it wouldn't hurt if Anthony Hopkins was used more in the movie. However, I understand because a thespian and an artist like Anthony Hopkins would steal the spotlight from Cruise. Mission Impossible III: I actually found that one watchable. This is not one of Phillip Seymour Hoffman best roles however it was entertaining to see his character taunt Ethan Hunt. Mission Impossible 4? I don't know. We just have to see.

[Loomis]

I don't think, aside from perhaps the second part it's particular fashionable to "slate" the series.

I respectfully disagree. 'Course, I think it all ties in to the general Cruise-bashing that's rife in this world.

I just don't think there's anything particularly distinctive about the franchise or Ethan Hunt as a character

True, that. Same goes for Jack Ryan, which you mention. Still, I think those two franchises are of high enough quality to pass muster as decent entertainment. After all, one does sit through a lot worse.

BTW, I hate the way that, whenever the MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE films are mentioned, people pipe up with that same old "It's a travesty of the TV show, why can't we have a proper team instead of Cruise just hogging the limelight?". It's like complaining that the Bond films are often so different to the Fleming novels. No May the housekeeper, no comma of black hair, no Benzedrine, no sixty fags a day. If you're so hung up on Fleming or MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE the TV show, then just stick with the damn things and quit yer bitchin'.

[jaguar007]

I thought the MI series jumped the couch

[Tarl_Cabot]

The M:I series is in my eyes one of the worst franchises of recent memory, which makes it hard to explain why I have seen all three films...

What he said.

[OmarB]

I love M:I! But I'm more a fan of the both TV series than the movies. The focus on Ethan robs M:I of the cool team aspect of the concept. The first one is still the best even though it went as far as subverting the whole team concept the most.

http://www.aintitcoo...comment_2726533

Even though the last installment was the lowest grossing film in the series, it looks like Tom Cruise and J.J. Abrams (and Paramount) are game for more MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE!

According to a report in a trade publication (which lifted this story from Spoiler TV, which was lifted from TV Guide...), MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE IV would be co-produced by Cruise and Abrams and in theaters by 2011. Interestingly, there's not a word about Cruise starring in this film or Abrams directing it, so who knows what they're cooking up? Right now, Abrams is busy getting the next STAR TREK ready for production, while Cruise is signed for an untitled James Mangold drama at 20th Century Fox and David Cronenberg's THE MATARESE CIRCLE for MGM (which will co-star Denzel Washington). In other words, unless one or two of Cruise's projects falls apart over the next few months ('cuz STAR TREK is a go picture), 2011 sounds like a pipe dream.

Though I wasn't a fan of MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III, I do think that they were right in making it more of a team film than the first two movies. This time out, they need to go even further with that concept and give Cruise a formidable co-star. What do you guys think? Are you ready for more MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE?

[Safari Suit]

'Course, I think it all ties in to the general Cruise-bashing that's rife in this world.

Perhaps, but hasn't Cruise bashing kind of died down since M:I:III came out, and he seemed to get over that phase of jumping on Brooke Shields' couch so he can punch Xenu's psychiatrist or whatever? He's been fairly quiet since then, but his cameo in Tropic Thunder was well recieved. Overly so IMO.

On the subject of the TV series vs. movie series thing, I do agree with you but I think it's a bit different from the EON vs. Bond example. I would say that the Bond films do at least stick to the basic general concept of Fleming's world, whereas, from what little I know about M:I, the films stray notably far from the general concept of the original series. But I've always thought that judging films solely by their fidelity to the source material is one of the worst ways to grade a film, and the fact that the first film turned the M:I concept on it's head is what I liked about it.

Spoiler

"I was expecting this movie to be about a team mission, but most of the team died twenty minutes in! And the hero from the TV series was the villain in the film. It's like they wanted to surprise us or something. How dare DePalma not make a film which doesn't deliver exactly what I expected and nothing more! Boo!"

Though frankly, a film with a team mission would be more interesting to me than another Hunt adventure.

While I said that the franchise isn't particuarly distinctive, it does occur to me that all three films were handled by directors that were, not strictly "auteurs" perhaps, but certainly notable, creative people (personally, I've yet to be blown away by J J, but he's still notable) who gave their own spin on the series. I might be more interested in M:I IV if they hired another "name" director to give their own unique spin on the series.

[sharpshooter]

Call me insane, but I like all three MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE films. I never saw the TV show.

My favourite is probably MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE II - good clean fun. The first one, while a little dull in parts, is stylish and holds happy memories for me, while the third flick, while scripted on the back of a postage stamp and boasting a coupla "meh" action sequences, is probably the best.

The MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE flicks are not as good as the Bournes or most of the Bonds. Still, they're reasonably well-made and entertaining, and this franchise has never given us a dog like INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL or TERMINATOR SALVATION.

I really don't understand why it's so fashionable to slate the Ethan Hunt franchise.

Anyhoo, I gather that it isn't yet known whether Cruise and Abrams will star in and direct MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE IV, or whether they'll be producing the thing for a new lead and director. Either way, I, for one, am ready for some more IMF thrills n' spills.

I'm in the same boat.

Count me in.

[marktmurphy]

BTW, I hate the way that, whenever the MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE films are mentioned, people pipe up with that same old "It's a travesty of the TV show, why can't we have a proper team instead of Cruise just hogging the limelight?". It's like complaining that the Bond films are often so different to the Fleming novels. No May the housekeeper, no comma of black hair, no Benzedrine, no sixty fags a day. If you're so hung up on Fleming or MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE the TV show, then just stick with the damn things and quit yer bitchin'.

Well, not really- in that the team idea effectively working con tricks is actually a bit more interesting and unique to the spy genre than having one superspy who jumps around the world having gun battles and jumping off buildings. Lots of other films do that and to drop M:I's one USP seems an odd decision.
To make an anaolgy with Bond you'd have to imagine that the films dropped that which made the books unique from those around them at the time i.e. make Bond an American detective or something. Dropping Bond's housekeeper ain't exactly the same as dropping the entire concept behind your title as soon as you can so we can concentrate on how amazing it-is-that-Cruise-is-actually-doing-his-own-stunts-omg.


I'm going to bet that M:I4 involves Ethan stealing something from a secure building involving some sort of ridiculous acrobatic routine and that the villain will turn out to be a fellow agent of his. Just like every single M:I film so far.

[The Dove]

Oh jeez not another one!!

The first Mission Impossible was awesome...
The second one..erm.. well consider it the Die Another Day of the Mission Impossible franchise..

The third one...meh ok, VASTLY OVERRATED... Saw it twice.. don't feel the need to ever see it again..

[tdalton]

Is there any franchise they're not willing to bring back to milk some more money out of the public. The MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE franchise was dead-in-the-water after the M:I-3 fiasco, and now they're going to subject us to another one.

[jaguar007]

One problem I always had with the MI series (apart of being a travesty to the TV series) is that the films just seem to be made for Tom's ego. The movies are all about making him look cool and not much else.

[00Twelve]

M:I3 wasn't a bad movie. It wasn't. It just came out at the height of all of Tom Cruise's bull[censored], so naturally its returns were pretty badly hurt.

I wouldn't have wished the film to be unsuccessful, but I'm glad in a way that it grossed as lowly as it did so that Cruise could know that his movies aren't immune to his behavior and public -ness.

[tdalton]

M:I3 wasn't a bad movie. It wasn't. It just came out at the height of all of Tom Cruise's bull[censored], so naturally its returns were pretty badly hurt.

My biggest problem with it was that it was basically a TV movie that they released on the big screen. I went into it expecting the usual summer blockbuster type film, and what I was "treated" to was a two hour episode of ALIAS starring Tom Cruise, complete with the production values of ALIAS rather than what one would expect from a big summer film.

Also, I thought that Cruise's performance in M:I-3 was his weakest in the series. Every time we reach an "emotional" moment, it almost feels as though they're conveying all of those emotions because it's something that audiences supposedly wanted to see in their action movies at the time, rather than the emotions feeling at all connected to what was happening on screen.

[danslittlefinger]

MI-4?
Say it's not possible or I shall eat this post.

[00Twelve]

Bon appetit.

[The Ghost Who Walks]

Is there any franchise they're not willing to bring back to milk some more money out of the public. The MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE franchise was dead-in-the-water after the M:I-3 fiasco, and now they're going to subject us to another one.

I believe M:I-3 was only considered a "flop" by so many because Cruise apparently walked away with a huge part of the profits.

I'm convinced a fourth entry will bomb anyhow. I doubt many people will care about this franchise after Casino Royale and The Bourne Ultimatum redefined the spy movie. Unless they keep costs down, I can't see M:I-4 making a huge profit.

I must say I thought the sequence on the bridge in the third film was fantastic, other than that I barely remember anything from the movie. Philip Seymour Hoffman was a near-classic villain, but they killed him off in such an awfully anticlimatic fashion I nearly fell of my chair. The second movie had a great motorcycle chase, but other than that precious little to recommend. The first film is dull for most of its running time, though it has a great finale.

[tdalton]

Is there any franchise they're not willing to bring back to milk some more money out of the public. The MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE franchise was dead-in-the-water after the M:I-3 fiasco, and now they're going to subject us to another one.

I believe M:I-3 was only considered a "flop" by so many because Cruise apparently walked away with a huge part of the profits.

I think that it's true that that's the reason why it was considered a financial "flop" by a great number of people, but I'd also say that the quality of the film itself was enough to consider it a creative flop as well. I think that if you had taken the same film and swapped out Tom Cruise for Jennifer Garner, M:I-3 would have been ALIAS: THE MOVIE without any other tweaking done to the script (don't get me wrong, I like ALIAS, but not enough to spend 10+ dollars on it at the theater).

[The Ghost Who Walks]

I never actually saw Alias, but the film did indeed feel like it was made for television. Shows like Battlestar Galactica probably cost a fraction of the money spent on M:I-3, but still looks miles better.

I still don't think Abrams has a very interesting visual style, judging from Star Trek, which didn't look that spectacular in my eyes.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Philip Seymour Hoffman was a near-classic villain, but they killed him off in such an awfully anticlimatic fashion I nearly fell of my chair.

I have to agree; he gets hit by a car? The HELL?!

[Loomis]

I don't get the made-for-television criticisms of MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III. I think it's shot very well, very cinematically, with a nice sense of scale and some good, epic locations (Vatican City and Shanghai). All three films look and feel quite lavish to me, in fact. They all gave me that "wow" factor in the cinema, and while I've yet to see them on Blu-ray I'll bet they're stunning on that format.

The Ghost Who Walks rightly mentions that CASINO ROYALE and THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM (both far better films than any of the MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE flicks) redefined the spy movie, but I see no reason why MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE IV couldn't do what FOR YOUR EYES ONLY did after MOONRAKER, what CASINO ROYALE did after DIE ANOTHER DAY and what BATMAN BEGINS did after BATMAN AND ROBIN, and be a "down-to-earth", adult, intelligent and gritty reinvention of the franchise.

If Cruise is truly willing to take some risks and push boundaries and hire an excellent screenwriter and director and give them freedom (this being a key thing - I don't believe De Palma and Robert Towne ended up getting all that much freedom), MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE IV could rock, especially if the look and feel of the series were revamped for the post-Bourne/post-Craig world of screen espionage.

If Cruise is truly willing.... now, that seems a pretty big "if". Allegedly, Oliver Stone walked away from MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE II and Joe Carnahan and David Fincher quit MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III because Cruise wasn't willing to accommodate their bold ideas.

Then again, there's huge potential in the MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE franchise, with or without Cruise as the star. Certainly more so than with, say, ALIEN 5 or INDIANA JONES 5 or TERMINATOR 5 or most everything else that Hollywood seems determined to beat to death.

[bondboy007]

I think the main problem with MI:III was the fact that it tried to act like it was a lot better than it really was. Like when they tried to break into the building in Shanghai to get the 'rabbit's foot' or what ever it was. (I haven't watched it since I saw it in theaters.) They said that it would make Langley look like a cakewalk....and they showed nothing inside the building and it took Ethan Hunt no more than 5 minutes. Then we never found out what the rabbits foot thing was, and that was them trying to be really, really cute and clever about the whole things. The original movie was more in tone with the TV show, but I still think that they needed to have a full movie of team work between the agents, not just a beginning. Also I hated how they tried to make it all emotional for Hunt with the recruit and his wife or girlfriend or whatever being in danger and Hunt went our on a vendetta to avenge it all or whatever. It all seemed like a cookie cutter movie with a bit of Cruise and JJ flair.

A 4th one would fine by me if they take some of the focus off of Cruise, get him a big name co-star and make it more team oriented like the first was for part of it.

Edited by bondboy007, 18 June 2009 - 10:13 PM.