284 replies to this topic

[danslittlefinger]

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

Bon appetit.

Sorry it self destructed before I could.

[Harmsway]

[quote name='marktmurphy' post='1029685' date='18 June 2009 - 10:53']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 analogy 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.[/quote]
Exactly.

[quote name='Loomis' post='1029854' date='18 June 2009 - 16:57']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).[/quote]
I don't think M:I:III feels quite like it's made-for-TV, but it does suffer from Abrams' tendency for claustrophobic cinematography (STAR TREK has the same issue).

[quote]name='Loomis' post='1029854' date='18 June 2009 - 16:57']Then again, there's huge potential in the MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE franchise, with or without Cruise as the star.[/quote]
Sure, but seeing as how the franchise has never seriously tapped into its own potential, I'm not expecting M:I-4 to wow me.

[Professor Dent]

Should have seen this one coming given Star Trek's haul at the box office. I enjoyed the others so I'll check this one out but I hope that Abrams forgets how to do that damn lens flare effect.

[Loomis]

Sure, but seeing as how the franchise has never seriously tapped into its own potential, I'm not expecting M:I-4 to wow me.

Well, I doubt it'll be a worldbeater (unless, of course, it does hit the heights of BOURNE SUPREMACY/ULTIMATUM and CASINO ROYALE), but I'll settle for it even if its only as good as its three predecessors. None of the three MISSION: IMPOSSIBLEs is a great film, or even an especially good one, but they all entertain me (and occasionally dazzle my eye, due both to decent action scenes and good cinematography - c'mon, at the very least, the CIA HQ break-in in the first one is a corker and has become a much-spoofed and much-referenced iconic sequence; heck, there's even a nod to it in TERMINATOR SALVATION). I derive much more pleasure from them than from any of the Indy Jones flicks. Also, they have a sense of fun - they're not po-faced, joyless affairs, which actually seems something of a rarity when you look at most other contemporary action franchises.

Since everyone on CBn seems to dislike this series, here are ten great things (off the top of my head) about the MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE films:

- The abovementioned CIA HQ break-in.

- Philip Seymour Hoffman's bad guy.

- The break-in at the Sydney lab. Not especially tremendous from an action POV, but it's incredibly well-shot. I imagine it's the bees' knees on Blu-ray.

- Amazing eye candy, especially Thandie.

- Generally pleasing-to-the-eye handling of locations that has (Craig era excepted) trumped that of the Bonds in recent years.

- That iconic theme tune. Blaring away during an action sequence, it gets the blood pumping like nothing since, well, the James Bond Theme.

- The rock climbing sequence. Okay, it's desperately daft, but, heck, it's done well and looks cool.

- The Shanghai stuff. An obvious influence on THE DARK KNIGHT and, truth be told, probably even more impressive than the Hong Kong derring-do in the Batman flick.

- Cool little cameos by great actors (Vanessa Redgrave, Anthony Hopkins and, erm, Emilio Estevez).

- The series gave employment to the guy who played Necros.

Erm.... well, that's about it. But it's good enough for some pretty decent entertainment, I reckon.

[Harmsway]

- The break-in at the Sydney lab. Not especially tremendous from an action POV, but it's incredibly well-shot. I imagine it's the bees' knees on Blu-ray.

Really? I'm surprised; I never liked the cinematography in that scene. Even on my first viewing, I rankled a bit at how Woo decided to shoot the sequence.

- Generally pleasing-to-the-eye handling of locations that has (Craig era excepted) trumped that of the Bonds in recent years.

This is true. In general, I'll say this for the M:I franchise: I'll take the M:I films over the Brosnan-era Bonds. Even the weakest of the M:I franchise, M:I-2, trumps most of the Brosnan era (maybe, just maybe, GOLDENEYE takes it down, though I don't think it does so by a significant margin) just by virtue of having some really impressive action sequences and the occasional bit of style.

- The Shanghai stuff. An obvious influence on THE DARK KNIGHT and, truth be told, probably even more impressive than the Hong Kong derring-do in the Batman flick.

I never liked Shanghai's treatment in M:I-3. It was just a shameless re-do of the material from M:I-2, and didn't really capture much of the city in the process. THE DARK KNIGHT's excursion to Shanghai was significantly briefer, but I liked the way Nolan capture the skyline much more than the way Abrams' managed it.

[The Ghost Who Walks]

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.

I'd absolutely be interested in seeing this. However, I can't help suspecting it would be harder to make an interesting revamp of these films than it was for, say, Bond or Batman, since Ethan Hunt is a pretty bland character with few real personality traits that aren't done better by Bond or Bourne. They ovbviously tried to make him more of an interesting figure in M:I-3, but failed IMO.

I do like Tom Cruise as an actor (he gets about a thousand times more flack than he deserves these days), but I don't think he'll manage to regain his King of Blockbusters status anytime soon.

[Safari Suit]

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.

I agree; it's all lens flares, dutch angles, and that old Schumacher trick of putting a bunch of smoke or steam into a shot whenether you think nothing else significantly interesting is going on (which sometimes works, don't get me wrong); he's kind of like a poor man's Tony Scott.

As for M:I:III "flopping", I think it simply underperformed, which caused it to be perceived as a flop. And of course in Hollywood the perception is almost more important than the reality.

[AgentBentley]

I wasn't really expecting an M:I 4 movie, because ... well, with James Bond and Jason Bourne, can there really be a third spy franchise that's different and hard enough to make a difference?

I watched the M:I tv series when growing up, and I watched all 3 movies, with diminishing returns, but I really don't see the need for a 4th one, unless they do something completely new. Can they? I doubt it.

[marktmurphy]

Also, they have a sense of fun - they're not po-faced, joyless affairs, which actually seems something of a rarity when you look at most other contemporary action franchises.

Unfortunately Hunt himself is entirely joyless and irritating; somehow Bourne and CraigBond can manage the totally serious thing and make it charismatic and interesting (in fact Bourne is almost more interesting because he's something of a blank character- a proper blunt instrument). Cruise however comes over as very smug and unlikable; and I really think he's a bit of an obstacle to the whole thing. He's okay in the first because he's doing the whole Hitchcockian wrong man thing, but in the other films he's too in control and self-satisfied. Perhaps if he could give a wink to the audience he'd be better (and unique amongst the current crop of screen spies) but he always seems more concerned with karate moves and looking cool when he's running really fast; leaving the human side to Ving. Hell, Arnie makes a better super spy than Cruise does.
The M:I films are decent and I've seen each a couple of times (although I don't particularly want to see 3 again; just too bland and lacking in character) but they are pretty flawed and need a rethink and a director with style. Perhaps if they actually tried to make 'Mission: Impossible' instead of a Bond movie starring Tom Cruise they might find an interesting route. Oh, and use that theme tune more.

Well, I doubt it'll be a worldbeater (unless, of course, it does hit the heights of BOURNE SUPREMACY/ULTIMATUM and CASINO ROYALE), but I'll settle for it even if its only as good as its three predecessors. None of the three MISSION: IMPOSSIBLEs is a great film, or even an especially good one, but they all entertain me (and occasionally dazzle my eye, due both to decent action scenes and good cinematography - c'mon, at the very least, the CIA HQ break-in in the first one is a corker and has become a much-spoofed and much-referenced iconic sequence; heck, there's even a nod to it in TERMINATOR SALVATION). I derive much more pleasure from them than from any of the Indy Jones flicks.

But then you're the guy who said that anyone looking forward to Indy 4 and was prepared for it not to be as good as Raiders is somehow not asking enough- and yet you're happy to get more of the same, even though you admit the M:I films have never been all that good? You're even begrudging anyone looking forward to an Indy 5 in the same vein as the previous ones (which are generally held in higher regard to any M:I movie). You may want to ease off with the Indy stuff- it's just feeling like you're trying to bait people into an argument.

[Loomis]

But then you're the guy who said that anyone looking forward to Indy 4 and was prepared for it not to be as good as Raiders is somehow not asking enough- and yet you're happy to get more of the same, even though you admit the M:I films have never been all that good?

Yes. Personal taste inclines me more to M:I than to Indy (no, the M:Is are not really "good" films, as such, but they do entertain me), and, also, RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK (while I don't particularly care for it) is a far better film than any of the MISSION: IMPOSSIBLEs. At least the M:I sequels met or exceeded the standard of the original.

You're even begrudging anyone looking forward to an Indy 5 in the same vein as the previous ones (which are generally held in higher regard to any M:I movie). You may want to ease off with the Indy stuff- it's just feeling like you're trying to bait people into an argument.

I'm not begrudging anyone anything. If I'm begrudging you INDY 5, then you're begrudging me M:I-IV, which you're obviously not because it would be ridiculous. "The Indy stuff" with which you say I may want to ease off is merely me expressing my opinions on a film that deeply disappointed me (with no personal attacks towards other members that I can recall) - this is allowed, surely? It's no different to you or I airing our gripes with QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

[marktmurphy]

Fair enough; although I'm not sure how you were deeply disappointed by a film in a series you don't like and had expressed how awful you thought it would be beforehand!
I'd also say that I don't think the sequels met the quality of the original. I like the way they kind of attempted to do something different each time (albeit by hitting exactly the same marks), but the tone of M:I together with a couple of excellent set-pieces beats anything they did afterwards for me. It feels like a spy film; the others are just action movies.

[Loomis]

Fair enough; although I'm not sure how you were deeply disappointed by a film in a series you don't like and had expressed how awful you thought it would be beforehand!

I'll admit, though, that I've probably become a bit of a bore on the subject of INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL. Airing opinions is all well and good, but it occurs to me that I may have aired mine on INDY 4 to death.

I agree that it's only the first M:I that feels truly espionage-y, whereas the other two are largely action flicks.

Oh, well, it's still better than a kick in the teeth. Here's vaguely looking forward to another acrobatic break-in sequence, another McGuffin storyline, and yet another redesign and new boss of IMF.

[marktmurphy]

You missed the villain being an IMF turncoat

[OmarB]

What they need to do is get rid of Ethan Hunt! He was never in the series but suddenly he's the lead in the movies! I say the next movie should be a true team mission, keep Luther but recast the rest of the team.

[Jim]

They entertained me; might as well shove another one my way, I suppose. I found the TV series very slow.

As for whether the older man in the first one was the villain or not - I have no idea. Does it matter?

[Safari Suit]

Whoever decided it was a great idea to have Jim be the villain in the first film should, I hope, be slowly digested in the stomach of Rosie O'Donnell for a thousand years.

But you didn't see it coming did you?

[tdalton]

I actually wasn't all that bothered by the reveal of the villain in MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE. I was just glad that the film was willing to take a chance like that and do something unexpected. It's a shame, though, that every M:I film has featured a traitorous IMF agent. If they're going to force M:I-4 upon us, then please make it a film without any rogue IMF agents. So far, the best course of action to stop the villains that IMF is forced to go after would be to simply shut down the IMF.

[Loomis]

even I know enough about the series to know that the movies were an abomination, especially what they did to Jim in the first film.

I think what they did to Jim is a point in their favour. Anyway, "Jim Phelps" may be only a codename, so you can fanwank your way out of it pretty easily if you don't like it.

The films are decent bits of entertainment

Exactly. That's all I'm saying. I'm not claiming them to be Satyajit Ray's Apu trilogy or anything.

[Joe Bond]

I like the show and the movies are very entertaining. Pretty much agree with every point you made about the films Loomis and to me if they are entertaining thats all I need to have a good time so if Mission Impossible 4 is as entertaining as the others then I will see it in the theater. Of course these films and the original TV show were never meant to have any deep message but were all about the suspense of getting a mission completed with a team (more so in the TV show) so thats all the films really are. I actually would not be surprised if Ethan Hunt end up being not a major player in the next film because of the ending of the last which means they could take the route of making more of a team spy flick like the show was by having unknown actors playing various team members where they all get equal screen time where the Ethan Hunt character would make a cameo but nothing more (a sort of passing of the torch on to the new team).

[jaguar007]

You yourself said it. It's the "Ethan Hunt franchise", not the Mission Impossible franchise.

BINGO! Apart from a little bit of the first film, it has nothing to do with the TV series. It seems they licensed to use "Mission Impossible" just so they could use the kick theme music. It is kind of like hiring Matthew McConehey to do a movie about a private detective in Hawaii who lives in a big mansion owned by someone else and drives a Ferrari, only to call it Hawaii 5-0 so they can use the music.

As I mentioned earlier, the series is all a Tom Cruise ego thing just to make him look cool.

[Agent 76]

You yourself said it. It's the "Ethan Hunt franchise", not the Mission Impossible franchise.

BINGO! Apart from a little bit of the first film, it has nothing to do with the TV series. It seems they licensed to use "Mission Impossible" just so they could use the kick theme music. It is kind of like hiring Matthew McConehey to do a movie about a private detective in Hawaii who lives in a big mansion owned by someone else and drives a Ferrari, only to call it Hawaii 5-0 so they can use the music.

As I mentioned earlier, the series is all a Tom Cruise ego thing just to make him look cool.

you mean, Magnum PI

[jaguar007]

you mean, Magnum PI

Nope, I meant Hawaii 5-0. That was my point, not resembling the original except for the theme.

[Agent 76]

you mean, Magnum PI

Nope, I meant Hawaii 5-0. That was my point, not resembling the original except for the theme.

oops. my bad ,sorry.

[marktmurphy]

As for whether the older man in the first one was the villain or not - I have no idea. Does it matter?

Yes, I could never bring myself to care about that.
The first one is a good entertaining film. The best bits were the bits where they're doing Mission: Impossible-style stuff, though. Odd that they seem to resist making a whole film like that. It's not as if one person can't still be the lead in a team movie: Clooney is the lead but the Oceans films still work as a team picture.

[chriso]

Man, not another Mission Impossible movie! MI:3 was pretty lame. The story was nothing special and some moments were ridiculous (Hunt seems to be dead, wakes up and everything seems to be okay?!)
If it's true, I hope the fourth movie will be much better.

[bondrules]

The only thing that comes to mind when I hear about another MI is when are they gonna kill the franchise.

[Captain Tightpants]

Plot of M:I-4 ...

"Good evening, Mister Cruise. Your mission, should you choose to ignore it, is to infiltrate a sinister and dangerous cult that we believe is attempting to take over the world through a combination of brinwashing, propaganda and science fiction novels. You are to work your way up throuh the ranks of this cult until you are in a position to be a public spokesperson for their activities, from where you will proceed to drive them into the ground. If your credibility as an actor and/or human being is destroyed, our government will make no attempt to resuce you, as we don't ave any ourselves. During this time, your co-star Naomi Watts will station herself in Australia, the last bastion of Scientological revolt as she would much rather have a lamb roast at home than dinner with you; Nicole Kidman will proceed to organise the country into an invading forse. If you accept this assignment, please jump up and down on your sofa and Val Kilmer wll fly by shortly to pick you up."

[Safari Suit]

It's funny. This thread, even though it's mostly negative, has actually made me much more interested in another M:I film, not less.

Anyway, I dug out the first M:I film. I still think it's easily the best film in the series. I've mentioned before how much I enjoy the way DePalma subverted audience expectations in his typical fashion by dangling a team adventure film in front of them like a golden carrot and instead taking them somewhere else. I think it's a classic DePalma film on the whole actually, with fantastic, elegant production design and inovative camerawork. Visually, it's a fabulous film. I love that it is the slowest paced film of the series with the shortest running time, I think it flows wonderfully. There are only three action set pieces but they're all brilliant. The famous break-in scene is just fantastic, and I dare say it might well be more iconic than anything found in a Bond movie since the 70s. Overall, I think it's one of the best summer blockbusters of the 90s, and certainly the best of that year. If they insist on breaking the "revolving auteur" pattern of the series by bringing a director back I'd much rather it was DePalma than Abrams.

Amusingly though, the DVD does give credence to the idea of the series being more of a Cruise ego trip than anything. About half the special features on the disc are about Cruise but have nothing to do with Mission: Impossible. For example, there is the clip of Cruise recieving Stanley Kubrick's lifetime achievement award on his behalf. Then there is Excellence in Film Making: Cruise, a nine minute montage of clips from various Cruise films. What is especially funny about this is that the montage is rated 15, lifting the overall certificate of the DVD to a 15 from the film's PG. I always find it funny when studios cut-off potential customers for the sake of trying to sell other DVDs, especially in this case where many of the films aren't even from the same studio! There is another Cruise retrosepective on the M:I:III DVD called Generation Cruise, but I'll let that off because it features some nifty Jive Bunny-style stuttering effects ("I feel the need/I-I-feel the Need/the need for speed!").

But anyway, if you want a flimsy excuse to dig out one of these films Cruise turns 47 today.

[Loomis]

Anyway, I dug out the first M:I film. I still think it's easily the best film in the series. I've mentioned before how much I enjoy the way DePalma subverted audience expectations in his typical fashion by dangling a team adventure film in front of them like a golden carrot and instead taking them somewhere else. I think it's a classic DePalma film on the whole actually, with fantastic, elegant production design and inovative camerawork. Visually, it's a fabulous film. I love that it is the slowest paced film of the series with the shortest running time, I think it flows wonderfully. There are only three action set pieces but they're all brilliant. The famous break-in scene is just fantastic, and I dare say it might well be more iconic than anything found in a Bond movie since the 70s. Overall, I think it's one of the best summer blockbusters of the 90s, and certainly the best of that year. If they insist on breaking the "revolving auteur" pattern of the series by bringing a director back I'd much rather it was DePalma than Abrams.

Coincidentally, I was watching De Palma's MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE earlier today, and I agree with all you say. Visually, it's stylish, sophisticated, and - dare I say it - iconic fare. Like HEAT, it has a very cool look and feel all of its own that made it something of a milestone at the time of its release. And it looks absolutely bloody fantastic on Blu-ray.

But anyway, if you want a flimsy excuse to dig out one of these films Cruise turns 47 today.

Happy birthday, you crazy-as-a-dingbat old bastard. I'd call Cruise the white Michael Jackson, only Jackson was, well.... never mind.

[Turn]

Don't tell me, Renner's character will be...gasp...a traitor!

Why break the streak now?