139 replies to this topic

[seawolfnyy]

I hate to admit it, but it's true that MI did it better than Spectre....a lot better.

[SecretAgentFan]

I saw it again on blu-ray today - and I must again say how much I enjoy this movie.  

 

And I agree, it does everything so much better than SPECTRE:   

 

- the secret organization planning worldwide mayhem with ties to the government-plot

- breathtaking stunts and chases

- tension and humor

- cinematography (again a film that makes London look so much more interesting and better - what gives, man?)

[seawolfnyy]

Morocco is an even bigger difference than London, IMO. In Spectre we get the, admittedly good, train fight. But then Bond and Madeleine sitting in the middle of the desert for what seems like hours doing literally nothing. A disposable villain base that our heroes escape from far too easily and no one could care less that it is destroyed.

In Mission Impossible, we got that ridiculous stunt underwater (which Cruise actually did himself and trained himself to be able to hold his breath for 3 minutes for the whole continuous shot. Then the superb motorcycle chase that beautifully shows off the Moroccan mountains as opposed to the bland empty desert we see in Spectre.

[SecretAgentFan]

True.  The whole middle part of SPECTRE just cried out for another visually interesting sequence.  Or it should have cut directly from Austria to the train sequence, with the information in Mr. White´s secret room delivered in more interesting fashion.

[Turn]

I also watched my newly-purchased Blu-ray last night. As fun as it was the first time around. While still riveting, the plane stunt lost a little of the pure adrenaline it had in the cinema first time, but not much.

 

While I continue to place Ghost Protocol above Skyfall as far as enjoyment goes, I'll still have to see SPECTRE once more before comparing it with Rogue Nation, although the latter will still probably edge it out just based on pure enjoyment and rewatchability.

 

I'm kind of surprised the MI films haven't yet done a snow setting or something in a really cold climate.

[Dustin]

Well, give them some ideas, can't hurt.

[west]

The Mission Impossible franchise has been a very interesting one for me. I very much enjoyed 1, wasn't so fond of 2 and liked 3. However I found the extreme changes in tones between films too jarring for me to really embrace the franchise. 1 felt like an espionage thriller, 2 was like an over the top superhero film and 3 was more of a personal action film. There was no connection between the three films apart from the theme song and Tom Cruise playing Ethan Hunt, who seemed to be a completely different character each time. However, the tone they have found with Ghost Protocol and Rogue Nation is fantastic, and I think the franchise has finally found its footing as entertaining action thrillers centered around genuinely incredible and iconic stunts.

 

I have been a Bond fan for as long as I can remember, but after Skyfall and Spectre, the feeling of sheer entertainment and fun I had watching (and re-watching) Ghost Protocol and Rogue Nation in the cinemas and on Blu-Ray have left me looking forward to the next installment of Mission Impossible considerably more than I am for a Craig Bond. Spectre is the first Bond since I've been going to see them in the cinemas starting with Goldeneye that I have no real desire to see again on the big screen, let along at home. In contrast I couldn't wait to re watch Rogue Nation and was checking the release date for the Blu-Ray.

MI:GP and RN outshine the previous two Bond films for me on almost every level - action, humor, stunts and plot. Yes the MI films are fantastical, but they seem to embrace that and have fun with it as opposed to taking themselves too seriously and therefore having plot holes become major detractors to the experience. The MI films seem to have what the Bond films are losing to me - fun. They are sheer entertainment and the effort that Cruise and co put in to the films to make them an event for the audience is admirable.

 

I have also noticed that my appreciation for a Cruise lead MI franchise is much greater than that of a Craig lead Bond franchise. On one side you have a leading man who seems to genuinely love the product and has an infectious enthusiasm for it, while on the other side is a guy that is coming across (to me) as increasingly unlikable and cynical and condescending about the product.

Cruises enthusiasm I believe has defiantly helped my appreciation, admiration and excitement for the MI series grow, while Craig's attitude and apparent boredom with it I think has begun to rub off on me and is turning me off it.

Edited by west, 22 December 2015 - 07:46 AM.

[SecretAgentFan]

The pendulum is swinging back, IMO. 

 

When CR was released, it was a time for dark and serious.  Now, people want to see more fun and light entertainment.

 

Cruise always steered the M:I towards fun and not too serious plots, with Simon Pegg supplying the comedy big time.  That helps.  

 

I wouldn´t want Bond to have a funny sidekick, however.  So the comedy has to be supplied by Bond.

 

The question is whether Craig is the right actor for that.  He had wonderful moments in SPECTRE but his Bond is known for being tough, brooding and - well, not lighthearted fun.

[seawolfnyy]

I think EON has again lost what made Bond great. Not every story needs to be personal. It works ever now and then (ex. Skyfall), but not every time (Spectre). Mission Impossible became more watchable and fun when it embraced the light-heartedness. I may be in the minority, but I still despise the Brian De Palma film for ruining the mythos of MI. MI4 and MI5 both did what MI does best: have fun.

[SecretAgentFan]

I wouldn´t say EON lost it.  I rather get the feeling that they have entrusted it too much to Sam Mendes, drunken on the great reviews for SKYFALL.

 

IMHO, they should lose the prestige-hunting and concentrate on the pulp fiction that Bond always was, always will be and never should be ashamed of.

[Turn]

At least the last two Missions got rid of the stale traitor in the department thing. Although I'd like just one that wouldn't have the group having to run from their own government in addition to getting on with the impossible mission. That whole thing has been done to death.

 

And I could use less of Simon Pegg. I'm not as amused by him as others seem to be, but understand the comic relief need, so it's a minor distraction. 

 

I'm satisfied with Cruise's bemused looks like asking Rebecca Ferguson if they've ever met before during the fight early on, and his being exasperated during the scaffolding fight at the theater, knowing he's getting pretty much thrashed by the opponent but keeps going on amid the moving scaffolds. The openings of both Ghost Protocol and Rogue Nation are near perfect in their execution of humor and excitement, much more exciting than Skyfall, though SPECTRE's was a lot of fun.

 

And it's interesting that I've gotten more satisfaction from the classic MI theme playing over the opening credits, short and sweet, than I have for either Skyfall or SPECTRE with their high-priced vocalists. Though I admit the images are fun.

 

I need to see SPECTRE once more during the holiday break to get more perspective, but my second viewing of Rogue Nation on Blu-ray lost virtually none of the adrenaline I got seeing it in the cinema.

[tdalton]

Finally saw this. As much as I wasn't disappointed by Spectre, Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation outdid Bond this time around. Sam Mendes could learn a thing or two from the car/motorcycle chase in this film. Infinitely more exciting than the non-chase we got in Rome in Spectre.

[deth]

Count me in on the "Rogue Nation did it better" train. Sadly.

 

Lots of similarities (even one of the exact same locations)... but I can't think of anything Bond did better this time. Nobody does it better? Someone just did.

[Simon]

I wonder whether now might be the time to offer the directorial reins to a US director where previously the producers wanted directors from a UK or at least colonial background.  Forster notwithstanding.

 

I think the point the producers might be wanting to steer clear from though is the American flavour of the good MI's etc.  MI is a distinctly American flavoured film and Bond is, and should be, not.  It is highly likely that the US director would bring into the mix some of the elements that did not sit well within DAD.

 

That said, I recently saw the Jack Ryan - Recruit movie directed by Kenneth Branaugh of all people, and it was quite superb.  All the action, drama and humour elements sat very well together.

[Navy007Fan]

Received the Blu-Ray for Christmas and I love it!  A whole lot of fun! 

[Yellow Pinky]

Yes, I have to agree with all of the others that Rogue Nation is superior to SPECTRE.  It's tighter and more streamlined, more genuinely intriguing, funnier, and more edge of the seat.  While I enjoyed Ghost Protocol, this newest one outdid it for me personally with a near perfect blend of grittiness and glamour.  I'm happy to see that the producers have secured the return of McQuarrie for the next one.  I'm also glad to see they're adopting EON's old "every 2 years" approach by fast-tracking the follow-up.

[SecretAgentFan]

I'm happy to see that the producers have secured the return of McQuarrie for the next one.  I'm also glad to see they're adopting EON's old "every 2 years" approach by fast-tracking the follow-up.

 

And that´s why I absolutely doubt that it isn´t possible anymore to do the two-year-rhythm for EON.

[marktmurphy]

It's probably superior to Spectre, yeah. I don't think it's perfect (and there's something about nicking the Sherlock scene where Watson speaks Moriarty's words for the ending that I'm not sure about!) but it's a lot of fun.

[Vauxhall]

It's probably superior to Spectre, yeah. I don't think it's perfect (and there's something about nicking the Sherlock scene where Watson speaks Moriarty's words for the ending that I'm not sure about!) but it's a lot of fun.

 

Glad I wasn't the only one who thought that about the SHERLOCK scene!

[Grard Bond]

The now two years aproach has maybe more to do with the age of mr. Cruise (than wanting to do every two years such a movie). He's already in his fifties and waiting for four years (or longer) makes it almost impossible (punch not intended) to make another one after the next one.

Edited by Grard Bond, 31 December 2015 - 12:18 PM.

[marktmurphy]

The now two years aproach has maybe more to do with the age of mr. Cruise (than wanting to do every two years such a movie). He's already in his fifties and waiting for four years (or longer) makes it almost impossible (punch not intended) to make another one after the next one.

 

Amusingly he's about the same age Roger was when he made For Your Eyes Only. Not much hanging off the side of planes for Roger in that, though

[Professor Pi]

 

The now two years aproach has maybe more to do with the age of mr. Cruise (than wanting to do every two years such a movie). He's already in his fifties and waiting for four years (or longer) makes it almost impossible (punch not intended) to make another one after the next one.

 

Amusingly he's about the same age Roger was when he made For Your Eyes Only. Not much hanging off the side of planes for Roger in that, though

 

 

At the same time, Cruise has owned this franchise for 20 years.  No Bond actor has lasted that long, albeit it's been about the same number of movies.  And I dare say, he's probably more in charge of MI's vision than any of the directors or studio have been.  No one's even talking of recasting or rebooting this series.  He's his own EON. He knows how to promote the brand and has never bashed it (unlike Craig, Brosnan, and Connery.)  Cruise knows MI is a moneymaker he can return to that liberates him to do other things, whereas the Bond actors eventually view their castings as prisons of typecasting.  This despite all the Bonds being better actors than Cruise.

[sharpshooter]

Cruise is my favourite non-Bond actor. The guy is a genuine film legend in my eyes. Rogue Nation delivered pretty much everything I look for in action/spy movies. And honestly, I enjoyed it more than SPECTRE in parts.

[Turn]

I'm a Cruise fan. I've grown up with the guy, have enjoyed numerous movies he's starred in and own many on video. Despite the weirdness he's displayed, when it comes to entertaining he's always been right up there. That's all I care about.

 

Listen to some of his interviews and extras on supplements and listen to him talk about filmmaking and you don't get the impression he's just putting a proper PR spin on things. He has passion for filmmaking, which is why he has worked with so many talented filmmakers.

 

I can't say the same for a guy like Daniel Craig right now. I don't doubt Craig went through a lot and put his all into SPECTRE, but he chose to go to the media to put a poor me spin on it all, which has made him less likeable.

 

I don't hold it against him for being honest when asked if he'd return as Bond, just that he didn't do any favors to anyone involved by doing so when he was supposed to be promoting SPECTRE. If I was him I'd have personally been annoyed people were trying to anoint Idris Elba the heir to the role I put my stamp on during difficult circumstances when he started. The man was afforded privileges no other Bond actor had been and has a responsibility to not make it just about him.

[SecretAgentFan]

For those that are interested: Jeremy Renner will NOT be part of the next movie:  http://www.denofgeek...s-jeremy-renner

[Navy007Fan]

For those that are interested: Jeremy Renner will NOT be part of the next movie:  http://www.denofgeek...s-jeremy-renner

Sean Harris is back, very good!  Looks like the return of The Syndicate!!!

[Orion]

Renner said this was highly possible a few months ago, as even back then it was looking like there'd be considerable overlap between his Marvel commitments and MI:VI.

 

Dougray Scott will appreciate the irony...

[west]

For those that are interested: Jeremy Renner will NOT be part of the next movie:  http://www.denofgeek...s-jeremy-renner

 

That's fine with me, to be frank. He's a fine supporting actor, but in my opinion, he completely lacks the charisma to be a lead or carry a franchise, especially if there is truth that "Paramount reportedly wanted him cast in the first place as a possible successor to the franchise..." (which I have seen come up a few times).

 

Can't wait for this. Saw a titbit on TV the other day that the producers have said that Cruise is in training for the next stunt. Genuinely excited to see how he will attempt to top the Rogue Nation stunt(s). I truly believe the plane stunt is one of the greatest cinematic stunts, incredible on the big screen. The underwater and motorcycle sequences were really incredible too.

Edited by west, 01 April 2017 - 11:59 AM.

[SecretAgentFan]

I must admit: I like Renner - but not as the main action hero.  He is better as a character actor.  And MI needs a hugely charismatic anchor, especially when/if Cruise steps down.

[Yellow Pinky]

I must admit: I like Renner - but not as the main action hero.  He is better as a character actor.  And MI needs a hugely charismatic anchor, especially when/if Cruise steps down.

I also like Renner but feel the exact same way.  I find it interesting that most predict Cruise staying on in some capacity as he ages, but stepping down as the lead agent.  I really can't see them recasting Ethan Hunt with another actor a'la the Bond films.