Mission: Impossible - Fallout - Part 1

Status
Not open for further replies.
That's my biggest peeve about the third movie. It's not a bad movie at all. The action isn't bad. The acting isn't bad. Nothing about it is really bad. It just feels like a television movie instead of a theatrical one. I get that it was JJ Abrams' first big movie but it just feels so...cheap.
I actually did a video essay in my film theory class about the blurring lines between film and television in which I put scenes from M:I3 and the pilot of Alias side-by-side to show the similarities. It really is Alias with a budget.
 
I actually did a video essay in my film theory class about the blurring lines between film and television in which I put scenes from M:I3 and the pilot of Alias side-by-side to show the similarities. It really is Alias with a budget.
Yeah even the ending was like a sequence taken right out of Alias.
 
During my watch through over the last week I have noticed that in 1 and 3 there were a lot of odd angles and extreme close-ups favoured, and none of the action has the crispness or geographical clarity of McQuarrie's sequences.

The Vault Sequence is still my favorite moment in the entire franchise.
It holds up really well, I just watched the film and I am not sure if I have heard this mentioned before but was De Palma influenced by Rififi in the way he did the whole thing without music or dialogue?
 
That's my biggest peeve about the third movie. It's not a bad movie at all. The action isn't bad. The acting isn't bad. Nothing about it is really bad. It just feels like a television movie instead of a theatrical one. I get that it was JJ Abrams' first big movie but it just feels so...cheap.

could you help me out with a few examples, comparisons. Thanks in advance.
 
My only gripe about M:I3 was the copout with the Rabbit’s Foot and never explaining what it does. This isn’t Pulp Fiction, JJ.
 
My only gripe about M:I3 was the copout with the Rabbit’s Foot and never explaining what it does. This isn’t Pulp Fiction, JJ.

I thought that was genius. Because it doesn't really matter what it is, it works because is just something of value to the villain, that's all we need to know. It is not integral to the plot whatsoever. The world is not at risk again. It's all very personal, which I think is why the movie is so tight, it doesn't involve any of the usual villain shenanigans.
 
I thought that was genius. Because it doesn't really matter what it is, it works because is just something of value to the villain, that's all we need to know. It is not integral to the plot whatsoever. The world is not at risk again. It's all very personal, which I think is why the movie is so tight, it doesn't involve any of the usual villain shenanigans.
Between Benji's Anti -God Speculation and the Bio Hazard seal on the cannister,
I knew all that I needed to know.
Whatever it was, the Rabbits Foot wasn't going to bring you luck.
 
Last edited:
this might be the best one yet! i think its going to make more than predicted it has nothing coming out behind it in august except christopher robin
 
I thought that was genius. Because it doesn't really matter what it is, it works because is just something of value to the villain, that's all we need to know. It is not integral to the plot whatsoever. The world is not at risk again. It's all very personal, which I think is why the movie is so tight, it doesn't involve any of the usual villain shenanigans.

To be fair the only one where the world is in danger is Ghost Protocol. I suppose you could say part 2 as well (I honestly can't remember it enough to say as I loathed that one). But 1, 3, and 5 have all been about smaller staked spy games. At least within the confines of this franchise.
 
tumblr_pbrsaokpQE1sxwyufo4_500.gif


tumblr_pbrsaokpQE1sxwyufo3_500.gif


tumblr_pbrsaokpQE1sxwyufo2_500.gif


tumblr_pbrsaokpQE1sxwyufo1_500.gif
1. I made the sound from the trailer in my mind.
2. I love that this is a thing among the cast.
3. If he gets to play Superman in a solo film, he should do that just because.
 
I'm the same. And in my younger days I loved MI:2 and thought it was the coolest thing at the time of its release. Maybe it's just getting older.

I mean I love Hoffman's performance in MI3 and I do like a lot of Abrams' direction. however, I think Ghost Protocol combined like the slick direction of Abrams and the better plotting of the original.

Also love McQuarrie's direction as well. He understands how to direct action and make it look good and feel unique. Also you can SEE EVERYTHING.

Sick and tired of directors making everything look incomprehensible and cutting really quick. I want to see what's going on.

I’ll be honest even back in the day I wasn’t big on M:I2, it felt like a cheap Matrix knock off half the time. I didn’t like Dougray Scott as the villain either.

But yeah I agree on the rest, GP was sublime, and then RN kept that quality up really well, it may even be better than GP, but I often can’t decide between them, they are both that good.

Have said it since The Way Of The Gun, McQuarrie is so under rated as a director.
 
The Way of the Gun is such an underrated movie. Over the years, I’ve come to like it more than The Usual Suspects.
 
I actually did a video essay in my film theory class about the blurring lines between film and television in which I put scenes from M:I3 and the pilot of Alias side-by-side to show the similarities. It really is Alias with a budget.

I 100% agree.

could you help me out with a few examples, comparisons. Thanks in advance.

See above. It felt like a big budget episode of Alias starring the IMF.
 
I’ll be honest even back in the day I wasn’t big on M:I2, it felt like a cheap Matrix knock off half the time. I didn’t like Dougray Scott as the villain either.

But yeah I agree on the rest, GP was sublime, and then RN kept that quality up really well, it may even be better than GP, but I often can’t decide between them, they are both that good.

Have said it since The Way Of The Gun, McQuarrie is so under rated as a director.
Thanks to MI II, Dougray Scott had to bow out of X-Men after being cast as Logan.
I think that we dodged a bullet there.
 
Thanks to MI II, Dougray Scott had to bow out of X-Men after being cast as Logan.
I think that we dodged a bullet there.

Hugh Jackman was a great Wolverine no doubt, wouldn't argue otherwise, but based on Dougray Scott's performance in MI2, I don't agree it was dodging a bullet and think that he could've pulled off an interesting Wolverine. He had a lot of scenes in MI2 that were very Wolverine-esque, mostly thanks to being the villain. The scene on the pier when Thandie Newton was slowly walking towards him comes to mind, when he had that glazed-over and sort-of animalish look on his face.

I know MI2 gets a lot of flak in general, but I've always had a soft spot for it, it's just a heck of a lot of fun mostly due to Woo's action and fight choreography, Dougray Scott, and Anthony Hopkins. Of course I'd still rank it at the bottom of the MI franchise, but MI at its worst is still damn entertaining IMO!
 
Last edited:
Yeah, quite a few dudes would be hating on you if you walked up in the place with her on the arm.
 
Two new clips at the beginning of this video:

[Yt]UXzJk1pitx4[/MEDIA]

Cavill's character seems like a grade A ass.
 
Anyone have a link to a non-spoiler review? I’m hesitant to read any of the ones on RT because I don’t want to ruin the movie for myself.
 
Two new clips at the beginning of this video:

[Yt]UXzJk1pitx4[/MEDIA]

Cavill's character seems like a grade A ass.

I like the idea of a wild card.
I think we were lucky that Renner was shooting the Avengers films.
 
Yeah, Renner didn’t really add anything to RN. He was good in GP but that’s it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum statistics

Threads
202,307
Messages
22,082,956
Members
45,882
Latest member
Charles Xavier
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"