I guess for that Cruise would have to get much, much older. He is the star. Stars don’t play second banana, especially not in a franchise they built around their persona.
And with Cruise, I believe even over 70 he would still want to be involved in the action sequences.
“Yet the ballpark-similar, barely-good-enough-to-get-by domestic box office grosses of “Mission: Impossible — Dead Reckoning Part One”, “Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny” and “Fast X” should be telling us something: that action, as a selling point, may have peaked, entering a period of overexposed exhaustion.”
Maybe it’s because I always think Owen Gleiberman is wrong and choosing to be the contrarian in the room - but again, I believe he is arguing miserably.
Of course, the M:I movies have always been action movies. And the delicious spy intrigue he misses is exactly what reviewers did not like in the first movie (probably he did not either, back the ).
And no, the Fast movies are not where action should be relegated to. Cruise definitely is the king of action movies with the M:I series. The only reason why this current one has underperformed is release date, lack of IMAX screens (and their pricey tickets) and did I mention a really bad release date?
I’ve seen it twice and loved it twice. The release date is solely to blame for this. If this had been let loose next month it’d be a different story, but it is what it is. Part 2 is still on the way.
For your consideration:
Hmm.
On the one hand I agree, simply because Cruise has indeed saved his reputation when he turned back to M:I and fully committed to it.
On the other hand, the article tries to jam everything into the argument, even if it’s as ridiculous as maintaining that Michelle Monaghan looks like Katie Holmes and was cast because of that.
Also, let’s face it: Cruise will never escape the damage Scientology has inflicted on his reputation and career. It was the sensible and predictable PR strategy for him not to mention his „religion“ anymore. And every successful film he made helped, naturally. Since the big franchises have become the only greenlight-able way to make movies, Cruise concentrated on those.
Did he try to shape his public image with these movies?
Hey, which star does not?
Its a shame both films under-performed despite both being very good. Disney simply mishandled the Indy brand by not doing anything with it over the last decade. We should have had some video games, books/comics, and an animated series on Disney+. The brand had been completely dormant for nearly 15 years and they didn’t do anything to truly build anticipation for it. The marketing campaign was quite subdued and they seemed to be afraid to show Harrison Ford’s face. In the end it doesn’t really matter as this was the last film in the series and I’m very happy it got made at all.
Mission: Impossible was just unlucky and ran into the buzz-saw that is Barbenheimer. The loss of IMAX screens to Oppenheimer probably hurt M:I the most. When it comes to IMAX Tom Cruise is a movie star but Christopher Nolan is GOD. They would have been better off delaying the film to Christmas. Lesson learned.
We will see…
https://comicbook.com/movies/news/saw-jigsaw-set-box-office-showdown-paw-patrol-hilarious-post/
Lionsgate are trying.
Called it! And it’s more tone deaf than I ever could have imagined.
Both movies show what’s broken in studio heads.
It really makes me wonder how the cast and crew feel about carrying on with Part Two after Part One underperformed. There’s no guarantee it will be a success either. Not as many people saw the first part as expected, and those who didn’t may not be interested in jumping in for a story they aren’t up to date with. I think Part One, while great, needed to be a bigger hit to create more positive momentum. Will the required interest be there?
The last few Mission Impossible movies have done pretty well . The only reason MI7 performed poorly was its terrible timing in the midst of Barbie and Oppenheimer
Well, a big thank you to the studios and streamers who made it possible to derail projects, productions, lives and even their own earnings during an insanely difficult time, just because they wanted to keep more money for themselves although that money is earned by those they want to dupe.
Film editor at The Hollywood Reporter Aaron Couch claims Dead Reckoning Part Two is no longer expected to be the title of the film. If true I think it goes to what I said earlier. Promote it as just another Mission film rather than a direct sequel.
I ordered on 4K M.I.7, Part one, it wil be released in The Netherlands next monday.
It will be weird to have the first film titled “Dead Reckoning Part One” and the next one with no “Part Two” added.
EON´s comment: “Never plan too far ahead. That’s why we’re retconning.”
I thought their philosophy was “Never plan ahead, just get to the end and retroactively declare you had a plan the whole time.”