Mission: Impossible 7 & 8 (2023/2024)

Films Spies, Spoofs & Spinoffs
638

Fair enough, but I was intentionally lumping de Palma in with the suits with my “Hollywood mentailty” remark. The motivations might have been different but my point remains: If you’re not interested in telling a story about an established property, then go make up your own and give it a different name.

By the way, it´s kind of prophetic the way Voight plays this, with a monologue about his disappointment in the President.

Indeed, it’s a different experience to watch it now and feel the urge to go “Boo! Hiss!” as soon as Voight appears, instead of waiting for the “shocking reveal.”

3 Likes
639

Agreed. My disagreement is with the term “pedestrian,” which for me has a strong negative connotation. In terms of narrative, the film is uneventful/conventional in many ways, and I do not think De Palma cared to (or would have been allowed to) trouble that aspect of the film. He knew the deal he had made, and the strictures that came with it. M:I was going to be his tamest genre picture.

On the other hand, De Palma did want it to be his film–keeping on Koepp, even as Cruise brought in Towne to rewrite the script, which was then rewritten by Koepp–but he was going to have to be straightforward with many of the genre’s conventions. De Palma’s subversions are are not as altering as they often are, and pacing and framing are conventional/uneventful (none of THE UNTOUCHABLES elan here). But these elements are always in play with (if a spectator wants them to be) De Palma’s veerings from convention. It makes M:I a more cerebral aesthetic experience, but still a good one in my view.

De Palma is not interested in fan service (as no artist should be). M:I is not an example of De Palma following a “Hollywood mentality.” Far from it. J.J. Abrams following the Star Wars template is an example of that approach.

GREETINGS and HI, MOM! are key De Palma films, and the spirit of those works courses throughout the rest of his oeuvre (to varying degrees). M:I is lower on the cinematic Scoville scale, but still has a kick.

4 Likes
640

I’ll have to check out the films you mention, as I know dePalma primarily as a purveyor of Hitchcock pastiches. I think he is indeed interested in “fan service,” but only when he is the “fan.”

But I do cede your point: with franchise films, you either change things around and risk alienating the fanbase or you stay faithful to formula and risk boring everyone, or being labeled a hack. Star Wars in particular seems impossible to find an approach to that doesn’t end up enraging folks, so it’s amazing they keep trying.

I see the first couple of M:I’s as an important transitional phase, demolishing what the property was in order to build something new and cool…still entirely unrecognizable from the original series, mind you, but cool. Abram’s Star Trek films tried to do the same thing with (for me) middling success, and the Craig Bonds I’d probably rank just behind M:I on the “name’s the same, but that’s about it” list of successful revamps.

Anyway, '96 me was a different guy from '25 me and in fairness my beef back then was more with Cruise than the film itself. I can’t find another explanation for my dislike given that I would hardly have called myself a rabid fan of the TV show (if indeed the show engenders that kind of devotion in anyone). With the passage of time I’ve grown to enjoy a lot of Cruise’s output and I’ve especially had fun with the last four M:I films (even if I can rarely differentiate them in memory), so at worst I now consider the first one merely the least interesting. “Worst” would still have to go to Woo’s entry, which is a train wreck by any measure, but on the whole 1 and 2 are the ones I’m least likely to revisit if there are any options on the table at all.

3 Likes
641

It was indeed my feeling towards the film today, despite enjoying it so much in the 90‘s - which also comments on the way action thrillers and M:I have changed in the last decades.

In that regard, the M:I films are like the Bond films time capsules, capturing the mood and the style of the time they were made in, despite or because their narrative structure being quite formulaic.

But I agree: the script and the freedom to envision it was definitely better and bigger on de Palma‘s other for hire work on THE UNTOUCHABLES.

It is indeed surprising and quite a feat that Cruise managed to restyle and reboot the films so successfully.

2 Likes
642

Which is a serviceable definition of an auteur filmmaker.

I am not sure that the M:I’s television fanbase (as you speculated) was particularly interested/invested in seeing the show leap to the big screen (the show’s television revival lasted a scant two seasons). If such a clamor had existed, I do not think it would have taken more than two decades for the film to be made.

Just as you note that

fanbases and the concept of fan service were much different in '96. The aura of the auteur still existed, and Cruise brought De Palma in because he was a name and known quantity as a director. Also, along with Tom Cruise fans, there would be people who went to the theatre because M:I was a Brian De Palma movie (raises hand).

In general, I think your argument makes sense, especially if serving the fanbase is a priority for the filmmakers. The problem is that it does not fit the M:1 film series at its origin. The “Mission: Impossible” formula made the transition to film, when Cruise gambled that it could be a career enhancer. Now in 2025, the M:I film franchise has a fanbase, and your argument could be useful in analyzing where it goes from here.

They are fun. This article is geeky, jargon-filled, and queer-theory-ish, so it is probably not your glass of tea, but it highlights some of what I find interesting in De Palma:

A key statement:

I would like to propose a different angle from which to inspect it [De Palma’s oeuvre], one that would allow us to see it organically as an ongoing critical project: a depiction of male friendship that functions, through studies of betrayal, duplicity, vengeance, greed, and cruelty, as a critique of the organization of the homosocial sphere within capitalist society.

For me, De Palma used the “Mission: Impossible” template to explore issues that interested him (just as Hitchcock used various genres to explore his interests). One of the fascinations of M:I is the Ethan/Jim homosocial relationship, which is mediated by not one, but two women (one of whom is named Max). Also, over the course of the narrative, both Ethan and Jim start connecting with another man–Ethan with Kittridge and Jim with Krieger.

That’s the De Palma touch (homosocial relations also play a part in his next film, SNAKE EYES).

1 Like
643

Exactly. De Palma was strong enough an artist to follow the formula, and at the same time make a recognizable Brian De Palma film–both thematically and visually.

I will have to see if Brad Bird accomplishes the same with GHOST PROTOCOL.

McQuarrie strikes me as a talented and honorable metteur-en-scene, skillfully capable of serving the needs/desires of the films’ auteur–producer/star Cruise.

1 Like
644

IIRC, the TV fanbase was as dead as a doornail back in the day. No one really cared. But mind you, it was the pre-interweb age back then. Really, the only person I ever heard talking about the TV series was my dad (and his enthusiasm was based on not more than 22 episodes that were aired on German TV in the late 1960s).

The only thing that was memorable through the years was the theme. People knew it, but didn’t have anything new to go with it. It had (and still has) the same potential as the Bond theme: Just put a decent story around a certain framework of returning key elements and characters, a certain look and feel and a bit of je-ne-sais-quoi, and the music on top of it. That’s how Bond has worked for ages.

Perhaps the only people taking MI anything serious were Bond people, because we saw what could be made of it and that it could develop as a future rival. They tried hard and they delivered good work, but when it comes to crazy stunts and megalomanic villain lairs and world domination plans (same old dream), people around the world still refer to such things as “like from a James Bond movie” and not “from a MI movie” (even though it’s been close, recently). :smirk:

4 Likes
645

I’m not sure M:I was even the kind of show to inspire a fan base. The plots were generally clever, the capers were usually staged with skill and suspense and the music was great, but the characters themselves were cyphers with absolutely zero inner life. Jim and his team were only “themselves” for a few minutes at the start and end of the show; the rest of the time they were pretending to be someone else, and not even the same someones they pretended to be the previous week, or would pretend to be the next.

I remember Martin Landau claiming he turned down the role of Mr Spock because the character “has no emotions” and thus has no appeal for a “real” actor. Besides the fact that the “no emotions” angle wasn’t even part of the character when Landau was approached, he missed the point Nimoy saw plainly: Spock has as many emotions as anyone, but it’s his struggle to master them that makes him interesting. In contract, Landau’s Rollin Hand character is a non-entity, a blank slate of a character who disappears under heavy makeup every week to become some stereotyped caricature or other of a foreign scientist or dictator: Latin American this week, Russian the next, but aside from showing off his dubious mastery of accents, the roles had zero depth, and under the false layers was mere emptiness in Rollin, the cypher: the deeper you went, the shallower he got. He’s the one with no emotions, unless you count the ubiquitous moment of quiet panic when it looks like his charade is about to be exposed in the third act break. We cared about Spock. No one cared about Rollin.

Rollin was the showiest example on the team, but that’s what they all were: con artists playing a different role for 45 out of 50 minutes of air time every week and thus never having a moment to establish who they were underneath. And without the usual “hooks” – the hint of intra-team romances or rivalries, running feuds or playful banter, little character quirks to make you think, “That’s so Jim” or “Oh, that kooky Cinnamon” – M:I never fostered the sense of “family” that makes other old shows live forever. Like “The Fugitive” it was one of those shows no one wanted to miss when it was on, but no one needed to watch again once they knew how it came out. (And let’s face it, it always came out the same way). Indeed, with the exception of Barney and Willy, I think the entire team was replaced over the course of the series, and no one seemed to get particularly worked up about it: no one was essential.

Exactly. De Palma was strong enough an artist to follow the formula, and at the same time make a recognizable Brian De Palma film–both thematically and visually.

I’d argue in the long run, it’s not remembered as a “De Palma film” so much as “the first Mission Impossible film.” Certainly I’ve never heard any of the other ones referred to as a “sequel to the '96 DePalma film.” It’s cool I guess that he brought his touch to the franchise, but in the end, the brand looms larger in the public mind than any one director who worked on it.

5 Likes
646

Agreed. Among cinephiles, M:I is a De Palma film, but we are a small and vanishing cohort.

Because they’re not. The first two were re-imaginings based on their director’s style/interests. GHOST PROTOCOL is (possibly) the last one to bear a director’s signature. I would have to watch the film again to confirm.

Exactly. McQuarrie’s job is/was to protect and extend the brand. Rian Johnson learned the hard lesson of what happens when a director messes with a brand.

3 Likes
647

Kudos for understanding Spock, perfectly stated!

I actually love McQuarrie‘s work.

I would even call him an auteur because as a writer-director he has a fuller grip on the material, even if Cruise himself is probably an additional part of that work persona.

His mis-en-scene might not call attention to itself as de Palma‘s work, yet it has a propulsive dynamism firing on all cylinders of filmmaking, while being extremely precise and efficient (no shot wasted, no cut when there is no need to cut, always a very clear geography on the action).

Comparing dePalma‘s film with the McQuarrie missions, I have to say that McQuarrie directed much better and effectively.

And I am a fan of de Palma (love „Snake Eyes“ which is so unloved by many).

4 Likes
648

Tomorrow is the day. I’ve read various reviews that state the first hour or so is dialogue heavy and perhaps has too many callbacks, but the last act is solid. I’ll post my own thoughts on all that soon after I walk outside the cinema.

7 Likes
649

There is much to love in his work.

Without question, McQuarrie is a superior metteur-en-scene (an accomplishment to be celebrated), but auteur is an accolade too far for me.

As you say, McQuarrie has a full grip on his work, and his style is efficient and precise, possessing a “propulsive dynamism.” But where is his voice accompanying his tremendous craftsmanship?

We can say that Howard Hawks’ work is efficient, precise (was any director ever more so?), and fully within his grasp. But there is something distinctly Hawksian about every one of his films. They reveal a signature that is affected neither by success nor by failure.

Mis-en-scene does not have to call attention to itself–again I look to Hawks–but it is more than superb craftsmanship: it is the vehicle through/with which a filmmaker communicates beyond narrative, editing, cinematography, performances.

McQuarrie being “better” depends on what the standard is. As for effectiveness, both directors are effective stylists. Where De Palma is more effective than McQuarrie is in providing a signature both embedded in and beyond craft.

It is a lovely film, deeply concerned, again, with homosocial relationships and their discontents.

3 Likes
650

Is the first one, the De Palma movie, not more like the tv series, an impossible task, somewhere breaking in and not very much action driven?
The last movies are ofcourse more exciting, but don’t look like (in almost nothing) to the original TV series.

1 Like
651

The way I remember it, De Palma let his film enter mid-caper and let that mission go horribly wrong. It’s more or less what the tv show used to tease with - without ever delivering the total disaster. The team usually managed to wing it and finish their mission without losses.

The film then just follows Cruise trying to clear himself. Nothing the show did ever do if memory serves.

1 Like
652

Agreed, he does not seem to bring a personal perspective on life to these films.

Also agreed. What I meant was that dePalma‘s style is always visible - in contrast to McQuarrie‘s (so far). Which might, though, be due to the heavy influence of Cruise. It will be interesting to see if McQuarrie does his own films in the future.

My assessment was, of course, a subjective one.

Despite liking many of de Palma‘s movies, I sometimes think his bag of tricks works better and sometimes worse. The tilted camera angles, for example, in M:I, too often tried to convey confusion, and his use of Béart, an accomplished actress who just looks like a pin up (kind of like Cruise), lacks inventiveness. But apart from „Carrie“ I haven’t seen a de Palma movie which does not treat women as more than an objectified surface.

2 Likes
653

Which is why McQuarrie is not an auteur for me. There is a tremendous amount of craftsmanship, but it is impersonal.

Definitely. Sometimes De Palma cannot make things cohere, and his films remain inert–well-crafted, but the personal perspective is off.

McQuarrie reminds me of Sidney Lumet. On most occasions, both directors put themselves in service to their stars and their scripts.

Which is what her character is to both Ethan and Jim (and why she can be so easily disposed of at the end of the film). Claire is the character through which Jim and Ethan have their relationship (same with Max).

FEMME FATALE–maybe his greatest work. Also, BODY DOUBLE.

1 Like
654

That would be very interesting to discuss since I see both films, especially BODY DOUBLE, objectifying women and only showing their pin up surface…

Let’s meet on the What movie have you seen today-thread when and if you like!

1 Like
655

Best offer I have had in months!!

Our community’s equivalent of asking someone up to see your etchings. LOL

1 Like
656

Just came back from the movie. There is quite a lot of exposition, but it creates an intense atmosphere with the stakes ramped up for the finale like nothing else in the series. It’s a journey well worth taking and the two main set pieces delivered for me. I’m happy with the ending and the movie in general. Grand but also appropriately low key.

5 Likes
658

I didn’t mind the callbacks actually (even if they’re a little overdone) as they’re celebrating the franchise before we take the final plunge, quite literally. It’s kind of like the build up to the Langley heist in the first movie - one tense job that must be done with everything on the line. A standout for me was William Donloe from the first film. Great performance, and I think others will agree.

There’s certain things I’d like to discuss but I can’t really do that without going into spoiler territory. I will wait a while so other people have a chance to see the movie themselves. It’s a different type of MI film and the more I think about it, the more I appreciate it. I can see why Cruise and company did things this way. I’ll be checking it out again in a week or so. For now, I’ll keep processing.

6 Likes