Good point. Although I think one might have a decent case claiming the Bonds are at least to some extent vehicles for the egos of their producers, Broccoli & Saltzman; first eking out their niche from an obscure Hollywood sideshow to THE dominating entertainment of the 60s, later making a point of them being able to do without Spectre, Connery, Saltzman, money, a decent studio partner and finally without Bond himself. If that’s not at least partially a vanity project I don’t know…
4 Likes
Not sure what you‘re talking about.
Tom Cruise is a larger than life movie star, so every movie he is in also needs and only works when he is fully committed and puts everything he can on the screen. With the M:I movies he has become the actor/stuntman/superstar hybrid nobody comes close to. Of course, vanity - since movies are a visual medium - also will dictate that he will look his best and be featured in the most important manner.
My point is: every movie does that, and for sure, the Bond movies are no exception. EON wanted to show in every movie that they are the most daring and successful ones at this. The stars wanted to look their best and feature importantly in the best possibly told story.
It comes with the territory. Every piece of art is in some regard a „Look at me, look at what I can do“-competition. That is often even important as an incentive to do the best work.
Criticizing Cruise for taking the M:I brand and turning it into a franchise centering on himself is pointless. His star power and his devotion made these films possible in the first place. Without him the studio would not have greenlit any of them.
5 Likes
This is a fair point. One reason it’s so hard to remember which installment is which is because they are marketed around the stunts, and Cruise’s daring, above and beyond anything else. The audience isn’t so much “going to see a film” as they are gathering to witness a spectacle, like the crowds that formed to watch Evel Kneivel jump a canyon. And when the stunt rolls around, we’re not thinking, “Oh, I hope Ethan makes it! The mission is on the line!” We’re thinking, “I can’t believe Tom did this himself! That looks terrifying!” Or maybe, “Wonder how long it took to mask the safety cables in post?”
That is, the stunts are a great marketing tool to get us into the seats, they rarely if ever disappoint in terms of spectacle and they’ve certainly burnished Cruise’s rep as a singular daredevil performer. But they rarely serve the plot and actually make it much harder to remember what happened before or after them in the story…or after a short time, which installment we even saw them in.
I don’t know if that makes the films mere “ego” driven but it does make them superficial and ephemeral.
6 Likes
I actually disagree here. It is more like “look at my work”. Even when a guy like John Carpenter puts his signature above the movie’s title, you are not invited to look at him but to watch his movie.
Plenty of artists are more obsessed with their piece of work than with themselves. Tom Cruise is just an example of an artist whose work is mainly concentrated on himself (like Bronson in the movie from Nicolas Winding Refn). I agree he is not the only one in that category, though one of the most iconic.
1 Like
With directors it´s a different kind of attraction - but I would say Carpenter is the most unpretentious one around. Compare him with Quentin Tarantino.
Well, name stars which don’t have projects built around themselves. They are, after all, the reason to greenlight the films and to sell the tickets. What’s wrong with that?
1 Like
Interesting. I never had that reaction to these. In my mind, these stunts are built into the story and move the proceedings along.
In contrast, one could say that cursory audiences of Bond films would say: oh, they all blend into each other. Which was the one with the parachute? No, not the one of the Union Jack - the other one. Did they serve the plot?
Maybe it also is different since most M:I movies did not follow each other as regularly as the early Bond films, and one tended to forget parts of them due to the onslaught of entertainment rushing over us in the meantime.
2 Likes
In theory the stunts move the plot along but for me at least the plot exists merely to service the stunts, just as it does with Bond. It’s very much a case of “how do we get Ethan to this building so he can climb it” just as it’s “how do we get Bond into this mini-jet we discovered?”
And youre right that Bond works like MI in the public mind. I’ve often met people who say they like “the one with the alligators and the guy with metal teeth” etc. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts: Bond and MI are stronger as franchises than any one entry is on its own.
6 Likes
Some words on act one and some crazy details about the stunt sequences. Spoilers, FYI.
3 Likes
Nothing wrong about that, it is part of the game!
Just wanted to make a distinction between the artists/the filmmakers and the “star”. Not all artists are stars. And not every film project is driven by a star, nor by a star’s ego.
By the way I am wondering: is there a Cruise/Mission:Impossible dedicated fandom, as there is for Bond?
Waiting for a “Stop getting Mission:Impossible wrong!” thread.
3 Likes
Maybe they´ll start when Cruise is out of the picture…
2 Likes
My wife and I saw The Final Reckoning today with the same couple we saw Dead Reckoning with a couple of years ago. I enjoyed it immensely and far more than I did DR. Is it a bit too long? Yes, but when it moves, it really moves. Is there too much exposition? Yes, there is, but when it clicks, which it does with great precision, it is a spectacle of action filmmaking and a genuine edge-of-your-seat big screen movie experience that few can match (if they even try). I was very satisfied and if this is indeed the last one for awhile, the bar has been set quite high.
9 Likes
Interesting how that audience ratio might apply to the also older skewing Bond films…
„Mission: Impossible – Final Reckoning ‘s biggest demo is the over 55 club at 29% (wow), 62% over 35. Broken out, that’s men over 25 at 52%, women over 25 at 32%, guys under 25 at 11% and women under 25 turning out the least 5% (but oddly giving the eighth-quel its best demo score of 97%).“
3 Likes
Oh my, I’ve just left the cinema and I am shooketh! A lot of padding but my God, the payoff was worth it!!!
7 Likes
I rewatched DR earlier this week and saw FR tonight. As a major fan of NTTD I feel the need to respond to your post and also offer a few thoughts on FR. Apologies in advance for the length. I really do need an editor.
After one viewing I would agree it’s no contest but IMHO it’s NTTD that is the far better movie. I liked FR (but not as much a previous MI entries) and I really felt the plot was much weaker than NTTD and lacked the emotional depth of the latter.
SPOILERS BELOW
In NTTD, Bond finally finds a life full of meaningful possibilities he never thought would happen for him and then must sacrifice himself for the family he loves and only just discovered. While there is the loss of Luther in FR, to me it does not compare with the loss Bond not only suffers but is forced to choose at the end of NTTD.
On the plot side, NTTD has a personalized biological weapon that is a major threat to the world. I found it believable (for an action film) and easy to follow. In contrast, I was never convinced the entity had no choice but to destroy the world. I wonder what it would do afterwards? Repeatedly consume all the knowledge in the doomsday vault forever? I wonder what the entity will do if something breaks down in the doomsday vault since there is no one left to fix it. For me, the entity almost seemed like a combination of HAL and Skynet but it all felt out of place in the world of MI.
Reasonable people can disagree and I’m glad you love FR.
A few other points.
On the positive side:
- The chemistry between Atwell and Cruise was great. I do wish they would have had a romance though that’s not really part of the MI formula (other than Ethan’s marriage). Confession - I have a crush on Atwell.
- I thought bringing back William Donloe worked really well and giving him a substantive role, as opposed to a cameo, was brilliant.
- The commentary on the dangers of misinformation and its impact on politics was both timely and relevant.
- I liked the Tom Cruise intro. Thought it was classy to thank the audience. I don’t ever recall seeing that before.
- Going into the movie I thought there was a good chance Ethan was going to die. I’m glad he didn’t. I thought it would have been too obvious of an ending especially given that it was done in NTTD.
On the negative side:
- Since there is no Ethan-Grace relationship, it’s not clear why they (especially her) are so committed to one another. While Ethan did save her life, I’m not convinced even great pickpockets would be inclined to become heroic so easily.
- The idea that all IMF agents were criminals when they were recruited almost came out of nowhere. The closest thing I can remember prior to DR were agents that were disavowed but that was very different IMHO. What exact crime did Ethan do (or was accused of) and why did he develop such a strong moral and heroic disposition?
- Why exactly is Luther in the hospital? Again, this seems to have come out of nowhere.
- The logic of why the secret service agent would take a shot at the president is weak and came out of nowhere.
- The movie could easily be 20 minutes shorter. Lots of room to trim many scenes but I think the airplane chase and submarine sequence could have been substantially shortened without losing much.
- What I really enjoy in the MI films is not the stunts so much as the pulling off the impossible task under tight time constraints (e.g., the retrieving of the NOC list, the capture of Solomon Lane in the glass box, the capture of Owen Davian and dealing with the bomb in Ethan’s head in MI 3.) While there was the impossible task of capturing the entity, it did not work nearly as well IMHO. Part of it was the lack of realism (e.g., no one is grabbing something within a 100th of a second).
I liked FR and look forward to rewatching it when it comes out on video. Perhaps my opinion will improve. Right now I think DR was better, as was every other MI entry other than MI2. Still a good movie but not the great movie I was hoping would be the send-off for the Cruise led MI series.
7 Likes
Full agreement with you and @Matt_13
Both films have a doomsday plot and an ally sacrifice scene. However NTTD has much better pacing, a less convoluted plot, action peppered throughout the runtime and more instances of humour.
NTTD is actually a pretty traditional adventure (RT’s consensus agrees by saying it isn’t the most daring) until it becomes apparent Bond has been poisoned and isn’t making it out alive. Which now appropriately closes the book on EON and not just Craig.
FR is a lot more talky and dour for the great majority of the time. My first screening was an experience, but I can’t imagine TFR holding up as well to repeated viewings as the other entries in the series.
5 Likes
I saw TFR last weekend and while I did ultimately enjoy it, it’s a real mix bag. It’s too long with too many characters and overstuffed with exposition and subplots that go nowhere but in-between all of that are some incredible set pieces and nice character moments.
Also I feel a bit vindicated. The Jim Phelps Jr. twist felt like an apology from Cruise directly to me. It’s not how I would have “fixed it” but at least acknowledges the mistake and puts a good Jim Phelps back in the Cruise M:I-verse.
If Cruise does walk away from the series I would be thrilled if they took M:I back to television with Shea Whigham as Jim Phelps.
For those who saw it in IMAX, the transition from normal aspect ration to IMAX inside the sub may be the best that’s ever been done. My favorite moment in the whole film.
8 Likes