Mission: Impossible Franchise (1996-?)

[Mr Sausage]

The plot is ridiculous and contrived but the film is very self-conscious about this, poking fun at its absurdities right along with the IMF branch's silly title and cartoonish service in the same political roundtable scene where it's introduced.

The film is self-conscious, but I wouldn't say it's poking fun at its absurdities, at least not with the AI stuff. It's locked in to highlighting its own contrivances by the nature of its plot device. It's unavoidable. And the film saves its points about how everything's being masterminded for its most serious scenes rather than its lighthearted ones. Most of the fun, sly comedy comes before the AIs introduction or as comic bits during the action.

But then again, I seem to be the only one who doesn't think the alley scene was supposed to be a well-choreographed action scene accidentally filmed and edited wrong...

I can't say what the intentions were, but as filmed, it's a choppy mishmash of shots in which the actual physical problems of fighting in such a confined space are communicated via Ethan's impressions and emotions rather than his actions, which is the exact opposite of what's so interesting about the set up. The scene doesn't communicate how Ethan adjusts to the problems involved or even how he prevails, it just communicates that the experience was messy and frightful, when it could've done both. I feel like for a scene like that, it's better to have excellent choreography and blocking, but give the impression of fear and chaos, than to shoot and edit it chaotically and present actual chaos that the audience can't follow. I take your point that this is meant to be Ethan's nightmare moment, but it doesn't come off--it contrasts awkwardly not only with the fluid, comprehensible action scene it's intercut with, but the movie's approach to action in general.

[therewillbeblus]

I feel like for a scene like that, it's better to have excellent choreography and blocking, but give the impression of fear and chaos, than to shoot and edit it chaotically and present actual chaos that the audience can't follow. I take your point that this is meant to be Ethan's nightmare moment, but it doesn't come off--it contrasts awkwardly not only with the fluid, comprehensible action scene it's intercut with, but the movie's approach to action in general.

Totally understandable and no disagreement from me there. I guess by this point I was so used to the film being a mismash of all that came before anyways -stylistically and tonally- that I was refreshed when the movie squeezed a JJ-Abrams'-styled freakshow into the mix. It would've been annoying had the sequence lasted longer than like 90 seconds or whatever, in which case I would definitely agree on the 'why not both' point. But if you're just trying to put a little obstacle slowing Ethan down from arriving in time to a moment of gravitas, I'll gladly take the subjective horror bit than a hackneyed minute-long exchange of blows. Plus it was a nice distraction from the reminder of the inevitable eye-rolling moment to come

[Mr Sausage]

I think we can agree that the best action scene in the whole movie was the most low-key, the airport scene. I really enjoyed that, especially Cruise and Atwell's chemistry, even if a lot of it depends on Shea Wiggum being awfully dumb.

[therewillbeblus]

It's what the MI films do best - continually reinventing itself with digestible turns while balancing multiple ideas in play. Once the AI came in and everything became predictable by design, I was able to acclimate to the pleasures found in the 'same-old-done-slightly-better' set pieces, but I can't blame anyone for giving the film less rope. It's not exactly being humble in how much it's asking for..

[Rayon Vert]

The ultimate effect is that you don't feel any of the character choices matter; everything is foreordained, manipulated by some computer, so that everyone's running around in a pointless maze where every step is planned to the millimeter.

That does sound like a good description of something run by AI.

[therewillbeblus]

Yes, it’s very reflexive in the mechanics of the narrative, but that’s doesn’t add a fun element to it. Instead, I used it as an opportunity to unplug (sorry) and have fun with the nakedly superficial stimulations provided, of which there are many. I don’t look for much more in blockbusters though

[ford]

After greatly enjoying all of these since 4, and finding 6 an utter blast and maybe my favourite, I was surprised at my indifference to Dead Reckoning. After so many years and such hype, I'm baffled all they could muster was an often lifeless action film full of shopworn set pieces, superbly cast but thinly sketched and underused characters, and a tiresome plot that hamstrings the movie by its very nature.

Strongly agree. It’s been a while since I’ve been so baffled by critical and audience praise — my theater was having a ball. And I just couldn’t understand…how.

After FALLOUT (which I adored), I was shocked by McQuarrie’s totally inert shots and choreography here. In some spots this even looked cheap! Cannot believe they’re trying to retroactively turn this (awful) villain into Cruise’s 30 year nemesis. If you’re gonna pull something like that, fuck, start the movie in 1992. Let’s see this “evil man who made Ethan Hunt.” My wife just assumed it had all played out in an earlier entry in the series and she had simply missed it.

[Mr Sausage]

I don’t want to give the impression I’m some demanding, analytical watcher of blockbusters and action movies and such. Far from it. I think I give them a lot more rope than most on here. I excitedly went to see Infinity War and Endgame, had a great time, watched them again later at home, had another great time. My wife and I are such big John Wick fans that #4 was the movie that finally got us back into a movie theatre for the first time since the pandemic started. Guaranteed I’ve seen more Scott Adkins movies than everyone else on the forum combined.

I fully went to Dead Reckoning hoping to check out and have fun. But I never got into the movie, and my overlong post was the fruit of my choice to walk home for an hour so I could figure out what I hadn’t enjoyed and why.

[ford]

I’d say that all applies to me too. I do however “work in the industry” so I’m probably tougher on these things than most. But this was the first time I felt like they really did just go in believing that they could string together a few big stunts, yadda yadda some exposition and call it a wrap. I legit walked in wanting to have a great time as I did during FALLOUT (and TOP GUN MAVERICK).

But Jesus, that villain. The fucking switch blades! So corny!

[therewillbeblus]

I don’t want to give the impression I’m some demanding, analytical watcher of blockbusters and action movies and such. Far from it. I think I give them a lot more rope than most on here.

You’re not giving that impression at all. You demonstrate a relatively consistent position of willingness and enthusiasm for meeting ‘un-prestigious’ films where they’re at on this board, and you’ve articulated your criticisms of this film well and fairly. I even agree with about half of them, and I loved it!

I hope it didn’t seem like I was claiming that because I gave this film rope, I’m a more lenient viewer than you or others. Naturally a film needs to grab you in the right way to afford that kind of goodwill. I’ll always argue that Rogue Nation is objectively brilliant and the best of the franchise, but I wouldn’t apply the same principles determining that film’s worth here - same with III, my second favorite, since how you gel with JJ Abrams’ style doesn’t determine what kind of viewer you are

[Monterey Jack]

...even if a lot of it depends on Shea Wiggum being awfully dumb.

[Mr Sausage]

Ah, I see you caught my little joke that was totally on purpose and not at all an accident because I can’t spell.

[therewillbeblus]

I hope they release an uncut version at some point, however unlikely. Apparently over an hour was excised - the train action scene alone was supposed to be 90 vs 50 minutes. That may be excessive to sit through in a theatre, but I wonder if the rest of the picture would've played less tonally-jagged between scenes with more breathing room, depending on where the edits were

[thirtyframesasecond]

I liked this, but wanted more, and I think a tighter single movie (even over 3h) would ultimately be better than the two single parts that will feel stretched out. It's a bit of a 'greatest hits' film. You'd do well not to hold your breath with the motorcycle flying off the Austrian mountain.

[jojo]

I hope they release an uncut version at some point, however unlikely. Apparently over an hour was excised - the train action scene alone was supposed to be 90 vs 50 minutes. That may be excessive to sit through in a theatre, but I wonder if the rest of the picture would've played less tonally-jagged between scenes with more breathing room, depending on where the edits were

Huh. I think if anything this needed to be cut down by at least 20 minutes. Funny enough, I think the train section is the only part that felt properly paced and staged. Any longer and it would have dragged out like the car chase scene which seemed to go forever, and any shorter wouldn't have done it justice as the "big" action piece of Part 1. There's an awful lot of government-speak scenes during its runtime, which is really what bogs the entire thing down to a crawl when Tom isn't doing something insane for our viewing pleasure. (Although I admit I got a big chuckle out of the government-speak scene with the hundreds of typists furiously typing out hard copies of Important Intelligence Files in order to avoid the AI) It's a 2 hour 43 minute movie that's only half done when the credits roll... it's actually quite ridiculous to think about when I type this out.

Personally I think once part 2 rolls out, I bet many viewers in retrospect will wish this was just one big 4 hour movie rather than the nearly 6 hours we'll be sitting through with this entire two parter.

[therewillbeblus]

5 and 6 are essentially a two-parter too, though. And this one ends in almost the exact same way as all the others, with some sense of momentary resolution, growth, etc. and hints at what’s next to come (the exchange around Baldwin’s promotion at the end of 5 mirrored Atwell’s transitional bit at the end here). They could’ve called them 7 and 8 and it’d play similarly to 5 and 6. Maybe we’d have been more frustrated with 5 if it was called part one? We certainly would’ve expected the ending to be the way it played out vis the villain

[jojo]

There is connection between parts 5 and 6, yes, or rather the franchise has always had a sort of continuity, but each of those films introduces a villain-of-the-installment which is dispatched by the end of their respective runtimes. This is not the case in Dead Reckoning Part One. If the villain-of-the-installment character had died in Part One and it was teased at the end of the film that there is a BIGGER bad guy-behind-the-main-bad-guy, then I would agree that it is more akin to the previous MI's. I should note I don't consider the Pom character to be the "villain of the installment"

[therewillbeblus]

There is connection between parts 5 and 6, yes, or rather the franchise has always had a sort of continuity, but each of those films introduces a villain-of-the-installment which is dispatched by the end of their respective runtimes. This is not the case in Dead Reckoning Part One. If the villain-of-the-installment character had died in Part One and it was teased at the end of the film that there is a BIGGER bad guy-behind-the-main-bad-guy, then I would agree that it is more akin to the previous MI's. I should note I don't consider the Pom character to be the "villain of the installment"

Eh, I don't think that holds.

SpoilerShow

The Villain-of-the-Movie isn't killed off in 5, and there's no real subordinate that we're invested in to any degree to care what happens to them who is. The "Bone Doctor" is less-developed and granted less screen time than Pom. Imprisoning Solomon Lane is a bit more of a 'dispatching' than retaining the full key from Gabriel, but still the same token of besting the baddie yet leaving the chapter open. And it only feels like a finality because we don't know what's coming - Ethan could've trapped Gabriel the exact same way in this installment, and if we didn't know the next MI film was a continuation of the story, we'd feel the same satisfaction.

The main difference is that Dead Reckoning proactively announces itself as a two-parter, whereas Fallout introduces itself with 'Surprise, this is Rogue Nation: Part Two! Lane's still in the game!' I really think it comes down to predetermination in audience expectations, rather than any other criteria being mustered up.

[Persona]

I have been rewatching the Mission: Impossible movies and it's a great case study in what a difference a director makes because, my goodness, the first one has so much more verve to it than the rest of them. It's a somewhat janky story and it starts off a bit awkwardly before the betrayal ambush, but De Palma constructs movies in such interesting and vibrant ways, and he plays out various tensions so much better than any of the other directors in the series did. It's sharp, accomplished, big-budget pulp that sears its scenes and sequences into your memory without those sequences containing much in the way of actual spectacle (other than the finale, which makes its spectacle count in a way that most modern movies can't seem to figure out).

John Woo was a fish out of water with the second one but just the fact that he's got some vision and signature style, it elevates that entry over half of the others, despite a dreadful script that Robert Towne probably regretted working on. Ethan Hunt is a completely different character in this film than he is in the rest, which makes for another interesting case study in the incongruencies of long-lasting Hollywood franchises.

JJ Abrams and his buddies wrote the third one and JJ Abrams directed it, which is pretty much all that needs to be said. Philip Seymour Hoffman is truly great as the villain and yet somehow simultaneously wasted.

Brad Bird makes GHOST PROTOCOL a very fun jaunt, but it's also a very pronounced example of an action adventure movie that builds towards and peaks with its central set-piece (the terrific Burj Khalifa sequence) and then after that really struggles to figure out what to do with itself. Rubbish villain, too, and a climax that consists entirely of moving goal-posts.

ROGUE NATION has a good reputation, which to me is a little inexplicable as I find the movie quite flat and predictable both in text and aesthetic. Baldwin is terrible in a terrible role. But Rebecca Ferguson and Sean Harris were nice additions to the franchise, so I guess maybe that's where some of the good will comes from?

As the franchise's first returning writer-director, Christopher McQuarrie rebounds in a big way with FALLOUT, and it was a good move to switch DPs to Rob Hardy after Rob Elswit's inspiration seemed to be sputtering out. For me, it's the only M:I film besides the first one that really works consistently enough on enough levels for me to call it "good" overall.

I have not seen DEAD RECKONING yet, but I find it fascinating that for such a big-budget enterprise and for a franchise that has a strong visual emphasis, McQuarrie decided to hire Fraser Taggart as the cinematographer. It's the first M:I movie to be shot with digital cameras and Taggart has very minimal credits as a first unit DP (his last was 2014's ROBOT OVERLORDS), his resume is mostly 2nd unit work. So while most people are probably watching DEAD RECKONING to see what crazy stunt 60 year old Tom Cruise is gonna do, I'll be one of the few that will fixate on how it was shot.