Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (God, 2011)

[Morris Schæffer]

Let's get the ball rolling shall we:

http://www.fahad.com/pics/mission_impossible.png

Rumoured directing choices, Brad Bird, Edgar Wright, Ruben Fleisher,...

http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=27399

Anyone enjoy the third movie? I thought it was loadsa fun with some exceptional action scenes, but the domestic angle (aka lame attempt to inject some emotional depth into a franchise which perhaps needs little/none) didn't sit well with me. Baddie Owen Davian was, in the end, not quite villainous enough and the finale sizzled compared to what came before.

[Skitch]

I thought the third one was great.

[Dukefrukem]

Mission Impossible > Mission Impossible 3 >>>>>>>>>>>> Mission Impossible 2

[ledfloyd]

i would rather see brad bird and edgar wright use their talents pursuing original ideas.

[number8]

i would rather see brad bird and edgar wright use their talents pursuing original ideas.

Well, Edgar Wright is doing Scott Pilgrim and then Ant-Man, so no luck there.

[Raiders]

From a screenplay standpoint, the third film is the best in the series. From an execution, or perhaps stylishness, standpoint (I'm looking at you, Abrams) it was by far the weakest.

I'd rather they just stopped. Unless now-married (referring to the character), 50 year-old Cruise is going to be mentoring a new recruit. That might be pretty interesting.

If Bird does get this, I see it as him taking it to prove his live-action capabilities to get 1906 finally greenlit as much as anything.

[Skitch]

From a screenplay standpoint, the third film is the best in the series. From an execution, or perhaps stylishness, standpoint (I'm looking at you, Abrams) it was by far the weakest.

I'd rather they just stopped. Unless now-married (referring to the character), 50 year-old Cruise is going to be mentoring a new recruit. That might be pretty interesting.

If Bird does get this, I see it as much him taking it to prove his live-action capabilities to get 1906 finally greenlighted as much as anything.

She must die. :lol:

I'm curious if they can make an M:I movie without the crux of the film being an in-house turncoat.

[Ezee E]

If Bird does get this, I see it as him taking it to prove his live-action capabilities to get 1906 finally greenlit as much as anything.

This.

[Watashi]

So it's pretty much official. Bird is directing.

I can't believe it, but the 4th installment of a franchise I'm not crazy about is my most anticipated film of 2011.

[Skitch]

This is...weird...

I want him directing animation! And I want Sam Raimi doing horror, and George Lucas making Star Wars movies. Till they all die.

[D_Davis]

So it's pretty much official. Bird is directing.

I can't believe it, but the 4th installment of a franchise I'm not crazy about is my most anticipated film of 2011.

You don't have to look forward to it just because it's from your favorite director.

[EyesWideOpen]

I'd love to see Brad Bird branch out and do live action but not if it's M:I-4.

[megladon8]

You don't have to look forward to it just because it's from your favorite director.


Of course he does.

If Sony Pictures came out and said they were doing a sequel to The Fifth Element to be directed by Lau Kar Leung, wouldn't you be pretty interested?

[Ezee E]

I'd love to see Brad Bird branch out and do live action but not if it's M:I-4.
As Raiders mentioned, don't you think this project is a gateway for him to do other live-action films? Quite possibly his 1908 dream project?

[D_Davis]

If Sony Pictures came out and said they were doing a sequel to The Fifth Element to be directed by Lau Kar Leung, wouldn't you be pretty interested?

No. There are plenty of movies from my favorite directors that I never anticipated or liked.

Never liked the Fifth Element, and LKR hasn't made a great movie in over a decade. Can't say I'd be interested at all in either proposition. Although I would still end up seeing it, probably, but the anticipation factor wouldn't even register.

But whatever, it's all good.

:)

[megladon8]

No. There are plenty of movies from my favorite directors that I never anticipated or liked.

Never liked the Fifth Element, and LKR hasn't made a great movie in over a decade. Can't say I'd be interested at all in either proposition. Although I would still end up seeing it, probably, but the anticipation factor wouldn't even register.

But whatever, it's all good.

:)



I know you never liked The Fifth Element, that was my whole point :P

I was trying to join something you hate, with a director you loved. I didn't know that LKR hasn't had a good track record of late.

[Watashi]

You don't have to look forward to it just because it's from your favorite director.
Why wouldn't I want to support my favorite director?

If Brad Bird was directing a live-action Care Bears movie, I'd still watch it.

[Ezee E]

If Brad Bird was directing a live-action Care Bears movie, I'd still watch it.

So Brad Bird is your excuse for seeing Care Bears.... Riiiiiiight.

[Dukefrukem]

Cruise making minimum wage for MI4? (http://www.joblo.com/tom-cruise-getting-minimum-wage-for-mi4)

Haha?

[Winston*]

Cruise making minimum wage for MI4? (http://www.joblo.com/tom-cruise-getting-minimum-wage-for-mi4)

Haha?


For another, he won't be making peanuts at all. He's traded in a lot of the up-front money in exchange for a backend deal.
Don't movie stars do this all the time?

[Dukefrukem]

Don't movie stars do this all the time?

A lot do, but the top names get a big paycheck up front. Remember when Jim Carey was getting 20 mil a movie? Now his movies suck, so he gets backed stuff. I didn't see Night & Day, but it bombed.... wonder how much he got for that.

[number8]

You can't really trust back end deals in Hollywood. They do everything in their power to claim that a movie is in the red and has not made any profits so as to avoid paying a cut. A lot of stars are wise to this practice and ask for a cut of the initial gross instead of the profit, but not all can negotiate this demand.

Stallone, for instance, hasn't been paid a cent for Rocky Balboa.

[MadMan]

The series is rather solid and enjoyable. I've liked all of the entries (even MI:II, which is goofy/cheesy fun) and so I would probably view a forth movie if they ever made it.

[Morris Schæffer]

Same here Madman. MI:2 was a rather solid action offering. Dissapointing after the first one, but I've come to appreciate it a bit more as a standalone entry. And Bird directing a live action Mission Impossible, well, damn that sounds like an interesting combination.

[Morris Schæffer]

Jeremy Renner might sign up.

[MadMan]

Jeremy Renner might sign up.Awesome. He was great in The Hurt Locker.

[Morris Schæffer]

M:I-4 snags a female lead:

http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=28814

[megladon8]

Go, Paula Patton is so fucking sexy.

[Morris Schæffer]

MI 4 nabs its villain and it's Swede Michael Nyqvist.

http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=29024

[number8]

Ha, Josh Holloway is in this. The team seems pretty big this time...

[Morris Schæffer]

If this movie fails, it surely won't be because of the cast.

[Dukefrukem]

http://www.aintitcool.com/images2009/praguemi4wire.jpg

[Morris Schæffer]

Two more villains added, including President Omar Hassan from 24's season 8:

http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=29152

[Dukefrukem]

New title;

Mission: Impossible Ghost Protocol (http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/10/mission_impossible_4_gets_its. html)

[number8]

That really sounds like a video game.

[Raiders]

Yeah... it's just missing the "Tom Clancy's" in front of the title.

[Watashi]

This movie will be so damn amazing.

[Morris Schæffer]

There was that Alpha Protocol game recently. Really can't wait to see what a Bird directed M:I looks like.

[Morris Schæffer]

This is apparently the first time that Hollywood is allowed to shoot a major tentpole picture in Dubai. Scenes shot there include, but are possibly not restricted to, shooting on and around the Burj Kalifa tower, a monstrous skyscraper that towers 770 meters into the, uhm, sky.

Here we see one of the female leads, Ethan Hunt's love interest perhaps, during the climactic finale.

http://yeinjee.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/offbeat-003-burj-khalifa.jpg

[Ezee E]

A Godzilla picture! Awesome!

[Dukefrukem]

And cruise is actually doing these stunts.... pretty impressive (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1325517/Tom-Cruise-dangles-worlds-tallest-building-new-Mission-Impossible-movie.html).

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/11/01/article-1325517-0BDC14E8000005DC-94_634x428.jpg

[Morris Schæffer]

That's...that's...words fail me. 124 floors. Sheer madness. MADNESS I TELL YA!!

[Dukefrukem]

Bj6pBkWFn7w
pAQFA2oaM8s
V_QXKgYqg4c

[Morris Schæffer]

Thrilling stuff. Did he just break down the fourth wall in that third video? Impossible!

[Dukefrukem]

That's him sitting on top... crazy

http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2010/11/500x_tom-top-of-the-world2.jpg

[number8]

Attention whore.

[D_Davis]

I really like Cruise's work ethic. He gets into shit. In MI:3 he wanted to make sure he ran like a runner, and it looks awesome. And didn't he clock in hundreds of hours at a shooting range for Collateral? I remember hearing about how he walked around constantly drawing his gun and aiming his gun so he'd look convincing handling a weapon. I like this about him. He almost always convinces me that he knows the shit his characters know. That's a good actor.

[Morris Schæffer]

It looks like he's just chilling there...with a bird?

The wind alone up there must be fucking terrifying!

[Dukefrukem]

A Few Good Men was on AMC the other night. He's a great actor.

[megladon8]

I really like Cruise's work ethic. He gets into shit. In MI:3 he wanted to make sure he ran like a runner, and it looks awesome. And didn't he clock in hundreds of hours at a shooting range for Collateral? I remember hearing about how he walked around constantly drawing his gun and aiming his gun so he'd look convincing handling a weapon. I like this about him. He almost always convinces me that he knows the shit his characters know. That's a good actor.


Absolutely agreed, D.

Did you ever watch the making-of stuff on the Collateral DVD, where it talks about how in-depth he and Michael Mann went in creating his character?

Cruise actually put together full binders, organized chronologically, of all the things that had happened in Vincent's life up until the events of the film. They looked at his relationship with his father, how he came to love jazz music, how he got into the hired-gun business, and everything in between.

Their goal was to have every one of Vincent's actions and words "make sense" with regards to his past.


I also loved seeing the make-up/costume test for him. They wanted Cruise to be unrecognizable. What they did was they tried various hairdos and outfits, sending him into grocery stores and McDonalds' around the city, seeing if people recognized him.

[megladon8]

Jeremy Renner will be taking the lead role in future films in the franchise. (http://blog.moviefone.com/2010/11/23/jeremy-renner-mission-impossible/)


Very cool. I like Renner a lot. I think it'll be great to see him with his own action movie franchise.

[number8]

Not if Cruise doesn't want to give it up.

[megladon8]

Not if Cruise doesn't want to give it up.


Well since they're already openly talking about it, doesn't that mean that Cruise is maybe down with it?

I mean, the guy's almost 50. He can't keep doing these forever. He's already having trouble keeping the fit-physique, as demonstrated by him so obviously sucking in his gut in shirtless shots from this and Knight and Day.

[number8]

He's a producer on these films. He can change his mind and take the series back if 3 years from now when he feels like he needs another easy profile boost.

[Irish]

I mean, the guy's almost 50. He can't keep doing these forever.

You'd think that, right? But then Arnold did a Terminator movie at 56, Stallone made another Rambo at 62, and guys like Harrison Ford run around doing Indiana Jones movies at the age of 66.

It's ridiculous, but ego is a powerful force. You're the go-to action guy for 30-odd years, you're not giving that up lightly.

[Morris Schæffer]

French trailer cam

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/50171

Looks action-packed, but also a bit generic...I think.

[Henry Gale]

Generic-looking, maybe.

Completely capably put together and cool-looking with an amazing cast and some potentially great action setpieces? Definitely that too.

I'll hold out for a better quality trailer with English dialogue to fully judge it, but right now it still looked pretty much as awesome as I was hoping it would.

[Morris Schæffer]

Well, I expected something a bit more elaborate from the Burj Kaliffa sequence, but it looks like Hunt is simply trying to reach another office. :D

[Barty]

Great trailer on the big screen, really well put together, and looks epic for the type of movie it is.

[Watashi]

Trailer. (http://www.missionimpossible.com/)

In Bird I Trust.

[DavidSeven]

It's well put together, but sort of generically so. The previous film had a much more evocative trailer that suggested Abrams was really trying to put his stamp on the franchise. You could probably make the same case for the first two films. Not really seeing that here.

[DavidSeven]

I guess that stuff with the dust cloud looks like it has potential.

[megladon8]

What the hell was with that terrible choice of music?

And Paula Patton is smokin'. I want to have her babies.

[[ETM]]

What the hell was with that terrible choice of music?

I thought the beat worked well with the action cuts.

[Watashi]

It's well put together, but sort of generically so. The previous film had a much more evocative trailer that suggested Abrams was really trying to put his stamp on the franchise. You could probably make the same case for the first two films. Not really seeing that here.
Brad Bird.

[Irish]

I guess that stuff with the dust cloud looks like it has potential.

My big takeaway: Looks like Bird et al is returning, in some form, to the idea of IMF as a team.

One of the things that annoys me about these movies is that they ditched the entire team aspect of the television show, in favor of being a Tom Cruise star vehicle.


;356664']I thought the beat worked well with the action cuts.

It was well put together, but Eminem is such a weird choice. Kinda goes against the grain of "mainstream Tom Cruise action film."

[number8]

Nah. Eminem is also considered old, safe and mainstream nowadays.

[Irish]

It's more about the kind and quality of music than his being considered "old, safe."

[Ezee E]

It was in the Call of Duty trailer. And people like that game.

[Ezee E]

I liked the first movie the most, also because of the teamwork aspect of it. It looks like this movie has some of those intentions, but is still falling back on being all about Ethan Hunt.

I'm curious though.

[Watashi]

Less talk about Enimem and more about Brad Bird-awesomeness.

[Ezee E]

Less talk about Enimem and more about Brad Bird-awesomeness.
It's his first live-action feature. Can't really identify anything that looks impressive from a directorial standpoint. Do people even know what the Burj Dubai is?

[number8]

I do like the more team-like tone, and I'm liking the cast of this team more than M:I3's. Cool that Simon Pegg is now a field agent.

Other than that, pretty unexciting trailer, but I like the shots I see. Is this the first time this high-profile of an animation director do a live-action movie that's equally high-profile? I really can't think of another.

Maybe Kevin Lima for Enchanted, but that's sorta debatable.

[Watashi]

I do like the more team-like tone, and I'm liking the cast of this team more than M:I3's. Cool that Simon Pegg is now a field agent.

Other than that, pretty unexciting trailer, but I like the shots I see. Is this the first time this high-profile of an animation director do a live-action movie that's equally high-profile? I really can't think of another.

Maybe Kevin Lima for Enchanted, but that's sorta debatable.
Andrew Adamson went from doing Shrek 2 to Narnia.

[megladon8]

It also seems like they're trying to up the ante with "explosions Hunt couldn't have possibly survived when he was that close".

[Watashi]

I haven't seen Abrams' Mission Impossible III since its release and I barely remember anything about it other than Tom Cruise running really fast. Time to revisit it.

Cool to see Bird and Abrams team up.

[Ezee E]

I only hope that this leads to 1908 though.

[megladon8]

I'm surprised the trailer makes no mention at all of Bird.

Are they trying to distance it from his animated works? It mentions Abrams (and Bad Robot productions) as well as Tom Cruise's involvement as both star and producer, but there's nothing about Bird. Not even a "from the director The Incredibles" or something.

[Watashi]

It should have said "From Your Lord and Savior, Brad Fucking Bird".

200 million opening weekend right there.

[Irish]

JJ Abrams was hitting the talk shows to pump Super 8. People know who he is.

Brad Bird? Not so much. Promoting him here would be like promoting George Miller on the posters of Babe as "... from the director of the Road Warrior."

[Boner M]

I hope this is super-madcap.

[Ezee E]

From the director of "The Incredibles" would be more laughable to people then anything. People don't really understand that there's direction behind animated movies in my opinion.

[Watashi]

I can't wait to see how Bird injects Ayn Rand philosophy into this one.

[Irish]

I can't wait to see how Bird injects Ayn Rand philosophy into this one.

I can't tell if you're joking or not.

[DavidSeven]

I just re-watched the MI-3 trailer. They totally reused: 1) Cruise getting propelled by explosion, 2) glass building jump, and 3) hot co-star getting out of car in sexy dress.

LKlgIsRIcpM

[Ezee E]

What action movie does not feature #3?

[DavidSeven]

I'm thinking a lot of them don't unless we're talking about films from the Fast and Furious franchise and, I guess, Batman Begins. But even then, it's usually a random extra. Looks like Patton is playing the Maggie Q role from the previous movie.

[Lazlo]

FUCK YES

[megladon8]

I was thinking that too, DS, but not just with the trailers.

It looks like there are several action set-pieces that are lifted (in whole or part) directly from the previous three films.


Did I see Cruise lowering himself down from the ceiling through a maze of fans (in place of lasers)?

[Dukefrukem]

Did I see Cruise lowering himself down from the ceiling through a maze of fans (in place of lasers)?

Yes :frustrated:

[DavidSeven]

So, the twist on this movie is that it will be a visual homage to memorable shots and set-pieces from the previous three movies? Lame.

[Watashi]

So, the twist on this movie is that it will be a visual homage to memorable shots and set-pieces from the previous three movies? Lame.
Brad Bird.

[Morris Schæffer]

There's isn't really any kind of notion of what kind of villainy the IMF team will be facing. Is it Renner? Wilkinson? Who's the bad guy in this and who plays him?

I'm not completely convinced. Oh, I'll watch it and enjoy it, but will it top part one?

[[ETM]]

There's isn't really any kind of notion of what kind of villainy the IMF team will be facing. Is it Renner? Wilkinson? Who's the bad guy in this and who plays him?

I think Renner is the new good guy - he's supposed to take over from Hunt if the franchise continues. I think Josh Holloway is the bad guy. You can see him in the action shots in the trailer, as he's strangely never shown clearly at all.

[number8]

There's isn't really any kind of notion of what kind of villainy the IMF team will be facing. Is it Renner? Wilkinson? Who's the bad guy in this and who plays him?

Well... That's the mystery...

Just from the trailer, I gathered that: someone bombed the Kremlin and the US has to answer to Russia, so the US government forces IMF to make scapegoats out of Ethan Hunt's team, but Wilkinson and Renner (who are both IMF) let Hunt and his friends escape purposefully so they can go out there and find out who the real villain is and clear the agency's name.

[number8]

The movie will probably end with them failing to get the bad guy/proof and Hunt takes the fall by himself to save his team and goes into hiding. So then Jeremy Renner takes over.

[Kurosawa Fan]

That trailer was terribly constructed. I'm pretty sure I fell asleep from the constant fading and cutting to black.

[Morris Schæffer]

And yeah, the music is all kinds of awful, but it won't be in the movie - probably! - so I'll let that slide.

[megladon8]

The movie will probably end with them failing to get the bad guy/proof and Hunt takes the fall by himself to save his team and goes into hiding. So then Jeremy Renner takes over.


Because he's the hero IMF deserves, but not the hero it needs right now.

So they'll hunt him.

Because he can take it.

Because he's not a hero.

He's a silent guardian. A watchful protector.

A Scientologist.

[MadMan]

I think this movie has the potential to be the best in the series.

[Skitch]

If Mission Impossible 1-3 has taught me anything, its that IMF agents are easily turned. The enemy...will come...from...within.

[Morris Schæffer]

There's isn't really any kind of notion of what kind of villainy the IMF team will be facing. Is it Renner? Wilkinson? Who's the bad guy in this and who plays him?

I'm not completely convinced. Oh, I'll watch it and enjoy it, but will it top part one?

I just realized, I believe Michael Nyqvist from Dragon Tattoo was supposedly the main heavy, but I guess he wasn't in the trailer.

[Morris Schæffer]

http://www.empireonline.com/images/image_index/hw800/54421.jpg

Lame, and horribly reminiscent of Tinker, Taylor, Soldier Spy poster.

[Henry Gale]

It's a teaser poster, I'm kind of confused by how vocal people have been about their distaste for it. We've seen a teaser trailer that should put much more good will towards people's anticipation for this.

Plus, I imagine later posters will change things up a bit by highlighting Renner, Patton and the rest of the team, especially if the studio still intends on sticking to their the proposed direction of continuing the series without Cruise front and center.

[Morris Schæffer]

http://www.empireonline.com/images/uploaded/mission-impossible-ghost-protocol-imax-poster.jpg

[MadMan]

Awesome.

[[ETM]]

So, still "May 2011"?

[Watashi]

Full trailer. (http://www.slashfilm.com/mission-impossible-ghost-protocol-trailer-2/#more-114805)

The action set-pieces look insane.

Bless you Brad Bird. Bless you.

[number8]

I would have liked not knowing that he dies. :|

[[ETM]]

It's kind of hard skirting around it with the whole "it's just those four against the world" concept in the rest of the trailer.

[Scar]

God I hate slow shitty hotel wi-fi.

[Ezee E]

I would have liked not knowing that he dies. :|
Nobody really dies in those types of movies though.......

[Lazlo]

I'm as excited as all get-out for this.

[Morris Schæffer]

Looks fab. Even fabber that we get such a movie in December. It'll feel like summer for two hours.

[Dukefrukem]

Lots of CGI going on in that trailer. I'll still see it and probably in IMAX now that it will have DK footage.

[Sven]

I don't know why movies keep having CG dust storms. The technology on those has advanced maybe a year since the late 90s.

I saw the rest of them. May as well commit. Can't pass up that theme tune.

[megladon8]

Paula Patton is so damn sexy.

[MadMan]

I would have liked not knowing that he dies. :|I must have missed that in the trailer.

Anyways, wow. That trailer was badass.

[Lazlo]

I would have liked not knowing that he dies. :|

Yeah, I can't figure why they'd put that in there and wouldn't just start with the "We are the last four IMF agents" line.

[Morris Schæffer]

6 reviews fresh, 100% on RT. Hope this trend continues.:)

[Morris Schæffer]

Awesome!

http://moviesmedia.ign.com/movies/image/article/121/1214526/mission-impossible-ghost-protocol-20111211103714077.jpg

[MadMan]

That's a really bitchin' poster. I would love to display that on my wall.

[Morris Schæffer]

http://www.tomcruiseforever.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/982318-tom-cruise-251111-1-editorial.jpg

[Dead & Messed Up]

http://www.tomcruiseforever.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/982318-tom-cruise-251111-1-editorial.jpg

You know, standing on the tallest building in the world still can't change the fact that Tom's short as a schnauzer.

[Acapelli]

i got dizzy just looking at that picture

[Morris Schæffer]

i got dizzy just looking at that picture

It's pretty hilarious. He might as well have been chillin' at his local laundromat.

[number8]

If that's the tallest building on Earth... then who was camera?!

[Lazlo]

If that's the tallest building on Earth... then who was camera?!

Helicopter? I had the same question.

[Acapelli]

is that graffiti on the side of that thing?

[Rowland]

Walter Chaw briefly weighed in on his Twitter: "Sherlock as disappointing as Mission Impossible is revelatory. All hail Brad Bird." He's a bit of a Bird fanboy, but that's still encouraging, though I'm growing increasingly disappointed with the reactions to the new Sherlock, which I had hopes for despite its terrible trailer.

[Watashi]

All hail Brad Bird indeed.

Okay, Chaw. You are forgiven.

[Watashi]

Sweet American Jesus.... that was amazing.

All hail fucking Brad Bird.

[Watashi]

Seriously Boner.... explain yourself.

[Watashi]

This film doesn't offer any intellectual pathos like his animation work, so maybe that's why reviewers aren't grading it as high, but as viewed as a pure action thriller, there's nothing that can top it. I can't remember an action film that has intense set-pieces like the Dubai scene. This film never stops to dump exposition, but continues to move from one set-piece to the other. The last fight is just brutal.

[Kiusagi]

A remarkable experience. The scene of Cruise scaling the Burj Khalifa lives up to the hype, especially in IMAX.

One of the things I really liked about this was the team aspect. Of course Ethan Hunt is still the superstar, but the characters played by Renner, Pegg, and Patton play their own major roles in the mission. Not only that, they have distinct personalities and are a lot of fun to watch, even when the film takes a short break from the action. I don't even remember the other team members in the first three M:I films.

[Morris Schæffer]

Would you guys argue that the Kalifa scenes are intense even without the IMAX aspect? Because from the trailer I actually never really got a wow moment watching those scenes.

Is Pegg once again in tension-deflating mode or is he sort of intense as well, restrained?

Is there anything surprising to the story?

[Raiders]

A remarkable experience. The scene of Cruise scaling the Burj Khalifa lives up to the hype, especially in IMAX.

One of the things I really liked about this was the team aspect. Of course Ethan Hunt is still the superstar, but the characters played by Renner, Pegg, and Patton play their own major roles in the mission. Not only that, they have distinct personalities and are a lot of fun to watch, even when the film takes a short break from the action. I don't even remember the other team members in the first three M:I films.

You really don't remember Ving Rhames?

Anyway, seeing this tomorrow and am bringing my Bird idol to perform proper Watashi-like worship.

[Dukefrukem]

Seeing tonight in IMAX.

[number8]

You really don't remember Ving Rhames?

Man, I remember he's in the third movie, but I cannot remember what he did.

[Dukefrukem]

Man, I remember he's in the third movie, but I cannot remember what he did.

He didn't do much from what I recall. Sat in the back of a van hacking stuff?

[Raiders]

He didn't do much from what I recall. Sat in the back of a van hacking stuff?

That's all he has ever done in the series, but I'm just surprised at Kiusagi's statement that he couldn't remember him. Other than Out of Sight and Pulp Fiction, his role in the first three films are what I most associate with him.

[Ezee E]

Were there scenes shot in IMAX or is it just blown up?

[Raiders]

Were there scenes shot in IMAX or is it just blown up?

According to wikipedia, as much as 30 minutes of the film's runtime was shot with IMAX cameras.

[Kiusagi]

You really don't remember Ving Rhames?

I exaggerated a little. I do remember him. I just can't remember what he did or any of his lines. The other films never made a big impression on me for whatever reason, although I did like MI3 the most.

[Watashi]

Would you guys argue that the Kalifa scenes are intense even without the IMAX aspect? Because from the trailer I actually never really got a wow moment watching those scenes.

Is Pegg once again in tension-deflating mode or is he sort of intense as well, restrained?

Is there anything surprising to the story?
The movie is surprisingly straight-forward. No twists, no backstabbing, or triple-crossing. It's actually quite a breath of fresh air for the spy genre.

The Dubai scene is just incredible and even more incredible in IMAX especially when you realize that Tom Cruise is doing all his own stunts with no CGI.

[D_Davis]

Better than MI:3? Because I thought that was amazing.

[D_Davis]

The Dubai scene is just incredible and even more incredible in IMAX especially when you realize that Tom Cruise is doing all his own stunts with no CGI.

I love Cruise's work-ethic. He works his ass off for a part, and it almost always shows. Just look at the way he handles his gun in Collateral.

[Watashi]

Better than MI:3? Because I thought that was amazing.
I can't remember a single thing about MI3. When they talked about Ethan's wife in MI4, I was like what... he got married?

[Scar]

I love Cruise's work-ethic. He works his ass off for a part, and it almost always shows. Just look at the way he handles his gun in Collateral.

YES.

[D_Davis]

I think MI3 is one of the best action films of the last ten years. It is flawlessly directed, tightly scripted, and eschews all of the bloat from the first two.

[Watashi]

I think MI3 is one of the best action films of the last ten years. It is flawlessly directed, tightly scripted, and eschews all of the bloat from the first two.
Then you'll have a blast with this one.

[Raiders]

It's been a little while since I saw M:I3, but honestly it didn't strike me as being very well directed, at least in relation to the first film in the series. I remember thinking almost all of it was framed a fraction too close, something I find to be more and more prevalent in today's action cinema. So few films take the time to really focus on their mise en scene. I think many reviewers at the time were calling it Abrams' "TV aesthetic" but I think it was just him fitting the mold we expect from most action films nowadays.

[Pop Trash]

I love Cruise's work-ethic. He works his ass off for a part, and it almost always shows. Just look at the way he handles his gun in Collateral.

Scientology, man.

Anyway is Bird still doing 1906? As a Bay Area res., I'd love to see that happen.

[number8]

The most memorable thing about MI:3 was that hilarious shot of Tom Cruise running for 3 straight minutes.

[TGM]

Damn this movie was exciting!


The movie is surprisingly straight-forward. No twists, no backstabbing, or triple-crossing. It's actually quite a breath of fresh air for the spy genre.

The Dubai scene is just incredible and even more incredible in IMAX especially when you realize that Tom Cruise is doing all his own stunts with no CGI.

I also really appreciated this about the movie. No convoluted BS to chore through.

[Dukefrukem]

It's been a little while since I saw M:I3, but honestly it didn't strike me as being very well directed, at least in relation to the first film in the series. I remember thinking almost all of it was framed a fraction too close, something I find to be more and more prevalent in today's action cinema. So few films take the time to really focus on their mise en scene. I think many reviewers at the time were calling it Abrams' "TV aesthetic" but I think it was just him fitting the mold we expect from most action films nowadays.

It wasn't that great, but it wasn't terrible. I found MI3 mildly better than the Bourne series.

MI4 is by far the best of the series action wise. I was impressed not only with the creative set pieces, but how tense most scenes were. Something the series lacked since the famous hang from the ceiling scene. More later.

Oh and the Batman prologue is... well... fucking nuts.

[Morris Schæffer]

Well, i'm really liking the comments that most set pieces are tense. I got a vague feeling that the kalifa sequence was, but that the others were more bombastic, grand scale follies replete with dubious looking cgi sandstorms. I should see this early next week.

[Raiders]

Yeah, I mean, "all hail Brad Bird," I guess. The initial moments of the Burj Khalifa sequence are stunning and he "navigates" the sand storm signature M:I Cruise-running sequence with great efficiency (though as a fan of smooth action, it was cut a little quick for me). The opening prison break is practically balletic in its motion and wordless interplay between Cruise and the security cameras. The final inter-cutting of various action happening all at once was sufficiently brutal and terse. I also quite liked having a villain who was sketched well enough as a devoted and devout "evil" with an actual belief, but who didn't need to be eloquent or even much involved in the plot.

Gotta say though, wasn't much a fan of Giacchino's score, particularly the over-bearing Dubai-flavored piece, though he did integrate the classic theme quite well. Hated Renner's back-story reveal (an unfilmable info-dump) and the final scene was both quaint and tender in its last moments but also wholly ridiculous that it even existed. I also thought a lot of the supposedly funny interplays were more stupid than humorous, but Pegg's timing was always good as expected.

Ultimately though, the nimbleness and fluidity of the film, as well as its running anti-tech gags, were more than enough for a solid and refreshing action film.

[Dukefrukem]

I also quite liked having a villain who was sketched well enough as a devoted and devout "evil" with an actual belief, but who didn't need to be eloquent or even much involved in the plot.

I feel the opposite. I thought this was the weakest aspect of the film. We barely know the "villain". Up until the final scene, we don't really get a feeling for just how evil he really is. Wanting to blow up a city, start nuclear war, etc etc it's been done so many times before. The threat and urgency is not felt- We know they're fighting for a cause but it headed in a direction we are most familiar with in Disney films. (the bad guy always loses) Sure the action was intense during the journey, but was there any doubt that Hunt wasn't going to win?

[TripZone]

I feel the opposite. I thought this was the weakest aspect of the film. We barely know the "villain". Up until the final scene, we don't really get a feeling for just how evil he really is. Wanting to blow up a city, start nuclear war, etc etc it's been done so many times before. The threat and urgency is not felt- We know they're fighting for a cause but it headed in a direction we are most familiar with in Disney films. (the bad guy always loses) Sure the action was intense during the journey, but was there any doubt that Hunt wasn't going to win?

This strikes me as precisely what Bird would have wanted, and where it differs greatly from Abrams' investment in desperate emotion driving the thing. As with The Incredibles, Bird's Mission is almost spoof, a playful, postmodern espionage charmer -failing technology and all. Emotion did drive The Incredibles, and sentimental scenes exist in MI4 (I put it like this because reasons for their grief are put aside till towards the end, though not with Paula Patton), but Bird doesn't strain to achieve the viewer's emotional attachment. Thus we aren't given a total asshole villain like PSH that we can despise. Bird's villain is nothing more than a movie villain with a rudely-sketched movie motive, and giving him and his plan more nuance would be beside the point. PSH's motive amounted to the same thing as in MI4, and Abrams was arguably even less interested in why he was doing it, as long as he was evil. I get that you need to hate him to be invested, but I prefer Bird's more honest approach. And though he provides Buddy in The Incredibles with some emotional vengeance, a shade more characterisation if you will, Bird has him spouting self-aware lines about where villains go wrong etc. His only attempt at genuine villain characterisation is Anton whatever in Ratatouille (keep in mind I don't recall earlier Bird work), though it also contains Ian Holm's one-dimensional chef antagonist whom we merely laugh at.

[Watashi]

Kent Mansley in The Iron Giant is a total asshole. He"a really despicable.

[Ivan Drago]

I really hope this is still playing in IMAX two weeks from now when I come back to Nashville after the holidays.

[number8]

This movie begins the same way Team America did.

[Fezzik]

Saw this yesterday. It was wonderful.


Brad Bird needs to teach a class on film pacing. This thing never stops moving, and despite that it doesn't feel rushed or bloated. The entire Dubai sequence was sublime from start to finish and that last fight..yowch.

I've never seen Paula Patton before...I approve :lol:

Also, after this movie, no movie will EVER again be able to use...

...the "defuse the bomb with one second left on the clock" device, as this one raised it so far above eleven I can't see it being anything but a self parody from now on.

All hail Brad Bird, indeed. I've already called him my favorite director. This just cements it. What a thrill ride.

[Henry Gale]

This movie's just a lot of fun. It's sad that it's almost an oddity to leave the theatre from a big studio franchise action movie like this so satisfied, especially when it's a fairly simple script like this one that's main focus is just getting to the point, delivering the goods, and unfolding intelligently without any unnecessary twists or storytelling gimmicks.

This and M:I-III work as surprisingly great counterparts, and not just because they kept Abrams involved (he also wrote the outline for this, which seems like it's now gone uncredited). The last one developed the team beyond just Cruise as a more believable hero force, and this one takes that and spins them as the underdog for the audience as perceived enemies. That added shift in dynamic was the right kind of danger needed to make a fourth movie like this, as well as the necessity of the team, interesting. But also allowing Ghost Protocol to acknowledge that Abrams' film exists in the same universe is nice, especially since it's something none of the other ones have done before, and the third film was the one that arguably spent the most time on developing its characters.

It's also kind of bizarrely fun to see all of the crossing over of talent between this, Tintin, and Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (whether it's Daniel Craig being in the new one or Nyqvist as the villain in this movie and Rapace in Sherlock Holmes).

***½

[Dukefrukem]

I still can't grade this. Does it beat the first movie? In action? Yes. In suspense? No (arguably). In formulaic-hero-story? Yes. In misdirection? No. In epic-scale-“impossible”-mission? Yes. In disbelief? No. In enjoyable villains? No. Hmm.

I really enjoy the slow pace of the first movie but yet the (Please don’t judge me for using this line) “high octane” pacing of MI4 is exceptional.

[number8]

I'm fine with high octane, but I'm pretty sure you meant exceptional.

[Dukefrukem]

Yup I did. Thx.

[Morris Schæffer]

Saw it. It's an incredibly enjoyable action movie. I was surprised by the ingenuity of the gadgets and that Pegg actually made me chuckle. I expected forced humour which would have undermined the proceedings, but that didn't happen. The direction here is really very strong, nothing overtly fancy, but assured, visually coherent. Good stuff. And it was tenser than I had anticipated too, but I also felt that once it got to Mumbay the movie just sort of deflated a little. It just got a bit silly and I get that for some, this is an entirely natural result given the genre and that it is helmed by the guy who made The Incredibles, but when your threat is global nuclear war, we've sort of moved away from Caper country into something that perhaps warranted a bit more gravity. It's a pretty lame plot, story, villain, but Bird directs the hell out of it. And those final moments, boy I was fine with the wife being dead. I thought it was awful

Wish I would have seen it on the biggest IMAX screen imaginably, but we don't have those here in Belgium. Still, good action scenes though, but I probably prefer the climax of DePalma's entry to the Burj Kaliffa scaling. When Cruise stuck his head out of the train, and the wind started blowing violently, that was fucking insanely visceral.

[Mr. Pink]

Add me to the list of supporters. Not much you can complain about here. I was thrilled to see . . .

. . .the fight at the end of the movie climax with the suicide of the villain. Shits on audience expectation (even though, when Criuse said he'd be leaving with the briefcase, I immediately thought he should kill himself), and still fits perfectly in with the story.

Pretty much every action scene is a spectacle, and generally unique to similar movies. Top-notch spy movie stuff here.

[Thirdmango]

I've been thinking a lot about this movie and it's easily better then the first three of the MI movies. I think my favorite thing about it, is in many other action movies the heroes are fearless and almost happy that they're about to perform some badass stunt, but in each case in this movie it felt like every character didn't want to be badass and only were badass because there was no other option. It made the motivations a lot more awesome, they would rather just be done with this stuff and are required to be awesome to get out of it.

My major complaint with most action movies is that they do take themselves too seriously, and Brad Bird had the vision to make this into a much more comical arena. I do admit I only did see it as early as I did because it was Bird and I was laughing throughout the entire movie. Action movies usually don't want you to laugh but I think this movie did want you to laugh at how insane the situations were. This is why I think it's a success and if looked at through the eyes of someone looking for a traditional action movie, they may be disappointed.

[Morris Schæffer]

Well, I thought Renner stretching before a critical jump was a bit of a groaner, but Cruise certainly didn't relish scaling burj. I guess I enjoyed the mystery of the first one more even if it took me a few times to understand the plot and even now I'm not sure.:)

Something odd about the Burj Kalifa sequence, the background, ground level I mean, was so inanimate that it seemed to diminish the vertiginous impact of the scene. I'd reckon that a sense of height is often increased depending on what can be glimpsed on ground level. For instance, it is said that people who fear heights might be more inclined to jump out of an airplane than jump off a tall building since in the former they can't see the surface, but in the latter they can.

Just a small detail. Still a pretty great scene.

[[ETM]]

Just seen it... a solid action film, but I wouldn't say it was any better that the previous films in any meaningful way. Some cool sequences and Pegg was fun, but overall I didn't have nearly as much fun as, say, watching Sherlock Holmes 2, which is something I didn't think I'd be saying at all.

[ledfloyd]

i have mixed feelings about this one. the first complaint is i felt it took a long time to really get going. the kremlin sequence is ok, the wall gag is amusing, but the film never really takes off until renner shows up and they go to dubai. the entire dubai sequence is amazing. even the car chase in the sandstorm, and the clever tactic of using the cell phone to establish spatial awareness in a situation it would've been otherwise impossible to. it keeps up pretty much til the end, the action in the parking garage not trying to outdo dubai in scope and settling for sheer brutality. the final scene in seattle is pretty bad though.

also, i haven't seen MI3 and my memory of 1 & 2 are rather dim. were these films always this funny?

[TGM]

also, i haven't seen MI3 and my memory of 1 & 2 are rather dim. were these films always this funny?

Not really, no. Comedy is one of the more significant contributions that M:I4 brings to the franchise.

[Dukefrukem]

also, i haven't seen MI3 and my memory of 1 & 2 are rather dim. were these films always this funny?

Well, MI2 is unintentionally hilarious.

[Ezee E]

This has made over $400 million now.

Think Bird will get to do one for himself now? 1906?

EDIT: Looking into it more, it'll cost $200 mill. If John Carter flops like I think it will, Disney/Pixar will probably be wary of funding another $200 million live action movie I'd think....

[Kiusagi]

This has made over $400 million now.

Think Bird will get to do one for himself now? 1906?

EDIT: Looking into it more, it'll cost $200 mill. If John Carter flops like I think it will, Disney/Pixar will probably be wary of funding another $200 million live action movie I'd think....

Maybe it'll be the Abrams path of a M:I movie, then a big franchise starter, then his passion project. Though I think GP is a lot more successful than M:I3 was, so maybe he can skip that second step.

And I watched an interview with Bird where he denied reports of anyone balking at 1906's budget. He said the delay is script related.

[Ezee E]

And I watched an interview with Bird where he denied reports of anyone balking at 1906's budget. He said the delay is script related.

Yeah, but another delay can always hit.

[Watashi]

Or it could just go to another studio.

1906 doesn't work as a Disney film.

[Skitch]

Wow. I was very curious how Bird's first live action film would be. I didn't expect it to be so straight forward, but in consideration of the previous entries "twist" third acts, this was really really good. Can't wait to watch it again, and thrilled that Bird still remains pretty much flawless in my book.

[Winston*]

I found it interesting in this movie how these high tech secret agents are so keen on using commercially available Apple products in their espionage. I wonder what Bird's motivation was behind that choice.

[number8]

I know you're pointing out the Pixar/Apple connection, but isn't it a longstanding trope in spy fiction that their high-tech gadgets are cloaked as ordinary commercial products? Jack Bauer's Sprint phone did all kinds of shit Sprint phones can't do.

[Mr. McGibblets]

This is about on par with the third film; it comes nowhere near to recapturing the energy of the second. The plot is razor thin – a poor excuse to move between set pieces and the characters are all one note. As the team members, Renner (though his character’s back story adds nothing; it would have been much more interesting to have him as an analyst along for the ride), Pegg and Patton at least try to make it work, but the villains have no personality.

The biggest problem here is that the stakes don’t matter to anyone. The-end-of-the-world is the worst possibility a movie like this can offer, because it’s never going to happen. In each of the previous two films, there was something personal at stake for the protagonist, but here he only cares about getting the job done. There’s some attempt to make things personal when Patton comes face-to-face with her lover’s murderer, but that happens halfway through the film, to a side character, and is resolved within a minute. There is also introduced a layman with a family, but nothing happens there.

Even the action is boring, since it lacks a sense of danger. That is not to say that nothing works. The most tense scene is a pair of simultaneous conversations in the middle of the film, well-staged and with the real expectation that something will go wrong, followed by a chase through a dust-storm, all of which stands out as exceptional. Unfortunately, after that, the action finale of the film seems plodding and overlong and it doesn’t help that the end of the film is a tacked on (and obvious) reveal that doesn’t have much to do with the story we just watched.

[Qrazy]

I found it interesting in this movie how these high tech secret agents are so keen on using commercially available Apple products in their espionage. I wonder what Bird's motivation was behind that choice.

Haha yes I was just coming in here to post that this should have been called Mission Impossible: Apple Protocol

[Qrazy]

This is about on par with the third film; it comes nowhere near to recapturing the energy of the second.

The second film is a terrible, terrible, horrible film.

[TripZone]

I tried to give Woo's another chance last year and...no, it is truly horrendous.

[EyesWideOpen]

I'm watching through them just for fun since I've only seen the first before. I have II coming from netflix.

[Morris Schæffer]

Don't find part two horrible in the least, but it is arguably the lesser of the movies. One could even argue it has a slightly better villain than Hendricks and Davian, whom I felt weren't in their movies (III and IV) enough to leave a mark. Anyhow, I recall being quite irritated at the opening in spain with the flamenco dances and then, lord almighty, the "dancing" cars near the cliff. It felt wrong for a MI flick for some reason. The action-packed second half was pretty good, but I felt vehicular mayhem was too ordinary for a MI movie although the practicality and physicality of stuntwork is always a good thing. The masks were used far too often so as to lessen their impact. Story wasn't better or worse than what was in Ghost Protocol although Bird's entry feels more like a Bonafide MI entry due to the globe hopping, the teamwork, the set pieces.

[Ezee E]

Good action pieces, although not much else. It doesn't really care about anything else either, as it's basically set piece after set piece. I enjoyed it, especially that it wasn't just the "Tom Cruise show." Like the first one, everyone gets involved. And Paula Patton looked fabulous. Wow.

Best action sequence was the chase through the sandstorm.

[Irish]

I enjoyed this quite a bit. The first two acts are amazingly fun, high end locations, top tier production values, great action, and there's quite a bit of subversive humor built in. It's the kind of thing the Bond films used to do well.

By the third act, when they get to Mumbai, it hits a wall and the movie just runs out of ideas. Talk about bloat. Talk about overstaying your welcome.

Around the time Cruise is punching it out with Dr Potatohead in the high tech parking garage (!!!), I lost interest. Got up. Looked out the window. Cleaned my fingernails. Got a drink from the fridge. Lit a cigarette. Went out and did my grocery shopping. Vacuumed the rug. Did the laundry. Cleaned the bathroom. Mowed the lawn. Went to sleep. Got up. Went to work. Took a night course in accounting, for fun. Came back home. Looked at my screen.

The movie is still playing.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I enjoyed this quite a bit. The first two acts are amazingly fun, high end locations, top tier production values, great action, and there's quite a bit of subversive humor built in. It's the kind of thing the Bond films used to do well.

By the third act, when they get to Mumbai, it hits a wall and the movie just runs out of ideas. Talk about bloat. Talk about overstaying your welcome.

Around the time Cruise is punching it out with Dr Potatohead in the high tech parking garage (!!!), I lost interest. Got up. Looked out the window. Cleaned my fingernails. Got a drink from the fridge. Lit a cigarette. Went out and did my grocery shopping. Vacuumed the rug. Did the laundry. Cleaned the bathroom. Mowed the lawn. Went to sleep. Got up. Went to work. Took a night course in accounting, for fun. Came back home. Looked at my screen.

The movie is still playing.

THANK. YOU.

Just finished watching this, and perhaps it would have played better in a theater, because I completely lost interest at this same moment. The movie became ridiculous in the dullest fashion possible. It's hell-bent on topping each action set piece that came before it, to the point that it's laughable rather than exciting or entertaining. It also didn't earn any forgiveness with that corny conclusion either. The humor also fell flat for me throughout. I don't think I laughed at a single line in the film. Dubai was exciting, as was the Kremlin bit. Everything after was a snooze.

Stick to cartoons, Brad.

[Watashi]

Stick to cartoons, Brad.

Pretty sure Brad Bird can do whatever he wants.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Pretty sure Brad Bird can do whatever he wants.

Thanks for clearing that up. Maybe don't take criticism of Brad Bird personally.

[Watashi]

Thanks for clearing that up. Maybe don't take criticism of Brad Bird personally.
I wasn't aware that was criticism.

I don't understand how directing a film with over-the-top action sequences and unfunny jokes (Bird didn't write the film) means he should stick to one medium of film.

I think the entire Dubai sequence proves Bird as a capable live-action director.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I wasn't aware that was criticism.

I don't understand how directing a film with over-the-top action sequences and unfunny jokes (Bird didn't write the film) means he should stick to one medium of film.

I think the entire Dubai sequence proves Bird as a capable live-action director.

Because the type of action sequences he filmed worked great in a family animated film where there are no true stakes (The Incredibles). It doesn't work in a film where human lives are supposed to be at risk. That sort of jovial action doesn't blend with a film that starts off with the murder of an agent by an assassin.

[Watashi]

Because the type of action sequences he filmed worked great in a family animated film where there are no true stakes (The Incredibles). It doesn't work in a film where human lives are supposed to be at risk. That sort of jovial action doesn't blend with a film that starts off with the murder of an agent by an assassin.

The Dubai and Kremlin scenes are universally hailed as excellent pieces of filmmaking. Even if the third act is sluggish (I don't agree), that doesn't negate the first two thrilling set-pieces.

I think why I love MI:GP so much is because it felt like an animated film. The tone is very different from DePalma's Mission Impossible whose style was sleek and sexy. I think Bird's film works best if you view it as a Bond film where stakes are never the question, and the gadgets and the set-pieces take center stage.

I think action films (especially big Hollywood franchise films) are used to the jovial sequences where the team is first and the world is second (just look at The Avengers). I think Bird will continue to make films in both mediums, but I think he is primarily going to stick to live-action for now.

What would you say if I saw Stray Dog, didn't like it, and said "Stick to samurai films, Akira"?

[Ezee E]

What would you say if I saw Stray Dog, didn't like it, and said "Stick to samurai films, Akira"?

He'd be like, "High and Low motherfucker."

[Kurosawa Fan]

What would you say if I saw Stray Dog, didn't like it, and said "Stick to samurai films, Akira"?

I'd understand that you were saying it at least partially in jest, laugh to myself at how wrong you were, and move on with my day.

The film didn't work for me. It felt slight, and I felt it didn't deliver on the tone set up by the opening sequences (assassination, jailbreak, and Kremlin disaster). Every point that the film should have been dark, Bird decided to lighten things up, to the detriment of the film (in my opinion, just in case you needed that spelled out).

I understand you have a great affinity for animated films and Bird himself. I don't have any great attachment to either. I don't want my live action films to feel like animated films (though I'm not sure this did; I'd give that to Kung Fu Hustle). If I'm watching a film about a potential nuclear fucking strike against the U.S. in which the opening scene shows an agent being assassinated, I would appreciate the film taking the situation seriously. I didn't feel this did. It was more interested in focusing all its attention on the bombastic action sequences and Simon Pegg quips.

[Kurosawa Fan]

And this isn't like a Bond film. Bond films don't take the time to show agents being assassinated or stop for weighty, somber conversations about wives and lovers being murdered, and when they do they're called Casino Royale, and the entire film is dark and gritty. Bird wanted his film to work both ways, and it failed.

[Watashi]

I'd understand that you were saying it at least partially in jest, laugh to myself at how wrong you were, and move on with my day.

The film didn't work for me. It felt slight, and I felt it didn't deliver on the tone set up by the opening sequences (assassination, jailbreak, and Kremlin disaster). Every point that the film should have been dark, Bird decided to lighten things up, to the detriment of the film (in my opinion, just in case you needed that spelled out).

I understand you have a great affinity for animated films and Bird himself. I don't have any great attachment to either. I don't want my live action films to feel like animated films (though I'm not sure this did; I'd give that to Kung Fu Hustle). If I'm watching a film about a potential nuclear fucking strike against the U.S. in which the opening scene shows an agent being assassinated, I would appreciate the film taking the situation seriously. I didn't feel this did. It was more interested in focusing all its attention on the bombastic action sequences and Simon Pegg quips.
I don't see how this is a Brad Bird problem, but as a genre problem.

I mean, Paramount didn't hire Bird to make a dark, emotionally devastating film for a 4th installment in a franchise that was pretty over-the-top to begin with. The primary demographic for this film is families, and they are going to the movies for bombastic action sequences and Simon Pegg quips (oh god, I'm sounding like Irish here).

This has been a staple of the action genre forever. Every James Bond film follows this formula. They take outlandish end-of-the-world scenarios and treat it lightly.

I wasn't expecting Brad Bird to direct Fail-Safe.

[Watashi]

And this isn't like a Bond film. Bond films don't take the time to show agents being assassinated or stop for weighty, somber conversations about wives and lovers being murdered, and when they do they're called Casino Royale, and the entire film is dark and gritty. Bird wanted his film to work both ways, and it failed.

Casino Royale is still a Bond film. You can have dark elements to a film but still be ridiculous in its plot. I also don't see why a film needs to be all the way dark and gritty or all the way light-hearted and fun.

The moments you single out from MI:GP are not ones I consider "dark", but just dramatic. Even fun studio action films have their moments of drama in the middle of all the energetic action.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I don't see how this is a Brad Bird problem, but as a genre problem.

I mean, Paramount didn't hire Bird to make a dark, emotionally devastating film for a 4th installment in a franchise that was pretty over-the-top to begin with. The primary demographic for this film is families, and they are going to the movies for bombastic action sequences and Simon Pegg quips (oh god, I'm sounding like Irish here).

This has been a staple of the action genre forever. Every James Bond film follows this formula. They take outlandish end-of-the-world scenarios and treat it lightly.

I wasn't expecting Brad Bird to direct Fail-Safe.

I'm not sure what you're arguing here. It's okay for the film to be mediocre because it's rated PG-13 and Paramount wanted a safe, friendly film? Brad Bird shouldn't be held accountable due to that, and I should just praise the film and Bird himself for creating another mind-numbing entry into the genre? Brad Bird = director. Film = mediocre. That's why it's his problem. I'm not interested in why Paramount hired him. I'm interested in the film he created, which was dull. Genre can't be used as an excuse. Plenty of directors/films toy with or subvert their genre.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Casino Royale is still a Bond film. You can have dark elements to a film but still be ridiculous in its plot. I also don't see why a film needs to be all the way dark and gritty or all the way light-hearted and fun.

Was any significant portion of Casino Royale fun and light-hearted? Was anything in Dr. No dark and gritty? It's very difficult to combine those two opposing tones in one film. Bird tried here at times and failed.


The moments you single out from MI:GP are not ones I consider "dark", but just dramatic. Even fun studio action films have their moments of drama in the middle of all the energetic action.

Call it whatever you want, the "drama" wasn't effective in the slightest because the film refused to take anything seriously. For the record, I'd consider talk about how someone's wife was murdered, her body found cut in pieces, "dark."

[Watashi]

I'm not sure what you're arguing here. It's okay for the film to be mediocre because it's rated PG-13 and Paramount wanted a safe, friendly film? Brad Bird shouldn't be held accountable due to that, and I should just praise the film and Bird himself for creating another mind-numbing entry into the genre? Brad Bird = director. Film = mediocre. That's why it's his problem. I'm not interested in why Paramount hired him. I'm interested in the film he created, which was dull. Genre can't be used as an excuse. Plenty of directors/films toy with or subvert their genre.
Where in my conversation did I say you have to praise the film? You're not the first person on here to dislike it.

You are complaining that it's not dark and serious enough. I don't think it needs to be. That doesn't make it mediocre. I don't judge films based on whether the tone is light or dark. I would argue that the majority of people who saw the film would say it's the opposite of mind-numbing. The film was a massive hit critically and financially.

Personally, I think Bird does subvert the genre. He plays with the convention of the spy thriller without resorting to twists or double-crossings to convey suspense. There are several moments of beautiful balletic action and suspense that is not found in a typical action film. This is not your average run-of-the-mill action film.

[Winston*]

For the record, I'd consider talk about how someone's wife was murdered, her body found cut in pieces, "dark."

Is that dark for a mainstream film these days? A child is hanged at the start of the third Pirates of the Carribean film.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Where in my conversation did I say you have to praise the film? You're not the first person on here to dislike it.

You are complaining that it's not dark and serious enough. I don't think it needs to be. That doesn't make it mediocre. I don't judge films based on whether the tone is light or dark. I would argue that the majority of people who saw the film would say it's the opposite of mind-numbing. The film was a massive hit critically and financially.

Personally, I think Bird does subvert the genre. He plays with the convention of the spy thriller without resorting to twists or double-crossings to convey suspense. There are several moments of beautiful balletic action and suspense that is not found in a typical action film. This is not your average run-of-the-mill action film.

This isn't my complaint. In fact, somewhere along the line, my original criticism of the film has been lost. Bird wants moments of his film to be dark and gritty, only they don't work because the rest of the film is so breezy and fun, which would be fine, only, and here's my REAL complaint, the breezy, fun action sequences are a chore post-Dubai because they become more and more absurd, and don't mix well with the serious nature of the story (coming to a climax with Cruise's ridiculous "Mission accomplished!" line; and no, making fun of it a few moments later doesn't negate the stupidity of the line) and the rising stakes of the characters.

[Watashi]

My main qualm with your post had nothing to do whether you liked the film or not. It was directed at your claim that Bird should stick to "cartoons". I didn't find it offensive, but just ridiculous that you would put that there (as some signal to try and bait me).

[Kurosawa Fan]

Is that dark for a mainstream film these days? A child is hanged at the start of the third Pirates of the Carribean film.

It's dark as far as I'm concerned. I don't pretend to have my finger on the pulse of mainstream acceptability when it comes to depictions of violence, but I wouldn't be happy taking my kids to see a Pirates movie only to see a child hanged to kick things off. Then again, I wouldn't take my kids to see a Pirates movie. I have more sense than that.

[Watashi]

I know I'm the resident Bird-fanboy, but the guy isn't some niche director that is known for making cartoons.

I'm a pretty tame fan compared to the people who love him in Hollywood. The guy is praised as a savior in animation and even though he's been around since the 80's, he going to have a huge career now where he will become a household name next to the like of Abrams and Spielberg.

This has nothing to do with KF's posts, but I thought I would let people know that I'm not some craze lunatic.

I'm certainly not biased though. I didn't love this film before I saw it.

[Kurosawa Fan]

My main qualm with your post had nothing to do whether you liked the film or not. It was directed at your claim that Bird should stick to "cartoons". I didn't find it offensive, but just ridiculous that you would put that there (as some signal to try and bait me).

Believe it or not, Wats, you weren't on my mind for a millisecond while sorting out my thoughts or writing that sentence. It was a short comment on how I found The Incredibles successful while finding MI:GP a chore. Nothing more. And as I already intimated when you asked about Kurosawa, it was said partially in jest. I wouldn't skip a second live action Bird film if it looked interesting and the word of mouth was strong.

[transmogrifier]

THANK. YOU.

Just finished watching this, and perhaps it would have played better in a theater, because I completely lost interest at this same moment. The movie became ridiculous in the dullest fashion possible. It's hell-bent on topping each action set piece that came before it, to the point that it's laughable rather than exciting or entertaining. It also didn't earn any forgiveness with that corny conclusion either. The humor also fell flat for me throughout. I don't think I laughed at a single line in the film. Dubai was exciting, as was the Kremlin bit. Everything after was a snooze.

Stick to cartoons, Brad.

Hey, me three. I forgot I watched this. I liked it well enough, but it is a pretty piece of efficient machinery that runs out of inspiration in Mumbai. And the villain was an absolute non-entity - I'd have preferred someone NOT modelled after a doddery old grandfather.

The very last scene could have gone one of two ways - and they went the least interesting way, just to put a capper on the disappointing Act III.

[EyesWideOpen]

The villain was definitely the weak point in my eyes. I also didn't like how all of a sudden in the car garage scene at the end Ethan Hunt who is supposed to be this great trained fighter is getting worked by this old man.

[Raiders]

Bird wants moments of his film to be dark and gritty

There is never anything gritty about this film. "Dark" is debatable as many nimble action films with comic sections have serious moments and/or death scenes and this one never felt dark to me at all.


only they don't work because the rest of the film is so breezy and fun, which would be fine, only, and here's my REAL complaint, the breezy, fun action sequences are a chore post-Dubai because they become more and more absurd, and don't mix well with the serious nature of the story (coming to a climax with Cruise's ridiculous "Mission accomplished!" line; and no, making fun of it a few moments later doesn't negate the stupidity of the line) and the rising stakes of the characters.

I kind of agree here, the film certainly runs out of steam and I don't much care for the coda. The whole thing climaxes with the absolutely elegant sandstorm chase sequence and from there definitely coasts to its conclusion. Still, it was a marvelously directed film. I actually think Bird has shown he may want to stick to live-action films considering he did a better job than oh what, 95% of other directors last year.

[Henry Gale]

It's funny how so many of the deleted scenes on the Blu-ray are with the villain and in the commentaries Bird essentially admits that they just never found a good way to have him verbalize his world domination plans onscreen, so they just opted to keep him at the same distance from the audience as he is to the team.

But Nyqvist's villain definitely ends up feeling like a non-threat as a result, and that might've been a bigger problem to a weaker script executed with less intensity through amazing action in its first two thirds, but I think the overall film thrives despite its treatment of him. I feel like the disavowed IMF have so much going wrong between them and their malfunctioning gear, there's already enough conflict without a big, strong villain.

[number8]

It's funny how so many of the deleted scenes on the Blu-ray are with the villain and in the commentaries Bird essentially admits that they just never found a good way to have him verbalize his world domination plans onscreen, so they just opted to keep him at the same distance from the audience as he is to the team.

Ha. I was wondering why they even bothered getting Nyqvist for the role.

[Irish]

Ethan Hunt who is supposed to be this great trained fighter is getting worked by this old man.

Same reaction. I actually laughed when that happened because about midway through the fight it just becomes increasingly bizarre.

[Sven]

the absolutely elegant sandstorm chase sequence

Hmm.

[Raiders]

Hmm.

I do indeed have great affinity for the sequence. I still think it is cut a little too quickly, but it's a pretty dazzling chase scene for the most part and I love the visual (dis)orientation of it. My favorite M:I Cruise-running sequence in all the films.

[Scar]

Same reaction. I actually laughed when that happened because about midway through the fight it just becomes increasingly bizarre.

Was that before or after he got his leg fucked up by a car?

[Irish]

Was that before or after he got his leg fucked up by a car?

:lol: Somewhere in there. Towards the end I think he even falls 20 feet onto concrete and still manages to flail around attacking Cruise and wrestling over the McGuffin.

Tom Cruise is no spring chicken but still I'm surprised nobody on the crew saw the unintentional comedy value in this resilient, spry old man slapping him around for so long.

[Qrazy]

The villain was definitely the weak point in my eyes. I also didn't like how all of a sudden in the car garage scene at the end Ethan Hunt who is supposed to be this great trained fighter is getting worked by this old man.

His suicide made no sense either.

[Morris Schæffer]

It's a bad villain and a merely decent story (complete with disaster-averting red button) and a sense that the stakes are not quite high enough given the premise. That said, Bird certainly does deliver his live-action ticket with confidence and lots of individual scenes are good, great even, but the glue holding them together, felt too tenuous to me. I still enjoyed it lots.

[Dukefrukem]

The villain was definitely the weak point in my eyes. .

It's the weakest aspect of the movie. The threat is barely shown.

[Scar]

:lol: Somewhere in there. Towards the end I think he even falls 20 feet onto concrete and still manages to flail around attacking Cruise and wrestling over the McGuffin.

Tom Cruise is no spring chicken but still I'm surprised nobody on the crew saw the unintentional comedy value in this resilient, spry old man slapping him around for so long.

Something mentioned early in the film is that the 'old man' is former spec ops, (forget which country). They can fight, 'n stuff.

[Raiders]

Nyqvist and Cruise are practically the same age, y'all. I never got the impression he was supposed to be that old.

[EvilShoe]

All I could think while watching this was was how great an agent Renner must have.

His character was designed to take over from Cruise if it ever came to that, yet instead of giving it to a twenty-something, Renner landed the role.

Not that I mind, he's a good actor.

The movie itself is quite fun, until it gets to the third act. Still watchable then, but starts to drag. Cruise doesn't seem to realize how silly all of this is, and comes across as too intense at times. Benji's tolerable because Pegg's portraying him. I thought Renner had the best grasp on the tone.

(Although that scene where he talks about a failed mission in Bosnia does not work at all.)

The sandstorm itself looks awful when it first appears, although it does make for an interesting chase scene.

Probably the best in the franchise since the first one. I wouldn't mind another entry in the same vein.

(Villain's a non-entity by the way. I'm not sure why the guy decided to participate in the action instead of sending out his henchmen, but y'know... maybe their world domination thing was done on a tight budget.)

[Dukefrukem]

LOL @ Title Change

[megladon8]

LOL @ Title Change


You mean "God"?

It's been like that since before the movie even came to theatres.

[Raiders]

You mean "God"?

It's been like that since before the movie even came to theatres.

Yeah, not sure how that happened. It's an honest mistake though. I always confuse the two.

[Dukefrukem]

You mean "God"?

It's been like that since before the movie even came to theatres.

It definitely said Bird when it was in theaters.

[EvilShoe]

Did anyone else think International Monetary Fund whenever an agent mentioned the IMF, by the way?

[megladon8]

It definitely said Bird when it was in theaters.


Well it's been like that for a long time.

[Irish]

Did anyone else think International Monetary Fund whenever an agent mentioned the IMF, by the way?

That's a holdover from the TV show. I can't remember if they spelled it out in the movie, but on television the team was the "Impossible Missions Force."

[number8]

They spelled it out in all of the movies.

[Raiders]

It definitely said Bird when it was in theaters.

Nope. Changed it December 16th.

[EvilShoe]

I didn't mean I assumed IMF in the movie was actually the International Monetary Fund. My brain just made that connection for a second, until I realized: oh yeah, that doesn't make sense.

Still y'know, would open up the possibility for a fifth movie in which the team has to cover up DSK's mischief.

[Morris Schæffer]

DSK's wife threw him out of the house by the way. Although it's more likely she told him she wanted a divorce and asked him to leave, after which he opened the front or back door and walked out.

Also, I doubt it was simply a house.

The possibilities for a fifth movie are endless.

[number8]

I don't think Cruise would be up for plot involving divorce any time soon if he can help it.

[megladon8]

This was total meh-ville.

A plot I couldn't care less about (due in no small part to a villain about as villainous as an ingrown toenail), a few exciting action set-pieces consistently ruined by shark-jumping moments (thinking back, it's like they felt obligated to put something totally ridiculous and out-of-place in every single action scene in the movie), no consistent internal logic, and a cheap finale that ruins what was the only interesting character bit in the whole movie.

I think the only consistency in the film was that all of the humour fell flat...consistently.

I saw nothing of Brad Bird in this movie. A few tightly-filmed action scenes and a generally solid pace (until the final 1/4) are not really indicative of a Brad Bird movie (or of anyone's style in particular), and so I don't feel I can attribute those minor pluses to his name.

I wanted very much to like this a lot more than I did. But it felt generic and poorly conceived.

Paula Patton is hot, though.

[Morris Schæffer]

They need to move away from big plots such as nukes and the entire world on the brink of war. Fun movie, but agreed a little bit with you.

[DavidSeven]

This wasn't very good. It's just a seemingly endless string of set-pieces. No character work, no drama, no stakes. At least Abrams made his installment feel like it was about something. Where's the Brad Bird who brought emotional weight to The Incredibles and The Iron Giant? Heck, I'd settle for some light Randian subtext or anything else that would have lifted this above weightless spectacle.

[Morris Schæffer]

I quite like the direction by Bird, but it does feel like a connection of scarcely related set pieces. Which are, fortunately, quite strong even if the finale has an impossible job of trying to top or equal the burj set piece.

[Watashi]

I still love this movie.

You guys are all wrong.

Ghotocal > All

[Raiders]

This wasn't very good. It's just a seemingly endless string of set-pieces.

Not sure why this is inherently bad. I mean, what was the first film about? Nothing. Still terrific.

[DavidSeven]

Not sure why this is inherently bad. I mean, what was the first film about? Nothing. Still terrific.

I wouldn't say non-stop set-pieces are inherently bad on an objective level, but pure spectacle just isn't what I typically respond to. I mean, I'm one of the biggest haters of Pacific Rim on this forum, so I think I'm probably consistent there.

Been too long since I saw M:I to remember if I even liked it. I do recall the plot being mostly an afterthought, but I feel like it might have still been stronger than this one on tone and character. Plus, that cast. May have to revisit it at some point.

[Stay Puft]

This was fun. I liked it more than the third one. Dubai sequence was pretty good, and reminded me a little of Johnnie To's Drug War.

One thing, though: What was the deal with the bad guy wearing a mask of his assistant? What was that guy doing at that time? It felt like they had to squeeze Nyqvist in there just to get Tom Cruise and the villain interacting a bit more, but if there was an actual story reason for that I missed it. I just remember scratching my head at the end of that sequence.

[Dukefrukem]

Oof. After a rewtach- this does not live up to how I remember it. I remember this being a LOT better.

Sure the set pieces are bigger, the stunts are more elaborate and the cinematography is quite possibly the best in the series, but when you break it down, is breaking into a sever room in Dubai a more impressive mission than breaking into the CIA headquarters in Langley? Is breaking into the Kremlin more impressive than Langley? (maybe) But it sure as hell didn't look more complicated.

We finally get a global threat, one that doesn't involve a rogue agent, former agent or mole, and yet, somehow, we are still mystified by the villain's motivations which is hindered by allowing the villain to have exactly 5 minutes of on screen time. This was supposed to be Tom Cruise's last MI movie; introducing Agent Brandt (Jeremy Renner) as the successor. Then Cruise realized how much money he could make from these films...

Back to the "Impossible Mission(s). IMF is supposed to be covert and precise. So why would both Hunt and Benji start walking into the Kremlin before the data had uploaded from the balloon that was dropped down the chimney? That balloon device allowed Benji to upload their personas to the Kremlin computers to allow access. So let me get this straight. Benji can "hack" the Kremlin, but cannot hack the security system in Burj Khalifa because it is military grade? What kind of grade does the Kremlin use? Civilian grade?

People are distracted by the shiny set piece and action, but most of the reasoning in the movie is fuzzy; "Intel indicates" the launch codes will be traded on the 103rd floor of Burj Khalifa in Dubai? Would it kill the script to explain how that information was obtained; by using a little detective work? instead of just having the information available in a secret safe house on a train in the middle of Russia? Back to clumsy agent work; Ethan Hunt would surely have died if Renner hadn't been there to catch him out the window after pulling off that swing outside the window stunt.

Then there is the final mission in Mumbai, which involves Cruise to walk around a party while Renner enters a giant man-sized computer, complete with huge-fucking-fan, which is literally just an excuse for Renner to put on a magic-magnet suit to levitate between the circuity, by artificiality adding tension. Writing this in print almost describes something found in a Sharknado movie. Not an espionage thriller.

The one thing this movie does than the ones that preceded it is adding a much needed blend of humor, mostly surrounding Simon Pegg, who has excellent comedic timing (as always).

It was a nice tie in with Ving Rhames and Michelle Monaghan at the end.

[Peng]

I did a full rewatch (only see each once before) of the entire series before I watched Fallout a second time, and this remains my favorite.

[Skitch]

Dropped for me on rewatch as well.