Mission Impossible 4 / MI:4

al28283

ransholfman wrote: »

Every one is telling about mission impossible 2 and 3, and i thought you were talking about MI : 4! isn't it? I haven't watch mission impossible as i was out of state that time for some urgent work. But i heard that it got very good opening in India where it was release very first. I don't wanna people to comment on Tom Cruse as he is legend actor of Hollywood. he has given outstanding movies to Hollywood.

You can't really expect people not to mention the actor main actor when discussing a movie

al28283

ransholfman wrote: »

People should mention actor name but not in negative way! we should appreciate his performance, his Knight and Day movies was so good; even M:I too.

That's BS to be honest, we should appreciate his performance? His performance was pretty bland in this. His only function was to tell his team what city the next action scene will be in. He was more of a stuntman in this than anything.

Either way, it's pretty impossible to discuss a movie which is basically a vehicle for an actor without mentioning the actor.

Also, Knight and Day was shockingly bad!

The Princess Bride

Saw this last night- thought it was very good.
Simon Pegg's character really annoyed me,came across as a total twat.Haven't decided whether it was intentional or not.

Wish they'd change the name,though-
perhaps "Mission Possible(eventually)",or "Mission Impossible(but only for a short while)- no?

PerrinV2

msthe80s wrote: »

Wish they'd change the name,though-
perhaps "Mission Possible(eventually)",or "Mission Impossible(but only for a short while)- no?

They'd have to change the IMF to the PMF(possible mission force) then as well I suppose.

sxt

al28283 wrote: »

That's BS to be honest, we should appreciate his performance? His performance was pretty bland in this. His only function was to tell his team what city the next action scene will be in. He was more of a stuntman in this than anything.

I haven't seen the movie yet, but from the clips that I have seen, and from what I have heard, He is very impressive doing those stunts.

Most A list actors would not have done them? He took on that responsiblilty and deserves alot of credit for that alone

al28283

sxt wrote: »

I haven't seen the movie yet, but from the clips that I have seen, and from what I have heard, He is very impressive doing those stunts.

Most A list actors would not have done them? He took on that responsiblilty and deserves alot of credit for that alone

Yea, I agree. Great stunts. I was really pointing out that he really didn't do much else in this movie.
And the fact that we shouldn't mention an actor when discussing a movie is absurd

Sad Professor

al28283 wrote: »

Yea, I agree. Great stunts. I was really pointing out that he really didn't do much else in this movie.
And the fact that we shouldn't mention an actor when discussing a movie is absurd

The user who said that was a spammer. They were posting rubbish like that all over the place this morning.

Anyway I agree that Cruise didn't have much to do in this film acting-wise. In the third film he had several very intense and emotional scenes. In terms of story, this film came up quite lacking by comparison. Although Bird does emphasise the team more in this film, making it more of an ensemble than any of the previous films were.

Mickeroo

Went to see this tonight. Thought it was pretty good, very enjoyable spy flick. I thought Paula Patton and Renner were very good, they pretty much carried the fiolm in terms of character archs as pegg was just the comic relief and Cruise didn't really do much character wise as has been mentioned, although I just took it that

he was a broken shell of a man after his wife's death and was seething with inner rage, obviously not the case though after the ending

. I think it was a bit better than the third, though not by much, I really liked the team aspect of it this time around. Bird's stamp was all over it too, hope the studio give him license to go and make what ever he wants now.

Dempsey

Your run of the mill action flick but the main villain was a non entity. Renner will be a good replacement for Cruise. Fair play to Cruise for doing his own stunts, I must say that I'm fairly jealous of some of the stuntwork, 'research' work he has gotten to do in his life. From flying in F-14's to abseiling down the side of the Burj Khalifa and paid millions to do so.

I too was disappointed with the ending because I thought most of the film he was been quiet because he was still mourning the death of his wife which was just a cover for the lack of character development in the film.

Was mesmerized by Paula Patton, you wouldnt think she's 36 never mind gave birth last year. Wow!

Mickeroo

Dempsey wrote: »

Your run of the mill action flick but the main villain was a non entity. Renner will be a good replacement for Cruise. Fair play to Cruise for doing his own stunts, I must say that I'm fairly jealous of some of the stuntwork, 'research' work he has gotten to do in his life. From flying in F-14's to abseiling down the side of the Burj Khalifa and paid millions to do so.

I too was disappointed with the ending because I thought most of the film he was been quiet because he was still mourning the death of his wife which was just a cover for the lack of character development in the film.

Was mesmerized by Paula Patton, you wouldnt think she's 36 never mind gave birth last year. Wow!

She's 36? Jebus!

Thats a good point about the villain, there really wasn't a villain in this to be honest. Moreau was the only one that had any meat (although very little) to her role for the villains

but she kicked it half way through

. Its a shame they didn't bother considering how good Philip Seymour Hoffman was in the third one.

podgemonster

Saw this at the weekend and I really was not impressed. The movie was nothing more than a stuntfest jumping from location to location. I felt it was a Tom Cruise vechicle to show how "fantastic" Tom is.

The villians in the movie hardly had 2 page of script and the entire movie. Their masterplan was simplicitic and boring. The film itself was very linear and straight forward. The original MI constantly keep your attention with twists, reveals and flashbacks. In MI4, from the first 10 mins we know who's good and hows bad.

The stunts and effects were enjoyable and the locations were beautifully shot and looked great on the big screen but I don't think I will ever have the urge to see it again still better than MI2 though.

uncleoswald

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

And the

projected hall

scene is a masterstroke of tension - one of the most inventive gadgets ever put in an action film.

It was just a rip-off of a scene in the Robin Williams movie Toys but with better tech.

JoeA3 wrote: »

The India sequence was also very good, if slightly confusing... maybe cos I was slightly distracted by

the lead girl's dress / rack! And her changing out of said dress in the car!

.

That was filmed in Vancouver so might explain why it was a bit of a mess, limited the viewing angles etc... And I also kept thinking why is she changing out of one dress just to get into another?

Apart from that I agree with the general opinion of this tread. Dubai scene was amazing and made me feel queasy. Some dodgy CGI in opening credits and the Kremlin explosion but mostly it looked very good.

Plot was a mess but maybe less so then usual. Although how come

they couldn't jumble up the launch codes as planned as the bad guys brought that Russian along with them who'd be able to spot if they were jumbled up? If he knew the codes to that level of detail then surely he just KNEW the codes and they didn't need to go through the whole business of buying them in the first place? Also grossly irresponsible of Hunt to give away the real codes and almost allow nuclear war

Never really got to know the bad guy or his motives at all and was surprised they hired that actor (Michael Nyqvist) when his two main scenes involved a massive chase on foot and a punch up, he didn't look that athletic at all.

MI continues to be an odd franchise, it has no central themes unless you count purposefully confusing plots, Cruise sprinting (which he is excellent at), Cruise flying through the air after an explosion, people wearing masks (which they obviously shied away from this time to get the most out of Cruise's and Pegg's chemistry) and people hanging in mid air just above the ground. It's not a lot is it?

Might be going to see it in IMAX this weekend though, should be worth it just for the Dubai scene alone. And the trailers of course

sxt

podgemonster wrote: »

Saw this at the weekend and I really was not impressed. The movie was nothing more than a stuntfest jumping from location to location. I felt it was a Tom Cruise vechicle to show how "fantastic" Tom is.

The villians in the movie hardly had 2 page of script and the entire movie. Their masterplan was simplicitic and boring. The film itself was very linear and straight forward. The original MI constantly keep your attention with twists, reveals and flashbacks. In MI4, from the first 10 mins we know who's good and hows bad.

The stunts and effects were enjoyable and the locations were beautifully shot and looked great on the big screen but I don't think I will ever have the urge to see it again still better than MI2 though.

Mission Impossible has always been about jumping from stunning locations to the next .Thats probably what people expect and want to see? This was the first Misson impossible where the rest of the team got ample screentime

I think this movie was made with the intention of it being Tom cruises last outing in this franchise,(*his last few movies didn't do so well) hence they moved away from twists etc and gave the rest of the mission possible team alot of screen time and introduced Renner


I agrree that the Villan was almost an afterthought and it was straightforward and a bit predictable , but The locations , tension building scenes and stunts were great

He was fantastic in those Dubai scenes . No other A lister would have done those scenes, which added to the movie alot I thought , and will be talked about for years

Misson Impossible 4 did extremely well at the box office so I think they are already talking about the next one , so I am pretty sure they will want Tom to stick around for the next one , maybe sharing a mission with Renners character

Anyone think there will be a problem with Renner carrying two massive franchises ( Mission Impossible and Bourne)with very similar roles?

PerrinV2

sxt wrote: »

Anyone think there will be a problem with Renner carrying two massive franchises ( Mission Impossible and Bourne)with very similar roles?

Think so, plus I'm wasn't that fond of Renners characther in MI4,he didn't seem to confident in himself like Hunt is

Sad Professor

The plan was originally for Renner to take over the franchise, but that was apparently abandoned during production when Cruise decided he wanted to do another one. The ending looks to me like it was changed to facilitate this.

I would like to see the same team return for the next one, but unless Bird also returns I can't see that happening.

Jimdagym

PerrinV2 wrote: »

Think so, plus I'm wasn't that fond of Renners characther in MI4,he didn't seem to confident in himself like Hunt is

Yeah, but he obviously has the skills

and there was aclear reason for his confidence being gone.

I'd expect him to be a lot stronger if he is in another one.

The Black Oil

I mostly enjoyed it. I also wasn't keen on the opening credits due to the spoilers/glimpse of upcoming stuff. OK trailers, show some stuff, they're there to get you to the cinema, right? For the first few bits I kept thinking that the scenes felt very separate - 'heres Block A, gap, Block B, gap, Block C', etc. However, things picked up from Dubai (the size of that building!) and it felt a bit more cohesive then, also, I did like that it generally seemed to breathe life into the characters to some degree. For a big budget film, though, the CG wasn't the all that great. The projector scene between Pegg and Cruise was really good. Didn't go too mad on the technology side, facial recognition, yeah OK, but what similar TV show/film isn't using that these days?

On a separate note, more or less every trailer before hand was a CIA agent/assassin gone rogue type affair.

Yahew

Whats interesting about the technology is that they are not really using made up or proprietary technology any more i.e facial recognition and smart phones are a dime a dozen.

We've caught up with Mission Impossible, at last.

Finally got around to seeing this tonight and I'm glad that I caught it in the cinemas. It's the must fun I've had watching a film in a long, long time. Just pure unadulterated, over the top action fun for the first two thirds. The final third while thrilling as hell at times feels stretched and had the film ended after the Dubai scenes I would have been quite happy with my nights viewing.

It's exactly the kind of film that qualifies as a 5 star viewing experience, not necessarily a great film but more entertaining than 90% of everything else out there. The plot reminded me of one of those Man From Uncle films from the 60s where the studios took a few episodes of the show and released them as a feature in European markets. MI4 felt like someone had taken the 3 best episodes of a really good TV show and edited them together. You could spend paragraphs taking the plot apart and discussing the lack of one but this isn't he kind of film that needs a deep and layered narrative. What it needs is scene after scene of thrilling set pieces and inventive action which it has in spades.

It's always nice to walk home from the cinema with a goofy smile on your face as you realise just how much fun you had and MI4 put a massive smile on my face for the entire walk home. I guess that at the end of the day that's all you can ask from a big budget blockbuster.

al28283

Yahew wrote: »

Whats interesting about the technology is that they are not really using made up or proprietary technology any more i.e facial recognition and smart phones are a dime a dozen.

We've caught up with Mission Impossible, at last.

:rolleyes: what about the wall-climbing gloves, anti-gravity yoke and that stupid scene in the hallway with the screen that made them invisible?

Mellor

Yahew wrote: »

Whats interesting about the technology is that they are not really using made up or proprietary technology any more i.e facial recognition and smart phones are a dime a dozen.

We've caught up with Mission Impossible, at last.

lol
The gagents were years ahead of reality.

Facial recognition in contact lenses - not yet
Glass climbing gloves - the idea is there but its not near done
Camera in contact lens - hmmm
The magnetic hover cart thing - this was ridic as if it was that strong it would of effected everything in there.

Still the same old M:I

Simian!

al28283 wrote: »

:rolleyes: what about the wall-climbing gloves, anti-gravity yoke and that stupid scene in the hallway with the screen that made them invisible?

That was a great scene! I thought it was a genius idea.

al28283

Mellor wrote: »

lol
The gagents were years ahead of reality.

Facial recognition in contact lenses - not yet
Glass climbing gloves - the idea is there but its not near done
Camera in contact lens - hmmm
The magnetic hover cart thing - this was ridic as if it was that strong it would of effected everything in there.

Still the same old M:I

What gadgets did M:I 1 have? Nothing too ridiculous that I can think of. Exploding chewing gum and the masks maybe but surely that's not impossible

Yahew

Mellor wrote: »

lol
The gagents were years ahead of reality.

Facial recognition in contact lenses - not yet
Glass climbing gloves - the idea is there but its not near done
Camera in contact lens - hmmm
The magnetic hover cart thing - this was ridic as if it was that strong it would of effected everything in there.

Still the same old M:I

Facial recognition could be added to any camera if the camera could talk to a phone.
Glass climbing gloves - surely we have vacumn gloves.
A camera in a contact lens aint that far out.

hover cart was mad.

Yahew

al28283 wrote: »

What gadgets did M:I 1 have? Nothing too ridiculous that I can think of. Exploding chewing gum and the masks maybe but surely that's not impossible

The masks are nuts. Not only could you not get such a realistic mask with little or no information, the realism wouldnt work if the face underneath didnt fit - i.e. had a bigger nose than the mask.

Yeah the moving platform was impossible, but a lot of stuff is not that futuristic any more.

Mellor

al28283 wrote: »

What gadgets did M:I 1 have? Nothing too ridiculous that I can think of. Exploding chewing gum and the masks maybe but surely that's not impossible

I don't the first one had two many. Just those two stand out.
But each added more.

Yahew wrote: »

Facial recognition could be added to any camera if the camera could talk to a phone.
Glass climbing gloves - surely we have vacumn gloves.
A camera in a contact lens aint that far out.

hover cart was mad.

Facial recognition could, but a phone couldn't process that fast. The main part about it beign ridic was that it was within a contact lens - afaik not possible yet.
Vaccum gloves? What>???


These will all be possible I don't doubt, but not for a while. We haven't caught up yet.

mikemac1

Going to see this soon, pretty much skipped to the end of the thread in case of spoliers

I've haven't seen any of the other MI films

Will I be lost?

Do I need to see the others first?

Thanks

Sad Professor

All the M:I films are self-contained adventures, but I would strongly recommend watching the third one first. There's an important character from that film who gets mentioned a lot and you might be a bit confused if you haven't seen the third one. I won't say anymore as it will spoil the ending of M:I:3.

mikemac1

Cool, thanks

Time for a MI blitz so before the weekend :cool:

Mellor

The third is all you need to see, the other two are irrelevant really

syklops

Mellor wrote: »

The third is all you need to see, the other two are irrelevant really

Completely disagree.

The first one is a bit of a mess, but I though MI 2 was a solid movie. The fighting near the end is a bit OTT, but otherwise solid.

MI:3 however is all over the place and not as enjoyable IMO.

So, my advice, watch al three. All are enjoyable, but all for different reasons.

al28283

syklops wrote: »

Completely disagree.

The first one is a bit of a mess, but I though MI 2 was a solid movie. The fighting near the end is a bit OTT, but otherwise solid.

MI:3 however is all over the place and not as enjoyable IMO.

So, my advice, watch al three. All are enjoyable, but all for different reasons.

Really? You're the first person I've ever heard of who even counts M:I2 as watchable? It was a disaster from start to finish.

indough

The only good thing about the second instalment was the comedy value of John Woo's ridiculous pigeon fetish. At least I seem to remember it cropping up a few times.

Pegasus Galactica

see it last night.... good movie but Tom is getting too old for this now...

Mellor

syklops wrote: »

Completely disagree.

The first one is a bit of a mess, but I though MI 2 was a solid movie. The fighting near the end is a bit OTT, but otherwise solid.

MI:3 however is all over the place and not as enjoyable IMO.

So, my advice, watch al three. All are enjoyable, but all for different reasons.

Ok, you're going to have to back that up?
How exactly are the first two relevant to the plot of the forth one?

The poster asked if he need to see all the others before the 4th. I said only the 3rd was a little relevant. I never commented on them as movies in general.

Yahew

None of the previous episodes are needed. You will learn in this one that one of the characters had a supposed loss in his life. You dont need to know anything else.

CharAdriel

This movie was surprisingly really, really good. And Tom Cruise didn't creep me out. Great supporting cast as well.

JP Liz V1

syklops wrote: »

Completely disagree.

The first one is a bit of a mess, but I though MI 2 was a solid movie. The fighting near the end is a bit OTT, but otherwise solid.

MI:3 however is all over the place and not as enjoyable IMO.

So, my advice, watch al three. All are enjoyable, but all for different reasons.

I think Mellor might have meant you only need to see III

Ethan's relationship with Julia

before seeing IV even though a newbie could still follow the plot

Saw this recently and enjoyed it but for some reason I kept expecting Renner's character to turn out to be a villian

Pegg's character was a tad ott for my liking

FlashD

Pegasus Galactica wrote: »

see it last night.... good movie but Tom is getting too old for this now...

No way! The Cruiser is good to go for a fifth

.......which is currently in the works.

Happy days all round.

FlashD

indough wrote: »

The only good thing about the second instalment was the comedy value of John Woo's ridiculous pigeon fetish. At least I seem to remember it cropping up a few times.

Pigeons sounds a bit off, what I remember he used doves in Face Off.