Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation

walshb

pixelburp wrote: »

Equally, we are in the 21st century when film studios can't even keep their emails locked down, or spoilers from set-filming get rumbled by passers-by with smart phones. You say there's no way in hell he does it, yet equally there's no way in hell he could keep doing something that grandiose and arrogant / insane without someone, internal or external to a production, coming out and telling the truth.

Wing-walking is a thing, heck it's a thing you or I can happily do - apparently it's about £400 according to a quick google search - so it's not inconceivable a film crew could rig up something that looks like Cruise is hanging on for dear life. Going by the video he looked barely able to move. Just like wingwalking.

I believe it's genuine, because it's there and the making-ofs give me no reason to doubt; and no, I don't believe in Santa Claus :rolleyes:

You make very valid and compelling points. I am not saying it's impossible, pardon the pun, but for me I don't buy it completely. Not saying he was not attached to the plane, or that the plane did not move, but I am not ready to believe that it did what it did and took off like what the video shows with Cruise hanging onto it via some wires. No way!

The Dubai stunt is not different. Far too exaggerated to be true. Not sure any leaks would come out about that BS story either. It wouldn't be that difficult to keep that in house!

Bacchus

This is some grade A trolling. Yes, all the 'making of' features of the Dubai stunt and the plane stunt are fake, just like the moon landing.

walshb

Bacchus wrote: »

This is some grade A trolling. Yes, all the 'making of' features of the Dubai stunt and the plane stunt are fake, just like the moon landing.

The actual clips of Cruise flying along the sides of that building are fake. There's no way he was doing that sh1t. No way. He may have been in the building, but he wasn't scaling and flying the outside of it at that height!

pah

walshb wrote: »

The actual clips of Cruise flying along the sides of that building are fake. There's no way he was doing that sh1t. No way. He may have been in the building, but he wasn't scaling and flying the outside of it at that height!

Mark, is that you?

http://www.wwtdd.com/2011/10/mark-wahlberg-says-tom-cruise-fakes-his-stunts/

walshb

pah wrote: »

Mark, is that you?

http://www.wwtdd.com/2011/10/mark-wahlberg-says-tom-cruise-fakes-his-stunts/

A stuntman wouldn't even do these so called stunts. They're not even stunts. They are simply crazy ass stupid acts. And there's no way a 52 year old Hollywood A lister is doing these crazy ass acts on the set of a big movie. Mark is spot on.

BTW, does anyone here believe he was hanging from the edge of the Grand Canyon in MI2? I don't think he made that out to be a real act/stunt, did he?

Bacchus

Yes he did do those stunts, there is footage that shows it. He may well have been attached to about 100 bits of rope while doing the stunts but he still physically did the things you see on screen.

Exhibit A:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16BFrEBZQS4

.ak

FunLover18 wrote: »

Why would a studio or anybody bother to go to all the effort of "faking" these stunts?

I have no opinion either way, but surely the answer to your question is obvious?

Publicity?

FunLover18

walshb wrote:

BTW, does anyone here believe he was hanging from the edge of the Grand Canyon in MI2? I don't think he made that out to be a real act/stunt, did he?

Pretty sure he did "make it out to be real".

.ak wrote:

I have no opinion either way, but surely the answer to your question is obvious?

Publicity?

But the amount of people involved in this "fake" stunts and with social media the way it is it would surely leak as someone pointed out. And Tom Cruise is a big enough name as is without these stunts, also seeing as it's so successful and we're all buying why aren't they doing it with other actors and franchises.

walshb

FunLover18 wrote: »

But the amount of people involved in this "fake" stunts and with social media the way it is it would surely leak as someone pointed out. And Tom Cruise is a big enough name as is without these stunts, also seeing as it's so successful and we're all buying why aren't they doing it with other actors and franchises.

I am not sure it has to get leaked. I believe acts/stunts happened, but it's the embellishment of them that is the BS. So, it's not that Tom was not involved at all, it's the level and the madness to which he was involved. The finished article is very much BS and embellished!

johnny_ultimate

I still find it kinda weird that Mission Impossible has become one of, if not the most, reliable franchise for good solid blockbuster thrills. But here we are, four sequels after an overly convoluted franchise starter and three after a potential franchise killer, and the whole endeavour still seems surprisingly fresh.

McQuarrie is probably the least capable of the last three directors to take on the series, but he works to his strengths. Honestly, while it lacks the sheer spectacle of Ghost Protocol - that plane stunt is over and done with by the end of a brief prologue, basically a glorified cold open - I found the film as a whole more consistently engaging, if a notch or two below MI:III. Abram's visual energy is missed, as is Bird's sense of grand spectacle. While there's a pleasingly cathartic

capture scene

here, the shadow of PSH still looms when it comes to the franchise's cookie-cutter antagonists. The story is utterly preposterous of course, but like Jack Reacher McQuarrie seems aware of the fact and just goes with it (and often rightfully having characters commenting on how silly everything is). It has a ludicrous amount of double crosses that only complicate already flimsy masterplans, but the film basically just says '**** it' and goes full hog. And it makes for a surprisingly breezy 130 minutes.

There are some particular highlights. A visit to the opera is a great, tense Mission Impossible setpiece on a slightly more grounded level, tightly directed and almost like a classic chase sequence from Hollywood's Golden Age. In a neat flourish, Joe Kraemer feeds compositions from the opera into the score at key moments from there on out, another case of the film wholeheartedly embracing its exaggerated drama. On a slightly more subtle note, another impressive directorial addition before a climactic action scene sees the soundtrack fade for a moment of absolute silence and a few loaded glances - adding weight to the drama before **** hits the fan, as it is always destined to here. Rebecca Ferguson, meanwhile, holds her own against the returning cast, even if the franchise's disposable attitude towards its female characters is a shame when most of the male gang graduate from sequel to sequel (and there's even less - by which I mean no - connection between this and the events of MI:III, after lip service was paid last time around).

Let's not exaggerate its successes, and it's not the best in the franchise. It is a shame too that the film's most imaginative and effective sequences are expended well before the third act. But as far as dumb thrill rides go, this is one of the good ones. Abrams and Bird may have had more distinct voices, but McQuarrie shows himself as a more than capable fit for a series that continues to work far better than it has any right to.

Gwynplaine

I'd be looking forward to this if only for that Simon Pegg idiot. I can't stand him.

Oafley Jones

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

(and there's even less - by which I mean no - connection between this and the events of MI:III, after lip service was paid last time around).

This is one of the aspects I find most refreshing about the MI series. It's not bogged down in its own mythology or continuity. A single literal nod to the previous entry is all thats tied them together story wise. Actors may return, but each instalment is a standalone piece allowing each director to offer their take on the formula. It's like a bunch of bands interpretation of the same song. The results can be surprising.

I'll go see it, but I will say that the trailer gives me uncomfortable flashbacks to MI:2

Falthyron

I just finished watching it at the BFI Imax in London - a very, very enjoyable film. The Imax experience in London is a must-do for anyone who really loves a good action film. I have been there a few times now and each visit has been excellent! Can't recommend it enough. Hoping to convince the girlfriend for a trip to London for "Xmas shopping" which, for me, is actually to see Star Wars Episode VII on Imax - biggest screen in Europe, apparently.

Mission Impossible was a lot more enjoyable than the Avengers: Age of Ultron. However, Mad Max has first place so far for this year. A really good action film with some great set-pieces. Definitely recommend seeing it if you enjoy the franchise!

Simon2015

Falthyron wrote: »

I just finished watching it at the BFI Imax in London - a very, very enjoyable film. The Imax experience in London is a must-do for anyone who really loves a good action film. I have been there a few times now and each visit has been excellent! Can't recommend it enough. Hoping to convince the girlfriend for a trip to London for "Xmas shopping" which, for me, is actually to see Star Wars Episode VII on Imax - biggest screen in Europe, apparently.

Mission Impossible was a lot more enjoyable than the Avengers: Age of Ultron. However, Mad Max has first place so far for this year. A really good action film with some great set-pieces. Definitely recommend seeing it if you enjoy the franchise!

Do you know if any of the scenes in MI5 were shot on Imax ?

Loughc

Simon2015 wrote: »

Do you know if any of the scenes in MI5 were shot on Imax ?

There were 27 minutes of footage shot on Imax cameras.

Agent Coulson

I think I am in love with Rebecca Ferguson's legs and fighting style leg takedowns.

FunLover18

Agent Coulson wrote:

I think I am in love with Rebecca Ferguson's legs and fighting style leg takedowns.

There's a great line in the Empire review; she has a "terryfying knack for springing to an assailant's shoulders and throttling them with her crotch"

I'd love to see her join the team on future missions. Also great to see Luther back.

The Black Oil

This starts with

the Airbus 400M stunt,

which may be one of the more superfluous teasers I've seen in some time. Moving on, it owes a lot to the first Mission, and references it (and others) pretty overtly. There's a disk with important stuff, an exchange or attempt at same, London and a CIA chief who is a bit of tool. Same as some other Missions, then.

The opera sequence was great, tense. A stage, a contained environment and uncertainty, tied together with McQuarrie's affection for classical music. There's a few nice moments of levity throughout the film, including Cruise's lack of stature. Rebecca Ferguson stole the show for me. Smart, strong, capable and screen presence. A shame, then, that she is perhaps somewhat shoved aside after the first two thirds of the film only a return in a 'in case you forgot about her', type way, but by this stage, as noted by others, the film had also exhausted its best action sequences.

Cantona's Collars

Enjoyed this a lot,you know what you are getting with this franchise so go along for the ride and enjoy it as a big Summer blockbuster.
The car/bike chase was one of the standout set pieces.The fight scenes were a lot more visceral than many other similar movies and borrowed heavily from the Bourne movies which is no bad thing.

Arghus

I hadn't realised how much I wanted to see Rogue Nation until it was nearly upon me. I get suckered quite often into falling into the anticipatory trap for new and shiny spectacled movies. It's the same procedure over and over again - Trailers, multiplied by reviews, multiplied by my misplaced faith for a potential good time results in me buying a ticket for something I know half-well beforehand is going to disappoint. Rogue Nation was a different proposition though. The promise of crazy action and mind boggling stunt-work wasn't just an advertising half-truth: It's as close to a guarantee of old school thrills and spills that you can get in today's watered down borebuster filled summers. And I had a gut feeling about all this: even before I turfed over the cash.

Turns out I'm a really big fan of these movies. Which was something I didn't even know properly for sure until yesterday. I had to think to myself - during whatever moment of well put together lunacy - are there many other "franchises" out there that are this reliable? Sure, I could quibble, but each one has been fairly consistent in it's modus operandi. The plots may be absolute balderdash but if you want gigantic,outrageous action -which is primarily interested in your fun, rather than in having an edge or moodniess: Then Mission Impossible is your only man.

Each installment has it's own variation on a theme going on, and this one is no different. It's kind of hard to put your finger on it but I thought, if anything, it was the most no-nonsense of the lot of them when it came down to doling out the raw,precisely choreographed action that we're all there to see. Not that it doesn't contain nonsense of course - Jesus not at all; it contains a feast of it - but I'll get to that in due time. But the film is weirdly efficient - which mightn't be the first word that springs to mind considering the obvious megabucks on screen, coupled with a semi-grueling running time. By "efficient", I mean it doesn't waste your time. The film can not sit still: it's only interested in getting you to the next set-piece, with just the minimum of exposition or character development to hinder it's remorseless progress. It's a well oiled rig of a machine. Of course this all means the plot is nonsensical and the characters are wafer thin, but... who cares, really? Tom Cruise is hanging out the side of a fookin airplane for gawds sake.You can almost taste the feathers off the propeller-shredded birds. Who needs realism

I'm willing to give Rogue Nation a pass on the not even having a plot worth thinking about stakes. At least it's honest about it. Too many other tent-pole pictures are extended and puffed up to unbearable lengths, with extraneous bits of redundant character development and false emoting. This, on the other hand, doesn't care for that. The purpose of the narrative is make sure your brain never catches up with your eyes. It's all ACTION SCENE - MINUTE REST - ACTION SCENE - ACTION SCENE. Mission Impossible makes you care by making sure the exciting bits are imaginative, spectacular and...well, exciting. Most films would be content with an OTT heist scene: Rogue Nation has a spectacular heist-that turns into a visceral car-chase-that turns into a crazy-ass bike pursuit. Not bad. The biggest surprise isn't that the Crusier survives the whole drawn out adrenaline marathon, but that he has to sit down at the end - albieit briefly - for a moment or two. You have to bested by physics every once in a while Tom. I suppose he did just escape unscathed from a bike-crash that would have left a mere-mortal with fleshy confetti for skin - That must have been some high resistant Hawaian shirt he had on. All this is, of course, after he's just litreally risen from the dead.

Writing that out has made me realise how much I really did love this film.

Enjoyable nonsense of the highest order. The backbone of the movie is solid action-craftmanship and every right-minded individual should be prepared to overlook many faults - rubbish plot, dull supporting cast, Sean Harris and his (what can only be described as a)weirdly receding face - and get behind that.

I suppose the only tangible grounds for really hating this movie would be a solid dislike of Tom Cruise. No getting past that I'm afraid. It's very,very, very Crusian. To the extent where it's profoundly Crusian. Aside from non-stop thrills and spills, it does have another undeniable purpose- Showing us that Tom Cruise is awesome. Ethan Hunt? Yeah, whatever - we all knowing he's totally playing himself. It wasn't Etahn Hunt hanging out the side of a plane - it was Tom Cruise, dammit...And you all know it. There's scenes here that are so preposterously in awe of him that they're truly beyond parody. I now know that he's the best diver, driver, motorbike rider, opera-fighter, thinker, beard grower and disguise master there is. When one of his supposed enemies delivered a rant, detailing how precisely awesome Ethan Hunt truly is, I was surprised that he left out the detail that he can walk on water. I presume that's becasue he hadn't literally actually seen him do it, with his own eyes – but files on it do exist, I'm sure. No other non-superhero movie foregrounds the heroes outrageous skills and competence to the extent of this film. It's pretty flabbergasting.

But you know what, despite his clearly continental sized ego... Tom Cruise is actually, for real, kind of amazing. I do find him a bit creepy and all, but I must admit he's a genuine one of a kind movie star. He's been headlining films for over thirty years - Thirty years! And he still looks convincing walloping people and throwing himself through plate-glass, even if he is only a tiny pipsqueak of a man! He's acting alongside Alec Baldwin here - someone here who could never be confused for a tiny pipsqueak, at least not these days. What's interesting is that they are, roughly speaking, contemporaries. At one time, Baldwin would have been leading man material, possibly competing with Cruise. Now Baldwin is a solid character-actor. He's not leading man material anymore. But Tom is still going strong. And, whatever you may think of his private life or acting ability, that staying power is honestly something else.

Read a lot in recent days about Cruise and his ego and honestly I don't see it, sure the man no doubt thinks a lot of himself and he has a few questionable moments in his career but he's just so likeable and humble. This is a man afterall who will spend 6 hours stood in the pissing rain so that he can meet every single fan who comes out to watch him walk into the premier of his latest film. Actors like Bruce Willis are ones who'd I see as being egotistical, the contempt that Willis has for fans is legendary and you'd never see him bothering to meet with fans just to talk a picture.

The Black Oil

The

assassination of the Austrian Chancellor

seemed like a reference to WWI.

NachoBusiness

Unfortunately it all felt it a bit sloppy to me (which is a shame as it needn't have been) and a little boring in parts too, even during some of the action scenes. I just found it hard to engage with it as it all seemed a touch predictable and uninteresting, particularity the lead up to big scenes, but in fairness the film would always pick up again and overall it made for a pretty good watch. To me it was more a collection of great scenes than a gripping thrill ride as the plot seemed a little too loose and fantastic for that, but then so did many episodes of the TV show and so in which case, it was more of a Mission Impossible throw back than the films have ever been before.

FunLover18

Ghost Protocol is on TV3 on Monday, I think it's still my favourite of the series. I honestly don't think I would've enjoyed Rogue Nation as much if not for Ferguson, it was lacking that sense of fun which Bird managed to infuse into GP.

Also I've only just realised that Cruise had long hair in RN ruining the short/long/short/long pattern.

Cantona's Collars

Deleted User wrote: »

Read a lot in recent days about Cruise and his ego and honestly I don't see it, sure the man no doubt thinks a lot of himself and he has a few questionable moments in his career but he's just so likeable and humble. This is a man afterall who will spend 6 hours stood in the pissing rain so that he can meet every single fan who comes out to watch him walk into the premier of his latest film. Actors like Bruce Willis are ones who'd I see as being egotistical, the contempt that Willis has for fans is legendary and you'd never see him bothering to meet with fans just to talk a picture.

Was listening to the review of this on Newstalk the other night and it seems that Cruise on set is pretty likeable,he'll ask if a scene is ok and won't hesitate to do it again if they aren't 100% happy.The story abou JJ Abrams is good,he was in his trailer and watching Alias then decided to contact Abrams about getting on board for Mission Impossible on the back of that show.
Whatever about Cruise as a person off set (weird Scientology poster boy) he can't be criticised for his work on set.Not too many would hang off the side of a plane heading skyward.

Oafley Jones

zerks wrote: »

Was listening to the review of this on Newstalk the other night and it seems that Cruise on set is pretty likeable,he'll ask if a scene is ok and won't hesitate to do it again if they aren't 100% happy.The story abou JJ Abrams is good,he was in his trailer and watching Alias then decided to contact Abrams about getting on board for Mission Impossible on the back of that show.
Whatever about Cruise as a person off set (weird Scientology poster boy) he can't be criticised for his work on set.Not too many would hang off the side of a plane heading skyward.

Whatever about the whole scientology thing, you can't fault his work ethic. The guy is an utter professional when it comes to all aspects of his job.

Mr E

I thought it was a great movie (the opera scene was a highlight), but climax fell a bit flat. After set piece to set piece to set piece, the end was a low key anticlimax.

omerin

I saw this last night and it was ok, but only ok. Pegg really does annoy me, why the need for comic relief when this element did not feature in the TV series?
If you haven't seen it yet, I'd recommend not looking at the trailers.
The opening scene in these types of action films should be spectacular, this was a damp squib. The ending as mentioned was a bit meh and in-between, there was nothing new.

OU812

I liked the ending. It was about wits, not action.

As for the trailer, everything in it is don within the first 40-60 minutes of the movie which leaves you in the delightful place of not knowing what to expect at all.

Thought the Opera scene was extremely Bond like.

Unless he rushes them out, he's realistically got maybe two (at a push three) more in him. Wonder who'll take over...

Mickeroo

Mr E wrote: »

I thought it was a great movie (the opera scene was a highlight), but climax fell a bit flat. After set piece to set piece to set piece, the end was a low key anticlimax.

Would agree, enjoyed the film immensely but the finale was very poor. I just didn't really buy how it played out

surely he would have just cut his losses and blown them up, plus I couldn't figure out why the hell he came down to the street and started shooting at hunt even though he needed him alive. Didn't really buy that he wouldn't have killed Elsa for her constant betrayals either.

Wasn't a very good villain really.

The set pieces and the rest of the movie in general made up for that though, not as good as M:I 3 & 4 but still a very enjoyable evening in the cinema.

lukin

The Sunday Times gave it a stinker of a review today.I think the one who reviewed it doesn't like Tom Cruise though.I personally enjoyed it.
Cruise's dedication and commitment is really amazing.

johnny_ultimate

Wouldn't pay much heed to Camilla Long. Her reviews are shallow at best, but mean-spirited a worrying amount of the time. Trying to be Pauline Kael without the wit or genuine passion for the medium alongside the vitriol. Almost makes me yearn for the days of Cosmo Landesman, who Id level pretty much all the same criticisms against :pac:

Not to say MI:RN is above criticism or anything silly like that, but sadly The Sunday Times has long ceased flying the flag of insightful, meaningfully provocative film writing.

sxt

lukin wrote: »

The Sunday Times gave it a stinker of a review today.I think the one who reviewed it doesn't like Tom Cruise though.I personally enjoyed it.
Cruise's dedication and commitment is really amazing.

It's the same with the Irish times review by Donald Clarke, he spends the entire time slagging off Tom cruise, all the actors and director and not doing his job, by actually reviewing the movie. He did the same with Stallone in his expendables movie piece by belittling him and even slagging off his speech impediment which was gutter journalism . It comes across as cynical, bitter, and holier than though sounding . He still gives it three stars even though he doesn't say one good word about the movie in the entire piece? . You can't call it a movie review though because it isn't. It's just somebody venting in an unnessary crude manner


It's 93 % on rottentomatoes by the way, which is a much better marker of how a movie is being perceived by critics in general

Sad Professor

I liked it a lot, though not as much as the last one. While not excessive, the CGI is too obvious in places (the car flip! and the underwater stuff), which undermines the stunt work. Bird did a better job of blending practical and digital effects. And while McQuarrie maintains the focus on teamwork, the emphasis is more on conflict and distrust than camaraderie. As a result, it’s not nearly as much fun as Bird’s film, especially in the last act. But it’s entertaining, the action is good and oh Rebecca Ferguson.

Tipsy McSwagger

I enjoyed it but it didn't hook me in like the last film, and definitely not like MI3 which is the best of the lot.

the whole year inn

I liked it but like the others it will get many rewatches (bar MI2) and then have a better judgement where it ends up.
For any Mission Impossible fan they wont be disapointed!

tunguska

Saw it lasyt night and I thought it was really enjoyable. Not as good as the last one, and definitely not in the same league as MI:3, but still pretty decent. The good parts are, relentless action, the cruiser is great, so too are Renner, pegg and Rhames. The bad parts.........the plot seemed a bit silly, like a faceless syndicate is just something you cant buy into. Its something film makers use as a villian and its not scary at all. Sean Harris seemed to be just not interested at all, like he was sedated. But it was a lot of fun and that girl, Rebecca Ferguson.......she has something about her. I dont know what it is, but she has it in spades. I think Im in love.

Avatar MIA

I'd give it three stars, but I've never bought into the MI films since MI2 and the ridiculous bike scenes and my stomach lurched when the cruiser got up on another motor bike in this film.

But, despite the climax coming two thirds during the film and a slow enough final third it was not a wasted afternoon.

Mr_Muffin

Though it was good but not great. I am a big fan of the series and couldn't wait to see Rogue Nation. I didn't really like the whole 'Syndicate' idea and the ending wasn't really to my liking but overall it was worth going to see.

Len_007

I really enjoyed it! TC is commendable for all the stunt work that he does. Hawkeye could of had a scuffle or two I think...

.ak

Thought it was one of the better ones TBH... Although having said that I only really like the 1st one

pixelburp

The MI series is a great wee franchise in many respects: 5 films in and it still feels like a solid, entertaining series of films, broadly remaining fresh with each iteration. In many ways, the lack of a hardened mythology or backstory has ensured each film doesn't get bogged down with exponential continuity or the kind of labyrinthine plotting that's steadily suffocating other major franchises. A larger source of success though has been the policy - accidental or otherwise - to hire unique, individual directors to helm each film: Brian DePalma, John Woo (love him or hate him), JJ Abrams and Brad Bird - how many other blockbusters can boast that kind of varying talent behind the lens, each one bringing different visions? Like I said it might have been an accident 4 times over, but it can't be suggested the franchise has been too wedded to creative sameness. Wish the likes of Marvel would take a leaf from MI's book.

It seems a shame then that Christopher McQuarrie's time in the chair would let the side down, yielding the least-inspired, most humdrum MI film to date. Even the braindead terribleness of MI2 still had a certain manic energy to it - Rogue Nation in contrast felt a bit flat, disappointing; if anything, incredibly undercooked. The opening scene, the latest 'Tom Cruise risks death doing his own ridiculous stunt' was certainly breathtaking, but after that set-piece it all felt like 2 hours of the air steadily going out of a balloon. A large part of that blame though is not so much the fault of McQuarie as it was the script: the villain was so dull and pedestrian it singlehandedly derailed the tension at every turn, a sub-Bourne conspiracy that flatlined from the start. Sean Harris looked positively bored.

A competent sequel, but that's about it; we know Mission Impossible can be much better than this; hopefully number 6 will go back to the formula of hiring someone with a unique, vibrant approach. Oh and how many more times can the IMF go off the grid? Ethan Hunt has had to go 'rogue' in every MI film except number two; there's only so many times you can go underground before you wonder if the IMF really is worth keeping operational

candy-gal1

Not usually a huge fan of these movies, the first one was great imho but thats about it, but this one I really enjoyed!!
Very well done, stunts were awesome, and a story that just flowed very well 8/10

doc_17

.ak wrote: »

Thought it was one of the better ones TBH... Although having said that I only really like the 1st one

I'd probably put it third after the first and third films. But I enjoyed it.

Josey Wales

The motorcycle chase was one of the real highlights for me and I was looking for some articles on how it was filmed. It looked so real and had such a sense of speed and realism not found in other films.

I did come across one interesting article on it.

Link

lukin

I know I'll probably get an awful slagging for this but I actually quite liked MI:2 ; it was daft but in an entertaining way.

MisterAnarchy

lukin wrote: »

I know I'll probably get an awful slagging for this but I actually quite liked MI:2 ; it was daft but in an entertaining way.

I actually prefer the second film to the third one.

squonk

I saw it last night. I liked Ghost Protocol quite a bit and wasn't expecting anyting like that this time round. I hadn't watched trailers. It was pretty great though. I'm not a Cruise fan per se but one thing I'll say for him, a lot of his latest film offerings have been above par. MI:RN was no exception. I thought it flowed along fairly well and, while over the top in spots, it was really entertaining. I'm so used to seeing big budget, sub par stuff now that anything that is slightly different is a surprise. I really enjoyed this movie and it never seemed to lag really.

My only criticism was the BMW product placement. They were everywhere. Anytime someone steals a car it happens just to be a Beemer. At the end when Rebecca Ferguson drover away I found myself wondering how she had time to ensure her 6 series was there just at the right place and time. That being said they did wreck a 3 series which was not someting I'd have thought the people from Munich would have allowed be shown. Such is the way of thw world now where product placement is rampant. I guess I better get used to it.

fluke

lukin wrote: »

I know I'll probably get an awful slagging for this but I actually quite liked MI:2 ; it was daft but in an entertaining way.

MI:2 rocks! It's a product very much of its time, but aside form a lag after the first car chase it's pretty great.

the whole year inn

fluke wrote: »

MI:2 rocks! It's a product very much of its time, but aside form a lag after the first car chase it's pretty great.

I seen it a few nights ago and it sucked,the only thing i liked was the car chase ,when they where doing then final chase the stunts looked very bad,and bad script aswell.Its by FAR the weakest of them all!