Originally published at: The Mission: Impossible films, ranked | Boing Boing
…
I’m not saying that the third movie was great, but come on. Philip Seymour Hoffman. Enough said.
It’s a show-stealing performance, but PSH was trying to steal it from a talented but egomaniacal star who had the show locked down like Fort Knox. That inherent conflict is why the picture never fully comes together like the others.
Still…at least call it a tie for last place.
We’re talking about Philip Seymour Hoffman here.
grounded
adjective
ground·ed ˈgrau̇n-dəd
mentally and emotionally stable, admirably sensible, realistic, and unpretentious
Yeah, right…
Yes, if there’s a cure for the relentless blockbuster machine of Marvel, it most certainly must be…the relentless Juggernaut of the Mission Impossible franchise? How does MI and the Fast series somehow get a pass for doing the same stuff that Marvel does, I’m not exactly clear. The biggest difference is that there are more Marvel movies, sure…but they’re different characters and styles in a shared space, not the same movie over and over. It’s such a weird complaint.
I believe the distinction being made by Nussen, such as it is, is that the MI and FF ar supposedly more"grounded" and “human” than the MCU and other superhero and SFF franchises due to their emphasis on practical SFX and stunts rather than CGI. I tend to agree with you that it doesn’t make much difference at the moment since they’re all big budget and star-studded fantastical action franchises, but if “AI” continues to take hold as the studio greedpigs strive to cut costs it might seem more relevant in retrospect.
Wait, let’s not drag Fast and Fasterer into this. There’s a difference between… whatever this is and whatever that is.
I’ve really got no idea what that’s supposed to mean. Respetfully, how could anyone consider these over-the-top, magical high-tech action movies to be “grounded” in any meaningful way?
Spy movie franchises that are at least partially grounded in reality do exist, but this isn’t one of them.
I stopped watching the series some time ago, did they ever start writing plots where the IMF had some justification for its existence beyond “stopping rogue elements of the IMF?”
Isn’t it all just a metaphor for climate change, though?
Like that time in the first movie when Tom Cruise did this:
That’s some totally legit physics, man!
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.