IMO it's always going to be diminishing returns with these franchises as they are old and there's not a lot that can be done that hasn't been done in previous movies. Same with Indiana Jones, Terminator, Aliens, or any of the shows that were at one time a pinnacle for action and special effects. How many variations of car chases, temples, tombs, Nazis can remain fresh and exciting? The T-1000 was amazing effects in it's day with T2 but now in a new movie it's yawn inducing. When I watch all these newer films I feel I have seen it all before and special effects are no longer an attraction because all movies like this now use CGA. It's easy to crap on the people involved in these movies and truth be told there's probably way too many cooks in the kitchen compared to the original movies (I can just imagine how many largely attended board meetings involved in a Star Wars movies) but I imagine it's really hard to come up with new material in these movie universes that pays homage to the originals that is fresh and new. It's probably why Rogue One is probably the best Star Wars movie of late because it's not really associated with the old characters and storylines and stands on its own.
I have some hope that the somewhat lackluster numbers by recent blockbuster franchises might encourage studios to at least go back to trying to create new franchises for a change.
Hopefully it encourages them to go back to trying to create new STANDALONE STORIES for a change, rather than desperately trying to make "franchises" at all.
Last edited by timun; 07-14-2023 at 02:21 PM.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to timun For This Useful Post:
M:I was good. Not great, but solid. What you expect from a summer blockbuster with a little extra here and there.
Where it excels are the women in this series. They're absolutely outstandingly portrayed and they steal the show. I really enjoy all of them. I'd go as far as to call two of them pretty bad-ass here.
What's overdone and becoming more terrible is fighting on top of CGI trains. It wasn't great in Indy 5 and it's not great here. It looks bad, and the stunts stretch a little too far beyond believability. Can they stop with these?
It's the real stunts like the motorbike jump and burj Khalifa that make this series stand out. They don't need to add these ridiculous green screen sequences around them to make a better film.
Some genuinely funny moments too that don't cross into fast and furious territory, thankfully.
Simon Pegg continues to be one of the best "spy tech support" characters ever. I really enjoyed the airport sequence from him. He fits the exasperated but resourceful side character like a glove and I couldn't see any one else replacing him.
It got a little too 4D in this one, but if you suspend your brain for a while it's a fun time.
Last edited by TrentCrimmIndependent; 07-14-2023 at 06:49 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to TrentCrimmIndependent For This Useful Post:
What's overdone and becoming more terrible is fighting on top of CGI trains. It wasn't great in Indy 5 and it's not great here. It looks bad, and the stunts stretch a little too far beyond believability. Can they stop with these?
It's the real stunts like the motorbike jump and burj Khalifa that make this series stand out. They don't need to add these ridiculous green screen sequences around them to make a better film.
Buddy, you don’t know Mission Impossible that well. They built their own train, actually fought on it at 60 mph, and actually launched it off a bridge. Armchair critics, lol.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to OutOfTheCube For This Useful Post:
Buddy, you don’t know Mission Impossible that well. They built their own train, actually fought on it at 60 mph, and actually launched it off a bridge. Armchair critics, lol.
I stand corrected.
The tunnel part looked awful though.
Well done to the crew behind the production, that's outstanding that they made it (mostly) practical. It's incredible that they did that at those speeds.
I think I just hate train rooftop fights cause they're overdone. Personal taste.
Last edited by TrentCrimmIndependent; 07-14-2023 at 11:04 PM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to TrentCrimmIndependent For This Useful Post:
The action scenes were fun. But overall MI was pretty bad. Easily the worst since MI II. It had no plot whatsoever. Just a terrible mcguffin and a bunch of action set pieces.
There were literally like 4 or 5 characters brand new to the series who are in the movie and have pretty large roles, but their presence, mission, motives, aren’t explained at all.
Two first time watches of some great 90s movies. First one was The Hunchback of Notre Dame, I was surprised how dark Disney got with this. I really dug it, wish Disney would take risks like this again. And 2nd movie was The Truman Show, absolutely brilliant and came right before reality TV exploded.
The Following User Says Thank You to Nadal Fan For This Useful Post:
The action scenes were fun. But overall MI was pretty bad. Easily the worst since MI II. It had no plot whatsoever. Just a terrible mcguffin and a bunch of action set pieces.
There were literally like 4 or 5 characters brand new to the series who are in the movie and have pretty large roles, but their presence, mission, motives, aren’t explained at all.
My main gripe is that Gabriel is a terrible baddie. What's worse is that everyone just refers to him as Gabriel without asking anything else about this guy.
I am seriously bad with most of these big Franchises.
I saw MI...I might have seen MI2 but I couldnt tell you that for sure, then they made so many and I didnt know what was going on so I stopped.
Same with Transformers. I saw the first one and it was passable, I think snippets of the second one? I watched Bumblebee and that was okay...and then there was one with a giant robot on crutches and I was like: "Okay...I'm out."
I dont even know how many there are.
Same with Fast and Furious. I know I saw the first one, I'm pretty sure I saw the second one, and there was one in Tokyo, I saw that, then a guy drove a Lamborghini through a couple of buildings in Dubai or some nonsense and I noped right out.
I watched the first 10 minutes of 'Fast X' and immediately realized that I have no idea who most of these people are or WTF is going on. So I stopped.
I actually kind of want to get into the MI films, I know I loathe Tom Cruise but I can separate the artist from the art for the most part, the stunts are supposed to cool, but beyond that I understand Simon Pegg is in them and that guy is awesome!
Maybe I'm biased against the MI films because they separated Simon Pegg from Nick Frost? The greatest Dynamic Duo in film making!
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a Fire Exit. - Mitch Hedberg
I think MI:5 might to be the best spy movie of all time. The hardest thing for a spy movie to do is make itself simple enough to follow, but also complicated enough that all the crosses and double crosses make sense. I still remember being in shock that I was 2 hours into a spy movie and everything made sense and was easy to follow.
Could not disagree with this more.
What makes a great spy movie to me is developing characters who are - as we are - flawed and miss things, get surprised or second-guess themselves, fail...whatever. But all based on character and curiosity, also without having someone explain it all at the end and without zillions of fights, theatrics and other "heroics".
Some great spy movies (in no particular order and off the top of my head):
The Spy Who Came in from the Cold
The Night Manager
CitizenFour
From Russia with Love
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy
Slow Horses (series)
All of the rest slam-bangers I personally categorize as "action films" with a thinly-based spy narrative.
__________________
Hey...where'd my avatar go?
The Following User Says Thank You to taxbuster For This Useful Post:
I went to Indiana jones today and thought it was much better than crystal skull. Obviously not as good as the originals. The cgi de-aging of Harrison Ford was pretty incredible.
Do not understand the Waller-bridge hate at all. Thought she did pretty well in an action flick and don’t really see the character flaws that some seem to hate
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Cappy For This Useful Post:
Went to see Bones of Crows last night, Canadian film directed by a female Canadian indigenous director about a family's history surviving, succumbing to the residential school system and how it affected their lives as adults.
One thing I can appreciate is how the film addresses how these children were malnourished, hungry and never fed properly. Many died of disease or when trying to escape to get back home to their parents. I feel that sometimes gets forgotten when it's hard not to focus on priests raping and impregnating children.
The residential school scenes were filmed in Kamloops, right around the time the unmarked graves were discovered. This is a powerful movie, there is an onscreen warning that this might be difficult to survivors of the residential school system and they give a number to call if you need to talk to someone.
As a film it's shot incredibly well and looks great, you can't fault the acting but it's not on par with some of the best work that's been captured by directors like Scorsese, Nolan, PT Anderson, etc. Basically, I felt as though the story was there, all the elements were there and this could have been incredible with better directing and tightening up the dialogue. In a way that's not really a criticism because it's a Canadian film and I immediately judged how it measured up to some of the best films ever made.
The screen went dark, the credits began to roll and I quickly walked out so no one would see me crying. I'm sure there were a few people wondering why there was a grown man with tears in his eyes walking past while they were walking into Fast X.
Just saw your note ... based on your comments I will definitely try to find this movie.
__________________
Hey...where'd my avatar go?
The Following User Says Thank You to taxbuster For This Useful Post:
The action scenes were fun. But overall MI was pretty bad. Easily the worst since MI II. It had no plot whatsoever. Just a terrible mcguffin and a bunch of action set pieces.
There were literally like 4 or 5 characters brand new to the series who are in the movie and have pretty large roles, but their presence, mission, motives, aren’t explained at all.
I always assumed these movies were just stuntman camp for Tom Cruise.
Hopefully it encourages them to go back to trying to create new STANDALONE STORIES for a change, rather than desperately trying to make "franchises" at all.
I'm trying to be reasonable with my hopes.
The Following User Says Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
Saw MI: Dead Reckoning P1 on the weekend and thought it was a good summer action blockbuster. Agree with TrentCrim above about female characters standing out. Action scenes were top notch as per usual for these films. Story was a bit weird but it was way better than Fast X.
I know there’s a fans of Westerns in here and I think I’d put The Proposition up against any western claiming to be an all time great. Hadn’t watched it in a while and upon revisiting it I do believe it has knocked off Unforgiven from the perch of my favourite for sure. Bleak, dark and brooding, beautifully shot, graphic violence, it’s a lot of fun for everyone.
The Following User Says Thank You to ResAlien For This Useful Post:
Buddy, you don’t know Mission Impossible that well. They built their own train, actually fought on it at 60 mph, and actually launched it off a bridge. Armchair critics, lol.
It's irrelevant to me whether the stunts were real or not. I just watched Indiana Jones the week before. Train-top fight sequence. A week later I go to MI...train-top fight sequence.
At least both were original in that our heroes were standing there and at the last second managed to lay flat on their belly lest they were swatted off by overhead structures. I mean, JFC. Movie makers need to put that cheese factory down. It's a joke. I wonder how many hours of my life I've wasted watching people fight on top of trains in movies.
It's irrelevant to me whether the stunts were real or not. I just watched Indiana Jones the week before. Train-top fight sequence. A week later I go to MI...train-top fight sequence.
At least both were original in that our heroes were standing there and at the last second managed to lay flat on their belly lest they were swatted off by overhead structures. I mean, JFC. Movie makers need to put that cheese factory down. It's a joke. I wonder how many hours of my life I've wasted watching people fight on top of trains in movies.
The best part is that it’s not even the first train top fight in either franchise. MI did it in the first movie and Indy fought on a train in last crusade.
The best part is that it’s not even the first train top fight in either franchise. MI did it in the first movie and Indy fought on a train in last crusade.
To be fair to MI1, it's a fairly original take as they're on a bullet train and really just trying to not fly off the thing at 120mph. Not the 'traditional movie train top fight', so to say.
The Following User Says Thank You to OutOfTheCube For This Useful Post:
