Read on Twitter
Watching all of the Mission: Impossible movies in order. A few thoughts as I go:
M:I (1996) is very much a Di Palma movie, with a plot arranged like a piece of intricate machinery. Unfortunately it’s v easy to predict every turn of the gear.
M:I (1996) is very much a Di Palma movie, with a plot arranged like a piece of intricate machinery. Unfortunately it’s v easy to predict every turn of the gear.
Two terrific set pieces (one in CIA head quarters and one on the bullet train between London and Paris) but otherwise it’s an oddly inert film. It feels super dated now.
M:I2 (2000) was directed by John Woo (!). Let’s just say he made two of the best action films ever—The Killer and Hard-Boiled—but his time in Hollywood was not good for him.
Thandie Newton is the only redeeming part of this surprisingly dull film.
Thandie Newton is the only redeeming part of this surprisingly dull film.
One surprising constant in the first two films is the sexism. The villains in particular, but not just, often say terrible things about women.
Anthony Hopkinson says in M:I2,
“What? To go to bed with a man and lie to him? She& #39;s a woman - she& #39;s got all the training she needs.”
Anthony Hopkinson says in M:I2,
“What? To go to bed with a man and lie to him? She& #39;s a woman - she& #39;s got all the training she needs.”
M:I3 (2006) is the first film directed by JJ Abrams after he wrapped up work on Alias. He seems to bring everything learned in making the tv series to bear on the film. The action starts right away, there are longer and more frenetic action sequences, the pace quickens.
M:I3 is really the start of what makes the series special (even the gratuitous sexism is replaced by a woman who can save herself). But maybe it also marks the start of a new era in action filmmaking? Call it the Abrams era, which imho ended with the latest Star Wars film.
And after reading the exchange between @jd_schnepf and @hujane on Avidly, I’m now only thinking about Cruise clinging to things like a persistent parasite (in a non-Bong Joon-ho sense). This is totally going to preoccupy me for the remaining films. https://avidly.lareviewofbooks.org/2015/08/13/the-film-cant-help-itself/">https://avidly.lareviewofbooks.org/2015/08/1...
1. NOC list (reveals active agent ids)
2. Virus and cure (get rich scheme)
3. Rabbit’s foot (who knows, but it’s something dangerous)
4. Nuclear launch capabilities (to start a nuclear war)
A pattern in the progression of M:I films? Do the stakes have to keep going up?
2. Virus and cure (get rich scheme)
3. Rabbit’s foot (who knows, but it’s something dangerous)
4. Nuclear launch capabilities (to start a nuclear war)
A pattern in the progression of M:I films? Do the stakes have to keep going up?
M:I4 (2011) was directed by Brad Bird, of Incredibles fame, and had a funny, animated quality to it. Eases into the pattern Abrams set in the previous film, and learns to laugh at itself.
Just want to say, there’s nothing academic about what I’m doing. It’s just a way for me to distract myself from everything that’s happening. Escapism is sometimes under appreciated, I think.
OK, so the start of the McQuarrie films. M:I5 starts to organize all the previous movies into a single arc, and makes the series into a series. In retrospect, we see Ethan Hunt’s career following a pathway where career and person are one.
Hunt is no one without his career, and this is a problem for him.
What I find most extraordinary about the series is that the villain in every film has been the product of the very security state that Hunt works for. Every. Single. Film.
What I find most extraordinary about the series is that the villain in every film has been the product of the very security state that Hunt works for. Every. Single. Film.
1. Hunt’s boss betrays him for money.
2. A rival IMF agent decides to go into business for himself.
3. Hunt’s boss betrays him to pursue a reckless personal agenda.
4. A Russian analyst tries to start a nucle war.
5. A British agent turns against the state.
2. A rival IMF agent decides to go into business for himself.
3. Hunt’s boss betrays him to pursue a reckless personal agenda.
4. A Russian analyst tries to start a nucle war.
5. A British agent turns against the state.
What changes is the reason: before it was about money but the most recent films have been about ideology. The security state is irredeemably corrupt, the villains conclude, and must be smashed.
At last Fall Out, which I admire so very much and feel exhausted by. That final mountain scene with the helicopters. Oof!
