Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation (Cruise, Renner, Pegg, Rhames)

[Trekkin]

It already has happened, except it was called Leverage. That show basically was a modern Mission: Impossible. Sure, it was about a team of Robin Hood-style con artists rather than spies, but the fact is that M:I was always basically a heist/caper show at heart; the spy thing was just because '60s network censors wouldn't have approved of a show where the heroes were criminals, so they needed a patriotic justification for their dirty tricks and con games.

Yeah I tried watching a few episodes of Leverage, but it was just a little too cutesy and lightweight for my taste.

Then you probably shouldn't touch Hustle either. It's very similar, but at times the main characters can come off as even more unbearably smug.

Burn Notice started out as a sort of Mission: Impossible meets the A-Team. Even once the actual 'Burn Notice' plot played out, the 'victim of the week' plots tended to alternate between small time and big time 'missions'. So one week they could just be protecting somone from an abusive ex, the next they could be trying to catch a genocidal ex-dictator. The only real problem is that (like most shows of its type) it had a formula that can get pretty repetitive.

Theres always the first season of Danger 5 and movies like Kingsmen if you want an absolutely bonkers pastiche. I'm kind of curious how The Man from UNCLE is going to play out. It looks like it's going to play the whole thing fairly straight, albeit Illya looks like he's taken a few levels in grouchiness.

 

[davejames]

Yeah I was a big fan of Burn Notice, but it always felt to me more like a cross between A-Team and MacGyver. Although I guess it did have elements of Mission: Impossible as well, with all the going undercover and goofy characters he had to become.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

MI:5 was, at best.. fun, I guess. But let's be honest, this was a stupid movie! Cruise leads a a few guys of a team that's disavowed and yet they have all of the equipment they need to accomplish a specific mission when some of the missions they don't know about in advance ahead of that part of the story. Where do they get devices like those camera blockers, magic keys, or the perfectly-sized washer-shaped things that open combination locks? When do they have they have the time or money to get perfect tuxedo's to wear to operas when they don't have time. Let's be honest. There is NO story here. there might be a complicated plot about double agents and fancy government ops. but the story has no bottom at all, and there is no reason to follow all the little twists and turns to see who is doing what. Even Ebert threw up his hands for the first film when he tried to recall if there was a story. There isn't .. the films are just an excuse for major set-pieces that are all more and more the same. We have to get into to a secret facility, because we are spies and we have to make sure a list of more spies doesn't get out, and the building will have camera and sensors and technology, but there will always be a room where Bengi can bring his tablet and hack into everything and act all afraid." Face it people.. of you LIKE this as film, then the studio has fooled you into thinking that you've watched a real movie. Its all smoke and mirrors.

 

[Trekkin]

So its Mission: Impossible then? It always was more movie Bond than Carre. 'Caper' spy fiction is always a nice alternative to that decade where all our spy stuff was the super serious-but-still-ridiculous Spooks and 24.

And I'm pretty certain it had a plot. I recall it went something like: Ethan and team take on their most impossible mission yet, eradicating the Syndicate - an International rogue organization as highly skilled as they are, committed to destroying the IMF.

The first film isn't that hard to follow. Even as a 10 years old it wasn't one of my favourites (I never really liked Hunt until MI-III), but it wasn't because it was too difficult to understand.

There is a giant-ass logic jump used to unravel the scheme (the audience knows every little detail in the film is there for a reason, but Hunt really shouldn't), but to understand the twist you just have to pay attention to the seemingly filler conversations at the beginning.

I think I'd put this latest on about the same level as the last two. Hoffman's still winning the best villain award, but I do wonder - was this meant to be the Syndicate from the series? There seemed to be so many more shout outs in this one, that I was wondering if they were setting up the remnants to be recurring villains for the future.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Plot ... yes..

Story.. no..

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

there is a difference

 

[Trekkin]

Well since you made the accusation, please define 'story'.

Because just saying the movie contains a lot of 'smoke and dagger' isnt exactly a criticism, especially when you're talking about a spy movie. The ones that lack that (like MI-II) actually tend to be the ones considered 'bad.'

I am with Christopher on the formula needing to be shaken up a bit. 'Mr Producer Man, I know MI-II kinda sucked. But I promise that it wasn't because the plot was an actual assigned mission. Just have the mission be deep cover, and then you don't need to justify why the army isn't going to swoop in and save them.'

I thought of another spy series that's on at the moment - The Americans. Admittedly, it's not exactly 'fun.'

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

the story in the new MI film has no bottom.. the plot is full of so many double agents double crosses.. plot conveniences, magic keys, and its just so much that you can never really find anything to really hold on to.. I mean how much better wituld these missions be if I cared about teh stakes.. and if I can actually see how they accomplished them .. and yes.. knowing how they prepared for them equipment wise is part of that. It's like watching a STar Trek mopvie and Data says.. "The Klingons have a cloaking device" and the captain says "No problem we have something in my ready room that will still allow us to see that ship. but they won't see us."

 

[Trekkin]

Except Hunt spent the entire movie losing. People he spends nearly 20 minutes of screen time trying to save, die because he keeps getting out manoeuvred. Post titles, he doesn't get a single win until the ending, and even then we don't really know how badly he managed to damage the villains. He caught the leader, but the reason they were so excited about the possibility of a ledger was so that they could find out who they needed to hunt down. Obviously, that ledger didn't turn out to exist.

And the levels of 'stakes' have nothing to do with a movie lacking 'story'. There's not exactly a whole lot of stakes in 'Breakfast at Tiffany's', but there is story.

TNG is the absolute worst example you could have used for something without a status quo. Killing Data and getting flat out invaded by the Borg didn't even shake the formula up.

 

[Smellmet]

Thought the movie was good, but nowhere near the level of the last one (or even MI3 frankly). It's entertaining and has some really well-executed sequences (especially with the plane and opera scenes), but there was still this vague feeling of "been there, done that" that seemed to kind of permeate the entire thing.

And somehow I was really expecting them to have more fun with the evil, "anti-IMF" idea, with one group pitted against the other. But there was nothing particularly memorable or unique about any of the Syndicate villains, and they might as well have been the usual random henchmen we see in every MI movie. Which just seems like a huge wasted opportunity.

Saw it last night - this pretty much sums up my feelings of the movie, some great set pieces, the car/motorbike chase is fantastic, the underwater bit and opera scenes are very good too, the rest of it is as you say - been there done that, it just isn't very distinguishable from the other 4 movies. Even the clinging to the plane opening scene felt like it was there just for the sake of it so they could put it on the poster, and to be honest I found the Burj Khalifa scene in Ghost Protocol far more nerve wracking.

It's still a good, solid, entertaining film, and I put it around the standard of 3 & 4, both of which I think I slightly prefer but not by much. Maybe I need to see it again, but I think Ghost Protocol is still my favourite of the series.

 

[Christopher]

So its Mission: Impossible then? It always was more movie Bond than Carre.

Which just underlines how different the movie series is from the TV series, despite using its name. The TV series was more a spy procedural than a spy thriller, not particularly Bondian at all. Indeed, the lack of thrills was often its problem; most of its episodes were about the clockwork unfolding of the team's meticulous plots, and only occasionally did anything ever go wrong and force the team to improvise, so there often wasn't any real sense of suspense. (The Bond-like spy show was The Man from U.N.C.L.E., which was actually co-created by Ian Fleming.)

(I never really liked Hunt until MI-III)

No wonder. Hunt didn't have a personality until M:I:III. In the first two, he was just a generic, one-dimensional action lead. One of the things I love about M:I:III is that its very first scene gives Ethan Hunt more characterization, emotion, likeability, and depth in four minutes than he got in the previous four hours of the franchise.

but I do wonder - was this meant to be the Syndicate from the series? There seemed to be so many more shout outs in this one, that I was wondering if they were setting up the remnants to be recurring villains for the future.

No, in the series, "the Syndicate" was the mob. Every episode dealing with organized crime in the United States (always an intermittent focus, finally becoming the near-exclusive mission in the final two seasons) referred to it simply as "the Syndicate." This film (like the tag scene in Ghost Protocol) is using the name as an Easter egg, but is applying it to a completely different entity.

I am with Christopher on the formula needing to be shaken up a bit. 'Mr Producer Man, I know MI-II kinda sucked. But I promise that it wasn't because the plot was an actual assigned mission. Just have the mission be deep cover, and then you don't need to justify why the army isn't going to swoop in and save them.'

Heck, that's implicit in the premise. "Should any member of your IM Force be caught or killed, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions." The whole idea of the IMF is that they're on their own, that the US government will not come to their rescue if they're exposed. They know going in that if they're caught, they'll take the fall so that the government won't be implicated in their actions.

 

[davejames]

the story in the new MI film has no bottom.. the plot is full of so many double agents double crosses.. plot conveniences, magic keys, and its just so much that you can never really find anything to really hold on to.. I mean how much better wituld these missions be if I cared about teh stakes.. and if I can actually see how they accomplished them .. and yes.. knowing how they prepared for them equipment wise is part of that. It's like watching a STar Trek mopvie and Data says.. "The Klingons have a cloaking device" and the captain says "No problem we have something in my ready room that will still allow us to see that ship. but they won't see us."

I will say the whole thing with the underwater data storage did feel awfully contrived and ridiculous even for a MI movie. And yet again, we have another movie where people need to infiltrate this highly secure, well-guarded facility... and somehow are able to parachute down into it first in broad daylight without anyone seeing them.

I mean, really? Are we really supposed to believe that any guard or security system wouldn't see someone doing that (or even detect the plane flying overhead first)?

 

[the G-man]

I saw it this weekend. The cast was good. Rebecca Ferguson was a better black widow then Scarlett. Cruise still knows how to sell the hell out of an action sequence. I liked the final fate of Lane which felt reminiscent of the original series to me.

However if you thought about it for even five seconds the plot fell apart approximately every 15 minutes. And as Christopher has pointed out they really really need to come up with a different plot then Ethan Hunt accused of treason and on the run.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

they also brought back the idea of spies trying to get list of other spies.. which was the plot of the first film of this franchise and Skyfall.. making me wonder if spies can't handle themselves.. and if all spies do is protect other spies

 

[DWF]

they also brought back the idea of spies trying to get list of other spies.. which was the plot of the first film of this franchise and Skyfall.. making me wonder if spies can't handle themselves.. and if all spies do is protect other spies

No, there was a list of dead agents around the world. The NOC list in the fristm ovie had an agent's real name and their alaises around the world. Not the same list at all.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I know. I'm half joking. But it's always spies going after lists of spies, and they are being chased by evil spies. You'd think the spies in the lists would have been good enough spies that they wouldn't be in a computer database.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Thinking about this movie, it feels like was written by a committee.. something like action/ spy therapy groups. They just think of cool spy-y ideas they haven't quite done before and then find ways to string them together.

 

[Christopher]

I know. I'm half joking. But it's always spies going after lists of spies, and they are being chased by evil spies. You'd think the spies in the lists would have been good enough spies that they wouldn't be in a computer database.

Well, people on the spies' own side have to have a way of knowing who the spies are, otherwise how would they contact each other or know where to send orders? (The list-of-spies idea goes way back in Mission: Impossible; it was the McGuffin in the second episode of the original series.)

Although I am kind of bugged by the idea in the '88 revival episode "The Fortune" and the first movie that there is an official IMF list of disavowed agents. I mean, the whole point of disavowal is pretending that the agent who's been caught or killed is a rogue operative totally unconnected to your agency. So actually having a file in your computer saying "This agent who worked for us has been disavowed" is kind of missing the whole point of disavowal. You'd think that if an agent were disavowed, all records of their affiliation with the IMF/CIA would be erased.

 

[RoJoHen]

I saw this yesterday. I had not seen any of the other Mission: Impossible movies before this. It was...fine, I guess. I enjoyed Ilsa's character. The action was fun. The dialogue was cheesy as hell, though, and significantly lacked substance. It was a fine way to kill some time, but I wouldn't nominate for an Oscar any time soon.

 

[DWF]

I know. I'm half joking. But it's always spies going after lists of spies, and they are being chased by evil spies. You'd think the spies in the lists would have been good enough spies that they wouldn't be in a computer database.

Not quite as strange as James Bond walking around in Diamonds Are Forever with his personal walle, including his Playboy Club card, while he wason the job and undercover.