"Blue is glue, red is dead" Mission: Impossible 4 POST Release Thread - Page 2

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnooj82 

The opening credits for the DePalma film was a rapidly cut montage of shots from all over the film.  Now, I've never seen the original show, but I'm under the impression that it did this tooOOOOooOOo?

Ah, yeah, I had a feeling it was something taken from the original TV series, although, like you, I've never seen it...
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Justin Clark 

Seriously. I was wondering this almost from the start. That said, I feel like this is the first time since the first 20 minutes of MI 1 where I feel like we have an IMF worth a damn. Rhames and, potentially, Fishburne coming back would pretty much guarantee my ass in a seat every time Cruise decides to get one of these off the ground.

I guess there are only so many seats in Tom's Team. Jeremy Renner took Ving Rhames' seat!

Jesus.  Hats off to the guy for doing that at this stage of his career.

eta: regarding the 'making of' the Burj Khalifa sequence' link.

I have to admit, Sebastian's posts excepted, I'm really puzzled by the overall enthusiasm the film's getting. Yes, it was bigger than the "made for TV" M:I3 (a criticism I don't agree with) but I think the film failed utterly to create or develop any sort of stake for the viewer. And yes, the Dubai tower sequence was really fucking cool....but so what? Was there ever really any chance of Hunt dying? Was there a reason for the audience to care?

Bird's direction here was spotty, or at least inconsistent. The action was exceptionally well done, and I easily spotted Bird's style of inserting humor unexpectedly in normally tense action beats. However, the script and film did not or could not generate actual empathy or depth for the characters. In the case of Pegg and Renner, I am confident in saying the problem isn't with the actors; they're both demonstrably capable of portraying characters with depth and nuances. In the case of Patton and Cruise, we're dealing with charismatic actors with strong screen presence but limited range. The material did not do Cruise any favors, and I'm still amazed at how, after four films, Ethan Hunt's remained basically an empty cipher. I absolutely admire Cruise's dedication to his craft, especially wanting to do as much of the physical stuff as possible, and he remains a formidable action star, despite being in his early 50s.
But to me, the film has failed when just about every secondary character is infinitely more interesting than the main one. Hell, I wanted to know a LOT more about the Russian cop/intelligence agent following Cruise, and he was written and portrayed with more character than anyone on the main team, Pegg's character excepted.

I also thought the denouement came across as far too heavy handed and it robbed itself of the impact it wanted to have. I am glad that Hunt's (ex)wife was alive; having her die offscreen felt like exceptionally lazy writing.

Despite sounding really hard on the film, I'm not terribly hard to please for action films. However, given 1) the caliber of the collaborators and 2) the film's inability to give us something more than expository lines to care about the characters, it ended up just being spectacle strung together by very flimsy connecting tissue.

My initial reaction on seeing this was, "OK/meh," but it's a movie that I think simply does not hold up to further examination. I'll be really interested to seeing what a few months and a second viewing produces in folks here.

Cruise is always doing that sort of stuff, especially in the MI movies. His GUNG HO attitude and the IMAX makes that skyscraper climbing/running footage look great. There are things that keep this movie from being great (the most boring villain of the series by far, generic evil plot, too long), but it's definitely a fun action film and probably the best MI film. I liked how most of the action scenes widened and went into IMAX MODE. I give credit to Bird for the sandstorm stuff. I was thinking "ugh everything is going to be impossible to make out" when it started, but it's actually a pretty interesting sequence.

I never bought the

Tom's not-so-triumphant "Mission...ACCOMPLISHED!!" moment was probably the funniest part of the movie.

One little nitpick. I thought it was very unlikely that the Bad Guys would not recognise French Assassin chick in that Dubai Hotel scene.

Wouldn't they have at least a picture of her from Interpol or something? 

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelM 

 

Bird's direction here was spotty, or at least inconsistent. The action was exceptionally well done, and I easily spotted Bird's style of inserting humor unexpectedly in normally tense action beats. However, the script and film did not or could not generate actual empathy or depth for the characters. In the case of Pegg and Renner, I am confident in saying the problem isn't with the actors; they're both demonstrably capable of portraying characters with depth and nuances. In the case of Patton and Cruise, we're dealing with charismatic actors with strong screen presence but limited range. The material did not do Cruise any favors, and I'm still amazed at how, after four films, Ethan Hunt's remained basically an empty cipher. I absolutely admire Cruise's dedication to his craft, especially wanting to do as much of the physical stuff as possible, and he remains a formidable action star, despite being in his early 50s.
But to me, the film has failed when just about every secondary character is infinitely more interesting than the main one. Hell, I wanted to know a LOT more about the Russian cop/intelligence agent following Cruise, and he was written and portrayed with more character than anyone on the main team, Pegg's character excepted.

 

I get what you're saying with the other critiques, but this doesn't seem all that pressing a concern for me. Cinema's got a long history of bulletproof supermen, going all the way back to Fritz Lang's work, his native ubermenschs and such. His main attributes? Brave, bold, stubborn, and pretty much bulletproof. It's a testament to Bird that he comes across a little dopey at times, and somehow less than bulletproof in others, but I think your desire to watch this guy in action defeats any critiques about how shallow he is.

And yeah, it wasn't realistic, but I was absolutely smitten by Lea Seydoux's swank-tastic demand she only be paid in diamonds.

Maybe Ethan Hunt is a good spy but (as opposed to Tom Cruise) a bad actor? Or, it's been a few years since it happened, supposedly. It has been a few years, hasn't it? 

It's been a few years, but I felt that Ethan was portrayed originally as being in the Russian prison out of a sense of penance.  Even if it's been years, I'd think he'd still be a mess if he was still there to atone. 

Which doesn't match how he acts when he's getting briefed in the van after the breakout.

Jeremy Renner was so fucking hot in this.

Sorry, that's all I got right now. I concur, the Dubai sequence was amazing, and will be worthy of a dozen rewatches.

A question, is it actually the Kremlin in this movie or is it what almost everyone outside the region mistakes for the Kremlin and in fact Saint Basil's Cathedral (which isn't) or both when what happens, happens?

I think it was actual Kremlin. They sort of covered their bases with the TV coverage part after the bombing, but I was wondering the same thing.

Has anyone noticed Renner's bulbous clubbed fingers!?  I couldn't stop staring at them!  

DAMN YOU, MEGAN FOX TOE-THUMB!!!

From googling pictures, the building in the movie, at least the wider exterior shots look like the Kremlin.  The walls seem to match from the glimpse you can see in the trailer.

I'm curious what the general CHUD community consensus is here. Me, I loved the hell out of it for what it was. What'd you guys think of the film?

There are some serious tits in this movie.

SERIOUS. TITS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnooj82 

Has anyone noticed Renner's bulbous clubbed fingers!?  I couldn't stop staring at them!  

 

 

DAMN YOU, MEGAN FOX TOE-THUMB!!!

What the fuck am I looking at?  What the fucking fuck?  His fingers look like starving children.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roboTimKelly 

I'm curious what the general CHUD community consensus is here. Me, I loved the hell out of it for what it was. What'd you guys think of the film?

My critique is above. I considered it a well-constructed but hollow action vehicle. It was mildly entertaining during the movie, but after viewing it either felt like vaporware or worse, bad moviemaking. I definitely seem to be in the minority with this take, though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dross 

There are some serious tits in this movie.

 

SERIOUS. TITS.

Agreed. Paula Patton's cleavage should have received separate billing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T 

I get what you're saying with the other critiques, but this doesn't seem all that pressing a concern for me. Cinema's got a long history of bulletproof supermen, going all the way back to Fritz Lang's work, his native ubermenschs and such. His main attributes? Brave, bold, stubborn, and pretty much bulletproof. It's a testament to Bird that he comes across a little dopey at times, and somehow less than bulletproof in others, but I think your desire to watch this guy in action defeats any critiques about how shallow he is.

 

I don't agree. At least, I don't agree that the film should get a pass on how thin a character Hunt is. Obviously, archetypical/stereotypical "bulletproof supermen" are a staple of the genre. I didn't seriously expect Hunt to die or be out of action for most of the picture. (And one good thing I can say: there are passing references to how much this sort of action would debilitate Hunt. His nodding agreement to be taken to the hospital at the end was a nice touch.) But I think it's a failure of a film, regardless of genre, when the supporting characters are both more interesting and better written than the main hero/heroine. And this series has had FOUR films to imbue Hunt with someone beyond wholly generic hero traits....and it's failed to do so. Compare Hunt to James Bond - Bond, for most of his movie career, hasn't exactly been a deep study of character, and yet even over the course of five actors, we can name some characteristics that go beyond the merely generic heroic aspects of tenacious, smart, and tough.

I think I really need to rewatch M:I3, because memory tells me it was a better film than GHOST PROTOCOL - but I could be quite wrong about this.

Having just watched M:I 1 on TV, and thinking back on the Dubai sequence of Ghost Protocol, I think the thing that distinguishes the series from other 'agent' movies is scenes of tension rather than the action. The flying motorbikes and exploding bridges of previous entries made me forget that. If they do number five Cruise should hire a director who can do tension. Get Joe Cornish. I don't know if he'd be suitable, I haven't even seen Attack The Block yet, but he's a cool guy.

Cruise had more 'character' in MI3.  He was a lot creepier.  But that might be due to the fact that a lot of his cuckoo came out around the time that movie was released.  MI3 definitely had more story, but I don't think it made the movie anymore interesting or Ethan Hunt a better character.  I think Phillip Seymour Hoffman added a lot with a little screentime.

Yeah exploring Hunt's personal life in MI3 wasn't all that interesting, so I was glad that GHOST PROTOCOL was more about the Missions and how they always go wrong.

There's nothing terribly bad about the film, but it did feel inconsequential to me.  I came away just admiring the effort put into making it.  And I really didn't like Simon Pegg in this; just felt like he was trying too hard.

But...
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dross 

There are some serious tits in this movie.

 

SERIOUS. TITS.

...yeah.
 

I was just listening to an NPR interview with Patton Oswalt, where he jokingly wonders why he hasn't been typecast into the role of the computer hacker sidekick that helps the handsome hero character.   You know, the guy wearing headphones in a van going, "I've lost the signal!  I'VE LOST THE SIGNAL!!!"

And I immediately thought, "That's because Simon Pegg has taken it from you!!!"

I thought the movie showed a bit of restraint when it came to using Pegg as comic relief, actually.  That's probably just because Pegg doesn't do loud and obnoxious comic relief.  

As much as I genuinely enjoyed the movie, I can't disagree too much with MichaelM's criticisms.  How forgiving would I be of this movie's lack of character and story if Brad Bird hadn't directed it.  We know Bird can do character and story.  But since it's not there, I just chalk it up to Bird using this movie as an opportunity to flex his live-action action set-piece muscles while doing a 'for them' movie in order to do his 'for myself' movie.

This entry in the series also gets an added boost from simply doing things practically (as far as they can, anyway) and making it look believable (in addition to the fact that the film actually took the time to craft real setpieces).  Fast Five got a similar boost earlier this year.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnooj82 

I thought the movie showed a bit of restraint when it came to using Pegg as comic relief, actually.  That's probably just because Pegg doesn't do loud and obnoxious comic relief.  

If you look at his resume, Cruise really hasn't worked that much recently. So you look at all the actors he's starred with recently, and Pegg sticks out as a guy who's going to be totally reverent to Cruise's filmography. I can EASILY imagine Cruise telling his handlers, "I like this guy" and bringing the starstruck Pegg onto the set every day, whispering in his ear, "You're gonna be AWESOME in this scene" and telling Bird, "Make Pegg look AWESOME in this scene. I love that guy." All with his usual high wattage crazyman smile. Outside of The Church, Cruise probably doesn't have many friends, so it wouldn't be a huge surprise to see him buddy-buddy with Pegg, and be almost single-handedly responsible for giving the guy a lot to do in these movies.

Wait, did I just write slash-fic?

Also, what was up with that scene where Renner questions Cruise's method of escaping from the underwater car crash?  It was a strangely extended scene in which he nitpicks the logic of using the flare to direct the gunfire elsewhere.

"Why would that work!?"

Hahahaha.  I liked the scene, but it seems like it was only put there as a lark to indicate that the movie isn't taking any of this seriously.  Other than that, the scene didn't really serve much function narratively or thematically (unless it does to the reveal at the end... but I don't think so).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T 

Wait, did I just write slash-fic?

Write a slash novel Immediately. 

I found the movie enjoyable overall but WTF at Ethan Hunt as psychiatrist? Between the pep talk to agent Carter to get her to seduce the Indian guy then mending the broken conscience of Renner's character it was a bit much, no? Why did everyone on the current team have to be barely competent? In the last movie everyone knew what they were doing and didn't need to be told how.(What happened to the old team BTW?). In this film we find out Pegg just got qualified for field work, Carter botched a mission and lacks confidence to do her job. I don't know if it was the actress or just the scenario of her character that made me uneasy every time Paula Patton had to do anything in this film. She had this constant look of constipation.

Another thing that bugged was the girlfight. So you're a highly trained agent with ninja fighting skills or whatever. You are in the highest floor of the world's tallest building. One of the windows is missing.So you just start waging fullout battle without considering -- hey one of us could fall out of this window? Wouldn't it make more sense to chill, play it cool, then wait for another opportunity where you couldn't possibly be shoved or fall out of high-rise window? I felt for the blonde chick, bad as her acting was. That's a loonnnnng way down to have to think about your imminent meeting with the concrete below.

Random, but clubbed fingers are often a sign of heart problems. Mr Renner might want to get that checked out or something.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anorexic Starlet 

 I don't know if it was the actress or just the scenario of her character that made me uneasy every time Paula Patton had to do anything in this film. She had this constant look of constipation.

Hahahaha, this was so true, but I didn't think about it like that!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anorexic Starlet 

 

 That's a loonnnnng way down to have to think about your imminent meeting with the concrete below.

 

Like the whale from Hitchhiker's Guide.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anorexic Starlet 

 

Random, but clubbed fingers are often a sign of heart problems. Mr Renner might want to get that checked out or something.

I'd heard that it could be caused by chain smoking.  Mickey Rourke definitely has the same condition.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anorexic Starlet 

I found the movie enjoyable overall but WTF at Ethan Hunt as psychiatrist? Between the pep talk to agent Carter to get her to seduce the Indian guy then mending the broken conscience of Renner's character it was a bit much, no?

...

 

Random, but clubbed fingers are often a sign of heart problems. Mr Renner might want to get that checked out or something.

I am so glad we're all concerned for Mr. Renner's health. GET WELL, HURT LOCKER.

(Shouldn't his nickname totally be HURT LOCKER?)

Anyway, what I don't like about Tom Cruise is that, like all mega superstars, he's a micromanager. The only issue is, while making himself look good/handsome/like a savior, his first priority is making a good movie, whether that involves picking talented collaborators or great directors. Will Smith could learn a lesson or two from this.

As a result, as long as Cruise can play the lead in a movie, that movie's always going to be The Unstoppable Tom Cruise Show With Tom Cruise, Hosted By Tom Cruise. Cruise is going to beat the bad guy, save the day, rescue the kitty from the tree and, yes, console the suffering of others. Hey, maybe he'll make you laugh.

I think, at a certain point in Ghost Protocol, you have to be like, Okay, this guy's going to be Totally Awesome The Whole Way Through, and I just have to go with it. I'm okay with that. I would love it if Paul Giamatti had that chance (or if George Clooney ever TOOK that chance), but Cruise will do.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnooj82 

Also, what was up with that scene where Renner questions Cruise's method of escaping from the underwater car crash?  It was a strangely extended scene in which he nitpicks the logic of using the flare to direct the gunfire elsewhere.

 

"Why would that work!?"

 

Hahahaha.  I liked the scene, but it seems like it was only put there as a lark to indicate that the movie isn't taking any of this seriously.  Other than that, the scene didn't really serve much function narratively or thematically (unless it does to the reveal at the end... but I don't think so).

In spite of his over-the-top heroism, Cruise is smart enough to realize he's not going to be a pushing-50 action star unless he makes fun of himself a little. Half of his material in this movie feels like action hero parody.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelM 

And yes, the Dubai tower sequence was really fucking cool....but so what? Was there ever really any chance of Hunt dying? Was there a reason for the audience to care?

Name me an action franchise on its fourth installment where we think it's possible for the hero to die.

I had an absolute blast with this.  Bird knocked it out of the park.  The action was inventive and always easy to follow -- no shaky cams, no insane cuts.  Maybe coming from an animation background helped him avoid those techniques.  Loved the over-head shot of the foot chase as the sandstorm approaches.  Loved the shot following the water fountain to transition from one side of the party to the other.  And I love how the film really used its environments.  That chase in the sandstorm and the fight in the automated parking garage worked so well not just because it was something I hadn't seen before, but they were done so creatively.  Bird wasn't content to simply have the action take place in those environments, he made those environments integral to the action.  That's the sign of a great director.

Give Bird a Bond movie.  NOW.  And bring Giacchino along with him.

Jesus... the guy is about to hit 50.  That's inSANE.

     Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnooj82 

Also, what was up with that scene where Renner questions Cruise's method of escaping from the underwater car crash?  It was a strangely extended scene in which he nitpicks the logic of using the flare to direct the gunfire elsewhere.

 

"Why would that work!?"

 

Hahahaha.  I liked the scene, but it seems like it was only put there as a lark to indicate that the movie isn't taking any of this seriously.  Other than that, the scene didn't really serve much function narratively or thematically (unless it does to the reveal at the end... but I don't think so).

That was actually one of my favourite bits - it was kind of meta in the way it tried to get us onto a movie superspy's wavelength.

Re: the "No chance of Hunt dying on the Dubai Tower" thing

I don't think that's the appeal at all to those sorts of scenes (though I did jump when he missed the window dive at the end, I never expected him die). It's to make it feel like HE DID survive it while anybody else (ie: we individual audience members) would have lost our nerve 5 seconds into it and plummeted to our pant-shitting, tearful dooms. When that first glove started giving out I thought "Oh you fucking BASTARDS!!!". It was a nightmare scenario and they sold it. Short of getting up there yourself, that's what it would feel like to do that.

Also, did anyone else expect the assassin chick's body to plow into a car or building as the sand storm was closing in behind Cruise? I know it's not PG13, but something about the timing of the two scenes had me looking at the surrounding environment for a gory detonation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nardo 

 

Also, did anyone else expect the assassin chick's body to plow into a car or building as the sand storm was closing in behind Cruise? I know it's not PG13, but something about the timing of the two scenes had me looking at the surrounding environment for a gory detonation.

I was actually looking for signs of her remains when they finally left the tower. Shouldn't there have been some ambulance sirens--or a clean-up crew there to scrape her up or something?

In light of what we later learn about Renner's character it seemed strange for him to be asking Hunt why he used the body and flare as a decoy. He'd know that himself with his skill set, wouldn't he?

Renner became an analyst early and doesn't have movie cliche street smarts!

And yet they trust the guy to protect Ethan Hunt and his wife.

Or he was so deep into his analyst persona, that he became his own cover!

It was a milk run, I tells ya!  A MILK RUN!

(takes a swig of vodka)

The biggest laugh in the film seems to be:

"Your line's not long enough!"

"NO. SHIT!!!!" (with Cruisin'tensity!)

Fuck you guys for posting the picture of Renner's fingers. Can't the women have ANYTHING around here? Should I post a picture of Paula Patton in period stained panties?

FFS.

Everyone, I concede the "no chance of Hunt dying" was a non-starter as far as criticizing the movie. As everyone pointed out, it's a staple of action flicks and TV shows. The question isn't "Will s/he live?" but "How will they live through this?" And the Dubai tower sequence was an amazing example of that done well.

I don't have a gripe with Bird's direction. The action was flawlessly done (curious: did they employ a second unit director for action?) and the use of practical effects as much as possible was a good choice. As I wrote above, it's a well-constructed film WRT production and actual on-screen action. It's with the characters that I think the film really falls down, and simply does not hold up regarding scrutiny (nor, I suspect, second viewings, but only time will prove me right or wrong on that.) We're not given any real reason to care what happens to Hunt, and the film's attempts at characterization are flat and thin. And while Hunt's team are all written with more interesting/compelling backstories than he is, even they're not particularly well done.

I'll shut up now....it's obvious I'm again in the tiny minority with the film. I don't think it's an awful movie, and I completely understand enjoying the action sequences. I simply remain baffled by Chewers' acceptance of some really flat writing and acting.

Dan Bradley was 2nd unit director for this.  Of course, we've seen how his work can be butchered in films like Quantum of Solace.  

I actually did see this for the 2nd time last night.  Aside from the impressiveness of the large-scale sequences, it is a case of diminishing returns.  But since it's a movie with so little 'meat' on its bones, that's not surprising.  And it was still fun.

Don't worry, Michael.  As more people see the movie I'm sure there will be others who are less than impressed (that is often the case with movies that have that just-released sheen... you're ahead of your time!).  And I'm willing to bet that it will be people who see the movie in standard theaters where the IMAX footage's scale is diminished.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CocoaSugarbaker 

Fuck you guys for posting the picture of Renner's fingers. Can't the women have ANYTHING around here? Should I post a picture of Paula Patton in period stained panties?

 

FFS.

Sorry Cocoa!  But just so you know, those aren't Renner's fingers I posted an image of.  It was just an image I found on Google to illustrate what I meant.  That said, his fingers DO kinda look like that.

Now... proceed with the panty posting.

One of my main issues was the villain looked to old and tubby compared to his abilities. Both in the car parking garage fight and in Dubai (when you consider it retrospectively after it's revealed he is Winstrum) he seems as fit as Ethan Hunt, despite not looking it at all.

Yeah, I had that issue with Stellan Skarsgard 2.0 as well.

I was also curious as to how he was so attuned to the IMF team's activities during the Kremlin sequence (enough where he uses them as a patsy) and why he doesn't display such knowledge later in the film.

Stuff like that is why I just forgivingly look at the film as 3 separate short films.  Hahahah

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnooj82 

 

Stuff like that is why I just forgivingly look at the film as 3 separate short films.  Hahahah

Probably not a bad way of looking at it. I'd definitely put this one in the "parts greater than the sum" category. (FWIW, I have quite a few personal faves or at least strong likes in this category.)

Without getting too boring about the medical technicalities, there's a wide range of unrelated causes for finger clubbing, some of which are quite benign. It doesn't necessarily tell you much in itself, you have to correlate it with other signs and symptoms if they're there.

Renner thanks you for the helpful info, Shan!  Heheheh

Oh mcnooj, you prankster you! ...

Oh, I loved it too. As to the characters, Hunt in particular, not being fleshed out, I've kind of made my peace with that, having seen the original three films. So I'm quite content with the decision to minimize it completely. Just give me a little sex (Patton) and comedy (Pegg) and fill the rest with excellent action sequences. And that's what they did. Easily my favorite of the series. I don't really feel like holding it to a higher standard on character, because I honestly don't give a fuck about Ethan Hunt, and if they're going to persist in making movies about him, 85% action setpieces, done extremely well, is certainly the way to go. Best action film of the year that didn't feature 13 assassins.