Mission: Impossible

[Whill]

I have not seen the new (seventh) Mission: Impossible movie currently in the theaters yet, so please, no spoilers! Be warned that this does contain some spoilers about the prior films (1996-2018)...

M:I is currently an action spy film series based on an old TV show (1966-71) and its successor series (1988-90). It's basically an American 'James Bond' type of franchise starring Tom Cruise. I don't remember seeing the first TV series in reruns (but it is possible). I did have a childhood friend who was a fan of the original TV series and told me all about it so we could play-act "Mission: Impossible". I'm pretty sure I never saw any of the second TV series, but I have been a Bond fan since childhood so was immediately interested in the M:I film franchise. M:I features the adventures of a fictional American secret espionage agency known as the Impossible Missions Force (IMF), somewhat like a CIA on steroids with less oversight.

Until this summer, I hadn't seen any M:I movie since the sixth one in the theater in July 2018. To prepare for the new movie, I re-watched the film series (except for 2) and finished the sixth one Thursday night. Since they are more fresh on my mind now, I thought I would post about the series here.


THE FILMS

Mission: Impossible (May 1996) was directed by Brian De Palma. This first one is a bit slow and lighter on action than the rest of the series, but still a pretty good film and good basis for the franchise. This film's macguffin is a file with IMF agent identities.

Mission: Impossible 2 (May 2000) - This is the only one I missed in the theater, but I did see it on video back in late 2000 or early 2001. I can't recall too many details now, but I remember feeling strongly that it was a horrible movie and I still have no interest in ever revisiting it. I also didn't like the other John Woo movie I had seen, Face/Off.

Mission: Impossible III (May 2006) - After my reaction to 2, I'm not sure why I saw III in the theater. It may have just been a date night with my then-girlfriend/now-wife. I may have checked that it wasn't John Woo. At the time I had never heard of first-time movie director JJ Abrams (or seen any of his TV shows). My first reaction to the film was that it was good, and the next time I saw it on home video I still thought it was pretty good overall (enough to make me want to see the next one in the theater). Watching M:I III again earlier this month, I was annoyed by all the Abramisms, including the fact that the movie was constructed with cinematic shortcuts and slights-of-hand that may temporarily Jedi Mind Trick you into thinking you are watching a good movie but you later realize it doesn't hold up to multiple viewings (but it is still better than M:I 2). Besides the fact that the movie's opening sequence is overly dark and menacing, it shows a scene from toward the end of the movie, then the rest of the movie after that is a flashback leading back up to the opening scene which is then mostly repeated until it is revealed to be a fake kill scare. (This edit probably wasn't even originally planned but devised in post in an attempt to inject more artificial drama into the movie.) And the Rabbit's Foot is an effin' "mystery box" - The movie never explained what the macguffin really was! (The only real hint was that it had a biohazard label.) Simon Pegg has this early monologue with a lot of wild speculation of what it could be, which is all utterly pointless because we never find out. (Somehow, Palatine returned.) And then the final mind funk at the end of the movie is Tom Cruise asking Maz Kanata (Laurence Fishburne) what the Rabbit's Foot is and the reply, "A good question, for another time." All in all, M:I III on its own isn't much more than a vehicle for some good action sequences, but it does serve as a launching point into the rest of the series which begins to incorporate more shared continuity. Thankfully this was the only M:I movie Abrams co-wrote and directed. Despite Abrams being a co-producer of next three films, the Rabbit's Foot is never referred to again so we never find out what it was, which of course was Abrams' plan all along.

Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol (Dec 2011) was directed by Brad Bird. The macguffin is Russian nuclear launch codes. These early M:I films always had single-film supporting agents that do not continue to sequels, but Ving Rhames, the only other actor besides Tom Cruise to appear in all the films, was reduced to a mere cameo in this film's dénouement. This film is clearly a big step up from the first three M:I movies.

Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation (July 2015) was directed by frequent Tom Cruise collaborator Christopher McQuarrie, the director of the rest of the M:I series (and the guy who wrote the uncredited script revision of Rogue One to lighten its tone). Rogue Nation's macguffin is eventually revealed to be a file that accesses financial accounts worth billions to the main villain. Overall this is another good M:I film except for the ending being an overly convoluted plexiglass gas trap for the main villain (for overtly dramatic reasons) when they could have much more easily had someone hiding the dark to shoot the villain with one of those tranq darts.

Mission: Impossible – Fallout (July 2018) - The macguffin is three plutonium cores, two of which were used to make nuclear bombs which have to be deactivated before detonation at the end. This is one of the best of the series.

Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One and Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part Two were filmed back-to-back. Part One is in theaters now and Part Two comes out June 2024.


ADDITIONAL COMMENTARY

The M:I film series leans heavily on several tropes. The following appear in all or most of the films. The aforementioned macguffins. "Tape scenes" with mission briefings that self-destruct when completed. Dramatic unmaskings. Rogue agents and moles/traitors galore, with Tom Cruise often going rogue to complete the mission, often being framed and disavowed then later being exonerated. Extended Tom Cruise running sequences. Outrageous action scenes. These movies are all far-fetched, but like Star Wars and Star Trek, you just accept the premises or you don't.

Except Tom Cruise, similar things have appeared in James Bond movies over the decades of that franchise, but these elements are more concentrated in M:I making James Bond feel more varied and original than M:I despite the fact that Bond has many more entries. The Bond films since the mid-90s seems bit more realistic than M:I (well, maybe except Die Another Day which had cars with cloaking devices, a palace made of ice, and a satellite that magnifies solar energy and becomes a super-laser weapon).

I currently rank the first six M:I films thusly:

1. Ghost Protocol and Fallout
3. Rogue Nation
4. M:I (the original film)
5. III
6. 2

Star Wars note: Since the first film in 1996, the IMF has somewhat informed my concept of the Rebel Alliance SpecOps, but of course the SpecOps mission groups that beginning PCs participate in are not high-skilled spies. The more elite advanced teams of SpecOps may resemble the agents the M:I films more.

Anyway, has anyone else see any of these films? Like them? Have any thoughts or opinions? If you have seen the new film feel free to post about that too, but no spoilers for a few weeks, please. Thanks.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage

[garhkal]

I've loved most of the MI films to date.

My ranking would be

MI 1
Mi 4
Mi 5
Mi 6
Mi 3
Mi 2
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!

[S-Foil]

I am a big fan of the first movie and didn't really like any of the others. Like you said M:I-2 is just a bad movie and 3 isn't quite bad but not good either. The rest are decent action movies with a lot of Tom Cruise running and impressive physical stunts.

The first movie is more thematically similar to the '66 TV series. I didn't see the series until after seeing several of the movies but once I did I loved it. The core conceit of the series was the Good Guys (the IMF) needed to get ahold of something out of the hands of the Bad Guys. They had to do it as sneakily as possible because overt action would not just cause an incident but possibly lead to nuclear war.

They identified the goal, built a heist-style plan in the second act, and had a tense third act carrying out the plan and dealing with everything that went wrong. Episodes were like heist movies without the layers of Xanatos gambits and general audience deceptions.

The first movie followed that pattern up until the very end where it went all action movie. But the high wire scene at the CIA was the exact sort of super tense scene the TV show might have had.

To me that sort of tension would make for an awesome SpecOps game. Overall success of the mission would be from a long series of high difficulty skill checks. A failure of a check might make subsequent checks harder until someone made a check to make up for the failure to ratchet the difficulty back down. So any individual skill check doesn't scuttle the whole mission which isn't very fun and erases all the tension since you're then in a failure state shooting your way out or something.

[pakman]

I have seen most of the films, and have overall liked them.

Not expecting masterpiece theater here - but they are decent for what they are (action adventure flicks...).

I can SAY - one thing I do like - that does tie back to our gaming - is that while Ethan Hunt is clearly the focus - they all do have groups of characters doing things - they feel in some instances (not all) like an adventuring party.

I love the "heist" genre - as it is particuarly suited to RPG adaptation.
_________________
SW Fan, Gamer, Comic, Corporate nerd.
Working on massive House Rules document - pretty much a new book. Will post soon....

[Whill]

[garhkal]

That kind of makes me wonder. What "Templates" would everyone IN MI be if we ported them into SW?
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!

[Whill]

I saw Dead Reckoning today. My first impression of it was very good. It was a fun cinematic experience.

One odd little thing I noticed is that some exposition scenes seem to have the actors speaking the dialogue more slowly than seems natural. I wonder if they were worried the audience would be lost on the plot if the characters talked at a more natural pace.

As much as I enjoyed the movie, it is of course only Part One of the story and therefore not completely standalone. I must reserve final judgement of it until sometime after seeing Part Two which comes out in 11 months. I will probably hold off on seeing Part One again until close to seeing Part Two in the theater next year.

If you are a fan of any MI movies and you have a chance to see Part One in the theater, you may want to take it.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage