A question for the Mission Impossible fans...

Ford W Maverick

Ford W Maverick

Well-Known Member
I liked the first movie, right up till the ending. On the off chance someone reading this hasn't seen it I won't spoil it, but suffice it to say I know enough about physics for it to royally tick me off.

Anyways, because the ending of MI:1 went beyond my ability to suspend my disbelief (no easy feat that) I haven't seen any of the others. I do see the trailers for them though and they all seem to center around Ethan Hunt being framed and disavowed, upon which he has to put together a rag-tag team and prove his innocence.

So this is a two part question.

Number 1: Do any of the movies NOT involve him being disavowed and hunted?

And Number 2: How stupid does he have to be to keep going back to the employers that every few years try to kill him?

I mean, I can understand going back ONCE. Maybe TWICE under the right circumstances, but more than that? Far as I'm concerned, after twice it's just his own damn fault.

I mean, seriously, it's happened like 5 times now...
 
Yeah, that was something else about the first one that really cheesed me off. Either let Phelps be a good guy or leave him out entirely. Still, I was able to put that out of my mind enough to get through the movie, but that last CGI crapfest stunt ruined me on the rest of the series.
 
Ford W Maverick said:
Ok, I didn't know that about M:I 2, but what about 3? I know from the DVD ads that #4 appears to involve him being burned again.
Click to expand...

It's been a while since I've seen it, but I believe 3 was him on assignment and his girlfriend (who bears an extremely creepy resemblance to Katie Holmes) is kidnapped to try to blackmail him or something and he has to retrieve her. The movie was enjoyable, for the most part, but I couldn't help imagining Tom Cruise casting women based solely on how much they look like his RL wife. :p
 
Sounds familiar, I was doing other stuff while I had the DVD for 3 in so I wasn't paying full attention but he had to go rogue because of the blackmail so he was justifiably being hunted by IMF.

In 4 his whole team is framed so they have to go rogue to clear their names and save the day.
 
So 2 out of 4? Not as bad as I thought, but still not good. Then again, they ARE a super-secret, international spy group and not the lunchtime crew at Burger King...
 
I was also POed about Phelps. So I disavowed the rest of the movies.

But from what I have seen of the stunts it must be happening in the Matrix. Impossible in real life. Stunts:Impossible.
 
Like I said, the Phelps thing really bothered me, but since we've all seen it *spoilers anyway* it was the stunt at the end of the first one that completely turned me off on the idea of watching another one.

Like Terryr said, outside of the Matrix there's no way in hell a person can be propelled forwards from a helicopter explosion in a tunnel onto the back of a speeding train without being rendered a bloody smear from one end to the other.

I really liked the first Matrix movie (the other's, meh) but at this point I'm almost sad that it got made because everyone feels they have to top the stunts, but without explaining HOW. The Matrix isn't real, that's why the cartoony stuff was believable, but now every stunts-extravaganza type movie has to have some ridiculous stunt that just looks, well, stupid.

It's actually the reason I haven't seen Live Free or Die Hard. That scene in the trailer where Maclaine and whatshisname are about to be crushed by the car flipping through the air only to be saved by two speeding cars on either side that are conveniently speeding right towards A: two people in the roadway (you know, like we ALL do when we see people in the road) and B: EXPLOSIONS AND FLIPPING CARS! And then (and I'm only guessing here as I haven't seen the movie) probably not a moment is wasted on the drivers of the cars that saved their lives who almost HAD to have been killed in doing so. In Matrix-land it wouldn't really matter (well I guess even there real people would have died...) but in the 'real world' people are just dying left and right and it's not that big a deal.

And I'm not an anti-violence person. Hell no, give me violence! I just like some semi-realistic reactions to said violence and I like that violence to act, at least in part, like it's taking place on planet Earth. Unless, of course, it's not taking place on planet Earth. Even then I'd like to see it more or less obey whatever laws of physics apply there.
 
oddly part 3 was very decent, so much in fact they remade it and called it part 4. Part 2 is unwatchable and part one, looking back it doesnt hold up as it plays on the "80's computer can do anything" mentality.
 
Watched Ghost Protocol the other night, and I really enjoyed it. Thought it was probably the best of the 4. Though, his arm would have been ripped from its socket when he was scaling that building and started to fall... :lol
 
This thread is more than 12 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.

Similar threads

Sluis Van Shipyards
First time in history that companies hate their fans?
2
Replies
30
Views
1,472
Master Boda
M
Sluis Van Shipyards
The Final Countdown ending question
Replies
8
Views
892
JNordgren42
JNordgren42
H
Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning Part One
2
Replies
35
Views
2,688
HeartBlade
H
IndyFanChuck
Kurosawa SEVEN SAMURAI question (for all you movie buffs!)
Replies
2
Views
353
IndyFanChuck
IndyFanChuck
gusw666
Looking for the exacto location of the the secret life of Walter Mitty Life Magazine cover
Replies
10
Views
705
drusselmeyer
drusselmeyer
Back
Top