We’re just days away from the latest Mission: Impossible movie. This is a franchise with an incredible life. It’s second only to Star Trek in its longevity and the number of films produced. We’re heading toward the seventh film, with many of the actors from the original 1996 film still in place. While none of the original characters from the original 1966 show ever made it to the big screen, the film franchise has been spectacularly successful. It’s been so successful that many people never even knew there was a TV series. If they’re aware of the show, most will say they’ve never watched it.
Mission: Impossible in its current form owes it all to Tom Cruise. It’s his production company that’s produced the films, and it’s Cruise who anchors every films. It’s his smiling face that audiences come to see. He’s given the last thirty years of his life to seeing these films take place.
It wouldn’t be fair at all to talk about these films without talking about Cruise’s amazing stunts. You have to realize that at this point he’s in his 60s now and he’s doing stunts that most olympic athletes couldn’t do. I’m not too far off his age and let me tell you this. I could not hang off a mountain with one hand. I could not ride a motorcycle off a mountain into a parachute jump. Frankly I get creaky just watching the films.
But is there any truth to what he does, or is it just Hollywood silliness?
Insider gives us this video, for once from someone who is an actual Insider:
The fellow with the entertaining haircut tells us he’s a real former CIA agent. Is he? I don’t know. I know that he talks a pretty good game. He seems to know all the jargon, although since I don’t know the jargon he could be making it all up.
He takes us through every film and rates them for accuracy when it comes to the “spycraft.” Surprisingly he gives high marks to the times when Cruise is sort of hanging off things, claiming that spies do this even in their spare time. On the other hand he doesn’t seem to give a lot of credence to stuff like gunfights and negotiations, the things we all think spies do.
One thing he doesn’t comment on, for the most part, is the fanciful technology used in the films. He does point out that turning a flute into a gun is a pretty silly idea, but there’s not a lot of the video spent on silly inventions that could only have come from Hollywood.
I’ve seen all the films and a fair number of the original shows. The first two are the outliers, really. The first film tried to be a little too much like the original series, and the tech in it is just absurd. The whole plot revolves around Tom Cruise stealing what’s essentially a floppy disk and emailing with the bad guy. The second movie is a complete tonal change, as it was given to John Woo of Con Air fame to helm. Rather than tight action scenes you sort of get a bunch of birds flying in slow motion.
It was really with MI:III that the franchise found its legs. The first live-action feature by animator Brad Bird, it really presents the story that other films have followed in the years since. There have been a few weird turns, but overall they’ve all been fun.
The stunts have gotten more and more amazing from movie to movie, but in fairness these films haven’t really lived up to the standard of plot and character that you’d hope. Yes, there are some points where characters grow or change, but I wouldn’t say it’s a compelling “story.” On the other hand, compared to the Fast and the Furious franchise (another one I’m a fan of) it’s Shakespeare.
Tom Cruise holds the reputation of “the man who saved the movies” with his Top Gun Maverick last year. After two years of theaters being more or less closed, here finally was a movie that got people to walk away from the TV. Will that reputation continue with Mission: Impossible — Dead Reckoning Part One? OK, if the goal is to have the longest title, he’s won. But it remains to be seen if this will be a film “for the ages” or just a summer popcorn flick.
The post FUN FRIDAY: Mission Inaccurate? appeared first on The Solid Signal Blog.
Continue reading...
The miracle of the Cruise
Mission: Impossible in its current form owes it all to Tom Cruise. It’s his production company that’s produced the films, and it’s Cruise who anchors every films. It’s his smiling face that audiences come to see. He’s given the last thirty years of his life to seeing these films take place.
It wouldn’t be fair at all to talk about these films without talking about Cruise’s amazing stunts. You have to realize that at this point he’s in his 60s now and he’s doing stunts that most olympic athletes couldn’t do. I’m not too far off his age and let me tell you this. I could not hang off a mountain with one hand. I could not ride a motorcycle off a mountain into a parachute jump. Frankly I get creaky just watching the films.
But is there any truth to what he does, or is it just Hollywood silliness?
Here’s the one person who can tell you
Insider gives us this video, for once from someone who is an actual Insider:
The fellow with the entertaining haircut tells us he’s a real former CIA agent. Is he? I don’t know. I know that he talks a pretty good game. He seems to know all the jargon, although since I don’t know the jargon he could be making it all up.
He takes us through every film and rates them for accuracy when it comes to the “spycraft.” Surprisingly he gives high marks to the times when Cruise is sort of hanging off things, claiming that spies do this even in their spare time. On the other hand he doesn’t seem to give a lot of credence to stuff like gunfights and negotiations, the things we all think spies do.
One thing he doesn’t comment on, for the most part, is the fanciful technology used in the films. He does point out that turning a flute into a gun is a pretty silly idea, but there’s not a lot of the video spent on silly inventions that could only have come from Hollywood.
I’m a fan, up to a point
I’ve seen all the films and a fair number of the original shows. The first two are the outliers, really. The first film tried to be a little too much like the original series, and the tech in it is just absurd. The whole plot revolves around Tom Cruise stealing what’s essentially a floppy disk and emailing with the bad guy. The second movie is a complete tonal change, as it was given to John Woo of Con Air fame to helm. Rather than tight action scenes you sort of get a bunch of birds flying in slow motion.
It was really with MI:III that the franchise found its legs. The first live-action feature by animator Brad Bird, it really presents the story that other films have followed in the years since. There have been a few weird turns, but overall they’ve all been fun.
The stunts have gotten more and more amazing from movie to movie, but in fairness these films haven’t really lived up to the standard of plot and character that you’d hope. Yes, there are some points where characters grow or change, but I wouldn’t say it’s a compelling “story.” On the other hand, compared to the Fast and the Furious franchise (another one I’m a fan of) it’s Shakespeare.
Will you watch?
Tom Cruise holds the reputation of “the man who saved the movies” with his Top Gun Maverick last year. After two years of theaters being more or less closed, here finally was a movie that got people to walk away from the TV. Will that reputation continue with Mission: Impossible — Dead Reckoning Part One? OK, if the goal is to have the longest title, he’s won. But it remains to be seen if this will be a film “for the ages” or just a summer popcorn flick.
The post FUN FRIDAY: Mission Inaccurate? appeared first on The Solid Signal Blog.
Continue reading...
