Mission: Impossible 1-5 4K UHDs (1996-2015)

[StingingVelvet]

The hate some have for M:I 3 truly baffles me. BAFFLES ME I SAY! It's a great movie.

[Sky_Captain]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

III is the only one that looks like a cheap for TV made movie. It’s my least favorite Mission.

[RevengeOfToonces]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

The hate some have for M:I 3 truly baffles me. BAFFLES ME I SAY! It's a great movie.

Two things I dislike about M:I 3 - Philip Seymour Hoffman is absolutely underutilized compared to his badassery in the promos, and I hate how Tom Cruise's acquisition of the Rabbit's Foot happens off screen. It was built up throughout the movie to be like the vault scene in the first movie (IMO) and you just never see it. I don't think it's a bad movie, I like it, but it could have been so much better.

*EDIT* - what baffles me is the hate M:I 2 gets. Then again, I've been hearing lately that Face/Off hasn't aged well due to John Woo being John Woo. I'll always love his style. Five edits of Tom Cruise spinning around on a motorcycle, gun drawn ready to shoot, may be corny to some, but I love the hell out of it. M:I 2 is great.

[bradnoyes]

Hate for M:I 3 =

Hate for M:I 2 =

[RevengeOfToonces]

Originally Posted by bradnoyes

Hate for M:I 3 =

Hate for M:I 2 =

Humbug, I say to you, sir. Have you seen The Killer, Hard Boiled or the Better Tomorrow movies?

[Lt_Cobretti]

Originally Posted by RevengeOfToonces

Humbug, I say to you, sir. Have you seen The Killer, Hard Boiled or the Better Tomorrow movies?

Movies that don't suffer from censorship and aren't boring for the first 90 minutes.

[RevengeOfToonces]

Originally Posted by Lt_Cobretti

Movies that don't suffer from censorship and aren't boring for the first 90 minutes.

God damn it.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by RevengeOfToonces

Humbug, I say to you, sir. Have you seen The Killer, Hard Boiled or the Better Tomorrow movies?

Yep. And they shit on Mi2 from the highest of heights. If I want primo John Woo then I'll watch primo John Woo, not this tacky cut-to-ribbons Hollywood attempt. Even in terms of his Hollywood movies I enjoy Face/Off, Broken Arrow and Hard Target 100x more than I do Mi2. Face/Off is cheesy as balls, always has been, but it doesn't take itself too seriously - which is Mi2's biggest mistake - and just for this bit alone it's still all kinds of awesome.

[ROSS.T.G.]

From what’s going on in the church these days I’d say that’s probably the most realistic shot in the movie.

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Yep. And they shit on Mi2 from the highest of heights. If I want primo John Woo then I'll watch primo John Woo, not this tacky cut-to-ribbons Hollywood attempt. Even in terms of his Hollywood movies I enjoy Face/Off, Broken Arrow and Hard Target 100x more than I do Mi2. Face/Off is cheesy as balls, always has been, but it doesn't take itself too seriously - which is Mi2's biggest mistake - and just for this bit alone it's still all kinds of awesome.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Yep. And they shit on Mi2 from the highest of heights. If I want primo John Woo then I'll watch primo John Woo, not this tacky cut-to-ribbons Hollywood attempt. Even in terms of his Hollywood movies I enjoy Face/Off, Broken Arrow and Hard Target 100x more than I do Mi2. Face/Off is cheesy as balls, always has been, but it doesn't take itself too seriously - which is Mi2's biggest mistake - and just for this bit alone it's still all kinds of awesome.

MI2 takes itself seriously?

[Trace Buster Buster]

Anthony Hopkins' random performance in MI:2 is one of my favorite things ever. Oh, and the the 4k transfer of MI:2 is excellent as well.

[fighthefutureofhd]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

The hate some have for M:I 3 truly baffles me. BAFFLES ME I SAY! It's a great movie.

I don't get it either. I think it's the last Mission Impossible movie that is excellent all around. The last one that's in theatres now is phenomenal, but I feel it's nowhere near as good as the first three. The current movies feel too much like what a typical current Tom Cruise movie has become. There's nothing that differentiates them from the others to some extent other than they're straightforward action movies. The first 3 Mission Impossible movies all felt like original spy type movies that felt really unique in every sense. They also had some excellent acting and directing in them. The acting and direction in Fallout is superb. Ghost Protocol and Rouge Nation didn't seem to have the greatest acting and direction in them. I just recently saw Rouge Nation on TV a couple of weeks ago and I felt it didn't hold up well to me. I'm glad I watched it, but I wouldn't go out of my way to watch it again for a long while. Nor would go out of my way to get it on UHD.

Originally Posted by RevengeOfToonces

*EDIT* - what baffles me is the hate M:I 2 gets. Then again, I've been hearing lately that Face/Off hasn't aged well due to John Woo being John Woo. I'll always love his style. Five edits of Tom Cruise spinning around on a motorcycle, gun drawn ready to shoot, may be corny to some, but I love the hell out of it. M:I 2 is great.

Now, this I really don't get. M:I-2 is in the top 3 best Mission Impossible movies ever made. Now, I understand that this movie is not a masterclass in filmmaking and what not, but it is the epitome of what a summer blockbuster popcorn is all about. They don't make them like this anymore and there is a reason that it is still one of the highest grossing, if not the highest grossing movie of the franchise domestically. It feels like an 90's action movie. I'll admit that there are are some really bad, bad 90's action movies out there and I can't stand them, but there is something to be said for the simplicity of old-school action movies. And dare I say it, I'm starting to miss them somewhat in this day and age of high tech wizardry that makes a lot of films feel cold and sterile.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by fighthefutureofhd

I don't get it either. I think it's the last Mission Impossible movie that is excellent all around. The last one that's in theatres now is phenomenal, but I feel it's nowhere near as good as the first three. The current movies feel too much like what a typical current Tom Cruise movie has become. There's nothing that differentiates them from the others to some extent other than they're straightforward action movies. The first 3 Mission Impossible movies all felt like original spy type movies that felt really unique in every sense. They also had some excellent acting and directing in them. The acting and direction in Fallout is superb. Ghost Protocol and Rouge Nation didn't seem to have the greatest acting and direction in them. I just recently saw Rouge Nation on TV a couple of weeks ago and I felt it didn't hold up well to me. I'm glad I watched it, but I wouldn't go out of my way to watch it again for a long while. Nor would go out of my way to get it on UHD.

LOL Seriously?

Even though M:I2 used the basic plot of Hitchcock's Notorious?

And M:I 3 issued the basic plot/idea of True Lies (which in itself was a remake of La Totale!)?

Original and unique they were not, although M:I 3 at least is a great action film.

Originally Posted by RevengeOfToonces

I hate how Tom Cruise's acquisition of the Rabbit's Foot happens off screen. It was built up throughout the movie to be like the vault scene in the first movie (IMO) and you just never see it. I don't think it's a bad movie, I like it, but it could have been so much better.

That was kinda the whole point. The Rabbit's Food didn't matter. It was a MacGuffin.

[Geoff D]

Spot-on about the rabbit's foot, and I love it that they didn't show Hunt getting it in mi3. It'd be just another action scene in a movie that's already got some corkers.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by fighthefutureofhd

I don't get it either. I think it's the last Mission Impossible movie that is excellent all around. The last one that's in theatres now is phenomenal, but I feel it's nowhere near as good as the first three. The current movies feel too much like what a typical current Tom Cruise movie has become. There's nothing that differentiates them from the others to some extent other than they're straightforward action movies. The first 3 Mission Impossible movies all felt like original spy type movies that felt really unique in every sense. They also had some excellent acting and directing in them. The acting and direction in Fallout is superb. Ghost Protocol and Rouge Nation didn't seem to have the greatest acting and direction in them. I just recently saw Rouge Nation on TV a couple of weeks ago and I felt it didn't hold up well to me. I'm glad I watched it, but I wouldn't go out of my way to watch it again for a long while. Nor would go out of my way to get it on UHD.

Now, this I really don't get. M:I-2 is in the top 3 best Mission Impossible movies ever made. Now, I understand that this movie is not a masterclass in filmmaking and what not, but it is the epitome of what a summer blockbuster popcorn is all about. They don't make them like this anymore and there is a reason that it is still one of the highest grossing, if not the highest grossing movie of the franchise domestically. It feels like an 90's action movie. I'll admit that there are are some really bad, bad 90's action movies out there and I can't stand them, but there is something to be said for the simplicity of old-school action movies. And dare I say it, I'm starting to miss them somewhat in this day and age of high tech wizardry that makes a lot of films feel cold and sterile.

The only actual spy movie in the series is the first one. The rest are action movies that happen to have spy elements.

But I agree that I don't share the fascination everyone seems to have with the McQuarrie ones. I mean, Fallout is good, don't get me wrong. I just don't get all the hyperventilating over it. I dunno why McQuarrie insists on making these movies so self-serious. People seem to lament the days when the Bond movies were more fun, but that's basically where I'm at with the M:I series.

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

The only actual spy movie in the series is the first one. The rest are action movies that happen to have spy elements.

But I agree that I don't share the fascination everyone seems to have with the McQuarrie ones. I mean, Fallout is good, don't get me wrong. I just don't get all the hyperventilating over it. I dunno why McQuarrie insists on making these movies so self-serious. People seem to lament the days when the Bond movies were more fun, but that's basically where I'm at with the M:I series.

Serious???
I laughed a ton, Tom's prick ad-lib was the most I have laughed all year in a cinema

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by Agent Kay

Serious???
I laughed a ton, Tom's prick ad-lib was the most I have laughed all year in a cinema

Not saying there aren't moments of levity, but I could do without the apocalyptic nightmares and grimdark flash-forwards.

McQuarrie kills it with the action though, no complaints there aside from maybe that underwater bit in RN. It's just the stuff in between the action I'm mixed on.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by RevengeOfToonces

Two things I dislike about M:I 3 - Philip Seymour Hoffman is absolutely underutilized compared to his badassery in the promos, and I hate how Tom Cruise's acquisition of the Rabbit's Foot happens off screen. It was built up throughout the movie to be like the vault scene in the first movie (IMO) and you just never see it. I don't think it's a bad movie, I like it, but it could have been so much better.

Well the Rabbit's Foot thing was a gag. The whole movie it's talked about as some important thing but in the end it doesn't really matter what it is, story-wise, and him getting it off-screen is part of that gag. It's not like the movie lacks action, so I can't say it ever bothered me.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Yep. And they shit on Mi2 from the highest of heights. If I want primo John Woo then I'll watch primo John Woo, not this tacky cut-to-ribbons Hollywood attempt. Even in terms of his Hollywood movies I enjoy Face/Off, Broken Arrow and Hard Target 100x more than I do Mi2. Face/Off is cheesy as balls, always has been, but it doesn't take itself too seriously - which is Mi2's biggest mistake - and just for this bit alone it's still all kinds of awesome.

I disagree with people that M:I2 is horrible, I find it a fun stupid action movie, but it's definitely bottom-rung Woo and lacks the personality movies like Face/Off have. I don't think I'd want M:I2 to be SILLY like those movies, but it needed some kind of spark it doesn't have. Again though, I do still find it a fun watch. I think the music has a lot to do with that, the score is great and used very well with the visuals (which has always been a way to my heart). Also the trick Hunt plays toward the end with the mask is a great moment IMO.

[fighthefutureofhd]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

LOL Seriously?

Even though M:I2 used the basic plot of Hitchcock's Notorious?

And M:I 3 issued the basic plot/idea of True Lies (which in itself was a remake of La Totale!)?

Original and unique they were not, although M:I 3 at least is a great action film.

I've never seen Notorious so I can't say on that, but in no way is M:I-3 anything like True Lies. I don't get that one at all. as for originality goes, I think the first 3 has it in spades. Especially compared to what was out at the time. I find them very refreshing and each one had its own different style. These new ones don't. They all feel the same and while serviceable don't seem to hold up well over time for me.