Probably has a lot to do with Jim Caviezel being the star of the film and his ties to Mel Gibson tbh. Also with most of the "good guy" characters in the movie openly mentioning God, God's children, quoting scripture, etc. you know that stuff makes Hollywood and Big Media mad.
Rewatched some 80s classics
Scarface : 10/10; still great; Pacino was really great as Montana. "This is paraise, I'm tallin' you"
Wall Street : 9/10. Aged better than I thought it would have; Douglas carried that movie; Martin Sheen was great despite limited minutes; Spader is overrated AF
65
Watched it on Netflix last night. I give this flick a solid 2 out of 10. The CGI was terrible to begin with regarding the dinosaurs and secondly, How many damn things can go wrong to the main characters in a movie. Just watch this crap if you dare and you will see what I mean. I'm glad I didnt pay to see this at the theater, I would be pissed if I had spent 25 cents on it.
MI 7: 9/10
Fun movie start to finish. You don't have to like Cruise but gotta at least respect his stunts. Must see on big screen
Haha hopefully just trying to be Hip. Napoleon is right before the American general audience grasp.
I listened to the segment bout Bonaparte on 48 Laws of Power.
Yes Napoleon had negative traits by todays standards but he also raised living standards across the Continent.
You just love autocrats.
The Tudor - 7.5/10
Nice twist in this one. Watched the preview, and the ending definitely threw a niggra off.
M:I7 - 9/10
This series doesn’t miss. Don’t necessarily love the “villain” but in these movies the plot barely matters. It’s everything Fast & Furious thinks it is.
My only complaint…
SPOILERS
The way they killed off Ilsa was so odd. I know they like to cycle through hot women that Tom Cruise has zero chemistry with, and now it’s Hayley Atwell’s turn at the wheel, but for a character who played such a huge role in the last 2 movies to die and Cruise/Pegg/Rhames play it off like “oh no she died, welp moving on”…..I figured they would make her death a little more impactful on screen. Which kind of makes me think they faked her death again, which would be even more lame than the way in which they killed her.
I am going to watch one MI film per day and then go see MI7. I personally haven't seen MI4-6 and on the off chance there are easter eggs or references I want to watch them all. I am a big Tom Cruise fan. Never really gave a about the Scientology stuff because I can separate the art from the artist. Most of his movies are bangers imo. Here we go.
Mission Impossible (1996)
Rating 6.5/10
I hadn't seen this in a long time so it was almost new to me. However, I found it very predictable. Jon Voight did a pretty bad job playing off the con and it was totally obvious he set up Tom Cruise's character in the first big spy sequence. This film may as well have been called "The Fugitive: CIA Edition". I did enjoy Tom Cruise using Usenet to go around the CIA and get help. If you don't know what Usenet is you're either in Generation Z or failed at using the internet in the 90s. The classic scene where he hangs from the vents by wire gave me nostalgia vibes as did the final action sequence on the train. I was originally going to give this a 5.5 but gave it a bump for those scenes. Overall not a terrible film but even by 90s movie standards it felt a little weak.
The man is practically ageless. They're saying this is the best MI ever. I didn't think the last ones were all that great TBH, but I'll have to see this one regardless.
What's wrong with autocrats?
Name one reason other than Western neolib/neocon propaganda why demoocracy is objectively superior to the empire model / autocracy.
Mission Impossible 2 (2000)
Rating 7.5/10
I had only seen this once; in the theaters back when it was originally released in 2000. I remembered the plot involved a virus bioweapon and that the final action set piece at the end involved motorcycles, but that was about it. If I was rating on a pure enjoyment scale I would have gone higher, maybe 8.5 or 9. There was a lot to like here. It had a larger scale than the first film while staying within the framework of a small CIA black ops team. The villain being former IMF and having doubled for Cruise's character was a nice touch. The film was really doing great until the third act. There were a few things toward the end that brought it down for me. It bugged me that for most of the film the villain group functioned as a foil to the hero group, then by the final set piece they had all these hired guns and henchmen that had to chase Cruise around for 10 minutes before letting the villain take the stage again. It was also completely obvious in the scene before the big motorcycle chase that Cruise had switched places with the villain's partner by having them wear each other's prosthetic face. Like, I know the face thing is in-universe but did he pull them out of some interdimensional vortex just to set that scene up? It was still a fun scene but that went about as close as you can come to breaking the fourth wall without actually breaking it. Overall wasn't perfect, but had a lot fun watching it and it was definitely an improvement over the first one imo.
Because it's not autocracy.
Nicely done porks. Hiding the spoiler.
I'm not a MI affectionado but have enjoyed a few.
Can i ask, how solid is the story on this one?
I'm not into the super convoluted plot lines + non stop mindless blowing up of . The destruction is fine if it fits the plot. But some MIs and other Hollywood action are just mindless blowing up. Which i realize is a thing, for some.
chumpy the pistons fan, folds.
You think living under Mao would be a great idea.
You're stupid.
No, Mao is communist. As is Kim Jong and Xi.
National Socialist / Fascist authoritarianism, on the other hand, does absolutely appeal to me
Sound of Freedom 7/10.
It was a feel good movie even though the plot is disgusting. It's a step up from a made-for-tv movie. I've seen many horrible B movies and this ain't it. I believe it was 2 hrs and 20 mins or so and it still kept my attention all the way through. I like the into and outro for the movie from a film perspective.
If you want to see it in the theaters but you're hesitant to purchase a ticket then go to Angel Studios and get a free ticket from someone who already paid-it-forward.
They're autocrats. You like autocrats.
Why? Your rights and property and freedom could be taken at any time at the whim of one man.National Socialist / Fascist authoritarianism, on the other hand, does absolutely appeal to me
Why do you want that for yourself?
Ilsa is one of the best fight scene women I've ever seen on the screen. I concur about her scenes.
I have some problems with continuity regarding "oh no we can't trust our GPS any more" to literally using the GPS almost in the next scene, no problem....... but eh I let it go, was having fun watching
Western democracy "strives" to obtain the goal that individuals have certain freedoms and rights that should not be taken away.
Its a very Judeo-Christian idea.
Autocracy says absolutely nothing about the above.
This unfortunately, is exactly how the Trumpsters have been re wired into extreme idiocy.
Is this not enough for you? Exactly wtf do you want?
Mission Impossible 3 (2006)
Rating 7.5/10
, did I never see this one either? I didn't remember any of it. To be fair this did come out like right before my Hunter S. Thompson phase (which used to be well do ented on this site in an awesome thread in the old troll forum; IYKYK). There were a lot of things I liked about this one. It had by far the best ensemble cast of first three films. Several of the twists actually got me although at this point the joke's on me for not remembering literally anyone can be someone's double in the M:ICU. The heist scene in the Vatican was pretty cool, and I loved them actually breaking the fourth wall with the "Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall" scene when Cruise was on top of the wall, especially after I accused them of almost doing that in my review of the previous film. Also liked seeing them create the prosthetic mask in the field as well as how they duplicated the voices. Although it kinda makes me want to go dock a point from my review or the previous film cuz no way he had enough time to do all of that .
The film loses points by not really developing Philip Seymour Hoffman's character enough to make me care about him and his motivations. It's like they just needed a villain to say and do menacing to drive the plot. He did a good enough job doing that but overall the character was just too hollow for a main villain. I guess they just didn't want to waste time developing him considering the IMF handler Musgrave (Billy Crudup's character) was the real puppet master, but it just ended up feeling like a Batman movie where there's multiple bad guys and too much going on just to make sure all the loose ends get tied off. Overall, I thought the plot/story was probably the best one so far but I still enjoyed it about as much as the last one. Fun fact this was JJ Abram's directorial debut. Not bad for his first time, just felt like he tried to shove a 3 hour movie into a 2 hour package.
Last edited by J.T.; 07-15-2023 at 12:53 AM.
I haven't seen any of the MI's but planned to do the same.
Mission Impossible 4 - Ghost Protocol (2011)
Rating 9/10
Now we're getting into the ones I definitely have not seen before. This one was by far the best film out of the first four. The Cold War-style threat of nuclear war between US and Russia is a tried and true film trope going back decades, so it's no surprise it works just as well in a modern take on it. However, what I really enjoyed the most was the hero group being forced into an off the grid campaign without access to their usual set of assets and resources. Although the previous films established Cruise's character is capable of operating this way and that he has accomplices outside the IMF, it was a nice change of pace compared to the previous films making him and his team operate this way for most of the film. I also really enjoyed the development of Jeremy Renner's character. I knew the twist with his character development was coming, but the details still caught me by surprise and I appreciated how they tied off that loose end in the very last scene of the film. It was also nice to see their usual tactics of making prosthetic masks to double their marks fail and have to adapt to a different strategy. That alone was worth bumping the score up a little bit as it would have just felt too tropey if they got away with that again. And seeing the villain succeed with that tactic when the heroes failed at it was a nice touch too.
I'm having a hard time coming up with anything to really ding this movie on. The big stunt sequences are visually awesome and fun to watch, but I do feel like they are now stuck in this boat where they have to one up the big stunts from the previous films just to keep the audience satisfied. However that's not a bad thing. The scene where Cruise's character climbs the skyscraper and then rappels down to get back to their situation room was really ing cool. Definitely the most fun to watch so far. I guess I'll ding a point for the main villain not getting enough development, similar to how I felt about Philip Seymour Hoffman's character in the previous film. Although it didn't bring down the experience nearly as much this time. Solid movie, loved it.
LMAO As Biden sends more ammo, more mil equip, and now reservist troops to Europe... Our politicians are sellouts and lets not be coy rn when talking about our own country and how those in power see it as an Empire that needs to grow. You pretending otherwise is hilarious!
"Only Trump and his cult believe in Empires!" TDS lvl 900
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
