Simon Columb ranks the Mission: Impossible franchise…
Where were you in 1996? It’s weird to imagine Katie Holmes watched Mission Impossible in 1996 like all of us. Young, impressionable and excited by the new action film with Cruise at the centre of it. Then, ten years later, she’s married to him and giving birth (without drugs) to his child.
In 2015, almost twenty years since the first IMF outing, we’re at the fifth instalment, Mission Impossible – Rogue Nation. Things have changed, and the series has changed with the times, so to compare each film is a tricky challenge. Of course, it’s all down to preference. Do you like balls-to-the-wall action (M:I-2) or gun-less espionage (M:I)? Do you like deadly serious stakes (M:I-3) or comedic banter to lighten the mood (M:I-4)? Helpfully, I’ve whittled it down to simple pros and cons – the big question hovering over the series is whether latest instalment is the best offering…
5. Mission: Impossible II
Pros – It’s set in Australia. James Bond, in over 50 years and over twenty films has never visited Australia or, for that matter, New Zealand (Despite casting an Aussie in George Lazenby). Opposed to the European class of Prague, M:I-2 is all about bangs, bikes and both hands holding guns. Directed by John Woo, this sets the standard for directors to the series. It’s as if Woo didn’t even watch the first film before pulling out his Face/Off script notes and recreating M:I-2 in his style. It is absolutely barmy, as cars symmetrically spin and motorbikes symmetrically smash into each other throwing the two bodies spinning to the sky like a physical yin-yang sign. At the very least, Cruise solo-climbing in Moab, Utah within the opening remains awesome.
Cons – This film, opposed to the latest instalment, is incredibly sexist. From Anthony Hopkins claiming Nya has all the skills to seduce cause she’s “a woman” while Dougray Scott’s villain argues how women are “like monkey’s” when choosing which man to be with. To make matters worse, made in 2000, M:I-2 has dated spectacularly. Slow-motion and Gladiator music (Indeed, Lisa Gerrard on vocals with a Hans Zimmer score) and Matrix shoot out’s is clearly not Mission: Impossible. Woo felt otherwise. This could’ve single-handedly ruined the series as it doesn’t even depend much on a team either. Luther Stickel and Billy Baird watching Ethan Hunt shoot machine guns and walk through pigeons and doves isn’t exactly a mission. And, to top it off, Cruise looks ridiculous with long hair. The only thing worse could be the ‘Chimera’ virus itself, shooting through your veins as you watch.
Haaseline says
Agreed, but you could have mentioned Brian DePalma as #1 Director
Chris Hbk says
Everyone has their own opinion…
I agree that the final hour of MI4 is poor, but I would go further and say that I can rarely get through it after the Dubai scene. Renner’s acting is atrocious; “She was not, the mission, Jane!”
I also hated how they gave half the plot away with the opening credits and theme music in MI4… surely that’s a bigger crime than what you mentioned about the start of MI3?
For me;
5 – MI2; awful action filled with no substance.
4 – MI4; overrated, poor acting, too much comedy and not enough venom after the great job done by PSH in the previous instalment.
3 – MI5; only seen it once but I actually feel it could rank higher after repeat viewings… Had a good balance to it.
2 – MI; Great film, agree with all your pros and cons.
1 – MI3; I appreciate I’m in the minority with placing this at the top, but it’s so much darker and grittier. Better acting than all the others bar the first instalment, a variety of scenes, conflicts and revolations.
cjohnston says
again (as a post below articulates); opinions will and do – vary.
~
.I dug what Brad Bird brought to the table with GProtocol until about twenty minutes left in the film when the wheels inexplicably fell off.
–
For me, Rogue Nation is easily the BEST one out of the franchise..