Have to agree with Someone regarding Fallout.
Well executed, terrific action scenes.
Non-action scenes were pretty much perfunctory and uninteresting
Other than the action, the cinematography was uninspiring.
Cruise as Ethan Hunt, despite attempts to humanize him (copycat from Bond) it still appears that after the film they just deflate him and put him back in the closet.
Unoriginal.
All that said, I still enjoyed it for what it was, an overhyped and overrated but still good action film .
What sets Fallout apart from Bond and other action movies is seeing Cruise doing absolutely everything on screen from skydive to fly a helicopter. Sure the film copies other films like the Dark Knight but its commitment from its lead actor is unapparelled and is certainly paying off. Not since seeing the Dark Knight had I watched an action film that had such incredible reactions from the audience via gasps, laughs, and watching it through their fingers. To contrast that the last time I watched Spectre in the theater I saw two separate groups of people get up and leave because they were so bored by it. Which is absolutely pathetic for any film let alone a Bond film. So purely from an entertainment standpoint I think MI is doing it much better then Bond at the moment.
Cruise has upped the ante in the genre for the reasons stated above. And Spectre was a total dud, PLUS they made us wait four years for a follow-up. So it’s understandable that morale is a little low among some of us. That said, all of the Craig films before Spectre ranged from good to excellent. So there’s reason for optimism. And I think the gushing over Cruise and MI among critics and audiences while Bond is in pre-production can only be a good thing. Something tells me DC won’t go quietly into the night.
Sure Tom Cruise did the Halo jump but what
Really spoilt it for me was knowing that Henry
Cavill didn't I need true commitment from
All the team, just the lead actor isn't enough.
Also with all the live action, the bad CGI bits stood
Out.
As for my audience reaction, there were no gasps etc .
Perhaps a more sophisticated audience ?
Then again it was half empty , on its first day of release.
The marketing for MI6 is all over the place, so many
Pop ups on web pages .
I fully expect MI7 to do the same but now Tom has made
A rid for his own back, he'll be expected to continue to do
All his own stunts, use of a stunt man, will be looked on by
The MI fans as selling out.
I wonder do fans now look with disappointment at the
Indy movies as they know most of the action was by Martin
Grace or Vic Armstrong ?
Each to their own of course many actors over many years
Have done their own stunts, I remember way back in 73
Or 74 James Coburn hanging on the landing skid of a
Helicopter, the camera clearly showing us, it was intact
The man himself doing it, but can I remember the name of
The film ?
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
I thought MI: Fallout was fantastic entertainment and, though predictable in a few places, reminded me of Cubby’s old adage that you ignored flaws because of all the great ‘bumps’ (I’m paraphrasing). The action scenes were terrific and as Walther P99 points out, Tom Cruise’s commitment is fantastic - you have to admire him at his age (same as mine but his hair isn’t quite as greying as mine for some reason )
Not bothered who does the stunts tbh (sir Rog did all his own btw) I just want a great entertaing film and sadly the last 3 Bonds have'nt been for me, more so the last one and to be fair I don't think it's due to the leading man(although not DC greatest fan) but the films them sels seem so IMO lacklustre whereas DC tenure started off well With CR and have just gone downhill since!
As far as acting goes, Tom Cruise is a very good stuntman. ) With regards to actors doing their own stunts, as long as the film makers can create a convincing illusion that it is actually the actor, that's good enough for me. Cruise is a wacky adrenaline junkie and he has guts, I'll give him that, but while I am sure that I am dead wrong, the cynic in me always is whispering in the back of my head "one of these days there will be an expose that Cruise isn't really doing everything that they claim he does and it's all just part of the illusion and hype". Like I said, I am sure I am wrong......
As far as acting goes, Tom Cruise is a very good stuntman. ) With regards to actors doing their own stunts, as long as the film makers can create a convincing illusion that it is actually the actor, that's good enough for me. Cruise is a wacky adrenaline junkie and he has guts, I'll give him that, but while I am sure that I am dead wrong, the cynic in me always is whispering in the back of my head "one of these days there will be an expose that Cruise isn't really doing everything that they claim he does and it's all just part of the illusion and hype". Like I said, I am sure I am wrong......
For me it's an issue of plausibility. It's not that it really matters who does it, but the actor has to convince that it's possible that they could and if they posess enough credible physicality and move well it's good enough.chances are that if they have all that they will probably want to do at least some of it.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
For me it's an issue of plausibility. It's not that it really matters who does it, but the actor has to convince that it's possible that they could and if they posess enough credible physicality and move well it's good enough.chances are that if they have all that they will probably want to do at least some of it.
Good point. Craig looks like could do it and does as much as he can within the normal bounds of sanity and the film's insurance bond.
Although not as much of a physical specimen as Craig; Dalton did much the same as Craig (I will say if a young Dalton was Bond today, they would have had him get muscled up with a trainer like Craig), Lazenby did everything they allowed him to do and would have done more (he wanted to do some of his own skiing but the insurance company forbade him); Connery was Connery. I would assume he did what was allowed and just on screen presence, charisma, and the animal magnetism you believed he could really do anything. Pierce was good also and believable. I have no idea how much he actually did but there was a small level of vulnerability that added a bit of suspense to things...unfortunately EON put him in a few crappy situations with tacky, hokey stunt pieces (especially in DAD) that hurt his credibility. I'm going to give Roger Moore a pass because IMO his Bond was different and generally played for laughs but he did have his moments.
In terms of physicality, I think Lazenby wins. Perhaps his military background gave him an air of credibility. The hotel room fight in OHMSS is one of the best in the entire series. In a similar vein, the fight with Hinx is the highlight of Spectre.
It’s the bigger stunts and set pieces that fall flat in the recent Bond films. Ironically, those are also the arenas where too much time and money is spent during production. CR holds up so well because it avoided this trap. Maybe Danny Boyle understands that.
Yeah, I think you are... The CGI (or looks of the double) would have to be near miraculous to paint Tom into some of these action pieces; he did them for sure. Sadly you can often see the joins in the recent Bonds in this regard, but that's fine... DC may look tough, and he can be a physical guy without doubt, but we all know he's just a luvvy actor )
I'm not bothered about earth shattering set-pieces in Bond, that have to compete with other films in the same arena... I'm interested in that unique Bond atmosphere more than anything else... I want 25 to have this (that Bondian atmosphere) rather than some need to 'up-the-game'....
I also much prefer seeing a very good Bond film than an exercise in big stunt pieces. Trying to set the mark with a new incredible stunt piece is a loosing proposition unless it's an MI film that they can always say "Look at that, Tom really did it himself". Good suspense, interesting characters and a good story/script trump outlandish stunts and some filler material in between. Get back to the Bond essentials: Get an outlandish villain, get some scary psycho henchmen, get a real Bond score, have a brutal bloody fistfight in bathroom, train or elevator, make love to several beautiful women...even a villainous one who tries to kill you, get some help from your old friend Felix, use your wits to get out of tight spots, have a dry Vodka Martini (shaken not stirred) just have a real bloody Bond film.
James Bond 007 : Often imitated, never duplicated. -{
What was the last truly special stunt in a Bond film? The GoldenEye dam jump? The car roll in Casino Royale was pretty good too, but it was hardly a defining moment in the film like many of the previous Bond stunt and it would have been better if there was something leading up to it.
What was the last truly special stunt in a Bond film? The GoldenEye dam jump? The car roll in Casino Royale was pretty good too, but it was hardly a defining moment in the film like many of the previous Bond stunt and it would have been better if there was something leading up to it.
More reason to get away from outlandish stunts. A good example of what works for Bond is the foot chase that ends up on the crane in CR. Yes, it was a bit different but what really made it special was the suspense which was punctuated by the bad guy throwing the gun at Bond and Bond catching it and throwing it back but hitting the mark....that's James Bond action IMO. Plus, on the heels of that came his showdown with the soldiers, which while not groundbreaking, again had the element of suspense and the cool Bond payoff at the end.
What was the last truly special stunt in a Bond film? The GoldenEye dam jump? The car roll in Casino Royale was pretty good too, but it was hardly a defining moment in the film like many of the previous Bond stunt and it would have been better if there was something leading up to it.
I think the helicoptor roll in Spectre would qualify as a special stunt -{
What was the last truly special stunt in a Bond film? The GoldenEye dam jump? The car roll in Casino Royale was pretty good too, but it was hardly a defining moment in the film like many of the previous Bond stunt and it would have been better if there was something leading up to it.
I think the helicoptor roll in Spectre would qualify as a special stunt -{
The whole reason we have seen fewer stunts in Bond films is because, where do you go after everything that has already been done?
Fallout was a collection of Bond stunts, from Spectre's helicopter and snow plane sequences to TND's HALO jump to LTK's villain underwater escape. Will the Mission Impossible franchise eventually run out of stunts to do?
Skyfall is the biggest grossing Bond film ever, adjusted for inflation, and its biggest stunt was Bond falling off a bridge - I don't count the train crashing through the ceiling as nobody was in danger, no stuntman needed. While Casino had the explosion at the start.
Story is what really makes a film successful.
I think Bond films need to emphasise the elements that have contributed to its past success that are not stunts. I think I saw someone refer to him being a playboy. I think a very glamorous Bond film dripping in bling from mega yachts to super cars would be a good way to go. But story has to be central.
The last great set piece imho was the QoS chase on foot with Mitchell through the Palio and onto the rooftops in Siena - no outlandish sets or explosions, but a beautifully filmed, thrilling and brutal fight. Pure Bond. -{
The last great set piece imho was the QoS chase on foot with Mitchell through the Palio and onto the rooftops in Siena - no outlandish sets or explosions, but a beautifully filmed, thrilling and brutal fight. Pure Bond. -{
I'll second that. Also the car chase in the PTS was well done and quite exciting.
I loved the whole pts of Skyfall. Rooftop motorbike chase and
The JCB on the train. Same with the helicopter sequence from
Spectre, and car chase, although I know it very much depends
On what you regard as a action set piece or stunt sequence.
As Better is one of those terms that might be more accurately
used as "Different " ?
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
IMO best stunt of all Bond films and arguably all action films is the pts of TSWLM... No CGI ... And Rog did it all himself ) ) after all nobody does it better -{
I think most of Craig's Bond movies have suffered a bit from placing the best stunts in the PTS while the ending is not particularely impressive in that regard.
Comments
Including TC wearing the exact same outfit DC wore at the end of Spectre...
Well executed, terrific action scenes.
Non-action scenes were pretty much perfunctory and uninteresting
Other than the action, the cinematography was uninspiring.
Cruise as Ethan Hunt, despite attempts to humanize him (copycat from Bond) it still appears that after the film they just deflate him and put him back in the closet.
Unoriginal.
All that said, I still enjoyed it for what it was, an overhyped and overrated but still good action film .
Really spoilt it for me was knowing that Henry
Cavill didn't
All the team, just the lead actor isn't enough.
Also with all the live action, the bad CGI bits stood
Out.
As for my audience reaction, there were no gasps etc .
Perhaps a more sophisticated audience ?
Then again it was half empty , on its first day of release.
The marketing for MI6 is all over the place, so many
Pop ups on web pages .
I fully expect MI7 to do the same but now Tom has made
A rid for his own back, he'll be expected to continue to do
All his own stunts, use of a stunt man, will be looked on by
The MI fans as selling out.
I wonder do fans now look with disappointment at the
Indy movies as they know most of the action was by Martin
Grace or Vic Armstrong ?
Each to their own of course many actors over many years
Have done their own stunts, I remember way back in 73
Or 74 James Coburn hanging on the landing skid of a
Helicopter, the camera clearly showing us, it was intact
The man himself doing it, but can I remember the name of
The film ?
Roger that!
As Sir Roger used to say, there but for the god of (Martin) Grace went he!
For me it's an issue of plausibility. It's not that it really matters who does it, but the actor has to convince that it's possible that they could and if they posess enough credible physicality and move well it's good enough.chances are that if they have all that they will probably want to do at least some of it.
Good point. Craig looks like could do it and does as much as he can within the normal bounds of sanity and the film's insurance bond.
Although not as much of a physical specimen as Craig; Dalton did much the same as Craig (I will say if a young Dalton was Bond today, they would have had him get muscled up with a trainer like Craig), Lazenby did everything they allowed him to do and would have done more (he wanted to do some of his own skiing but the insurance company forbade him); Connery was Connery. I would assume he did what was allowed and just on screen presence, charisma, and the animal magnetism you believed he could really do anything. Pierce was good also and believable. I have no idea how much he actually did but there was a small level of vulnerability that added a bit of suspense to things...unfortunately EON put him in a few crappy situations with tacky, hokey stunt pieces (especially in DAD) that hurt his credibility. I'm going to give Roger Moore a pass because IMO his Bond was different and generally played for laughs but he did have his moments.
It’s the bigger stunts and set pieces that fall flat in the recent Bond films. Ironically, those are also the arenas where too much time and money is spent during production. CR holds up so well because it avoided this trap. Maybe Danny Boyle understands that.
Yeah, I think you are... The CGI (or looks of the double) would have to be near miraculous to paint Tom into some of these action pieces; he did them for sure. Sadly you can often see the joins in the recent Bonds in this regard, but that's fine... DC may look tough, and he can be a physical guy without doubt, but we all know he's just a luvvy actor
I'm not bothered about earth shattering set-pieces in Bond, that have to compete with other films in the same arena... I'm interested in that unique Bond atmosphere more than anything else... I want 25 to have this (that Bondian atmosphere) rather than some need to 'up-the-game'....
James Bond 007 : Often imitated, never duplicated. -{
More reason to get away from outlandish stunts. A good example of what works for Bond is the foot chase that ends up on the crane in CR. Yes, it was a bit different but what really made it special was the suspense which was punctuated by the bad guy throwing the gun at Bond and Bond catching it and throwing it back but hitting the mark....that's James Bond action IMO. Plus, on the heels of that came his showdown with the soldiers, which while not groundbreaking, again had the element of suspense and the cool Bond payoff at the end.
I think the helicoptor roll in Spectre would qualify as a special stunt -{
The whole reason we have seen fewer stunts in Bond films is because, where do you go after everything that has already been done?
Fallout was a collection of Bond stunts, from Spectre's helicopter and snow plane sequences to TND's HALO jump to LTK's villain underwater escape. Will the Mission Impossible franchise eventually run out of stunts to do?
Skyfall is the biggest grossing Bond film ever, adjusted for inflation, and its biggest stunt was Bond falling off a bridge - I don't count the train crashing through the ceiling as nobody was in danger, no stuntman needed. While Casino had the explosion at the start.
Story is what really makes a film successful.
I think Bond films need to emphasise the elements that have contributed to its past success that are not stunts. I think I saw someone refer to him being a playboy. I think a very glamorous Bond film dripping in bling from mega yachts to super cars would be a good way to go. But story has to be central.
I'll second that. Also the car chase in the PTS was well done and quite exciting.
The JCB on the train. Same with the helicopter sequence from
Spectre, and car chase, although I know it very much depends
On what you regard as a action set piece or stunt sequence.
As Better is one of those terms that might be more accurately
used as "Different " ?
with obviously Sir Rog doing it all himself