Jump to content

Mission: Impossible - Fallout Reviews and Tomatometer Watch


Recommended Posts

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/mission_impossible_fallout

 

Currently at 97% with an 8.3/10 rating. 292 total reviews.

 

v1.bTsxMjc0MjEwMjtqOzE3Nzg3OzEyMDA7Njk2O

 

Quote

Critics Consensus: Fast, sleek, and fun, Mission: Impossible - Fallout lives up to the "impossible" part of its name by setting yet another high mark for insane set pieces in a franchise full of them.

 

A few select review from top critics: 

 

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-mission-impossible-fallout-review-20180712-story.html

 

https://slate.com/culture/2018/07/mission-impossible-fallout-starring-tom-cruise-reviewed.html

 

http://ew.com/movies/2018/07/12/mission-impossible-fallout-review/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've heard a few people on twitter saying it's the best action movie since Fury Road. That's a hell of an endorsement. Even if it's not quite that good, at least it seems we've avoided another Quantum of Solace / Spectre scenario.

 

With this movie coming out, it's been nice to see so much praise for the Mission Impossible franchise. It' really is a bit of an oddity, but it's been consistently enjoyable and exciting. I'm happy that this one continues that streak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/13/2018 at 2:38 PM, TwinIon said:

I've heard a few people on twitter saying it's the best action movie since Fury Road. That's a hell of an endorsement. Even if it's not quite that good, at least it seems we've avoided another Quantum of Solace / Spectre scenario.

 

With this movie coming out, it's been nice to see so much praise for the Mission Impossible franchise. It' really is a bit of an oddity, but it's been consistently enjoyable and exciting. I'm happy that this one continues that streak.

 

What is odd about it? Tom Cruise only has a couple bad movies on his resume and I imagine generally rejects the role for any script he feels is bad (I really don't know why he accepted the role for The Mummy tbh). Honestly I am disappointed he doesn't diversify a little more playing it safe is his downfall but it is hard to argue against his action hero resume.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, DPCyric said:

 

What is odd about it? Tom Cruise only has a couple bad movies on his resume and I imagine generally rejects the role for any script he feels is bad (I really don't know why he accepted the role for The Mummy tbh). Honestly I am disappointed he doesn't diversify a little more playing it safe is his downfall but it is hard to argue against his action hero resume.

Maybe his agent did a good job selling the cinematic universe they were trying to go for, as though he could be that franchise's Tony Stark, making big money for even just small cameos. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

Maybe his agent did a good job selling the cinematic universe they were trying to go for, as though he could be that franchise's Tony Stark, making big money for even just small cameos. 

 

That would be a good explanation for it and I bet you are right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

Maybe his agent did a good job selling the cinematic universe they were trying to go for, as though he could be that franchise's Tony Stark, making big money for even just small cameos. 

 

They were definitely trying to set his character up as the glue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just got all 5 MI movies on digital 4K. I re-watched the first one after having not seen it since the movies. It was better than I remembers (i hated it when i first saw it)...but man does it look so old and outdated. Its weird bc its not really that old. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, atom631 said:

I just got all 5 MI movies on digital 4K. I re-watched the first one after having not seen it since the movies. It was better than I remembers (i hated it when i first saw it)...but man does it look so old and outdated. Its weird bc its not really that old. 

 

Mission: Impossible is over 22 years old. That's pretty fuckin' old for a film (I'm 31 years old). 

 

Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation may be the best M:I movie. All of them are entertaining in their way, though all of them lack any real character depth or substance, they are fun action-espionage films. 

 

I look forward to a second go-around with writer-director Christopher McQuarrie. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

Mission: Impossible is over 22 years old. That's pretty fuckin' old for a film (I'm 31 years old). 

 

Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation may be the best M:I movie. All of them are entertaining in their way, though all of them lack any real character depth or substance, they are fun action-espionage films. 

 

I look forward to a second go-around with writer-director Christopher McQuarrie. 

 

Jurassic Park is 25 years old. It still holds up today. 

 

For some reason MI:1 looks likes its a movie from the mid-80s. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, atom631 said:

 

Jurassic Park is 25 years old. It still holds up today. 

 

For some reason MI:1 looks likes its a movie from the mid-80s. 

 

You think so? I think both look like movies from the 1990's. I think both hold up today, but both look like they are from the 1990's. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely - Jurassic Park still looks great, esp the CGI. 

 

MI:1 just looks old and the sound is very 1 dimensional. Im not saying its a bad movie bc of it...it was just off-putting after not having seen it since it was in the movies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/14/2018 at 5:42 PM, DPCyric said:

What is odd about it? Tom Cruise only has a couple bad movies on his resume and I imagine generally rejects the role for any script he feels is bad (I really don't know why he accepted the role for The Mummy tbh). Honestly I am disappointed he doesn't diversify a little more playing it safe is his downfall but it is hard to argue against his action hero resume.

It's an odd franchise because it's an action series spawned from a TV show that completely threw away every possible relation to that show in the first 15 minutes of film. It's a series that has spanned six movies over more than 20 years and has been propelled almost exclusively by its star in an age when movie stardom matters less than ever. It's a series that started with a film by veteran Brian De Palma, had an entry by John Woo, was the vehicle for JJ Abram's first feature and Brad Bird's first live action film. It's a series where the box office success has been all over the place, from being De Plalma's and Woo's biggest successes, to being JJ's least impressive earner. It's a series that grew up during the rise of CG effects but has always put a premium on and really set the bar for physical stunt work. The MI franchise is an anomaly of modern movie making.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, atom631 said:

Absolutely - Jurassic Park still looks great, esp the CGI. 

 

MI:1 just looks old and the sound is very 1 dimensional. Im not saying its a bad movie bc of it...it was just off-putting after not having seen it since it was in the movies. 

 

I dunno if I agree. M:I plays like a great 1970's John Le Carre-lite spy thriller. On bluray I thought the film looked and sounded fine. Both show their age similarly I feel. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

I dunno if I agree. M:I plays like a great 1970's John Le Carre-lite spy thriller. On bluray I thought the film looked and sounded fine. Both show their age similarly I feel. 

Haven’t watched the first MI in a while, but I remember the ending helicopter sequence looking rough. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bataar said:

That's a tough one. It definitely has its low points. It's been years since I've seen 1 and 2, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say 2 was better than 1.

 

As much as I love M:I II, it's barely a real movie. M:I is very easily the better film. They are so different as to be barely comparable though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...