#impossible stunts | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

blackswaneuroparedux · 10 months

Text

Anonymous asked: Are you a Mission Impossible fan? I’m not a Tom Cruise fan but it’s great dumb fun. And it has a cast full of talented (and beautiful) women. You seem the type to enjoy a good adrenaline rush of a flick (I’m sure the French have a fancy cinematic term for that)

I am unashamedly both a Mission Impossible fan - of the television series and the Cruise movies - and a Tom Cruise fan.

Obviously being born decades after the original Mission Impossible tv series created by Bruce Geller was first aired in the 60s and 70s, I only had the pleasure of watching the box set episodes later in life. I have to say I loved that series. I loved when they hatched the plan. Loved the fake masks. And of course I loved the Lao Schifrin music - one of the most recognisable signature themes in music and TV history.

Classic television has a bit of a blessing and a curse working on it. Most shows of the Golden Age of television didn't have a structured narrative through-line. The idea that one episode will build upon the next is a pretty modern concept. As such, Mission Impossible had a prescribed routine. Mr. Briggs in Season One and then Mr. Phelps in the subsequent seasons drive to a random location, find a hidden mission briefing that self destructs, discusses the plan with the team, and then they execute the mission.

There wasn't much variation to the structure. Thankfully by season three, they got rid of the silly waste of time where Jim Phelps selects his team - because aside from the random guest the team was virtually the same from episode to episode. The thing that changed was how the team pulled off their mission. It was always a mixture of subterfuge and fancy fakery, but it was always exciting and the great team of writers, directors, and the dynamic cast always kept the audience just enough out of the loop for there to be plenty of surprises and suspense.

It's not that Season One wasn't any good, but you could really feel the show was still working itself out. Steven Hill as original team leader Daniel Briggs is decent enough, but he's just not as interesting a performer as Peter Graves as Jim Phelps. Graves is indelible to the show. But it's not just who leads the team that made the show - it was the great actors who made up the series regulars. Greg Morris as Barney Collier and Peter Lupus as Willy Armitage are always great as the tech masters and inside guys who narrowly complete their tasks with milliseconds to spare. Husband and Wife duo Martin Landau as Rollin Hand and Barbara Bain as Cinnamon Carter really helped cement the show through the first three seasons.

So when I got around to watching Tom Cruise’s first Mission Impossible film I was a little miffed. It seemed like the story bumped off his team - a staple of the original tv series - within the first act and the rest of the film is on Cruise control ie it’s just about Ethan Hunt. But slowly as the other MI films came out I was won over. In fact in my mind I tend to think there are two Impossible Missions Force (IMF) operating in two different universes, just because the dynamics are different. That way I don’t waste time whining on which is better or poke holes in the Cruise films for its lack of purity to the original series. I prefer to enjoy both on their own separate terms.

To me Thomas Cruise Mapother IV is the biggest movie star in our current culture of excess entertainment. That’s my gut feeling. The definition of a movie star, in my personal opinion, has changed dramatically. There was a time and period when the movie star was defined by the name alone. If a Hollywood star had a film coming out people didn’t know what the film was, they just saw it because of who was in it: Will Smith or Jim Carrey or even Stallone and Schwarzenegger. No one else comes close.

The two exceptions might be Leonardo DiCaprio or Keanu Reeves. I think of the two Reeves comes closest because of the success of the franchises he’s been in - The Matrix and the John Wick franchises - but he’s not a movie star. What I mean he doesn’t behave like a movie star in the sense that he is not immersed in the film business as a business nor does he cultivate his star power (he prefers to travel around on a bus and sit on park benches looking forlorn) in the way Tom Cruise does.

Interestingly there are even few directors that can open a movie on name alone. Christopher Nolan, Quentin Tarantino, and Steven Spielberg can still get people into the cinema based on their name alone, but the movie star, not so much. Audiences today want IP. They want franchises. However Tom Cruise has navigated all of that and consistently shifted.

Cruise’s dedication to big screen spectacle, also offset by interesting asides like American Made, and very underrated sci-fi and high concept films like Minority Report, Oblivion (very underrated) and Edge of Tomorrow, brings a sense of anticipation to his films. Maybe we’re there because we expect stunts, or we know that he’ll give nothing less than 100%, or it’s an example of a creatively driven project, rather than a marketing machine, but we still show up. It may not always go right, like the misfiring The Mummy or Jack Reacher (where he felt miscast in both), but Cruise has his sure-fires and his surprises.

When a movie like The Mummy doesn’t work out, he reimagines Mission: Impossible, and he is able to take what everyone loved in the 80s about Top Gun and magnify that to what the audience wants today. Honestly, did anyone expect Top Gun: Maverick to be the box office behemoth it has been? I expected it to impress, to be a good example of Cruise’s fervent passion for as much practical work as possible (as opposed to doing 95% with CGI), but after 36 years, that it’s his highest grossing film ever - and the highest-grossing movie of 2022 - is impressive.

It helps that he almost never 100 percent disappears into his roles; we still get that Tom Cruise smile and stare no matter who he’s playing. And the fact that he still looks like 1980s-era Tom Cruise only adds to the lustre. Indeed when Tom Cruise does it, whether that’s fighting for justice in a courtroom, making cocktails, jumping off a roof, flying a fighter jet, or even singing “I Want To Know What Love Is” shirtless while wearing leather pants, we’re like, ‘Sure. I buy that.’ He’s relatable even when what he’s doing on screen is so far removed from our reality that it’s insane. There is a grounded matinee idol musk to Cruise’s presence on screen that seems to transcend class and political divides. He’s America’s hero and the nice guy who is tough with a sensitive side, as well as the kind of wisdom that impresses but never intimidates. He’s Hollywood’s fine wine.

Tom Cruise is not only the biggest movie star working today, he’s the last movie star working today.

There are plenty of actors who people recognise, and the right combination of actor and role can still be explosive, like Keanu Reeves. But “Tom Holland as Spider-Man” is a very different thing than “Tom Holland as anything except Spider-Man,” and to some degree, that’s by design. Studios would rather own the biggest part of the equation. Tom Cruise doesn’t need your IP, though. Tom Cruise is the IP. People buy a ticket to see Tom Cruise, and they do that because Tom Cruise has figured out how to be the most Tom Cruise that any Tom Cruise could ever hope to be, and every time out, he does his very best to turn the Tom Cruise up just a little bit more.

When he was younger, Cruise built his career by trusting himself and his image to the very best directors he could find, slowly refining a certain kind of alpha masculine ideal. What makes his late-era stardom more remarkable is how he only transitioned into action movies once he was in his 40s, and he has pushed himself harder than arguably any action star of any age in the last few decades. When you see a Tom Cruise film and you see an insane stunt, part of the kick is knowing that’s really him and that he’s entering his fourth decade of being an icon.

That Cruise almost died after becoming entangled in his parachute in the water in Top Gun was somewhat irrelevant, because it was this first Mission: Impossible where Tom Cruise: Stunt Man was also born. From the infamous wire descent, to leaping out of a window to outrun a surge of water from the restaurant he’d just blown a window out from, Cruise was in on the action.

If audiences didn’t quite get that dedication to being visibly involved in the action then, they certainly would by the time he made the more action packed second film, directed by John Woo. M:I 2 cemented the lure of the Cruise stunt. From mountain leaps, to motorcycle rides and more, Cruise set a new expectation for his work going forward. It was a string to his bow, a selling point, and it has proven a tool of forgiveness and resurrection even as his career has threatened to implode under off screen contention.

I think that’s why we rush to go and see the next Mission Impossible film. It’s not for the thread-bare plot or the fantastic action - although it’s better than most action franchises these days. But it’s the mind blowing stunts which we know is not CGI driven nor is done by a stunt double. It’s done by Tom Cruise himself.

He is the Tom Brady/Mark Cavendish/Ronaldo/Roger Federer (delete as appropriate) of movie stars, not just because of his success, but the longevity of his career, as he has found ways to adapt to each change in the industry while also not giving in to what others have had to do.

The key thing is he adapts just enough to make it fresh. The Mission Impossible films are a case in point. Even as the stunts have got bigger, more dangerous, and more spectacular (as all franchise films must it seems), the characters portraits and arcs have got more intimate and more relatable.

In the MI movies he is of course super spy Ethan Hunt but he’s not super-human. But Tom Cruise’s secret is that even when appearing borderline super-human on screen, there’s still an air about him that makes the viewer want to be him or be with him and believe that’s possible. There’s an old-school debonair swagger and a hot everyman to him that many movie stars lack. Dwayne Johnson is many things, including a mountain of a man and a brilliant business person, but few of us could carry that off or believe that what he’s doing on screen is something we could replicate. Inspire, sure, but we could never be him. With each film the character is finding it harder and harder to be cocky and confident. There is a world weariness etched on his strained face. He barely wins fights and often he relies on others to help him or bail him out. Cruise is self-aware that he is getting older, like his character. It’s these little details which count.

Interestingly, I find his women character also infinitely more relatable than any current iteration of the action female heroine. Marvel are lost in swamp of woke feminist BS where all their franchise films have to be led by the cookie cutter ’Strong Single Female’ - the one who doesn’t need mentoring (because that’s just sexist mansplaining); can pick up a life time of a superior set of skills in a matter of seconds; can beat to a pulp a man much stronger than she is; she never falls, stumbles, or fails like the men do; and she alone saves the day of course. Look at Rey in Star Wars or Captain Marvel in the MCU or even Phoebe Waller-Bridge’s character in the latest risible Indiana Jones film and tell me any of that isn’t true.

The women in MI franchise are far more relatable within the context of a hyper-realised film about super spies but not beyonds the laws of gravity. They are strong, independent, smart, sure. But they are also feminine and vulnerable. They fight like skilled women and not prize fighters that play to their feminine strengths (they get punched a lot in the gut and it shows). More importantly, they fuck up and fail, but they still come and help others to save the day. From Emmanuelle Beart to Thandie Newton to Rebecca Ferguson, these are kick ass women but in a much more believable way than any Marvel movie she-heroine. Go back and see these movies and you will see what I mean.

What I also like about him is the vibe he gives off that he cares deeply about his movies. It’s not a cynical exercise in money. Of course ego is a different matter, but I’ll give him a pass because he is the consummate professional and perfectionist about his craft. To me Tom Cruise is one of the few performers today who generally thinks of the audience first. Maybe even to his own detriment. But you can tell with everything he does, in all of his films, there is a different kind of commitment he makes to the audience. He actually gives the impression that he cares about giving his audience a good time.

Moreover, to hear it from Cruise himself, as we did during leaked audio of the dressing down he gave M:I7 crew members who were flouting COVID-19 safety regulations: “That’s what I sleep with every night - the future of this fucking industry!” Cruise makes a grand spectacle of carrying every film on his back, so it’s never in question who calls the shots or who, rather than what, makes the movies cinematic. Cruise’s power as a producer really deserves kudos for this. His steadfast aversion to shrinking theatrical windows for any of his projects, and his continued allegiance to, especially in the case of his flagship franchise, adding more ambitious stunts and exotic locations with every entry.

He doesn’t do television. Don’t you dare ask him about streaming. Other stars have also made that transition to streaming. You might call it selling your soul. Deals with the devil. We’ve seen other films in difficult circumstances, having to change their models to incorporate simultaneous streaming and cinema releases. Dwayne Johnson had seen a decline in box office revenue prior to the pandemic that has seen him go a little safer with more Disney material, as well as become a big fish in the Netflix pond. Cruise however… is all about the big screen experience.

Everything Cruise does is about maintaining his star power in the face of any and all obstacles, from a diminished global box office and studio manoeuvring to his own mortality. His legacy decades since secured, Cruise’s latest impossible mission appears to be nothing less than saving the movies themselves.

For that reason and that reason alone, I will always take time to see a Tom Cruise movie especially his Mission Impossible franchise films. Roll on summer. Cue the Palo Schifrin guitar chords. And action!

Thanks for your question.

#ask #question #mission impossible #tom cruise #tv series #movies #cinema #film #hollywood #spies #arts #culture #stunts #marvel #mcu #hero #icon

45 notes · View notes

kindlythevoid · 10 months

Text

M:I Dead Reckoning Spoilers

This is your last warning.

OKAY so on the one hand, I cannot believe they killed off Ilsa!! Did they do a good job of foreshadowing it? Yes, I saw it coming a mile away even before they got to the bridge. However, (in my opinion) it was a disappointing move.

I was so down for Hayley Atwell to be in this movie. In fact, I still really love her character + character development over the course of the movie!! I think she was well fleshed out for her first movie!! But just because they introduced a new character (and dare I even say… love interest???) does not mean they can kill off the only other female on the team. They one-hundred-percent fridged her for the sake of Ethan’s dilemma later on in the movie, and that was after they already set up the first fridge in the beginning of the movie to show how angry/scared he was of this guy.

Furthermore, they killed her off to perpetuate Ethan’s tragic love life. We know that before Ethan joined the IMF, his SO was killed by Gabriel. In the first movie, the woman he was seeing on his team is killed with the rest of them in the beginning of the movie. We never hear from the thief (Ms. Hall?) after the second. Julia we know fakes her death and becomes a ghost after the third movie. And then, in Fallout, it seems like Ethan’s finally given permission (by Julia or himself or the circumstances, take your pick) to move on and be with Ilsa. Only for it to all fall apart in the very next movie!!

There was no reason to kill off Ilsa. It was bad writing, especially after hinting at Grace being his next love interest and killing off Ilsa because of her. There was no reason for Grace not to get along with everyone as friends in the IMF or as a contact or what have you and still have Ilsa as Ethan’s SO as well as a rogue agent/in the IMF/ghost contact.

That being said.

Now that I have finished blaming the writers, I must congratulate them in the way they handled Ilsa’s death. I mentioned earlier that I was able to see Ilsa’s death foreshadowed in the cinematography and the overall feel and narrative of the movie. Faking her death in the beginning of the movie to prime the audience for her real death later, having her face blown up on the tv screen behind the director when he tells Ethan that continuing this path will cost him, and the overly blatant call out of the entity that she was closer to the bridge than Ethan.

Concerning the bridge itself, I feel like it was somewhat ridiculous to have Ilsa carry a sword over a gun, but those feelings aside the sword v knife fight was freaking awesome. They did do her (as well as Grace before) justice in the fight against Gabriel in the fact that visually they were really cool looking fights and they weren’t taken out in two swings.

And on the matter of Grace’s presence at the bridge, I have to say it was very in character for Ilsa to pursue Gabriel in an effort to save Grace. From our first meeting with Ilsa, she was always willing to put an ally’s life before her own (just as Ethan is so prone to doing) and so character-wise, it makes sense for Ilsa to go in without backup, without waiting.

Am I still mad that she died? Absolutely! I could also talk about their usage and subsequent disposal of Paris (a really awesome and fun character; tbh I am not totally sure that’s her name), but right now I wanted to focus on Ilsa’s death as Paris’s role in the movie requires her own pros and cons list. However, I can say that I (personally) think that it was handled much better than some other movies deal with their characters deaths. Overall, it was a fantastic movie and I will be watching part two next year to see how they round off this arc.

20 notes · View notes