How does tom cruise do it?

[Kaido]

has a five-minute long Tom Cruise love-in

hahahaha

 

[Muse]

The first one is actually the best one! I had to watch it like 3 times to figure it all out lol. The rest are action movies, sort of like the Jason Bourne series. First one is sort of a figure-it-out movie, like a Sherlock Holmes show.

I really really like the Bourne movies, the three I have seen.

Here's what Roger Ebert said about the 1st MI movie in Cinemania '97:

Mission: Impossible
US (1996): Adventure/Thriller
Roger Ebert Review: 3.0 stars out of 4

105 min, Rated PG-13, Color

I'm not sure I could pass a test on the plot of MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE. My consolation is that the screenwriters probably couldn't, either. The story is a nearly impenetrable labyrinth of post-Cold War double-dealing, but the details hardly matter; it's all a set-up for sensational chase sequences and a delicate computer theft operation, intercut with that most reliable of spy movie standbys, the midnight rendezvous under a street lamp in a chilly foreign capital.

Tom Cruise stars as Ethan Hunt, professional spy, whose assignment, which he chooses to accept, is to prevent the theft of a computer file containing the code names and real identities of all of America's double agents. It's not enough to simply stop the guy; Cruise and his team (also including Jon Voight, Kristin Scott-Thomas, and Emmanuelle Béart) are asked to photograph the enemy in the act of stealing the information, and then follow him until he passes it along. This process involves a checklist of Cold War spycraft and clichés: eyeglasses with built-in TV cameras, concealed microphones, laptop computers, agents in elaborate disguise, exploding cars, knifings, shootings, bodies toppling into a river, etc. Of course the whole sequence centers around a diplomatic reception in Prague.
Because MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE was directed by Brian De Palma, a master of genre thrillers and sly Hitchcockian wit (BLOW OUT, BODY DOUBLE), it's a nearly impossible mission to take the plot seriously. He is more concerned with style than story, which is wise, since if this movie ever paused to explain itself it would take a very long time. There are so many double-reverses in the first half hour that we learn to accept nothing at face value (not even faces, since they may be elaborate latex masks). And the momentum of the visuals prevents us from asking logical questions, such as, Is physically copying a computer file onto another disc the only way to steal it? (My colleague Rich Elias has written that the obvious solution for the CIA would have been to hire Robert Redford's team from SNEAKERS to commit an online theft.)
MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE is all slick surface and technical skill. The characters are not very interesting (except for Vanessa Redgrave, as an information broker, and Jon Voight, who expresses a touching world-weariness in a film too impatient for weariness of any kind). The plot is impossible to follow. The various strategies of Cruise and his allies and foes don't stand up under scrutiny. And none of that matters. This is a movie that exists in the instant, and we must exist in the instant to enjoy it. Any troubling questions from earlier in the film must be firmly repressed.
De Palma is expert at sustained nonverbal action sequences, and there are three in the film: The opening scenario at the diplomatic reception; a delicate act of computer theft; and a chase in which a helicopter follows the high-speed London-Paris train into the Chunnel with Cruise and a bad guy clinging to the top of it.
The computer theft scene will ring a bell with anyone who has seen RIFIFI (1954) or TOPKAPI (1964), both by Jules Dassin, who became famous for his extended theft sequences done in total silence. TOPKAPI also used the device of suspending a thief from a hole in the ceiling, to avoid anti-theft devices on the floor. This time, De Palma gives us a computer "safe room" rigged so that alarms will sound at any noise above a certain decibel level, any pressure on the floor, any change in temperature. Cruise hangs in a harness while carefully inserting a blank disc and making a copy of the file.
Of course it's convenient that the decibel level is set high enough that it isn't triggered by the noise of a computer copying a disc—which is precisely what it should be guarding against. Convenient, too, that the infrared rays guarding the ceiling hatch can be so conveniently dealt with. And very convenient for the audience that the rays are made visible to a normal eye. If you want to see infrared rays really exploited in a heist movie, have a look at GRAND SLAM (1968).
If the heist has been done before, and better, not even the James Bond films have ever given us anything quite like the ending chase sequence, with a bad guy in a helicopter flying into the Chunnel linking Britain to France. Earlier it's been established that the train through Britain is traveling so fast that Cruise, clinging to it, might easily be blown off. This will cheer the film's British viewers, who can forget for a moment that the Chunnel train goes that fast only on the French side, since the high-speed tracks on the British side have not yet been completed. (Inaugurating the Chunnel, François Mitterand wickedly described a traveler "speeding through France and then enjoying a leisurely view of the British countryside.")
No matter. The train goes fast, and the helicopter follows it right under the Channel, and De Palma's special effects (by Industrial Light and Magic) are clever for obscuring the scale involved, since a helicopter's blades would obviously not fit into the tunnel—but then why am I quibbling, since the whole stunt is obviously impossible?
The bottom line on a film like this is, Tom Cruise looks cool and holds our attention while doing neat things that we don't quite understand—doing them so quickly and with so much style that we put our questions on hold, and go with the flow. When the movie is over, it turns out there wasn't anything except the flow. Our consolation, I guess, is that we had fun going with it.

 

[igor_kavinski]

I would also say that the first one is the best and remains somewhat true to the TV series it is based on. Here's a terse description of the other movies:

MI:2 Pathogen must not escape and cause a devastating pandemic. Tom Cruise is the only man who can stop it.

MI:3 Rabbit's foot? What the hell is it? No one knows but only Tom Cruise can stop it

MI:4 The IMF must clear its name and Tom Cruise is the only one up to the job

MI:5 The IMF is in danger again and you know the rest

MI:6 Tom Cruise faces his worst nemesis yet

 

[nakedfrog]

I wondered the same thing. I guess i assumed that people want to watch movies on-the-go so would want a digital version instead of carrying around a disc. And probably it's easier to D/L a version instead of ripping for most people. I wouldn't imagine it being superior to the disc though, as far as just watching it.

Yeah, that's the draw, make it easier for people to put the movie on their laptop, phone, or tablet, and no, it won't be as good in quality as the Blu-Ray disc.

 

[Scarpozzi]

Ah, but I can't expect them to answer my question: is it inferior to the others? I want to know if I'm missing out if I don't start with the original 1996 movie or if I'd best skip it. They aren't apt to tell me, but people here likely can.

It was so good someone didn't return it!

 

[sportage]

Not a fan of Tom Cruise but he's more talented than Tom Hanks.
Both, all they do is just slap on a wig and some makeup and there you have it.... your character.
Tom Hanks playing Tom Hanks in some costume as someone else. Not very much effort involved. Cruise is a tiny bit better, he puts a bit more acting into it, but that isn't really saying much.

However, I was impressed that Cruise learned to fly and fly the big guys. But with his money I guess one could learn to fly or do anything. Or learn to drive anything. Or, even paint like Picasso given the right teacher(s).

Now, if you want to talk about real actors then talk about Dustin Hoffman, or Robert De Niro, or Al Pacino, or.... Meryl Streep. But to call Cruise or Hanks actors? No, they are just having fun wearing costumes. A little hair coloring here, a little face hair there. Hello.

 

[pmv]

Not a fan of Tom Cruise but he's more talented than Tom Hanks.
Both, all they do is just slap on a wig and some makeup and there you have it.... your character.
Tom Hanks playing Tom Hanks in some costume as someone else. Not very much effort involved. Cruise is a tiny bit better, he puts a bit more acting into it, but that isn't really saying much.

However, I was impressed that Cruise learned to fly and fly the big guys. But with his money I guess one could learn to fly or do anything. Or learn to drive anything. Or, even paint like Picasso given the right teacher(s).

Now, if you want to talk about real actors then talk about Dustin Hoffman, or Robert De Niro, or Al Pacino, or.... Meryl Streep. But to call Cruise or Hanks actors? No, they are just having fun wearing costumes. A little hair coloring here, a little face hair there. Hello.

I don't know. I really struggle to identify good acting. It's only obvious when it's really, really, _bad_ acting. Truly bad acting I can spot (it really does make itself obvious), but I can't tell the difference between different levels of acting if it doesn't plumb the depths of "intrusively awful".

I have no idea whether Dustin Hoffman is 'better' than Tom Hanks or Robert De Niro better than Tom Cruise.

Maybe you could argue that Tom Hanks plays the same 'everyman' character in every movie, i.e. he doesn't have much 'range'. But, with the exception of "The King of Comedy", Robert De Niro has generally seemed to me to be pretty-much the same character in every movie I've seen him in.

Same with Daniel Day Lewis, who also is regularly lauded as a great actor. As far as I could make out he was the same angry-shouty man in Gangs of New York and There Will Be Blood, and almost the same person (just with a disability) in My Left Foot.

None of them are _bad_ actors though. I've seen a few (usually TV only) movies where the acting was hilariously, obviously bad. It's only when I see bad acting that I suddenly realise 'oh, those other guys were pretty good'.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I don't know. I really struggle to identify good acting. It's only obvious when it's really, really, _bad_ acting. Truly bad acting I can spot (it really does make itself obvious), but I can't tell the difference between different levels of acting if it doesn't plumb the depths of "intrusively awful".

I have no idea whether Dustin Hoffman is 'better' than Tom Hanks or Robert De Niro better than Tom Cruise.

One of my barometers for acting is to see something where an actor plays multiple roles in the same film/series. Multiplicity is a good example. If they can reasonably convince me that it could be two different average actors, they're above average.

 

[shortylickens]

YOU GUYS ARE PISSING ME OFF!

 

[nakedfrog]

YOU GUYS ARE PISSING ME OFF!

Just another day, then?

 

[pauldun170]

Saw mav yesterday it was cash 20 for 2 @ ‘matinee with a large popcorn last move I saw was joker 2019 Tom’s 10 years older than me does Scientology make you level up?

Counterpoint - Tom cruise looks like a 59 year old,non smoker who knows how to use sunscreen, eats right, who also has a personal trainer and folks who can dye his hair.
Don't confuse make up and camera work for real life.

 

[Muse]

Not a fan of Tom Cruise but he's more talented than Tom Hanks.
Both, all they do is just slap on a wig and some makeup and there you have it.... your character.
Tom Hanks playing Tom Hanks in some costume as someone else. Not very much effort involved. Cruise is a tiny bit better, he puts a bit more acting into it, but that isn't really saying much.

However, I was impressed that Cruise learned to fly and fly the big guys. But with his money I guess one could learn to fly or do anything. Or learn to drive anything. Or, even paint like Picasso given the right teacher(s).

Now, if you want to talk about real actors then talk about Dustin Hoffman, or Robert De Niro, or Al Pacino, or.... Meryl Streep. But to call Cruise or Hanks actors? No, they are just having fun wearing costumes. A little hair coloring here, a little face hair there. Hello.

I have to wonder if your take is more you than them. It's a thing. To some extent the public sees an actor, not their portrayal of the character, but it's a lot of time more them than the failure of the actor to pull off the portrayal. I haven't seen enough Cruise to say, probably Hanks either, but I think they probably have a lot more range than you are giving them credit for. I think they both take their craft very seriously, TBH.

 

[igor_kavinski]

I think they both take their craft very seriously, TBH.

That and they keep getting roles in watchable movies so it's a good bet that if a movie features them, it should be at least a good hour and a half of entertainment. You have good actors like Josh Hartnett who make it a point NOT to do good movies with wide public appeal. I know that if I have a choice between a Josh Hartnett movie and a Tom Cruise/Tom Hanks movie, I would watch the latter first because I can be sure it won't be a complete waste of my time.

 

[Muse]

That and they keep getting roles in watchable movies so it's a good bet that if a movie features them, it should be at least a good hour and a half of entertainment. You have good actors like Josh Hartnett who make it a point NOT to do good movies with wide public appeal. I know that if I have a choice between a Josh Hartnett movie and a Tom Cruise/Tom Hanks movie, I would watch the latter first because I can be sure it won't be a complete waste of my time.

I finally saw Cast Away around a year ago. It was Hanks idea from the start IIRC and it took a ton of commitment, starting with him but it was tough on the crew who did it. He did NOT mail that in, folks.

 

[igor_kavinski]

He did NOT mail that in, folks.

Matthew McConaughey is almost unrecognizable in Dallas Buyer's Club. And there's The Machinist with Christian Bale. Insane the things these actors will do for a role.

 

[Muse]

Matthew McConaughey is almost unrecognizable in Dallas Buyer's Club. And there's The Machinist with Christian Bale. Insane the things these actors will do for a role.

I was hugely impressed with Dallas Buyer's Club. It's a long time since I saw it, so don't remember. Now, he was also great in True Detective, which I also have to rewatch!

My notes after watching Dallas Buyer's Club 5 years ago:

Watched last night. Wow. Badass, you have to think that right from the getgo, and it doesn't let up, at least for a while. Develops! I didn't know where it was going. Going in I knew two things:

M. McConaughey starred, it was very well thought of. Just about right for me. I'd seen MM in True Detective, Interstellar, maybe one or two others, always thought he was beyond great. He was that good here. The film itself? It wasn't until near the end that it dawned on me that this Woodruff guy actually existed, that this was in some ways an actual bio-pic. Watched the extras, there was not much on the DVD. 2-3 deleted scenes, a brief making of.

This is an inspiring movie, I feel inspired to look at and think of the world differently by virtue of this experience. That, to me, is art.

 

[igor_kavinski]

he was also great in True Detective

Wow. I didn't know about that. Once I finish Breaking Bad, this is what I'm watching next!

And yes, movies based on true stories are always the best because truth is stranger than fiction. Even the best fiction is some amount of the author's real life experiences mixed in it, giving it that extra edge.

 

[Muse]

Wow. I didn't know about that. Once I finish Breaking Bad, this is what I'm watching next!

And yes, movies based on true stories are always the best because truth is stranger than fiction. Even the best fiction is some amount of the author's real life experiences mixed in it, giving it that extra edge.

I'm midway in Breaking Bad, I have seasons 1-5, so not all, I left off in the middle somewhere, just because I had so much else to do and want to continue or maybe start from the beginning.

I have a few more like that, for instance The Wire. I was midway in the 1st season (I bought the whole series), and have to really restart it. They say it hasn't lost relevancy.

Now, True Detective is way way shorter than those. YES, watch it next.

 

[igor_kavinski]

I'm midway in Breaking Bad, I have seasons 1-5, so not all,

Breaking Bad has 5 seasons only. Better Call Saul is six seasons, with the sixth season to end this year.

 

[Muse]

Breaking Bad has 5 seasons only. Better Call Saul is six seasons, with the sixth season to end this year.

Ah, looking I see I have BB seasons 1-4 in DVD. I was aware there was a subsequent season I didn't have and would purchase when the time came... evidently #5.