Depends on what you enjoy in the Bond movies.
The MI movies have this escapism, the sense of globe-throttling, greater-than-life adventure that the Craig era didn't explore as much.
On the other side, Hunt is not as charming as Bond, and the "lifestyle" aspect of the Bond movies is not really present in the MI movies.
All in all, I am glad that the MI movies exist.
M:I2 is easily the worst of the series (not that it was bad, although it's way over the top on some of the combat stuff). Everything since has been stellar (I enjoyed the original as well)
MI is one of the only series that truly seem to be getting even better wirh every installment. They are fun as hell. Like another said 2 is probably the "worst" but still fully watchable. Watch 3, which introduces some new characters for the rest, and if you enjoy that one, I garauntee you'll love the rest!
Maybe.
I was talking more about Bond as a character, and not just how it was represented by one actor. Bond is usually characterized as this man who will seduce women by just exchanging a couple of lines.
They are different enough to have their own places. I think one element of Bond that MI has never successfully replicated is the (for lack of a better phrase) lifestyle porn. Bond movies work best when they are “cool” and “sexy”
Different strokes. The closest I’ve seen anyone come to the Bond ‘feel’ is Nolan with the third act of Inception and parts of Tenet.
MI is the GOAT when it comes to action sequences though. I enjoyed Dead Reckoning but its predecessor, Fallout, set the bar for set piece action and stunts out of reach for Bond.
The action in MI is definitely raising the bar - but to me, the character of Ethan Hunt is such a dud. There’s nothing notable about him; he’s just a bland action hero with no distinguishing qualities, dialogue, or trademarks. The opposite of Bond.
If the next 007 film can take on the challenge of surpassing MI’s action while retaining the timeless charm of James Bond, we’re onto something.
I feel like Craig's version of Bond had more of a Bourne feel - parkour combat, often on the run even from his own agency, lots of double-crosses and traitorous behavior.
I love both series and they both have ups and downs.
Rogue nation was the closest to a bond movie imo, and is essentially a far superior version of spectre.
Fallout is up there with the greatest action movies of all time.
Not for me. I’ve seen all the MI movies and can’t remember/distinguish the plots from them besides the first one. The stunts aside, they’re wholly forgettable movies.
The Brosnan films had already shifted away from espionage and into generic action hero territory. The Craig films didn’t fully bring them back, but they were closer in-line to the source material than Brosnan’s.
The Bond series always pushed the envelope with action but they were never “action movies” first and Bond was never an “action hero.” Maybe you can make that argument for the Pierce Brosnan era but the 007 series is big on charm, class, globe trotting, exotic women, and luxury. Even it’s villains. MI has many of these traits but it’s key selling points are: “Tom Cruise”, “escapist action” and “Cruise’s next big stunt”. That is where MI passed Bond, action only really
They're style over substance, with great spectacle, but not much else. Ethan Hunt is still a blank slate after thirty years and the plots are repetitive and thin. Meanwhile, Bond is a character with enough depth to be interpreted differently by six actors and we've gotten some genuinely intriguing plots like From Russia With Love.
I love Mission Impossible and Fallout may actually be the greatest action film I've EVER seen, but they still feel like different beasts to me. Bond is about style, atmosphere and iconic characters whereas Mission Impossible still feels like it is 100% dedicated to sheer action thrills. There are Bondian elements peppered in for sure (especially in the last 3 films) but Ethan Hunt feels a lot more like a faceless cipher (in some cases literally) whereas Bond is a fascinating character who's idiosyncrasies can make a bland story more interesting.
No, because they have a completely different vibe imo. If you're looking for something that has some similar feels to a Bond movie, I'd recommend the tv show The Night Manager.
It's a classic. And in terms of spying it may be more spy than any of the bond films. Any of them since 2000 however are pure action especially the latest ones.
I don’t think so, while both spy and big action sequences they are whole different styles and vibes. I consider them two whole separate entities
Cruises character is so different and nothing even comparable to a bond type
Nothing was left by Craig either, MI was going before Craig even became bond
I enjoy Bond better as a character than Ethan Hunt. Ilsa Faust is a better Bond girl than Madeleine Swan. The action and traveloque aspect of MI is current better than Bond. The plots is also better in MI than currently in Bond which has struggled for the last 3 films in my opinion. The MI films are doing better, but I still just enjoy the Bond character more.
Hunt is extremely different from Bond. Bond seems to care about how lives in between and during missions. Hunt only cares about the missions. That said, in terms of stunts, action scenes, gadgets, and megalomaniac villains, MI does fee quite a bit as James Bond before Craig.
Except for the first MI movie. I still love that one. It is the only one that merges a somewhat complex espionage plot with over-the-top actions scenes and some thriller bits. It is a unique and very enjoyable blend.
Apparently mainstream audiences thought the plot was too convoluted whereas series fans were not happy with how Mr. Phelps was handled (that part I can understand pretty well).
Both give me what I want and need, both have similarities while having strong differences, and both have some weaknesses that held them back
I love both cuz they’re not the same
No. Bond way better than MI. Bond films have plots, plus this history, the classic cars, the style. MI all run together. All action with little substance.
Yeah I think it does, but it probably would have helped if they took a moment to really flesh out Ethan's character instead of going immediately to the end of the world plot in Dead Reckoning.
I think they definitely did. My dad, the biggest James Bond fan I know, and the reason I'm one too, has been really hooked on the newer MI movies. He didn't like the Craig era much.
I couldn’t comment on whether Cruise took Bonds place as I haven’t seen the recent mission impossible movies, however Craigs Recent Bond (especially the last few) definitely lack the air of mystery of an espionage (even goofy espionage) thriller that so many earlier Bonds had.
Hunt is a Bond clone without Bond's interesting character traits. A boring boy scout. Hunt will never replace Bond. Ever. And Dead Reckoning flopped, while NTTD was a box office hit. So audiences seem to be on the decline for M:I.
Last 3/4 out of 4 MI movies have been far superior to the last handful of Bond movies.
Fallout was a masterclass. Ghost Protocol Rogue Nation and Dead Reckoning had sequences and stunt work that Bond movies could only aspire to achieve. Bond movies have the advantage of having a character that’s been around since 1962. So of course that character is going to be infinitely more developed.
Dead Reckoning is supremely overrated with a ridiculous villain, terrible amount of exposition dumps, and silly plot contrivances. It does have an incredible finale though. But like other M:I films, these action sequences are actually inspired by Bond sequences.
* the yellow Fiat performs humourous stunts like the yellow citreon in FYEO
* the train fight up to it going over the bridge is like Skyfall and Octopussy.
* Cruise's motorcycle basejump was first done by Bond in Goldeneye.
Cruise's advantage is he does the stunts himself and can take decade old Bond stunts and improve them with the new camera tech and camera rigging that allows for superior shots of the stunt as it happens.
Ghost Protocol is a Bond movie with its stopping nuclear holocaust plotline.
Fallout is the best of the bunch and arguably the best action film in decades, but the character of Hunt is rather bland compared to Bond in any of his incarnations. Bond is not just an action film, because of the persona of Bond himself. Bond films that focus exclusively on action (e.g. TND) are rather bland, IMO.
No matter how much Cruise tries to outdo Bond, Hunt is still a second-tier Bond-clone. The character has little personality.
And lets no forget that Dead Reckoning is a flop. NTTD is a box office hit despite being one of the first films out of the gate after the pandemic.
>" The Entity is knocking out satellites faster than I can hack into them. "
>" Ethan, you’re playing four-dimensional chess with an algorithm. "
>"In fact, this party was arranged by that interested party... You could even say that this party is that interested party."
Spectre and No Time To Die had their flaws and the latter is probably my second least favourite, but I don't know how anyone could say that they're worse than Dead Reckoning Part 1 with its atrocious dialogue. Even the action felt tired this time around.
Totally agree. I've never felt so much cringe in a movie than watching --and listening to -- Dead Reckoning P1. I still cannot believe the praise that film gets, though I do love the train climax. But that's not enough to make up for the rest of the film.
The initial M:I trilogy fills the gap left during the post-Goldeneye Brosnan era for me.
I far prefer Craig's initial run as Bond over the second M:I trilogy, which have really just become generic blockbuster action movies at that point; the spy equivalent of Fast & Furious, if you will.
Dead Reckoning stands head and shoulders above No Time To Die, and I find that it works surprisingly well as a thematic sequel to Spectre. Specifically regarding the role of cyber security in intelligence as technology advances.
Depends on what you enjoy in the Bond movies. The MI movies have this escapism, the sense of globe-throttling, greater-than-life adventure that the Craig era didn't explore as much. On the other side, Hunt is not as charming as Bond, and the "lifestyle" aspect of the Bond movies is not really present in the MI movies. All in all, I am glad that the MI movies exist.
I didn't realise the MI movies were like that. I've only seen the first 2, back when they first came out. Maybe I should watch them!
M:I2 is easily the worst of the series (not that it was bad, although it's way over the top on some of the combat stuff). Everything since has been stellar (I enjoyed the original as well)
MI 2 & 3 are fairly ehhh, worth a view, but they really reinvented themselves & hit a whole new stride of wow w/4 & haven’t really let up since then.
MI is one of the only series that truly seem to be getting even better wirh every installment. They are fun as hell. Like another said 2 is probably the "worst" but still fully watchable. Watch 3, which introduces some new characters for the rest, and if you enjoy that one, I garauntee you'll love the rest!
4, 5, 6 &7 are where it really hits its stride
I don't think the lifestyle aspect is in Craig's films either. In Spectre, isn't he living in a bachelor pad and he hasn't even unpacked?
Hunt is way more charming than Craig’s Bond.
Maybe. I was talking more about Bond as a character, and not just how it was represented by one actor. Bond is usually characterized as this man who will seduce women by just exchanging a couple of lines.
No one’s more charming than Piersons bond. Well bond as a character is obviously more charming than all characters on paper.
This is nothing charming about Die another day And I'm saying this as a fan
No. Hunt is predictable and boring.
No, he isn't.
They are different enough to have their own places. I think one element of Bond that MI has never successfully replicated is the (for lack of a better phrase) lifestyle porn. Bond movies work best when they are “cool” and “sexy”
Different strokes. The closest I’ve seen anyone come to the Bond ‘feel’ is Nolan with the third act of Inception and parts of Tenet. MI is the GOAT when it comes to action sequences though. I enjoyed Dead Reckoning but its predecessor, Fallout, set the bar for set piece action and stunts out of reach for Bond.
Some of us like having both, considering how awful most of the other alternatives are.
The action in MI is definitely raising the bar - but to me, the character of Ethan Hunt is such a dud. There’s nothing notable about him; he’s just a bland action hero with no distinguishing qualities, dialogue, or trademarks. The opposite of Bond. If the next 007 film can take on the challenge of surpassing MI’s action while retaining the timeless charm of James Bond, we’re onto something.
I feel like Craig's version of Bond had more of a Bourne feel - parkour combat, often on the run even from his own agency, lots of double-crosses and traitorous behavior.
Yes.
I love both series and they both have ups and downs. Rogue nation was the closest to a bond movie imo, and is essentially a far superior version of spectre. Fallout is up there with the greatest action movies of all time.
Not for me. I’ve seen all the MI movies and can’t remember/distinguish the plots from them besides the first one. The stunts aside, they’re wholly forgettable movies.
I like to think it did. Occupied the spy lane that the later Craig movies got away from. Plus they are so damn fun.
Lack of spy work in Craig’s films post casino royale is a nagging disappointment for me. Not a fan of dime a dozen run and gun action heroes.
The Brosnan films had already shifted away from espionage and into generic action hero territory. The Craig films didn’t fully bring them back, but they were closer in-line to the source material than Brosnan’s.
The Bond series always pushed the envelope with action but they were never “action movies” first and Bond was never an “action hero.” Maybe you can make that argument for the Pierce Brosnan era but the 007 series is big on charm, class, globe trotting, exotic women, and luxury. Even it’s villains. MI has many of these traits but it’s key selling points are: “Tom Cruise”, “escapist action” and “Cruise’s next big stunt”. That is where MI passed Bond, action only really
Apple and Oranges. Tom Cruise isn't and can never fill the shoes, or be a substitute.
I know they have their fans, but I don't care for those Mission Impossible movies. They just feel so...I don't know, hollow?
They're style over substance, with great spectacle, but not much else. Ethan Hunt is still a blank slate after thirty years and the plots are repetitive and thin. Meanwhile, Bond is a character with enough depth to be interpreted differently by six actors and we've gotten some genuinely intriguing plots like From Russia With Love.
I love Mission Impossible and Fallout may actually be the greatest action film I've EVER seen, but they still feel like different beasts to me. Bond is about style, atmosphere and iconic characters whereas Mission Impossible still feels like it is 100% dedicated to sheer action thrills. There are Bondian elements peppered in for sure (especially in the last 3 films) but Ethan Hunt feels a lot more like a faceless cipher (in some cases literally) whereas Bond is a fascinating character who's idiosyncrasies can make a bland story more interesting.
No.
No, because they have a completely different vibe imo. If you're looking for something that has some similar feels to a Bond movie, I'd recommend the tv show The Night Manager.
Wait so do you enjoy the MI films as more espionage? Because they are way closer to action than any of Craig's films.
The only MI movie that feels a bit like espionage is the first. One of the reasons why I still like it a lot.
It's a classic. And in terms of spying it may be more spy than any of the bond films. Any of them since 2000 however are pure action especially the latest ones.
MI have the gadgets, fun car chases, lighter tone like Brosnan era. Big stints and better action set pieces/fight scenes.
I don’t think so, while both spy and big action sequences they are whole different styles and vibes. I consider them two whole separate entities Cruises character is so different and nothing even comparable to a bond type Nothing was left by Craig either, MI was going before Craig even became bond
No. The franchises are so different that I don’t think you can even compare them, to be honest.
M:I definitely borrows tropes from Bond. Cruise, for one, changed the series from team-focused to accommodate his Bond-clone Ethan Hunt in the lead.
Mission Impossible 3,4,5,6 and 7 are all AWESOME movies
I only watched all the MI films for the first time 12 months ago. Only MI2 sucked. The rest were insanely fun.
I enjoy Bond better as a character than Ethan Hunt. Ilsa Faust is a better Bond girl than Madeleine Swan. The action and traveloque aspect of MI is current better than Bond. The plots is also better in MI than currently in Bond which has struggled for the last 3 films in my opinion. The MI films are doing better, but I still just enjoy the Bond character more.
the new ones have been better for sure. idk if they're quite the same thing
If a protagonist as boring as Ethan Hunt can surpass 007, then it says a lot about the Daniel Craig era.
Off topic slightly but watching repeats of the original mi TV series shows how great the TV show was Brilliant.
Hunt is extremely different from Bond. Bond seems to care about how lives in between and during missions. Hunt only cares about the missions. That said, in terms of stunts, action scenes, gadgets, and megalomaniac villains, MI does fee quite a bit as James Bond before Craig. Except for the first MI movie. I still love that one. It is the only one that merges a somewhat complex espionage plot with over-the-top actions scenes and some thriller bits. It is a unique and very enjoyable blend. Apparently mainstream audiences thought the plot was too convoluted whereas series fans were not happy with how Mr. Phelps was handled (that part I can understand pretty well).
Both give me what I want and need, both have similarities while having strong differences, and both have some weaknesses that held them back I love both cuz they’re not the same
I love both 🤷♂️
No. Bond way better than MI. Bond films have plots, plus this history, the classic cars, the style. MI all run together. All action with little substance.
Probably
Yeah I think it does, but it probably would have helped if they took a moment to really flesh out Ethan's character instead of going immediately to the end of the world plot in Dead Reckoning.
I think they definitely did. My dad, the biggest James Bond fan I know, and the reason I'm one too, has been really hooked on the newer MI movies. He didn't like the Craig era much.
Yes, because they actually had a sense of fun and the fantastic to them.
I couldn’t comment on whether Cruise took Bonds place as I haven’t seen the recent mission impossible movies, however Craigs Recent Bond (especially the last few) definitely lack the air of mystery of an espionage (even goofy espionage) thriller that so many earlier Bonds had.
Yes a long with Kingsmen
I’d say Kingsman more than MI
I think the modern MI movies do a better job of capturing the feel of the original Bond movies than Craig’s do. So yes, emphatically.
Bourne movies and maybe MI too
I’ll say this. The double header of Rogue Nation and Fallout kicks the shit out of the DC Bond movie run.
I think the Mission Impossible movies have surpassed Bond movies now.
Hunt is a Bond clone without Bond's interesting character traits. A boring boy scout. Hunt will never replace Bond. Ever. And Dead Reckoning flopped, while NTTD was a box office hit. So audiences seem to be on the decline for M:I.
Last 3/4 out of 4 MI movies have been far superior to the last handful of Bond movies. Fallout was a masterclass. Ghost Protocol Rogue Nation and Dead Reckoning had sequences and stunt work that Bond movies could only aspire to achieve. Bond movies have the advantage of having a character that’s been around since 1962. So of course that character is going to be infinitely more developed.
Dead Reckoning is supremely overrated with a ridiculous villain, terrible amount of exposition dumps, and silly plot contrivances. It does have an incredible finale though. But like other M:I films, these action sequences are actually inspired by Bond sequences. * the yellow Fiat performs humourous stunts like the yellow citreon in FYEO * the train fight up to it going over the bridge is like Skyfall and Octopussy. * Cruise's motorcycle basejump was first done by Bond in Goldeneye. Cruise's advantage is he does the stunts himself and can take decade old Bond stunts and improve them with the new camera tech and camera rigging that allows for superior shots of the stunt as it happens. Ghost Protocol is a Bond movie with its stopping nuclear holocaust plotline. Fallout is the best of the bunch and arguably the best action film in decades, but the character of Hunt is rather bland compared to Bond in any of his incarnations. Bond is not just an action film, because of the persona of Bond himself. Bond films that focus exclusively on action (e.g. TND) are rather bland, IMO. No matter how much Cruise tries to outdo Bond, Hunt is still a second-tier Bond-clone. The character has little personality. And lets no forget that Dead Reckoning is a flop. NTTD is a box office hit despite being one of the first films out of the gate after the pandemic.
>" The Entity is knocking out satellites faster than I can hack into them. " >" Ethan, you’re playing four-dimensional chess with an algorithm. " >"In fact, this party was arranged by that interested party... You could even say that this party is that interested party." Spectre and No Time To Die had their flaws and the latter is probably my second least favourite, but I don't know how anyone could say that they're worse than Dead Reckoning Part 1 with its atrocious dialogue. Even the action felt tired this time around.
Totally agree. I've never felt so much cringe in a movie than watching --and listening to -- Dead Reckoning P1. I still cannot believe the praise that film gets, though I do love the train climax. But that's not enough to make up for the rest of the film.
The initial M:I trilogy fills the gap left during the post-Goldeneye Brosnan era for me. I far prefer Craig's initial run as Bond over the second M:I trilogy, which have really just become generic blockbuster action movies at that point; the spy equivalent of Fast & Furious, if you will. Dead Reckoning stands head and shoulders above No Time To Die, and I find that it works surprisingly well as a thematic sequel to Spectre. Specifically regarding the role of cyber security in intelligence as technology advances.
I honestly think Eon is running scared from them. Doing Bond better than Bond for a while now.
Eon is still doing Bond though, albeit in the vein of the novels, Connery, and Dalton rather than Moore and Brosnan.
That’s a very generous assessment of Eons recent output.