I just can't. From the synopsis of each one, they just seem to take the title of this show and do their own thing. I also do not like Tom Cruise.
Is there any of the smart writing in the movies that you see in the show, or is it all Michael Bay type effects?
Fred
Paramount got my money for the first film. After they made Jim Phelps the bad guy in that one, it was over for me.
I have seen snippets and short clips from the others. Tom Cruise's fight scenes in the others, look like bad impersonations from the old Power Rangers TV show.
If the movies weren't called Mission Impossible, maybe then they'd be good. Otherwise they have nothing to do with the series. Get Smart comes closer to the series. He'll, even the A-Team comes closer.
Spenser with an "S", like the poet.
As far as movies go, I think the Ocean's movies come closer to the spirit of the series than the MI movies. Elaborate set-ups, characters improvising when something goes wrong, the audience in on some of the action and surprised by some of it.
shareInteresting observation. Other than that they are up to no good, I can get behind that notion.
As far as the movies go, yes, they ruin the foundation in the first movie. The first movie is not a good movie IMO. (De Palma is way overrated.) But at least they create a new group to sorta keep that idea going. Kind of a hybrid of old M:I and Bond. Other than the first one, I like the M:I movies.
This is sort of off-topic but a really, really old movie that does something similar to the MI TV series and the Ocean's movies is "The Sting." Have you seen that?
shareAbsolutely love The Sting. Nice comparison. Would be cool to read some fiction linking the lineage of the primary players in these examples you cite.
shareI actually liked the first 30 minutes of the original movie. But then they *spoiler* killed off the cast except for Cruise, "the girl", and eventually we learn Jim Phelps (but make him the bad guy! What?!) and that was it for me.
Do not call these movies Mission: impossible. That are NOT Mission: Impossible in any way.
[deleted]
I actually enjoyed most of the movies for the most part. I'm not sure that I saw the last one though. I had no expectations of it being true to the series or anything like that. I just went in thinking it'd be decent action movies and they delivered for me. Most diehard fans that I see on boards really don't like the movies and think they're a disgrace to the series. The Jim phelps heel turn really turned a lot of people off like my friend lima in this thread. That I can certainly understand. The movies are not for everybody.
sharelol jayhn! You're more open-minded than I.
I've had 20 years to get over it, though. I suppose I should be grateful for the first Tom Cruise iteration. I don't know if it still exists, but my very first post on IMDB (January, 2001) was on the Mission: Impossible (1996) message board. A vicious, rambling tirade that probably looks ridiculous now.
My meds have since kicked in 😂 but I still haven't seen any of the theatrical films since then.
lol you're not alone. I've seen so many similar rants on that board by people that were equally traumatized by the movie. I imagine I lost all my remaining credibility on this board by saying I enjoyed some of the movies 
But all kidding aside, purely looking at it from the standpoint that it's like a standalone movie with no connection to the series and putting the whole Jim phelps thing out of my mind (which I was able to do since it wasn't Peter Graves in the role), I thought the first one was solid but nothing too special. I thought after the 3rd one on, they got a lot better. That's just if you like those kind of action movies. If Peter Graves had played the role and they pulled those kind of shenanigans, that definitely would not fly with me. Not that that's the only issue that people had with the movie. But After I finish watching the whole series and then after I get through the series from the 80's I plan to revisit all the movies. I may have a completely different view than I had last time around since that'll be so many years since I've seen them. I will probably post my thoughts here on each movie as I watch them.
To me, the first movie is the only one that keeps in tone with the series as far as suspense and tension and Cold War-esque visual stylism. The sequels are so far more team oriented, which is good, but Cruise rarely does anything covertly, which is annoying - the IMF are sneaky, they're not the A-Team!
[deleted]
Want to hear something "interesting"?
In addition to Peter Graves who refused to become the villain in the first film, Cruise wanted all of the original cast to reprise their roles in this movie. They were intended to be the team that got wiped out in the beginning. Cruise saw it as a passing of the torch ritual. They considered it an insult. Every member of the original cast refused to participate.
Greg Morris was the only one who accepted an invite to the premiere and he walked out halfway through the movie.
I did not know this tidbit of info. Cruise is a dick.
share