It's a shame this film is so dated
A great movie but still..
shareThe Rock & Heat still holds up!
share
MovieChat Forums > Mission: Impossible (1996) Discussion > It's a shame this film is so dated
It'ss till the greatest in the series
shareWhat's so dated about it?
shareThe climax, with the train in the tunnel, doesn't quite astound like it once did. And the clothes they sport and the technology they depend on can take some getting used to. Still, DePalma's sensibilities are perfectly suited for this franchise and the results, while creaky here and there, enthrall nonetheless.
shareI still like the climax even though digital rear projection has made drastic improvements since 1996 and yeah it does look a little funky now but still a kick ass way to end the film! The tech is dated no doubt but the story and direction still feels fresh to me, just with more primitive 90's technology. It still beats most of the sequels, Rogue Nation comes pretty damn close to this movie. This movie just had more of a brain than the other films IMO.
shareNot being too attached to the original series (though I did like it) I thought it was quite brazen of DePalma to shit all over it. He obviously wanted to do a Hitchcockian thriller and not a reverential update of a cherished property. I remember at the time a lot of people being pissed off that DePalma turned Phelps, a character beloved and idolized by so many boomers, into a baddie. It was a choice that didn't bother me; it took me by surprise and suggested the then-young series would be going off in other interesting, unpredictable directions that people without lobotomies could relish ... which sadly was not the case
shareI thought Phelps turning to the "darkside" lol was pretty bad ass! The scene where Hunt is talking to Jim at the table and figures out it was Jim all along was pretty emotional and shocking. Such a betrayal.....I loved it personally. The rest of the film franchise is pretty much another James Bond/Die Hard type franchise, it never quite captured the spirit of this movie. I like the sequels but this one seems the most unique out of all of them.
shareThat's why I think it would be a great way to bring the series full circle, and bring back a bit of that DePalma gutsiness, by turning Hunt into a bad guy (they could also enable Cruise to demonstrate, as he did in "Collateral," what a fantastic villain he makes).
shareAgreed. Its more of a spy film than any of the others that came after it. That said, the recent few that have come out have been great.
shareThe orginial came close the TV show where it was about a team and how to get something done, being in trouble, getting out it, etc. As regards to Phelps, I felt it was a terrible way to treat a team leader in such a way.
As regards to the rest of the movies, they have turned more into Ehan Philips show with cameos by other team members (with Benji being a comic relief). They are in no real sense of danger to Mission Impossible movies as most of the missions are quite straight forward. There doesn't seem to be any real danger to any of the team members. For example, they dropped the (I forget the name) lady from Ghost Protocol and she was nowhere to be seen in Rogue Nation. It would have been Mission:Impossible-ish to actually get her killed somehow in the beginning of RN on a mission.
It's barely about the team, considering the IMF is killed off 10 minutes into the movie and the remaining survivers- besides Cruise- are traitors. The rest of the movie revolves around Cruise running from the CIA trying to clear his name, albeit with a bit of help. It's focused on Cruise knowing everything, whereas the show's entire core purpose was co-operation, each character with a unique skill set. Also the show's missions were mind-games, and they were totally covert; get in and get out without the bad guys knowing what happened. There's a little of that in MI 1, but there's also a lot of silly spectacle.
I still enjoy this movie for what it is, but I always thought it would have made more sense to call it something else, not Mission Impossible.
I never saw the tv show, so it never affected me how MI 1 was made when it came out, I didnt think it was that great when I watched it as a 13yo in 1996 but having seen it many times since it was released, I think its a great film.
shareAre you blind? The train scene still looks cutting edge to this day - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WaXuRWGrvw
I thought maybe it was nostalgia but I went back to watch that scene again and it still looks great. Certainly looks more tangible than a lot of CGI action sequences you see today.
How is the internet stuff being dated a bad thing, though. It was made in 1995. Basically every technology that is utilized in a film will be dated at some point so that's a pointless criticism. Concerning the bullet train sequence, that's down to CGI in general. I barely ever think CGI's convincing on screen, even today. What counts is the direction of the actors and Cruise and Voight's performances; at every moment I believe they are battling it out on the roof of a speeding train. Elfman's score is spectacular as well.
shareWholeheartedly agree about people that criticize dated tech in films. I think the train sequence still looks good even by today´s standards.
share