Saw it again on imax. Holds up incredibly. Every intense scene is as tense as ever, every shot just as amazing, every piece of music adding to the heart pounding thrill of it. Christopher McQualon is more like it.

Also, Cavill’s moustache was definitely worth the $15M WB spent to remove it. That thing is glorious.

I found it interesting that Cavill doesn't once that his shirt off. But even with all his clothes on, you can tell he's pumped. He just looks like a beast. But it never looks unbelievable when another character fights him.

Cavill loses every fist fight in the movie. Though on the rewatch I wasn’t if he and asian Lark were on the same page. They exchange a meaningful look right before the fight in the bathroom, but if Asian Lark talked the movie would be over right there.

He even has to cheat to beat Alec Baldwin. But that is the mark of a true villian, someone who doesn’t have to cheat and chooses to anyways.

Fallout is pretty awesome. My favorite of the series so far. A very well-done action film.

I remember trying to watch the first on VHS when it first came out and I couldn't get into it. Didn't watch much of it. So I can't rate that, but the series got really good starting with Ghost Protocol. Didn't care much about it until then.

My ratings:

M:I-2 - C+
Mission: Impossible III - B-
Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol - B+
Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation - B+
Mission: Impossible - Fallout - A-

It helps when your costar is 5 foot 4 and lean. On a football team in perspective, Cavill would be decent at best.

But I agree, if I saw that guy, you would not fuck with him.

Very entertaining, one of the best of the series and an action film pur sang. It's action packed and fun all around, it doesn't really take a breath at any moment. Cavill is very well cast opposite to Cruise, the banter at first to vs villain dynamic is great. I also liked Harris as the villain a lot more in this. Ferguson's role I found a bit confusing though, and I don't think it would have been necessary to have both her and Monaghan in this, going with one of them, would have worked well enough. I guess they wanted to go for as epic as possible, which they pretty much succeeded, action, score, cinematography, it's all fantastic, but the story itself could have been a bit more efficient. I had a great time anyway, the best with an MI film I can recall aside from the first one.
There was a small gaffe I thought to have seen at the beginning with the nuclear scientist guy in the fake room, the map shown on the screen with Rome, Jersulem and Mecca looked 100% incorrect to me, will confirm that on a re-watch.

A-

That's awesome, hope to experience this myself for another upcoming great film, slim chance I get an empty room with it.

List:

1. Mission: Impossible (A)
2. Mission: Impossible - Fallout (A-)
3. Mission: Impossible 2 (A-)
4. Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (A-)
5. Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation (B+)
6. Mission: Impossible III (B)

Possibly because it was all a fake

I hate this type of observation. It's as if movies are not allowed to get anything wrong. In life, people get things wrong ALL THE TIME. It should go without saying that occasionally that is represented in film too.

Well, once it's noticed it's hard to unnotice.

In reply to Sparrow, if that was the case shouldn't Debruuk have maybe noticed it and said, this is all a scam!!

But anyway, it's a $200m film with 1000s people working on it I guess, I think you oughta get your things right. But sure it's a film still, in a film universe the world doesn't have to look exactly the same. But I think they're going for accuracy and I think they flubbed there. However I understand all of this is odd coming from a guy who's favorite film is Gladiator.

Why, just because he is a character in a film, do you expect him to be an encyclopedia? And why do you expect him to be razor sharp with his observations after waking up in an unknown place after trauma?

Yes, it is a big budget film with 1000s of people working on it ... we're back to people again. Humans make mistakes. It's not even in the same league as showing denim and gas canisters in 180 AD.

Yeah, sure Debruuk could be, and really was tbh, groggy from his trauma. He's also however an intelligent scientist from Norway, who's to be expected to know what a map of Europe through Israel looks like (about Mecca, I wouldn't be certain I could rightly point that out on a map).

I'd blame this on Americans making a film, and knowing shit-all about the world's geography.

I think Algren answered it. The guy was in a trauma and he mostly wakes up after that map and the news footage starts, I did notice some deficiency there as well but given they had less than an hour to setup the whole thing, it made sense if some of the things were wrong. Kinda makes you a detective to find if you feel everything is real or just a show.

Yeah, im fine with him not noticing it if it was wrong, but I would have appreciated that they either got it right or acknowledged the mistake...But yeah it's just a small thing I just noticed it and felt like mentioning it at least, it doesn't make the film any less great, but it would have been nice to have the details right.

LOL. Why in the hell would you expect that? You expect far too much from people. If he was a geographer, you'd have a point. But just because he is a scientist, you really should not expect anything from him other than his knowledge of science. People with specific knowledge in one area are notoriously dense in most others.

But it did factor into your decision to give it an A- as opposed to an A or A+, right?

Specially in spy movies it has been long established that the characters are judged by what they do, see Sherlock or mostly any other spy movies.

And let's not disregard the possibility that stuffp is actually wrong here. I mean, all the millions of people that have watched the film and it's the first time this "observation" was made...and he's also not a geographer.

stuffp I thought you were speaking of experience

I may be wrong here, but I do not think he's even been to one of the three cities he mentioned. Though I agree that doesn't necessarily mean anything with regards to his ability to spot a mistake on a map.

He's an intelligent guy from Holland, who's to be expected to know how to spell Jerusalem. I'd blame this on a Hollander making a post, and knowing shit-all about the English language.

But yeah it's just a small thing I just noticed it and felt like mentioning it at least, it doesn't make the review any less great, but it would have been nice to have the spelling right. Once it's noticed it's hard to unnotice.

Fair...and funny


Yeah, I haven't and not sure I'm even allowed in Mecca considering the infidel I am.


Good point also


Well, the film is just not A+ material for me, and it was on the edge for me of A- and A, but finally an A- felt more right, and would like a rewatch, which I look forward to actually, determine whether it's more of an A than an A- for me eventually. But, I guess, yeah the fact the map gaffe happened, it did punitively influence me in the way that made this turn into just the A- in the end. It's fantastic though, and Top 100 material as we speak.