The Movie Thread

Just came back from seeing "We Bury The Dead." It was okay, guess.

It's a serviceable plot about a wife (Daisy Ridley) looking to find her husband after an accidental U.S. military experiment that has turned local Tasmanian residents into what are essentially zombies (more of the original Night of the Living Dead classic variety). There's some (obvious) anti U.S. sentiment felt by the locals given the accident, but the fate and state of the outside world can only be guessed at. Where's the rioting? The panic? The destruction? The soldiers there occasionally kill attacking infected but otherwise the setting is too peaceful to be seen as both apocalyptic and dire, thus killing the emotional tension we could've had in Ridley's character as she desperately tries to find her husband. What also hinders said tension is the fact that we never really feel the connection she had between her and her husband, especially with how heavy handed the movie is in showing us how much they "love" each other with the film's relentless flashbacks telling us so.

She's paired with a local in their mission to search and cleanup bodies. He's shown to be very headstrong yet charismatic, that he used to bury a fair bit of shame and self-pity and he was honestly the only form of energy I felt from the movie. They set out to find her husband and it would've made for a far interesting movie if the film was focused squarely on them as the two had some chemistry (even romantic chemistry arguably at parts) that could've been better built out as the film progressed but he gets arrested by some lone solider ten minutes later and vanishes from the movie up until the last twenty minutes or so (how he showed up at the resort Ridley's husband was before she did was never explained.)

The solider is later shown to be deranged after losing his pregnant wife in the accident and attempts to get a little too close to Ridley's character to the point where she is forced to kill him. As she continues her search for her husband the "zombies" are eventually shown to display signs of intelligence and a bit of humanity, as with one returning to the RV Ridley's character is sleeping in for the night to bury his dead family. A sort of interesting idea with zombie lore that really went nowhere.

She eventually finds her husband dead and having cheated on her, only for Ridley's character to reveal she cheated on him prior (after issues with having children which she wanted to have via IVF, he didn't), thus him taking the business trip to the area to clear his head. She and the local drown their sorrows, bury Ridley's husband and head back on the road, presumably back to civilization. They find the wife from the solider Ridley's character had killed having given birth to her child before abandoning it to die. Ridley's character then takes the immune (?) infant, presumably as her own child. Movie ends.

I guess the "zombies" here were an allegory for the painful parts of our past that sometimes comes back to haunt us, but the movie lacks any creativity and energy to make that point hit hard. 5/10 for me.
 
Been going thru the Mission Impossible series with my wife having never seen a single one somehow. The original was a nice bit of nostalgia albeit quite dated. Skipped ahead to Ghost Protocol and was very impressed with the consistency of Ghost Protocol/Rogue Nation/Fallout 'trilogy'. Minimum woke, best action ever filmed most likely and really watchable, I do have to give Tom Cruise respect for the passion and effort he puts into the franchise. Simon Pegg was also an ace casting choice. Not to mention that the themes are generally positive and wholesome, good guys are good bad guys are bad and none of the James Bond sleaziness. My main critique would be that the plots are usually technobabble nonsense and that the mid-film action sequences almost always outshine the climactic end-of-film sequences. I'm almost reticent to watch the Reckoning duology because Fallout ended on a pretty 'conclusive' note and based on the new Top Gun, Cruise is in uncanny valley territory trying to still act like a young buck action star.
 
Been going thru the Mission Impossible series with my wife having never seen a single one somehow. The original was a nice bit of nostalgia albeit quite dated. Skipped ahead to Ghost Protocol and was very impressed with the consistency of Ghost Protocol/Rogue Nation/Fallout 'trilogy'. Minimum woke, best action ever filmed most likely and really watchable, I do have to give Tom Cruise respect for the passion and effort he puts into the franchise. Simon Pegg was also an ace casting choice. Not to mention that the themes are generally positive and wholesome, good guys are good bad guys are bad and none of the James Bond sleaziness. My main critique would be that the plots are usually technobabble nonsense and that the mid-film action sequences almost always outshine the climactic end-of-film sequences. I'm almost reticent to watch the Reckoning duology because Fallout ended on a pretty 'conclusive' note and based on the new Top Gun, Cruise is in uncanny valley territory trying to still act like a young buck action star.

I too am watching this series right now on Paramount. Having only seen the first one and the next to last one in the series, I went back to the original and started over again.

While the first movie in the installment was solid, the 2nd one directed by John Woo has already left a bad taste in my mouth. The rock climbing scene in the beginning is completely divorced from reality, and Woo doesn't seem to care about things like physics and gravity. His only concern seems to be how he can outdo the stunts in the previous film.

BTW...the face mask scene on the plane also looks fake, and that might have to do with the fact that the CGI back in 2000 wasn't very good.
 
I went back and watched the original Back to the Future and, while there are some good times revisited in the film and the cast is great, the story really has a lot of weirdness. The mother-son attraction gets brought up a lot and goes kind of far, although it didn't cringe me out this much when the movie was first released like it does to now.

Maybe it's me, but I just can't enjoy Back to the Future now, although it was the only Spielberg teen film from the 80's that I liked back in the day. Always hated Gremlins and I thought Goonies was also very weirdly sexual, and I saw that during my mid-teens when I was pretty receptive to a little skin or whatever on screen.
 
I went back and watched the original Back to the Future and, while there are some good times revisited in the film and the cast is great, the story really has a lot of weirdness. The mother-son attraction gets brought up a lot and goes kind of far, although it didn't cringe me out this much when the movie was first released like it does to now.

Maybe it's me, but I just can't enjoy Back to the Future now, although it was the only Spielberg teen film from the 80's that I liked back in the day. Always hated Gremlins and I thought Goonies was also very weirdly sexual, and I saw that during my mid-teens when I was pretty receptive to a little skin or whatever on screen.

We revisited the trilogy in the way when we were kids and it was great, I get why the mom son thing can creep some people out but when we were kids we just thought it was funny and indeed weird.

I actually really liked the 3rd one set in the wild west, they did a really good job at the sets and costumes etc.
 
I too am watching this series right now on Paramount. Having only seen the first one and the next to last one in the series, I went back to the original and started over again.

While the first movie in the installment was solid, the 2nd one directed by John Woo has already left a bad taste in my mouth. The rock climbing scene in the beginning is completely divorced from reality, and Woo doesn't seem to care about things like physics and gravity. His only concern seems to be how he can outdo the stunts in the previous film.

BTW...the face mask scene on the plane also looks fake, and that might have to do with the fact that the CGI back in 2000 wasn't very good.

Yeah I heard as much about the 2nd, seems like I made the right choice skipping from 1 to 4.

RE Back to the Future I also rewatched that last year and I think it's a classic. The script and direction are so tightly woven in a way that Hollywood is now incapable of, and IMO the mom having a crush on him is pretty funny and not taken to any real transgressive territory.
 
Been going thru the Mission Impossible series with my wife having never seen a single one somehow. The original was a nice bit of nostalgia albeit quite dated. Skipped ahead to Ghost Protocol and was very impressed with the consistency of Ghost Protocol/Rogue Nation/Fallout 'trilogy'. Minimum woke, best action ever filmed most likely and really watchable, I do have to give Tom Cruise respect for the passion and effort he puts into the franchise. Simon Pegg was also an ace casting choice. Not to mention that the themes are generally positive and wholesome, good guys are good bad guys are bad and none of the James Bond sleaziness. My main critique would be that the plots are usually technobabble nonsense and that the mid-film action sequences almost always outshine the climactic end-of-film sequences. I'm almost reticent to watch the Reckoning duology because Fallout ended on a pretty 'conclusive' note and based on the new Top Gun, Cruise is in uncanny valley territory trying to still act like a young buck action star.

Nice post and I agree. You have good taste, Sir.

The trio of Ghost Protocol/Rogue Nation/Fallout are excellent. Indeed the MI series as a whole is recognized as one the best action movie franchises. For example, it is placed at #2 by Ranker. Collider ranks it as at #1, noting:
While this franchise technically started around the 1960s with a TV show, Brian De Palma would revive it and establish it as a film franchise with the iconic Mission: Impossible. The series follows Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) and the IMF as they undergo some of the most challenging missions that no other human could accomplish. Starting in the mid-1990s, the franchise has amassed seven films, with the eighth and final Mission: Impossible releasing in 2025.

Some might argue that Mission: Impossible isn't the most outstanding action franchise because of lackluster films. However, while the second and third movies are polarizing, the first is an iconic staple of cinema, and every other movie is a masterpiece of action. Cruise has proven to be one of the best action stars, doing some of the most impressive stunts in history, upping the action and tension with every film. The fights, stunts, intensity, and exhilaration provided by the Mission: Impossible movies make it the greatest action franchise ever.

MI is one of the very few action franchises that actually got better with time (peaking at MI 4-7). In the modern age of CGI and AI slop, directors and actors that work with real set pieces and tough stunts are more impressive than ever. This explains in part why I rate the MI series so highly.

Here is a list with videos of the top stunts performed across the first seven movies:
And for the final movie:



I too am watching this series right now on Paramount. Having only seen the first one and the next to last one in the series, I went back to the original and started over again.

While the first movie in the installment was solid, the 2nd one directed by John Woo has already left a bad taste in my mouth. The rock climbing scene in the beginning is completely divorced from reality, and Woo doesn't seem to care about things like physics and gravity. His only concern seems to be how he can outdo the stunts in the previous film.

BTW...the face mask scene on the plane also looks fake, and that might have to do with the fact that the CGI back in 2000 wasn't very good.

MI 2 is widely regarded as the worst of all MI films. I would encourage you to persist and least watch MI 4-6 as recommended by Lakobos, then MI 7 (Dead Reckoning).

IMDB user ratings for all MI movies:
  • Fallout (2018) – 7.7
  • Dead Reckoning (2023) – 7.6
  • Rogue Nation (2015) – 7.4
  • Ghost Protocol (2011) – 7.4
  • MI I (1996) – 7.2
  • The Final Reckoning (2025) – 7.2
  • MI III (2006) – 6.9
  • MI II (2000)– 6.1

Here are my rankings and comments. They are sorted by the release date and connections between the movies (some are stand-alone, some are directly related), and consider the year it was made (the first MI movie is 30 years old now and naturally looks rather dated; however back then it was solid). I am also considering the demographics of CiK readers.

Disclaimer: I haven't seen some of these movies for a while and these ratings reflect a personal subjective experience.
Color code: Purple = top choices and recommended (7.5+); black = okay to decent (6 to 7.4). red = don't bother (under 6).
  • MI I (1996) – 8
Start here with the iconic first movie.

Filmspeak Reflection:

Director: Brian De Palma
Writers: David Koepp and Robert Towne (Screenplay); David Koepp and Steven Zaillian (Story)
Producers: Tom Cruise and Paula Wagner
  • MI II (2000) – 5.5
Skip this. Perhaps the exceptions would be if you're a big John Woo fan and/or if you're Australian and enjoy seeing locations Down Under used in international movies.

Director: John Woo
Writers: Robert Towne (Screenplay); Ronald D. Moore and Brannon Braga (Story)
Producers: Tom Cruise and Paula Wagner
  • MI III (2006) – 7
It starts out strongly but by the end I didn't feel compelled to write home about it. Still, I enjoyed the ride and MI 3 features perhaps the best MI villain.

Review by Nerdstalgic, 'This Was Mission Impossible's Most Terrifying Villain'

Director: J. J. Abrams
Writers: Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci, and J. J. Abrams
Producers: Tom Cruise and Paula Wagner

These next three are top-class entertainment and the ones that I enjoyed the most. I could rate one of them slightly higher or lower than others but I'll just say that they're all superb. This is where the key influence of Christopher McQuarrie started (uncredited on Ghost Protocol). Highly recommended.
  • Ghost Protocol (2011) – 8.5
When Ghost Protocol (MI 4) was released in 2011, 15 years ago now, it was a masterclass that re-animated the franchise. I remember watching the Burj Khalifa set piece on the big screen at the time and feeling enthralled. The weak point was the third act, but the first two acts alone elevate this to top-notch entertainment.

Review by Chris Stuckmann

Director: Brad Bird
Writers: André Nemec and Josh Appelbaum
Producers: Tom Cruise, J. J. Abrams, and Bryan Burk
  • Rogue Nation (2015) – 8.5
One of the greatest set pieces is the staged at the opera house in Vienna, which some regard as the best in the entire franchise.

Review by Jeremy Jahns:

Director: Christopher McQuarrie
Writers: Christopher McQuarrie (Screenplay); Christopher McQuarrie and Drew Pearce (Story)
Producers: Tom Cruise, J. J. Abrams, Bryan Burk, David Ellison, Dana Goldberg, and Don Granger
  • Fallout (2018) – 8.5
The highest-grossing film in the franchise both in the US and worldwide ($791.7 million). On aggregate, this is the highest-rated MI film.

Analysis: 'MI Fallout — How To Create The Perfect Scene | Film Perfection'

Director: Christopher McQuarrie
Writer: Christopher McQuarrie
Producers: Tom Cruise, J. J. Abrams, Christopher McQuarrie, and Jake Myers

The final duology

These are modern entertaining movies, especially Dead Reckoning. Both are based around action pieces rather than a compelling plot. They involve some near-superhuman girl bosses, are very pop-oriented, and are overly long with excessive expositions; but are worth watching for the action and stunts alone IMO. The last movie Final Reckoning was a let down after watching Dead Reckoning.
  • Dead Reckoning (2023) – 8
Review by Critical Drinker: 'Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning Is Excellent'

  • The Final Reckoning (2025) – 7
Nerdrotic review 'Mission: Impossible The Final Reckoning REVIEW - A Disappointing End'

Director: Christopher McQuarrie
Writers: Christopher McQuarrie and Erik Jendresen
Producers: Tom Cruise and Christopher McQuarrie
 
I went back and watched the original Back to the Future and, while there are some good times revisited in the film and the cast is great, the story really has a lot of weirdness. The mother-son attraction gets brought up a lot and goes kind of far, although it didn't cringe me out this much when the movie was first released like it does to now.

Maybe it's me, but I just can't enjoy Back to the Future now, although it was the only Spielberg teen film from the 80's that I liked back in the day. Always hated Gremlins and I thought Goonies was also very weirdly sexual, and I saw that during my mid-teens when I was pretty receptive to a little skin or whatever on screen.
I thought that was innocent. It was one of those situations in a situation comedy. He had no interest whatsoever in any kind of thing with her, and she couldn't possibly know it was her son.
 
I thought that was innocent. It was one of those situations in a situation comedy. He had no interest whatsoever in any kind of thing with her, and she couldn't possibly know it was her son.
Right, plus if he looks at all like his dad, of course she's gonna be interested. He obviously has game and swagger so it's only natural, and there would be a form of familiarity because of being raised by her in the future.
Personally, I don't see the problem. I think it's just the hypersexual nature of everything these days that make it kinda weird or bad taste for some...
 
Back
Top