MovieChat Forums > Mission: Impossible (1996) Discussion > The helicopter in the tunnel

The helicopter in the tunnel

posted 2 years ago by Burk48917 (11442)
11 replies | jump to latest

This scene is really terrible after a recent rewatch. The air turbulence the train produced would make precision flying impossible. The pilot could barely keep it steady enough for Voight to jump too, but he tries to do a near surgical killing with the helicopter blades and thinks it won't backfire. Also, once he gets Voight, why try killing Nathan in the tunnel? He wasn't going anywhere unless he fell off, which would kill him. Why not wait until he was clear and had room to navigate, and also ensure that Nathan couldn't jump on...just like Voight had done moments before.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8824) 2 years ago

The finale is the worst thing about the movie. Once they get inside the tunnel, not only do the effects feel incredibly dated and fake, but the over-the-top nature of the whole scene just feels like it's out of the a different film. While there were obviously daring things done earlier in the movie, such as the infiltration at Langley, they feel more grounded than the train sequence at the end.

[–] Burk48917 (11442) 2 years ago

Agreed. Most of the movie held up ok, but that train scene was rough. Funny, because back in the day it was very heavily featured in the trailer.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8824) 2 years ago

It makes me wonder if DePalma was just eager to play with the new toy that was CGI. The scene looks okay before they get into the tunnel but once they enter the tunnel you can really see the seams.

I wonder if DePalma has ever looked back and wished he had done something different for the finale.

[–] Pete314 (3126) 2 years ago

The just 25ft diameter of the tunnel will make precision flying with a helicopter impossible... 😏

[–] Galactus03 (4381) 2 years ago

Lol. Yet you enjoy Transformers. In 1996 CGI still was not fully being implemented. yeah the helicopter scene looked a little dated. But I don't give a shit. It's still way more realistic than say the last 4 Fast and Furious films and about the same as Indiana Jones. If everything was logical in films they would be extremely boring..

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8824) 2 years ago

The Fast & Furious movies at least know they are ridiculous. They are live-action cartoons essentially. That can be fun as long as everyone is in on the joke.

[–] Galactus03 (4381) 2 years ago

Fast and Furious has gotten more ridiculous as it went on. I liked them up until the 6thovie and than 7,8and 9 sucked hard. Haven't seen the last one and am unlikely to do so...

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8824) 2 years ago

I don't disagree that the series was better earlier on. In my opinion the first movie is still the best. It was also definitely the most grounded and is for the most part a pretty realistic story.

Tokyo Drift I also enjoyed and think is underrated. Fast Five was well-made as well.

The rest were okay for one watch but I don't need to revisit them. Well actually let me exclude the fourth film; I hate that one and think it sucks.

[–] Galactus03 (4381) 2 years ago

Tokyo drift was not well liked when it first came out. It has since become one of the favorites of the series.Too bad the producers could not bring back the characters from that film in a meaningful way. The car in space thing was ridiculous ....

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8824) 2 years ago

Is that right about Tokyo Drift? Well good. I'm glad that more people have grown to appreciate that film. I always liked it and it has always been my #2 in the series. It seems that Lucas Black is polarizing but I have always thought he is cool, the Tokyo setting in the film is also cool, and the drifting element feels unique.

As for bringing back the characters, what they perhaps should've done was just kept the worlds essentially separate and done a Tokyo Drift 2. They could've let Han cross over between the two, but Sean should've just continued his adventures in Japan.

[–] Galactus03 (4381) 2 years ago

I agree ..