MovieChat Forums > Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning Part One (2023) Discussion > It wasn't *that* bad (but needed editing...

It wasn't that bad (but needed editing)

posted a year ago by seagal72 (1968)
9 replies | jump to latest

I can't fathom why people preferred Barbie or Oppenheimer over this (but hey-ho!) It seemed like a coordinated attack against Cruise this year (odd, given that he's kept 'cinema-going' afloat the last few years?)

The set pieces were great (as usual) but it was (admittedly) a tad-overlong (which is an iffy sign, given that this is part one?)

Here's to hoping that part 2 has tighter editing (and makes up for the lower than expected box-office returns of this one?) I know it's probably written (and largely 'in-the-can' by now) but I hope Cruise doesn't require TOO much female assistance in part 2?

Surely, no-one will be bothered about the (inevitable) Barbie sequel (and I think the Oppenheimer 'franchise' is done now...unless history dictates otherwise?)

[–] TandyMan (11120) a year ago

I don't know about a coordinated attack. Summer box office is always frenzy. But I think a lot of folks had hype-fatigue from Cruise over the monumental success of Top Gun 2 and were just like, "enough of this guy for now."

[–] seagal72 (1968) a year ago

I get the 'cruise-fatigue'

But I think the term 'Barbenheimer' made me think this was coordinated (of not orchestrated) attack?

[–] TandyMan (11120) a year ago

It's a damn clever bit of marketing, that's for sure. Whoever cooked that up is an assassin no doubt.

[–] Fallout4 (27) a year ago

It was a stupid idea to release the movie a week ahead of a Nolan film to begin with.

[–] Fallout4 (27) a year ago

Another issue with this film was the "Part 1". That is a turn off to casual audiences.

Then there's the trailer. It wasn't good. When I first saw it, I was not sold on the film. I understand you don't want to give anything away but I went into this movie blind, knowing absolutely nothing about the plot because the trailer revealed nothing. I think had they marketed the film around the weaponization of a sentient AI, it would have turned more heads. But that trailer was too uneventful and made me feel the movie would turn out the same.

And the movie lacked star power. Fallout had Henry Cavill, Alec Baldwin and Angela Bassett. DRP1 had Tom Cruise. That's it.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8759) a year ago

This is the seventh film in the series. While I get that not necessarily EVERYONE who watched this one has seen all the others, I'd have to think that if you're watching the seventh installment, knowing there's going to be one more shouldn't be a problem.

Also, it's interesting that you mention "Angela Bassett" as providing star power. I certainly don't think of her as more of a star than Simon Pegg. In fact, I would not be surprised if more people could pick Pegg out of a lineup. Hayley Atwell, Ving Rhames, and Rebecca Ferguson mean something to someone people, too.

Lastly, I will add that for a lot of viewers Alec Baldwin is a reason NOT to watch a film rather than the other way around. The guy is a bit toxic to many.

I'll give you Henry Cavill, though. That was a win for Fallout.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8759) a year ago

I wasn't aware that people were saying it's "bad" at all.

[–] TylerAArse (2884) a year ago

The airport sequence was too long.
The car chase scene was too long.
The entire train sequence was too long.

[–] mariomonsieur (289) a year ago

The motorcycle scene was a bit exaggerated

It wasn't *that* bad (but needed editing)

It wasn't that bad (but needed editing)