New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

Felix Quinonez: Box office wise, I see the M:I franchise as being great but not quite the A list. But as far as quality, I think it's one of my favorite franchises. And I just saw Rogue Nation and loved it. The only one I didn't like was the second one. But other than that, I've loved them all and think that people don't give Cruise enough credit for taking chances with this franchise. Even though it's a big money series, it feels like each director is allowed to actually be true to their vision and the movies never feel like rehashes.

David Mumpower: Commercially, they're in that tier below the mega-openers like comic book adaptations and the other franchises listed here. I think the best comparison is probably the Bourne franchise, which is stronger overall but may have slipped after the reboot was only so-so. We'll have to re-evaluate that proposition when Damon returns.

In terms of quality, that's where the franchise shines. Ignoring the second film, which I liked more than most people, the Mission: Impossible films are impeccable. While the original film has grown a bit dated, that scene of Cruise infiltrating from above is truly iconic. Then, the performance of Phillip Seymour Hoffman in Mission Impossible III glows in the dark as one of the finest portrayals of terrorist villainy in modern cinema.

Ghost Protocol is equally good in a very different way thanks to its visually dazzling set pieces and overflowing volume of good ideas. I mean, a woman who only accepts diamonds at payment is the idea Ian Fleming is kicking himself for never inventing. And I'm pleased to say that Rogue Nation lives up to the billing of the prior two films. I think it's fair to say that this franchise claims two of the five or six best overall action titles of the 2000s, with Rogue Nation a more than worthy addition to the line.

For my money, Mission: Impossible is light years ahead of franchises like Fast & Furious in terms of quality. Since The Hunger Games disappointed last outing and is poised to completely fade with its sequel, assuming it's true to the book, the only apt comparisons I see are the Harry Potter franchise and the Matt Damon Bourne trio. Nothing else is even in the conversation to me.

Kim Hollis: I was also going to compare it to the Bourne franchise. Like the Bourne films, you're looking at a mostly great series of movies (omit M:I2 and Bourne Legacy from the mix). You have a headline performer (Cruise/Damon) who doesn't necessarily mean massive box office, but you can rely on them for at least solid results. And then you have films that bear a signature style from particular directors - Doug Liman, Paul Greengrass and Tony Gilroy for Bourne and Brian DePalma, John Woo (doves and all), JJ Abrams, Brad Bird and Christopher McQuarrie for Mission: Impossible. I do think Mission: Impossible is a significant financial success as a franchise, particularly given that today's audiences can likely barely even imagine the TV show it's based on. I wouldn't place it in the upper echelons, but it is certainly dependable.

Continued:       1       2