Since the guy verifying the codes was a cryptographer, presumably the codes contained a hash value and the cryptographer would be able to, in his head, do the math necessary to make sure that the codes matched their hash values. Randomly reordering the characters in the code would result in not matching the hash and the expert would be able to tell they were fake.
Simple version, lets say I have a 10 digit code, the first nine digits are random numbers and the 10th digit is the last digit of the sum of the 1st, 3rd, and 7th digits.
So a code of 123456789 would end up being 1234567891 (1, 3, and 7 equal 11, last digit is 1 which is tacked to the end as the 10th digit). If randomly reordered you might end up with 1987654321 which you could tell is fake because the last digit should be a 3 (1+8+4=13, last digit is 3).
He did not expect him to come out alive.
At this point the plan has gone awry and the choice is let him escape with real launch codes or kill him to maintain possession of them and hopefully find another way to the head bad guy.
Not trying to change your opinion of it, if you didn’t enjoy it, you didn’t enjoy it. But I found that for the genre the plot did generally hang together better than most. I liked that it did not rely on the omniscient superhero or omniscient supervillain and both sides screwed up and had to recover. The big fight at the end was ridiculous.
This is what made the film enjoyable for me. While I’m not the Cruise fan I once was; this is the way to make me a fan again. It doesn’t take itself too seriously.
Not just a member, he’s pretty much the most public face of them. I simply refuse to watch anything he’s involved with based on this. Looking at IMDB it seems that 2002’s Minority Report is the last thing I saw of his.
Pity really. He’s a damn fine actor, but I do have my principles.
You mean she’s NOT?!? Thanks for ruining it, dude.
Saw “Mission” last night. Lots of fun. Really liked having a bit of humor added to the mix. Also glad to see no identity fake-outs with latex masks. Lots of ridiculous moments (climbing a building with magic gloves? hitting the big red button at the last second?) that pushed the movie toward cartoon-land but it was still very entertaining.
Also, I would have bet good money that all the stuff about Cruise doing his own stunts on the side of the building was crap. I guess YouTube proves me wrong. I have to admire Cruise’s guts for doing that.
By ending the sentence with mention that it grossed more than double that – the amount SenorBeef expected – during the nationwide opening weekend? Before using the next sentence to mention that the movie has already grossed more than a hundred million over its budget? I don’t really see it as a disservice; I don’t even see it as damning with faint praise; I’m not sure it’s even praising with faint damns.
I saw it a few days ago and didn’t realize this was the thread for it. I found it a decent action movie with some good sequences. A couple of mild complaints though:
At times the movie seemed to expect me to remember things that happened in previous movies and I had no memories of this stuff at all.
For a globetrotting adventure, the movie just seemed a little “small”.
Next one is a spoiler
3. It seemed to me that in reality, as soon as the missile launched from the sub, the bad guy would have won. The US would have detected the attack immediately and WWIII would have begun. Unless they mentioned IMF warning them not to do that, which I don’t recall happening.
I’m not sure I understand your logic, here. How would you know otherwise that the missile actually gets launched? I realize that they show snippets of what happens in the movie during the intro (including that launch scene), but I think it’s still fair to call that a spoiler since that’s some of the suspense in the film.
Heck, aside from the movie, I saw him on Late Nite with Jimmy Fallon recently and I can’t believe how young he still looks. I think he could believably pass for mid-30s.
In reply to someone else, who promptly added that he was seeing two sets of numbers for the opening weekend – one of which he termed “bad”, while the other reflected “a more typical opening weekend.” He then asked “what’re they measuring here?”
I wanted to make it clear that (a) what he termed a “bad” opening only involved the limited-release dates; that (b) the wide-release real opening was the one he saw as grossing a more typical revenue; and that (c) the combined approach, plus all the other business it’s already done, has earned back a hundred million past the budget.
Since you didn’t object to his characterization, but only to mine, possibly you wouldn’t have called it “a major disservice” if I’d merely repeated “bad” right back when describing it; the problem is, I felt “bad” was too strong even if it had been the wide-release opening, and so swapped in a different term. My mistake, apparently; next time I’ll take the path of least resistance more thoroughly.
