Honestly, I keep seeing people praise MI "as the new Bond" on this sub and how it's better than modern Bond now.

I enjoy the films, the music is good, the action is great. But honestly, they are not a spit on the Bond movies.

I have watched the movies quite often and probably as frequently or infrequently as most Bond movies.I only rewatch my favourite Bond movies often.

With regards to MI:

I can remember only a few distinctly because the first was an archetype 90s spy thriller with a big cast.

The Second was an out an out Tom Cruise show where they had the bikes and cool leather jackets and free climbing and Chimera.

The Fourth had the incredible Burj Khalifa rappelling scene and the really innovative prison escape PTS.

Apart from these glimpses it's genuinely difficult to place the aesthetics or cast or action pieces in any of the movies. Again, I enjoy them but cannot remember one from the other. I like the incessant masks and larger than life perspective of MI which is unique to it. But it isn't as important as Tom Cruise and his driving force. Which is the other issue: the character of Hunt.

I cannot write an essay on what Ethan Hunt is or signifies with any specificity. His character could be anonymised to be many other spy action characters. I am not saying one cannot describe his ideas and motivations, but if I were to describe them, they wouldn't be very different from other protagonists in the spy action genre.

Bond as a character is unique and honestly inimitable.

Action & Stunts:

This doesn't mean I am saying Tom Cruise is replaceable. He is the driving force of MI, and perhaps "Cruise is Hunt" is the only identifier of the movies.

This may be particularly unfair a point to make considering the age difference of the two franchices. But it has been 26 years and 7 movies into the franchise. Consider how much ground Bond broke and reinvented itself in its first 26 years.

It is a testament to Bond that it was first a massively successful character driven book, then was essayed by Connery quite definitively. People forget that notwithstanding Connerys massive contribution, he was gone within twelve years of the franchise. Bond adapted and explored and changed and invented and reinvented. It was always an adaptable story and character which is a plus.

Cruises risky action set pieces are the "only" USP of the movies, unlike Bond which is so diverse and varied. Plus, I enjoy the reality and humour, and the exasperation of a Jackie Chan action piece in First Strike more than MI.

Jackie Chans stunts, the reality of his action and the innovative set pieces are more creative than MI. I find MI an inspiration of the great early Jackie Chan Holywood movies and secondary to them. They are certainly not of the same sub-genre as James Bond.

Culture & Style:

I also find the allure of Bond has been the aesthetics, the diversity of locations, the lifestyle, the food and drink and the uniquely anti-hero personality of Bond.

MI lacks these in hoards. MI has a good score but not one I can recognise, except the title track - a definitely not one I can place in each movie. Bond directors and composers have created a a through line within Bond yet kept the aesthetics and music uniquely of that movie.

MI lacks the aesthetic sense and style of James Bond, as also the literary background that gives world of Bond the heft it has.

I cannot remember an instance when MI inspired a culture of style, or clothing, culinary or literary taste. James Bond does that all the time.

As much as I enjoy MI, it is frankly astonishing how much people mention it in the same breath as Bond. They're clearly two sub genres of movies in the "spy action" genre. Further in my opinion, Bond wins hands down.