No. There is another.
My wife wants to see the film, and was thinking about going to a multiplex, paying for a different movie, and then going in to watch M:I:III. After all, at all our local multiplexes they only check your tickets at the main entrance.
This was only hypothetical, however, she’s not actually going to do that. Also, it turns out that the movie is playing at a local independent theater, so she’ll see it there. I’ve told her, however, that if she wants company she’ll have to find someone else.
My feelings exactly.
And it’s not like i’m opposed to summer blockbusters, either. I’m really looking forward to X-Men III in a few weeks. The Mission: Impossible movies have just never really appealed to me, and not only because of Cruise. I’m not even sure what it is that makes me so indifferent to them.
Actually, while he wasn’t really a villain, he played a pretty good asshole in Magnolia. Probably didn’t take much effort for him.
Tom Cruise played a full-on villain in Collateral, which was really a pretty good movie until it got to the Terminator ending.
Yeah, forgot about that. Not a bad movie, although i agree about the ending.
I saw it. Didn’t want to see it, and regret seeing it. There were a number of scenes that were supposed to be either tense or touching that had the audience in the theater I was in rolling in hysterics. PSH was the best part of the film, and I have to think that the reason he and the Couch Jumper shared so little screen time together is that PSH so outshined CJ that it was embarassing to CJ. I’d be willing to bet the two of them never do another movie together again. I don’t really have any complaints about the directing (while the second one was a hack directing job if I ever saw one), just the script sucked and CJ was, well, CJ. There was one point in the film that had me wanting to jump up and shout in my best Jackie Gleason voice, “That has got to be the stupidiest thing that I have ever heard!” and that was when the villian revealed the secret of his Master Plan[sup]TM[/sup]. He intends to use PSH to help him create Gulf of Tonkin-type incidents so that the US can invade Mid-East countries and (Wait for it, here comes the part that had 'em howling in the aisles.) “Do what we do best: Democracy! Infrastructure!” :rolleyes:
Just got back from this. I thought it was a pretty good action flick. Although I really have no interest in the whole franchise, I’ve still somehow ended up seeing all three in the theater. The second was one of the dumbest movies I’ve ever seen. This one was pretty clever, though. The plot wasn’t obviously idiotic. I did spot the doublecross coming, but I still was able to buy (mostly) that the characters in the movie wouldn’t have. I liked the numerous winks at the cliches of these sorts of movies, such as when
[spoiler]Cruise is busting out of IMF Headquarters and is using the walkie-talkie to confuse security. Laurence Fishburne’s aide keeps explaining what he’s doing (for the audience) and Fishburne keeps snapping, “I know!” at him.
Also, the wife’s reaction when Cruise tells her what IMF stands for.[/spoiler]
I was thinking last night – his “romance” with Katie (er, Kate) Holmes started right around the time he was doing publicity for War of the Worlds, and the birth of their (?) child was timed to the opening of M:I:III.
Whaddya think he’s got in mind for the opening of his next film?
Oh. . .I was just trying to indicate that if I was ever in the mood for some brain-dead mid-week entertainment, I could possibly see see M:I:III but now. . .not so sure. This thread, and some other comments have steered me away.
I still haven’t seen “United 93” and “Brick” is playing locally. We were going to see that yesterday, but it was too nice a day.
The title of this thread is rather misleading when there are open spoilers inside. Anybody going? does not equal Plot points revealed inside.
I don’t want to report any particular post but how does a mod maybe know to put “Open Spoilers” in the title?
I saw it just to see Phillip Seymour Hoffman and wasn’t disappointed on that score. Otherwise, It was the usual thing where they describe how IMPOSSIBLE a mission is and then have no problem doing it, and on some of them they don’t even bother to show how he outwitted the many obstacles. I can also imagine that his butt-kicking wife will be an agent in the future.
Just report any post that points out the title should be changed and say what you said. The user won’t get a warning or in trouble, The Thread Title will probably get changed. I will do it for you, using your post.
Jim
I saw it this weekend, because I like watching things blow up. I think Tom Cruise is batshit insane, but I’m not going to skip a movie I might enjoy just because of him. I wasn’t expecting High Art Cinema–I wanted to see shootouts and explosions. I got that. Hoffman was excellent (as always), and Jonathan Rhys Meyers took his shirt off. That was worth the price of admission. 
Heh. At one point he and Maggie Q were chatting and I was surprised the screen could hold both sets of luscious pouty lips at once. Yum.
Thanks!
Either a really messy divorce, or a bigamous celebrity second wedding.
There hasn’t even been a first wedding yet.
To respond to a previous post that said it was “nutty” to not see a film because you don’t agree with the actor … that’s not at all nutty. That’s normal human behavior. If we can’t get past an actor’s crazy real life antics and just see the character they are portraying then there is no point in seeing the movie because we won’t enjoy it. If an actor’s real life behavior is so off the wall that you can’t make the disconnect to willingly suspend disbelief then that is a perfectly normal reaction.
I like Tom Hanks and I go see his movies but if he jumped on Oprah’s couch and screamed about how he likes to eat puppies I just couldn’t take him seriously as an actor anymore and I certainly wouldn’t want to put any money into his pockets to feed his puppy habit.
Well I went last night for most of the reasons already stated; it was playing on the big screen in our town, it has PS Hoffman, who’s an acting God IMHO, and the villian is at least half of what makes this type of movie, there were some plot holes huge enough for me to ROTFL, it was perfectly mindless entertainment for my braindead day after a run of night shifts, and there was supposed to be a cool motorcycle scene. Only this last was a disappointment,
Larry
Last couple of days, the nipper and I watched Mission Impossible and Mission Impossible II. At the end of the second movie, we turned to each other and shook our heads. What a load of shite! (That’s what she said, of course.) Not only were the characters even more wooden than in the first effort (the most embarrassing moment was when the thin dusky British bird with the jutting jugs tried to have a tender moment with Tom Thumb - the close-ups matched the dialogue for awfulness, but both were well beaten by the moronic music), but it’s so bloody long. The de Palma effort was at least crash bang thank-you ma’am.
What is it with Woo and these slow motion bits? It’s too damned slow already. Is he paid by the inch?
So, please, in a nutshell, before I shell out and take Natalie to the cinema. Is MI:III more like MI or MI:II?
And to expand on that a bit, remember that studios pay someone like Tom Cruise extraordinary sums of money because TPTB believe he personally will draw people to the film who wouldn’t have otherwise gone to see it.
What they didn’t bank on, is that between the signing of the contract and the release of the movie, Cruise would hop on a couch, attack Brooke Shields, and feign actual intelligence with Matt Lauer. So while there may still be people who will go see a Tom Cruise film simply because he’s a handsome guy, there are also people who have such a negative reaction to him that it works against the film.
Or, the more he opens his mouth, the less of him I want to see of him.
Saw it yesterday (Monday) in an almost empty theater.
It was everything I expected it to be - mindless, summer-fun-blockbuster and an excuse to eat popcorn. Couple of fun scenes, lots of “WTF?!” moments and a plot that was thin, but a hell of a lot easier to understand than the first two installments.
For ALIAS fans, you will certainly notice the similarities between this film and the television series!
I’ve been conflicted about seeing it, because on one hand I think Tom Cruise is a gigantic ass but one the other, I love Lost and want to support JJ Abrams’ film career. Plus, I’ve heard good buzz about this one and I’m been itching for a big dumb popcorn flick. So I decided to boycott the opening weekend and see it later this week. Considering how much sweat studios pour over their first weekend grosses, I figure that way I can vote with my dollars (kinda) and eat my cake too. What’s really interesting to me is how big of a deal the media is making of it only grossing 47 million last weekend. That’s not a terrible showing and the movie will go on to eventually make a nice profit, but the media is still spinning it as Tom Cruise = box office poison. It seems that’s the story everybody really wants to see.