Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by Drifter, Apr 30, 2006.
The first movie sucked so why would #2 or #3 be any better?
You didn't read the article at the other end of that link did you?
Or, upon further reflection, did you? Oh well, either way.
Any press is good press...
Not if you blow up the newsstand.
It's A Bomb!
sounds like a blast!
Hey - I liked 1 & 2
MIA 3 (Tired of Cruise)
I guess if Tom knows all about psychiatry from reading books then maybe he can read about acting too? Si?
I liked the first film, a mountain of Brian De Palma set pieces, including the computer hacking scene which was essentially silent (or rather, dialogue-less) cinema.
I enjoyed the first two films for what they were, but what they were not were ensemble pieces -- it was always about him. The original show was always an ensemble-oriented venture.
I guess what I'm asking is, is the third one also about him? I've noticed a few more people in it. ("Such a beautiful car", etc.)
Say what you will about Tom Cruise as a person but surely the one thing you can't criticise is his acting ability?!?
I say he is one of the all time greats .
Personally, I think he rivals Keanu Reeves in the acting department.
Nah, Keanu is the dumbed down version.
I saw it Sunday with the lower expectations that big loud summer action flicks need, turned my critical dial down to moderate, and I enjoyed it.
Hey - Keanu isn't so bad!
Two of my favourite films of all time would not be the same without him in a leading role (can you guess what they are?.....).
Seriously though - Tom Cruise is amazing in these films (even though some of the films themselves aren't perfect - my favourites marked with *):
A Few Good Men*
Born On The 4th July
Mission Impossible (I & II)
War Of The Worlds
I can't understand how anyone can say he is a bad actor?!?
This thread has sure evolved!
I like Cruise as an actor, but the problem for me with the MI movies is that they have no (or very little), connection to the original TV show. They have just become a series of action films starring Tom Cruise, each with a different director so there is very little continuity, even from film to film. If you enjoyed the TV series like I did, and went to the movies looking for some connection, you would leave very disappointed and confused. It is just one of the many annoying trends from Hollywood these days, taking a classic TV title and then creating a movie that has little or nothing to do with the original concept.
I went to see The Benchwarmers today and during the movie I went to use the restroom and walked by a crowd of people who were just getting out of Mission Impossible III.
One patron left the theater and immediately started to run at his highest possible speed, using the 'sprinter with fingertips fully extended" technique, down the hall. He got half way down the hallway, stopped, turned around and called out to his friends "We just saw two hours of THAT."
Not a glowing endorsement.
Beats watching Steven Segal run!
I've a friend and fan of the TV show who's said exactly the same thing.Other than the name and music there's nothing much similar. Aren't all action/spy movies missions impossible?
Maybe Mission Impossible will be redeemed in the future by someone else as Batman has been.
The run is at the very end of the movie so maybe we're dealing with a short attention span?
It's MI:III staring pyrotechnics, the physically impossible and Tom Cruise. Who goes expecting something that'll eventually be available on Criterion?
It was an uneven film. There were some very good moments, however.
LEt's play eye doctor.
Better or Worse
MI III - Lethal Weapon IV ?
When I walked out of theatre having seen the first movie I said the same thing. Other than the name on the marquee this movie had nothing in common with the TV series I remember. They didn't get my money the second time. And they won't this time either.
Yes, the films have nothing to do with the TV series - Peter Graves would never turn bad!!
I am a huge fan of the original TV series (not the terrible remake ) and admit to being a little disappointed on discovering how different the movie was. Then I snapped back to reality and accepted that the film was something completely different. Afterall, part of the charm of the 60s TV series is that it is of its time - goofy make up, sets, special effects and all.
On their own terms the films are decent action/adventure fare of their time. They aren't meant to be taken seriously - they are meant to entertain!
Separate names with a comma.