Mission Immpossible III

I thought the action scenes were entertaining, but sometimes went too over the top. The story was a bit too ridiculous. In terms of the shaky camera style, it worked for the most part, but was overused in some instances (for example, when Laurence Fishburne is scolding that guy in the beginning, it cuts to the guy sitting down and just listening, but the camera moves around awkwardly).

By the way, in the part where Cruise is running away from the overturned SUV when a missle hits it, did anyone else get annoyed by the fact that Cruise is blown in the opposite direction that the missle hit the car from, just so he could smack another car?
 
i just got back from seeing the film. i loved it. i love all 3 movies. this one takes the cake though IMHO.

loved the way it was shot. i'm a huge JJ Abrams fan (LOST, Alias). i thought the film worked. the beginning scene was very Alias like. that whole time i was waiting for Jennifer Garner to come in and kick ass LOL.
 
Watched it today.

Great action flick. Closer to DePalma's Mission than Woo's, which is a good thing on it's own. Enough action, espionage and plot twists to keep you on the edge of your seat till the end. And, surprisingly, enough drama and emotions to make everything look realistic. Loved the gritty aspect Abrams added into the mix: the shots of Russel's fked up face looked like they came from an R rated film and those dark and dirty chinese scenes - from the likes of Saw (or, come to think of it, from the very first episode of Alias... hmmm)
About shaky camera - yeah, the movie could do without it. Wasn't bothering me, but was really unnecessary at times.
About missile explosion smacking Hunt into a Dodge on the bridge - we discussed it a few months ago when the trailer came out and came to conclusion that it was done that way simply because it looks cool physics aside... either that or it's Tom's magnetic personality.

Overall a good movie. I'm completely satisfied.
 
what a freakin let down..

the opening was so solid too.. so good.. Philip Seymour Hoffman is amazing... the action scenes were decent.

here comes the "but"..

now I am a big fan of the "shaky camera, lets-move-around-a-bit-before-we-find-the-focus-of-the-shot movement.."

but holy hell.. would it kill you to pull back to a bloody wide shot once in a while... it looked like absolutely everything was shot with a long lens on this film and it bothered me way too much.. even the "wide" shots looked like they were on a long focal length..

now with that out of the way..

Tom cruise is really great when he is kicking ass in this film.. he and michelle monahan have what seems like zero chemistry on screen.. I really love Tom Cruise as an actor.. or I did.. but it just felt like every "emotional" scene in the film was showing us Tom Cruise... he wasn't "Ethan Hunt", but for the big action we get back into character again.. all those scenes with the two of them felt so... forced..


I liked it.. but damn.. it was a big let down.. serves me right for reading stupid AICN hype...
 
I thought it was great - easily one of the better action films I've seen in the last couple of years.Quite amazed by the negative reviews on this webpage. Abrams has a great use of mounting tension and yes, it is a bit hero-saves-the-girl-seen-it-before at the end but overall great plot twists, wonderful action and tense and funny when it was trying to be. That said I wasn't expecting that much from it and was pleasantly surprised. Maybe we're all jaded.
 
Overall, it's very entertaining with lots of non-stop action. Another good addition to the Nike Spoof "just cruise". http://www.compfused.com/directlink/1373/
He just loves running.
Every scene seems like a 5 millions dollar set-up especially the blowing up of Lamborghini which was so cool. but i have to agree with some folks here, the camera shake is just way too much. I still like the John Woo version though, cinematographically speaking.
One thing that bothers me during his 48 hour mission is he never slept nor ate anything. i would be exhausted by then but Ethan Hunt always function like in full power 24/7. i guess that's why it's mission impossible...duh.
 
Just watch it, it was cool. I give it 3/4 stars. It completed it's mission by being real entertaining. Phillp Seymor is the man... I agree about the no chemistry with Tom and the girl... the best part of the movie was the Bridge Scene WOW!!!

The Bridge scene alone was worth it for me, I'm waiting for M-I-4 Now.
 
Did anyone think that Phillip Seymor Hoffman tottally sucked ass in this movie? It sounds like he was reading cue cards to me, especcially the line in the beginning "where is the rabbit's foot ethan?" like he sounded so damned monotone and bored. I even think he looked at the camera once.
 
I think he was directing his performance towards sociopathic and emotionless which I thought worked superbly - everything he did just pushed one simple idea - he didn't care about anyone but himself. Me, I thought it was superb.In my opinion he's one of the finest actors working today.
 
okay, anybody who created Lost and the first season of Alias gets a look from me on any feature he may so choose to accept. Haha. Get it. "Accept". Like mission acceptance? hahahah. Oh screw you. Anyway, this movie was GREAT! The first two mission movies SUCKED. Well except for the famous white room cruise dangling scene in 1. So this one was a surprise. And it's clear to me that Abrahms has hit the big time. He knows what he's doing.

Don't listen to all the whining about shaky cameras and bad endings. Abrahms does what he does best. He creates great characters that you care for and really impressive tense actions scenes. I'll tell you something that probably heightened my enjoyment of this film though. The fact that I DIDN'T WATCH THE TRAILER. People are kind of retarded about this and I've stated it before. But these days you CAN'T WATCH TRAILERS because studios are forced to put every cool thing in them, moreso than ever before, and therefore much of the movie is ruined. People keep saying they could predict the movie. Uhhh, that's because you saw all the plot twists in the damn trailer, genius.

Anyway, that bridge scene was freaking awesome. So tense. And the ending was great because it was intimate (and very well done too).

So, if you choose to accept it, I recommend you see this movie!

Oh, and I don't think it's any coincidence that the love interest in this movie looks a lot like Katie Holmes. Especially because our friend Mr. Cruise also produced the movie. Hmmm.
 
i don't think this one was any better or worse than the other two. although it did lack a distinct stylistic signature. so in my mind, it stood out as being a little more "generic" than the previous two.
 
Saw it on Friday. GREAT action spy movie! I felt it was right up there with the first M:I (I thought M:I 2 was terribly mediocre, and by the time the 17th slo-mo kick came around, terribly boring also). This one brought it back to suspense-and-excitement-land, and made me care about the characters. The opening scene definitely felt like Alias, and the bridge sequence was fantastic! I loved the coughing fit scene in the bathroom of the Vatican. Really tense, and funny at the same time.

I'm very happy with the choice of J.J. Abrams. Bringing in new blood really revitalized the series. I'm glad Woo is out of the picture. M:I is not about martial arts in slow motion. It's about spies.
 
I actually liked this better than the first two. At least this one kept my interest all the way through. In the last two, the third acts were pffft. This one was predictable , but enjoyable nonetheless.




***SPOILER***

If someone is going to spend $200 million dollars on a movie, could we at least throw a couple more bucks to a good script writer. I laughed out loud at the double/triple cross cliche'. I know we're dealing with tropes here, but c'mon. At least don't make it so damn predictable.





That being said, it was worth the admisssion price, a cola and a half box of popcorn. I may skip the next one though, unless they get Quentin Tarantino or someone who will shake things up. Like the Bond franchise, this one is in need of some reinvention.

Cheers.
 
I didn't watch #3 yet, but why is it called Mission Impossible? I mean, did Cruise even watched the original series?
He should've called it "The Tom Cruise Action Extravaganza".
 
Sometimes i feel like we as filmmakers try really hard to find fault in films, especially blockbusters.

This movie is a perfect summer popcorn flick. It was intense from start to finish with powerful action sequences, kick ass gadgets, some nice looking women, and of course Tom Cruise defying death at any given moment.

Aside from a couple seizures the camera op had during dialogue scenes, I loved the way the film was shot. It moved at a glorious pace, but still made time to hold on a hero shot.

By far my favorite of the 3, and worthy of viewing if you are an action fan!
 
John_Hudson said:
With DePalma on the first one and Woo on the second you gotta ask:

Why J.J. Abrams ?
Click to expand...

But why not? - DePalma I'll grant you but I found woo's film pretty infantile at times with awful overdramatised scenes. Lobbing in a few slo mo shots and a couple of flapping doves doesn't denote great action directing to me.

Abrams overreaching style has not a great deal to do with cameras or visuals but how the scenes "work". For a primer, check out "lost". MI3 seems to function on the same level as lost in terms of reveals and information imparted to the audience. Personally I preferred the action sequences in this film and I also liked the handheld - way more energy in action sequences - like combat photography.
 
man were the first two films terrible. abrahms hands down wins this contest. Woo and DePalma sure sound sexy on paper, but so do the Yankees, and they ain't doin so well (by their standards at least). i annoited Woo "Hackville 5000" after listening to to the Paycheck commentary with him and Affleck. The guy basically admits he does things for no reason at all, rarely knows what he's going to shoot on the day, and doesn't really have a very good understanding of what's going on. There is one point where Affleck asks why, in a scene, did Woo cut out the setup that Ben Affleck's gun wasn't loaded - something that was in the script and that indeed would've made the scene a lot more interesting (Affleck's character is pointing the gun at someone - and us knowing that he was bluffing definitely would've added an interesting layer). Woo seemed stumped and didn't really seem to be aware that this was ever an option. And then there was the scene where Ben Affleck was put in a spinning interrogation chair. When asked why the chair spun, Woo answered "cause it looked cool".

Huh?

JJ is officially a new force. Now don't do that stupid Star Trek movie JJ. Move on to original sci-fi!
 
I'm with you - Post his Hong Kong kinetics, I find woo pretty uninvolving (and that goes for the action scenes too). Paycheck was a great PKD short story which could have been a great little thriller with an inventive director but was pretty awful throughout. Someone more cerebral and inventive with plot would have made it more involving.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top