Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Apr 7, 2007 14:01:03 GMT
Mission: Impossible III J. J. Abrams 2006 USA Ethan Hunt returns to the field to capture an arms trader, but the plan backfires when he is double-crossed. An absolutely exhilarating action film; the setpieces are cleverly conceived and executed, and the facemaker isn't as much an overused gimmick as it was in Woo's sequel (the one time it is used here is to stunning effect). Hoffman is fantastic, relishing his villainous turn; but with his super-hero rhythm, and the flair with which he moves through a frame, it's Cruise's film.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Dec 13, 2008 7:50:20 GMT
Didn't like it as much as you did Capo, nor think it's that unique, but I still liked it. MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III (2006) - *** We finally get a MISSION:IMPOSSIBLE movie, based off the legendary 1960s television series about a team of spies breaking and entering on a weekly basis, with a plot which is actually centered on an IMF team. How about that? I mean it only took them what, a trilogy over a decade to finally get that part right? Then again, that whole franchise was to showcase star/producer Tom Cruise as a James Bond-esque action figure, except those films suffer for the most part from being a less inspired 007 knockoff, which maybe is true too for the original TV program back in the day when Sean Connery was king. I mean at least those BOURNE pictures broke their own ground, pissed on their own turf, enough that 007 is riffing Jason Bourne. But the MISSION series at least had something over Bond, which was the gimmick that some assignments are so dangerous, so outrageous, so impossible to pull off, a squad of super-professionals who eat CIA agents for breakfast are needed to make it happen. But the first two M:I pictures went off on their own tangents, for better or for worse. The first one helmed by Brian DePalma is a slick and captivating spy thriller in the tradition of Alfred Hitchcock's "Wronged Man" on the run, with a mix of mindless explosions and a story so pointlessly overconvulted that I still don't fully understand what happened (which for someone who got BUCKAROO BANZAI on the first viewing, is not a good sign.) The John Woo-crafted sequel though was just pointless explosions, over-hyperbolic gunfire (even for a Woo movie), breathtaking stunts I didn't give a damn about, a story without a plot, and braindead characters that all should have been murdered rather quickly this side of a big titty camp counselor in a FRIDAY THE 13TH movie. Supposedly Cruise took M:I 2 away from Woo and chopped out 90 minutes, which is why that picture makes absolutely no goddamn sense at all. In other words, a Michael Bay film without the involvement of Baynito Michaelini. Way to go Tom. With J.J. Abrams' directed M:I 3, it's not as good as DePalma, but it's easily light years superior to Woo. But I must say, what is up with Abrams' extreme close-up shots? Dude, this aint television, this aint your (lame) ALIAS where you need big heads to fill up the full frame of the tube constantly to make a point. Try with STAR TREK to enjoy the wide-screen experience, ok? We open directly to the 3rd act where IMF agent Cruise is being tortured by the villain in Philip Seymour Hoffman, who threatens to blow the brains out of Cruise's wife (Michelle Monaghan) if he doesn't give up a high tech weapon at the count of 10. Now let's briefly discuss something: I do think that at times Tom Cruise has proven that he can be a terrific actor, from getting Oscar nominations for BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY and MAGNOLIA to COLLATERAL (which he should have gotten nominated for), but in these MISSION movies, he's just incredibly too bland for my taste. He doesn't fully captivate me as a credible popcorn hero within and beyond the bombs and bullets that a Matt Damon or Bruce Willis or Clint Eastwood or whatever would, which is strange considering how badass Cruise was as a stone cold assassin in COLLATERAL. If anything, Cruise is with such pictures like M:I still playing off his nonsensical spoiled brat yuppie asshole persona that made him a star from TOP GUN and RISKY BUSINESS. Except now he's in his fourties, and he still doesn't look like he belongs in riding a motorcycle. For Steve McQueen and James Dean sure, but not him. Now the point of all this ranting is that Hoffman on the flipside does belong here. He's got your typical run-of-the-mill terrorist baddie role, but he's so incredibly awesome here working with practically nothing. You absolutely believe him as a credible threat to the heroes and the world itself, and he would actually pull the trigger on Monaghan without any hesitation. Hell even when he himself is strapped to a chair and brutally interrogated by Cruise, Hoffman is still the more dangerous man in the room. I wonder if Cruise seeing the dailies realized that Hoffman isn't just outacting Cruise in circles, but if Hoffman was split down the middle like a cartoon, a half of him would still a better thespian compared to Cruise. Let's put it this way: If Hoffman actually had a good script and character worth a crap behind him, he could have been as legendary badass awesome within the annals of Hollywood action cinema as say Alan Rickman was in the original DIE HARD. Oh well, at least I had great joy when Hoffman is utterly beating the shit out of Cruise, probably my favorite part in the picture. Yeah, take that DAYS OF THUNDER! Anyway so outside of the gimmicky opening, M:I 3 starts from the beginning, and shows us how Cruise got into that nasty trouble that may get his ass divorced by his wife if he survives. When the hero explicitly states that he's retired from the field, you know that he inevitably always comes off the bench. Some protegee of his gets whacked by a brain bomb (a nice touch) and Cruise goes all vigilante in taking his IMF team down to Rome to exterminate Hoffman. He's got a good brood working with him, starting with Ving Rhames who's been in the other MISSION movies and on the side pimps out RadioShack when he isn't killing zombies. Then you have King Henry VIII from THE TUDORS (Jonathan Rhys-Meyers) and the Asian chick who got run over by Willis in LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD (Maggie Q), with Cruise's boss at IMF being Doctor Manhattan (Billy Crudup). His supervisor is Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne), who finally sold out this side of Metallica to the machines and joined the system as an enforcer. For the most part, IMF runs on a reliable action formula that partly had me captivated enough to actually make me kinda care that at the crutch of hell for Cruise and his gang when their fates are in the hands of Hoffman, that they're having to steal a top secret device from a Chinese skyscraper fortress in under two hours, while IMF also has them all tagged as traitors. I even like some random injections, from early on showing us subtlely that Cruise can read lips to his troupe firing baseballs (!) to distract guards at the skyscraper. Yet in the climax, there is this scene where the IMF mole working for Hoffman out of the blue talks of how he's double-dealing everyone to ultimately use the Chinese MacGuffin as a spark to launch an invasion of the Middle East and implant democracy, an ends justifying the means attitude that the Left views as the daily protocol for the outgoing George W. Bush administration. Now I'm down for realpolitik and all, but the problem is that this whole sequence just comes off as friggin cheap and shallow, as if Abrams and Cruise were trying to be as nuanced this side of the BOURNE series by cramming a square peg down a circle hole. That's right, M:I went from xeroxing Bond to Bourne, and still comes off short. So with such amateurish bluntness, Hoffman's performance deserving to be placed in a better movie, and Cruise still being Cruise, MISSION:IMPOSSIBLE III is decently entertaining at the heat of the moment, even if my enthusiasm for it waned immediately afterwards like with WANTED. Also, I applaud myself for not making a lame joke about Cruise couch jumping (so 2005) or threatening Paramount over SOUTH PARK (so 2006) or losing his throne as King of Hollywood to rivals like Brad Pitt, Johnny Depp, and Will Smith (so 2007), but dammit I can't think of a good pun involving Cruise playing a Nazi in the upcoming VALKYRIE. Some help folks? How about this one: "For these conspirators in July 1944, the assignment to defeat Hitler's Germany was, if they choose to accept...a mission impossible!"
|
|
jrod
Ghost writer
Posts: 970
|
Post by jrod on Dec 15, 2008 18:34:18 GMT
sad how much this movie got hated on because of its star's antics, because it really is a gem that should be fun for everyone. Thought it was better than both new Bonds and at least 2 of the Bourne movies.
I know people dont really like when franchises get pigeonholed into a certain type of movie (see the Quantum of Solace topic), but for me, it was nice to see something more within the boundaries of the original show...this should have been the first movie in the series. The first two movies were both largely incoherent to me on first viewings (granted I was very young for the DePalma effort). The first one was worth revisiting, and now I think its great. MI2 was like a really fucked up cross of Face/Off and Hicthcocks Notorious that just didnt work at all.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Dec 19, 2008 17:03:42 GMT
sad how much this movie got hated on because of its star's antics, because it really is a gem that should be fun for everyone. Thought it was better than both new Bonds and at least 2 of the Bourne movies. Why? I know people dont really like when franchises get pigeonholed into a certain type of movie (see the Quantum of Solace topic), but for me, it was nice to see something more within the boundaries of the original show...this should have been the first movie in the series. The first two movies were both largely incoherent to me on first viewings (granted I was very young for the DePalma effort). The first one was worth revisiting, and now I think its great. MI2 was like a really fucked up cross of Face/Off and Hicthcocks Notorious that just didnt work at all. I totally 100% agree here!
|
|
jrod
Ghost writer
Posts: 970
|
Post by jrod on Dec 19, 2008 19:19:39 GMT
sad how much this movie got hated on because of its star's antics, because it really is a gem that should be fun for everyone. Thought it was better than both new Bonds and at least 2 of the Bourne movies. Why? MI3 just felt refreshingly unconvuluted without feeling remotely dumbed down. They got really elaborate where it counts...the action scenes. Made it a lot of fun. While I like the other movies mentioned, I feel like all of them had considerable amounts of plot that I dont remember (nor do I really care to)
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Dec 23, 2008 16:33:29 GMT
sad how much this movie got hated on because of its star's antics, because it really is a gem that should be fun for everyone. Thought it was better than both new Bonds and at least 2 of the Bourne movies. Why? MI3 just felt refreshingly unconvuluted without feeling remotely dumbed down. They got really elaborate where it counts...the action scenes. Made it a lot of fun. While I like the other movies mentioned, I feel like all of them had considerable amounts of plot that I dont remember (nor do I really care to) You know, me and Capo had countless postings arguing to death over QUANTUM OFSOLACE, but you actually make a valid point of which I can't argue against really. M:I 3 plotting is streamlined and non-convulted unlike the current 007 pictures of the BOURNE sequels, but I'll still honestly prefer those others to M:I 3 for one simple reason: The lead. As I wrote above, Tom Cruise is just not a naturally compelling actor for me, unlike a Damon or a Craig. Plus, Ethan Hunt is rather a un-unique character really. OK, so he's a spy. And? He's an Americanized James Bond, without the wit or memorable badassery, or at least for me. Craig IS James Bond, the real deal, and as I wrote in my reviews of those films, he's just my prefered vision of Bond: A slick cool posh guy who's also a believable thug who'll beat someone to death without qualms. In other words, a bastard. As for Damon, remember that scene in THE BOURNE IDENTITY when he's confronted at the city park by the Swiss cops? They interrogate him, and he automatically switches from English to German flawlessly, and from Damon's eye acting (underrated aspect of the movies, if you ask me), its obvious that he's surprised by this other superb skill of his. But throughout that series, its interesting how that character despises killing. Sure he has to at times to save his own skin, but he's Anti-Bond in that he rather not kill if he doesn't have to, or make a joke about it afterwards. I won't say I prefer a Bourne or Bond over the other, for they are two different schools of thought, and Capo has a point perhaps that the current 007 needs to quit leeching off Bourne, and re-develop its own unique action choreography brand. He got me there. But what I want to ask you about M:I 3 is, besides the streamlined storytelling, what's unique about it really? Hoffman was great, and I liked some details like the baseballs and lip-reading...but the rest of the film just comes off to me as going by the book, and doing fine at that, but nothing more. Why is that?
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Dec 23, 2008 17:10:59 GMT
With due respect to all you Tommy-philes, MI-3 was a very forgettable formula action movie. I cannot understand the praise here.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Dec 23, 2008 17:16:21 GMT
My enthusiasm has waned somewhat with time, and I've only seen it once. But I still think it's finely edited, directed and acted. It's a great genre film.
|
|
jrod
Ghost writer
Posts: 970
|
Post by jrod on Dec 23, 2008 17:23:58 GMT
I dont mind movies going by the book at all when they are done well. That said, while not being unique in general, Id say it was very unique for this decade. Kind of a "throwback" action movie. In the 2000s I feel like all we get from the genre are formulaic comic book adaptations, cgi clusterfucks, and GRITTY (it always has to be emphasized how gritty it is) character studies.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Dec 23, 2008 23:54:37 GMT
I dont mind movies going by the book at all when they are done well. That said, while not being unique in general, Id say it was very unique for this decade. Kind of a "throwback" action movie. In the 2000s I feel like all we get from the genre are formulaic comic book adaptations, cgi clusterfucks, and GRITTY (it always has to be emphasized how gritty it is) character studies. But a throwback to what exactly? I'm sorry if I'm coming off as trying to bust your balls, I'm not, but M:I 3 in some ways feels like a glorified 2 hour episode of 24, though the same I guess could be said for LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD, which I also liked (and more than M:I 3), which is also strange considering I never liked 24. Yes that's right, RRA the action nerd isn't exactly a 24 fan (after season 2 at least). Then again, maybe my problem is that I came of age in the 1990s, when the king of action was the Anti-Christ himself in Michael Bay. Remember that fucking hack asshole? He's still around with his bullshit, but for everyone that complains about shakey cam by Greengrass or the recent Bond pictures, I remember Bay's ultra-shakey cam, in which we don't get good storytelling or characters or memorable badassery or anything good in particular, but except $100 million blown up in your face. Maybe that bullshit is my problem right there. Anyway, I liked M:I 3, but nothing more than a decent rental. Hell, didn't anyone else felt uninspired with that sequence in Rome where Cruise kidnaps Hoffman? At least we get Hoffman beating the shit out of him, that was cool.
|
|
jrod
Ghost writer
Posts: 970
|
Post by jrod on Dec 24, 2008 0:51:13 GMT
hmm
I dont know that I would call it anything more than a decent rental either, I just enjoyed it.
I guess I would just suggest that just because one film is "feels like" another doesn't mean that it pulls all the same attributes off nearly as well. Start a Netflix account and give Die Hard a good rating and it'll probably recommend Bad Boys for you. While MI3 may be similar to the movies you mention, to me it is considerably less flawed. 24 doesnt really work for me because Im expecting a lame twist every Monday at 9:59. They also kill off interesting people and replace them with stiffs, and then they kill THEM off once they start to develop. LFODH was ok for me. The plane at the end was lame and it wasn't among the best in the "buddy action comedy" department, but it was ok.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Dec 24, 2008 22:03:29 GMT
hmm I dont know that I would call it anything more than a decent rental either, I just enjoyed it. Perfectly understandable. I guess I would just suggest that just because one film is "feels like" another doesn't mean that it pulls all the same attributes off nearly as well. Start a Netflix account and give Die Hard a good rating and it'll probably recommend Bad Boys for you. Man oh man I fucking hate Michael Bay, and his BAD BOYS pictures are just a drop in the shit bucket. If this was jeopardy, Alex Trebek would bring up BAD BOYS, and I would answer: What is a buddy cop action picture with two leads have ZERO chemistry with each other, and neither believable as action figures, both stuck in a movie that's like an expensive boring uninspired LETHAL WEAPON wannabe, but which even the lame LETHAL WEAPON 3 is better than BAD BOYS, much less its even more inferior sequel?While MI3 may be similar to the movies you mention, to me it is considerably less flawed. Well that's your opinion, and considering how you've applied your intelligence so far with it, that's fine with me. you can have any argument with me, as long as you do it smartly, as you did. 24 doesnt really work for me because Im expecting a lame twist every Monday at 9:59. They also kill off interesting people and replace them with stiffs, and then they kill THEM off once they start to develop. That's pretty much why I quit 24. LFODH was ok for me. The plane at the end was lame and it wasn't among the best in the "buddy action comedy" department, but it was ok. Better than BAD BOYS I and II. That said, there is a buddy cop movie that's actually worse methinks than BB1 and 2, and I reviewed it last year. Clint Eastwood's THE ROOKIE. Would you believe that he shot that garbage before UNFORGIVEN?
|
|