Author |
Message |
zingy
College Boy Z
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:40 pm Posts: 36662
|
Mission: Impossible III
Mission: Impossible IIIQuote: Mission: Impossible III (also known as M:i:III) is a 2006 action film, the third based on the spy-themed television series Mission: Impossible starring Tom Cruise who reprises his role of IMF agent Ethan Hunt.
The film was directed by J. J. Abrams, and was his first film as a director. It was first released on April 26, 2006 at the Tribeca Film Festival, and widely released in the United States on May 5, 2006.
Last edited by zingy on Thu May 25, 2006 3:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
|
Wed May 03, 2006 5:54 am |
|
|
jb007
Veteran
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:47 pm Posts: 3917 Location: Las Vegas
|
The movie starts off with a countdown by Owen Davian (Hoffman) to shoot Julia (Monaghan) with Ethan, also captured, watching and pleading for her life.
Rewind: Ethan Hunt is in semi retirement and is an instructor for IMF. He is in the process of getting engaged to Julia (MM) when he receives a call to rescue one of his students, Lindsey (Keri Russell) from the clutches of the dangerous black marketer, Davian. Ethan Hunt, Luther, Declan (Rhys-Meyers) and the beautiful Zen (Maggie Q) go on the mission to rescue Lindsey in Berlin.
With all his sudden and secret travels bothering Julia, Ethan spontaneously gets married to her at the hospital she works at. The sequence is sweet. All this time his team is always advising Ethan not to have a real relationship.
The mission to rescue Linsey is successful to a point but ends up being a failure. After a verbal sit-down, Ethan and the team get the news that Davian will be at the Vatican. They devise a plan to kidnap him and to get information about an unknown item termed as "Anti-god" by one of the IMF desk operatives. This item is being put on the market for $850M. They do kidnap him at the vatican and bring him back to the US. Davian's people attack the caravan on the bridge which leads to some spectacular action scenes. Davian escapes and immediatley has Julia kidnapped just as Ethan gets there.
He calls Ethan and gives him 48 hours to get the "Rabbit's Foot" which the IMF guy named Anti-god. Ethan goes to Shanghai to get this from a secure facility.
The rest of the movie races towards the end through many twists and turns. Cruise is impressive. Hoffman is good not great. The action scenes are top notch. The action scenes on the bridge (I assume to the Florida Keys) are spectacular.
The movie is fast paced, has great action and is thoroughly enjoyable. I rate this just below the first one and above the second one.
The ending in this movie is more tame compared to the first two. JJ Abrams has done a very good job. A worthy successor to De Palma and John Woo.
A
_________________ Dr. RajKumar 4/24/1929 - 4/12/2006 The Greatest Actor Ever. Thanks for The Best Cinematic Memories of My Life.
|
Wed May 03, 2006 11:58 am |
|
|
bABA
Commander and Chef
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 12:56 am Posts: 30505 Location: Tonight ... YOU!
|
outside of some stupidity and cheesiness and well ... the police not showing up at convenient times and ethan hunt not breaking bones when he should, perfect start to the summer.
|
Wed May 03, 2006 10:13 pm |
|
|
STEVE ROGERS
The Greatest Avenger EVER
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 4:02 am Posts: 18501
|
bABA wrote: outside of some stupidity and cheesiness and well ... the police not showing up at convenient times and ethan hunt not breaking bones when he should, perfect start to the summer.
Baba, did you go to see this movie with a discerning eye, because what you just said could basically apply to any mindless action movie with no plot..
|
Wed May 03, 2006 11:40 pm |
|
|
bABA
Commander and Chef
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 12:56 am Posts: 30505 Location: Tonight ... YOU!
|
no
it has a plot. its not mindless. but it is a popcorn affair and a very good one. it is not as intelligent as one of would expect it to be.
|
Thu May 04, 2006 6:39 am |
|
|
bABA
Commander and Chef
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 12:56 am Posts: 30505 Location: Tonight ... YOU!
|
http://www.worldofkj.com/reviews/Arsalan/MI3.phpQuote: I attended Showest over a month ago where I was one of the lucky ones to hear J. J. Abrams speak a little bit about the film. One of the things that he said that stuck with me as I walked out of the conference hall was that his approach to making this film was to make a movie with character, a compelling story that just turned out to be a Mission: Impossible film. This statement was reaffirmed after viewing some of the commercials for this film. Now I am all for a character driven film with a compelling story line but I am sort of against the idea of relegating the primary theme of the film to the backseat. I think the reason all of us walk into Mission: Impossible (outside of reasons such as being fans of Tom Cruise) is to see a Mission: Impossible movie first and foremost. That is what we want and that is what we expect. Of the 3 films that have been released so far, my biggest gripe with the series is that we've never gotten that. B+
|
Thu May 04, 2006 12:53 pm |
|
|
getluv
i break the rules, so i don't care
Joined: Sun May 15, 2005 4:28 pm Posts: 20411
|
A-
This is a 2-hour Alias episode. The good thing is, is that Alias is high quality stuff!
|
Thu May 04, 2006 7:39 pm |
|
|
Anonymous
|
I have only a few hours until showtime.
I can't help but think Fincher would have done a better job.
I hope I'm wrong.
|
Thu May 04, 2006 8:10 pm |
|
|
makeshift
Teenage Dream
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 12:20 am Posts: 9247
|
loyalfromlondon wrote: I have only a few hours until showtime.
I can't help but think Fincher would have done a better job.
I hope I'm wrong.
He was in the running for awhile, wasn't he? That would have been... interesting.
I'm seeing it tonight, too.
|
Thu May 04, 2006 8:13 pm |
|
|
Dr. Lecter
You must have big rats
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm Posts: 92093 Location: Bonn, Germany
|
Fincher would have done a differnt movie. He is my 2nd favorite director of all-time, so obviously I would ave prefered him at the helm. But Abrams still did a very good job. What remains is just me wondering what exactly Fincher would have done...
_________________The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!
|
Thu May 04, 2006 8:24 pm |
|
|
Anonymous
|
makeshift wrote: loyalfromlondon wrote: I have only a few hours until showtime.
I can't help but think Fincher would have done a better job.
I hope I'm wrong. He was in the running for awhile, wasn't he? That would have been... interesting. I'm seeing it tonight, too.
If I remember correctly, he was to film Darabont's script that revolved around the illegal trade of human organs in Africa
(happy go lucky summer stuff). There was also the storyline about the destruction of the Seven Wonders of the World.
Then there's Joe The Narc Carnahan whose MI:3 was to star Scarlett Johansson, Kenneth Branagh, and Carrie-Anne Moss.
|
Thu May 04, 2006 8:25 pm |
|
|
Dr. Lecter
You must have big rats
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm Posts: 92093 Location: Bonn, Germany
|
loyalfromlondon wrote: makeshift wrote: loyalfromlondon wrote: I have only a few hours until showtime.
I can't help but think Fincher would have done a better job.
I hope I'm wrong. He was in the running for awhile, wasn't he? That would have been... interesting. I'm seeing it tonight, too. If I remember correctly, he was to film Darabont's script that revolved around the illegal trade of human organs in Africa (happy go lucky summer stuff). There was also the storyline about the destruction of the Seven Wonders of the World. Then there's Joe The Narc Carnahan whose MI:3 was to star Scarlett Johansson, Kenneth Branagh, and Carrie-Anne Moss.
Carnahan's was supposed to have pretty much a similar storyline, though with Johansson playing Keri Russell's role, Branagh playing Hoffman's role etc.
_________________The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!
|
Thu May 04, 2006 8:44 pm |
|
|
Anonymous
|
Dr. Lecter wrote: loyalfromlondon wrote: makeshift wrote: loyalfromlondon wrote: I have only a few hours until showtime.
I can't help but think Fincher would have done a better job.
I hope I'm wrong. He was in the running for awhile, wasn't he? That would have been... interesting. I'm seeing it tonight, too. If I remember correctly, he was to film Darabont's script that revolved around the illegal trade of human organs in Africa (happy go lucky summer stuff). There was also the storyline about the destruction of the Seven Wonders of the World. Then there's Joe The Narc Carnahan whose MI:3 was to star Scarlett Johansson, Kenneth Branagh, and Carrie-Anne Moss. Carnahan's was supposed to have pretty much a similar storyline, though with Johansson playing Keri Russell's role, Branagh playing Hoffman's role etc.
If the spoiler I read is correct, I think Johansson would have played Monaghan's role.
|
Thu May 04, 2006 8:53 pm |
|
|
Dr. Lecter
You must have big rats
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm Posts: 92093 Location: Bonn, Germany
|
loyalfromlondon wrote: Dr. Lecter wrote: loyalfromlondon wrote: makeshift wrote: loyalfromlondon wrote: I have only a few hours until showtime.
I can't help but think Fincher would have done a better job.
I hope I'm wrong. He was in the running for awhile, wasn't he? That would have been... interesting. I'm seeing it tonight, too. If I remember correctly, he was to film Darabont's script that revolved around the illegal trade of human organs in Africa (happy go lucky summer stuff). There was also the storyline about the destruction of the Seven Wonders of the World. Then there's Joe The Narc Carnahan whose MI:3 was to star Scarlett Johansson, Kenneth Branagh, and Carrie-Anne Moss. Carnahan's was supposed to have pretty much a similar storyline, though with Johansson playing Keri Russell's role, Branagh playing Hoffman's role etc. If the spoiler I read is correct, I think Johansson would have played Monaghan's role.
Hmmm, I read about Carnahan's project and all I read everywhere was that Johansson was up for a new IMF agent, trained by Hunt. Which is Russell's role. She'd also be a bit too young for Monaghan's role, methinks. Heck, she's 20+ years younger than Cruise...
_________________The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!
|
Thu May 04, 2006 9:00 pm |
|
|
Anonymous
|
Cruise likes 'em young.
I'm treading into spoiler terrority but yeah, not Carrie-Anne. Nope.
|
Thu May 04, 2006 9:02 pm |
|
|
Chippy
KJ's Leading Pundit
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:45 pm Posts: 63026 Location: Tonight... YOU!
|
I'm seeing this in T-Minus: 3 Hours, 46 Minutes
_________________trixster wrote: shut the fuck up zwackerm, you're out of your fucking element trixster wrote: chippy is correct
|
Thu May 04, 2006 11:15 pm |
|
|
Joker's Thug #3
Extraordinary
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 2:36 am Posts: 11130 Location: Waiting for the Dark Knight to kick my ass
|
I cant wait to see it on a DLP tomorrow , only one theater out of like the 20 in the area has DLP.
|
Fri May 05, 2006 12:24 am |
|
|
Bradley Witherberry
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 1:13 pm Posts: 15197 Location: Planet Xatar
|
Unfortunately, the third Mission Impossible movie sucks as bad as the first one.
It's all over the place. But, the good news is that it kicks off with two great (sub-)missions. If you want a 100% positive experience with this movie - at all costs, leave the theatre at the one hour mark of this production, just after the agent rescue mission and the Vatican mission. After that, it's straight down the toilet for this puppy. The key mistake, again, as with the first movie in the series, is stay away from IMF headquarters - the less said about that organization, the better - Okay? Seriously, it just brings the whole brilliant formula from the TV series down. One really great mission makes a movie. Receive the mission, assemble the team, execute the mission, extract the team. Mission accomplished. (PERIOD.) Forget all the spy vs. spy thing - that's Bourne material or Grisham stuff.
But, like I said, the two initial missions are fun, things do blow up real good, there is closure - but then the whole freakin' enterprise derails and crashes in 10 different directions, until it comes to a screeching (and pointless) halt.
Tom's fine as an actor, as always, but I certainly expected more from him as a producer.
2 out of 5.
|
Fri May 05, 2006 1:26 am |
|
|
Rev
Romosexual!
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 3:06 am Posts: 32380 Location: the last free city
|
A+ A+ A+ A+ A FUCKING PLUS!!!!!!
The best M:I movie EVER!
_________________ Is it 2024 yet?
|
Fri May 05, 2006 1:38 am |
|
|
Anonymous
|
It wasn't what I expected.
|
Fri May 05, 2006 1:47 am |
|
|
STEVE ROGERS
The Greatest Avenger EVER
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 4:02 am Posts: 18501
|
loyalfromlondon wrote: It wasn't what I expected.
Care to elaborate or are you still gathering your thoughts on it??
|
Fri May 05, 2006 2:21 am |
|
|
STEVE ROGERS
The Greatest Avenger EVER
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 4:02 am Posts: 18501
|
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbc ... 19008/1023Here's EBERT'S Review.. Gotta love this guy with his blend of sarcasm and wit woven throughout his review of this..Mission: Impossible III
BY ROGER EBERT / May 4, 2006 Cast & CreditsEthan Hunt: Tom Cruise Owen Davian: Philip Seymour Hoffman Luther Strickell: Ving Rhames Lindsey: Keri Russell Brassel: Laurence Fishburne Musgrave: Billy Crudup Declan: Jonathan Rhys Meyers Julia: Michelle Monaghan
Paramount presents a film directed by J.J. Abrams. Written by Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci and J.J. Abrams. Based on the TV series created by Bruce Geller. Running time: 126 minutes. Rated PG-13 (for intense sequences of frenetic violence and menace, disturbing images and some sensuality). Opening Friday, with selected 10 p.m. and midnight screenings Thursday.
Ethan Hunt is in some respects the least inquisitive man in action movie history. In "Mission: Impossible" (1996), he risked his life to (I quote from my original review) "prevent the theft of a computer file containing the code names and real identities of all of America's double agents." But Ethan (Tom Cruise) must prevent this theft after it happens, because first he must "photograph the enemy in the act of stealing the information, and then follow him until he passes it along." The plot also involves crucial uses for latex masks and helicopters, one of which flies through the Chunnel from England to France, which is difficult, considering helicopter blades are wider than the Chunnel.
In "Mission: Impossible II" (2000), Ethan has to stop a villain who possesses a deadly virus: Twenty-four hours after exposure, you die. The heroine (Thandie Newton) does, however, survive at the end of the movie, leaving her available for the sequel, although by "Mission: Impossible III," Ethan Hunt is engaged to a sweet nurse named Julia (Michelle Monaghan), who thinks he is a highway traffic control engineer.
Helicopters are again involved, and Ethan falls for the old latex mask trick again, and even uses a latex mask himself, so that others can be fooled and he doesn't have to feel so bad. In a nice visual pun, the helicopters encounter giant energy-generating windmills in deserts near Berlin that uncannily resemble deserts near Palm Springs. It's kind of neat when one propeller slices off another, wouldn't you agree? Observing the curious landscape outside Berlin, I was reminded that Citizen Kane built his Xanadu "on the desert coasts of Florida."
Ethan Hunt's assignment in "M:I III" is to battle the villain Owen Davian (Philip Seymour Hoffman) for control of the Rabbit's Foot. In Ethan's final words in the movie, after countless people have been blown up, shot, crushed and otherwise inconvenienced, he asks his boss Brassel (Laurence Fishburne), "What is the Rabbit's Foot?" Ethan should know by now it is a MacGuffin, just like the virus and the computer file.
Why does Ethan risk his life and the lives of those he loves to pursue objectives he does not understand? The answer, of course, is that the real objective of all the "M:I" movies is to provide a clothesline for sensational action scenes. Nothing else matters, and explanatory dialogue would only slow things down. This formula worked satisfactorily in "M:I," directed by Brian De Palma, and "M:I II," directed by John Woo, and I suppose it works up to a point in "M:I III," directed by J.J. Abrams, if what you want is endless, nonstop high-tech action. Even the deadlines are speeded up this time. Instead of a 24-hour virus, we have an explosive capsule that detonates five minutes after it zips up your nose.
The action takes us to Berlin, Vatican City, Shanghai and the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, although there seems to be no real reason to visit any of those places except to stage stunts involving their landmarks using computer-generated imagery. I did smile at a scene where Ethan parachutes from a building and ends up hanging upside down in his harness in front of a speeding truck. I liked a moment when he jabs a needle of adrenaline into a woman's heart to bring her out of her drugged stupor; Quentin Tarantino should send him a bill. And there is the intriguing speech by an agency techie about the Anti-God Compound, a deadly byproduct of technological overachievement, which might simply destroy everything. If there is an "M:I IV," I recommend the Anti-God Compound as the MacGuffin.
I didn't expect a coherent story from "Mission: Impossible III," and so I was sort of surprised that the plot hangs together more than in the other two films. I was puzzled, however, by the nature of Ethan's relationship with Julia, his sweet fiancee. If he belongs to a secret organization that controls his life and can order him around, doesn't she deserve to know that? Or, if not, is it right for him to marry her? And when she meets his co-workers from the office, do they all talk like he does, about how if you hit the brakes, it can cause a chain reaction slowing down traffic for hundreds of miles?
Such questions are beside the point. Either you want to see mindless action and computer-generated sequences executed with breakneck speed and technical precision, or you do not. I am getting to the point where I don't much care. There is a theory that action is exciting and dialogue is boring. My theory is that variety is exciting and sameness is boring. Modern high-tech action sequences are just the same damn thing over and over again: high-speed chases, desperate gun battles, all possible modes of transportation, falls from high places, deadly deadlines, exotic locations and characters who hardly ever say anything interesting.
I saw "M:I" and "M:I II" and gave them three-star ratings because they delivered precisely what they promised. But now I've been there, done that, and my hope for "M:I IV," if there is one, is that it self-destructs while mishandling the Anti-God Compound.
|
Fri May 05, 2006 3:00 am |
|
|
DP07
The Thirteenth Floor
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 2:26 am Posts: 14923 Location: Everywhere
|
I was a bit disappointed, although I liked it, or at least parts of it.
The action:
Mission 1: Decent, but not up to par given the budget.
Mission 2: Better; along the lines of what I was expecting. Impressed me at a couple points.
Mission 3: Fucking awesome. Sure, it's over the top, but it was a hell of a fun ride and had great visuals. It certainly caught me off guard when he suddenly jumped out of the window. That part with the truck is just a brilliant action shot IMO.
Finale: Very disappointing. It entirely lost momentum.
The plot: Major disappointment. It wasn't intricate and lacked any of the impact of De Palma's MI IMO. The twist was one of the most predictable I can remember. I found it annoying watching the movie trying to play little games to keep you guessing when it was quite obvious to me. At least Dan Brown always keeps you entertained while doing that. Also, the characters' motives were simplistic, which personally left me with nothing to look forward to but the action.
Some other problems I had:
[spoil]1) It seems that every Alias episode has the guy behind the computer saying he needs 30 seconds. As the seconds count down, the agent in the field has to deal with someone at that moment so as not to lose their cover. Of course it all works out at the last second. In fact, the original MI had this sort of scene now that I think of it. But at least it was fun there and it played a role in the plot. Here it was pointless. Could Abrams at least have put a new spin on one of his most overused gimmicks?
2) The "anti-god" speech seemed to be there only to build a fake sense of danger.
3) Just as he finds out who (supposedly) is the traitor on the inside, within 2 seconds the result of that betrayal comes into play as rockets start hitting the cars around them (I will admit however that those explosions were good ).
4) After 48 hours, he makes it in 5 seconds. You think the movie is winking at us? heh[/spoil]
Philip Seymour Hoffman was good, but seemed like he was just collecting his paycheck IMO. Ving Rhames was the same as usual. I thought Laurence Fishburne was great though. I really wish there were more of Maggie Q. She looks better then nearly every American actress I can think of. Plus, I love the sound of her voice. I have to Netflix her movies.
So, some good action, and Maggie Q; that might just be enough to get me to buy it on DVD.
7.1/10 - B+
|
Fri May 05, 2006 6:24 am |
|
|
Anonymous
|
BKB_The_Man wrote: loyalfromlondon wrote: It wasn't what I expected. Care to elaborate or are you still gathering your thoughts on it?? I had to sleep on it. All the talk pointed to MI:3 being the biggest reboot ever for a major franchise. People were praising JJ to high heaven, the Star Trek deal was announced, blah blah blah. I ultimately found the film sorely lacking in humour, excitement, and overall originality. I'll try to keep it spoiler-free but two main story pieces of both the first film and second film are used heavily in the script. HEAVILY. I can't believe they used another Mole storyline. Granted, he was a mole modelled after the Bush adminstration (partnering up with the bad guy to get the even badder guy and bring democracy to the Middle East) but came across lazy and not very inventive. And despite Ethan Hunt's question at the end of the film about what the Rabbit's Foot was, it's clear with the bio hazard markings that it's a bio weapon of sorts. So it's not a microchip or file or any sort of creative MacGuffin. It's nearly the exact same prize from MI:2. I also didn't care for Owen's demise. Very cheap and anticlimatic. The team aspect and the Vatican sequence were top notch. Everything else, including the domestic angle, didn't fit. Does Ethan exist in a vaccum where he wouldn't understand you can't mix your personal life with work, especially, you know, if you work for IMF? And let's be honest. True Lives covered that, and did it exceptionally well, I also didn't see the 185 Million on-screen. I wasn't blown away by any of the visuals. So many parts of the film didn't work or didn't fit. I'm really surprised.
|
Fri May 05, 2006 8:43 am |
|
|
FILMO
The Original
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 10:19 am Posts: 9808 Location: Suisse
|
Well I give 6.8/10 :biggrin: It has some extremely well done action (bridge scene;just hoped it would have been longer) The Story is ok. Just ok. Well.... All in all a fun non brainer. So far I would even give it 7.8 /10 but...The last 10-15 minutes just have been cheap ,and sorry I say it so, fucking stupid. It was all programmed to make a cheesy stupid Happy End. big MEHHHHHH from me. Again the end was cheap and stupid.
I just wished Hoffman (who was a nice villain just with not enough screentime) killed Hawks wife. Now that whould have been really interesting for a upcoming part 4)
6.8/10
|
Fri May 05, 2006 11:57 am |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 15 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|