Mission: Impossible

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (782 of them)

what really bugs me is that these movies are pretty much ethan hunt 007 movies... mission impossible is supposed to be about a cool TEAM!!

otm! the only scene in this movie that actually felt like "mission impossible" was the aforementioned vatican city sequence, which happened to be the most entertaining part of the movie.

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Sunday, 7 May 2006 02:55 (seventeen years ago) link

m:i 2 sucked so much ass.

― the Enrique who acts like some kind of good taste gestapo (Enrique), Sunday, 7 May 2006 18:02 (seventeen years ago) link

As bad as MI2 might have been, it was still loads better than every Bond movie post-Goldeneye.

many xposts - Irons is great in Die Hard With A Vengeance!

― milo z (mlp), Sunday, 7 May 2006 18:11 (seventeen years ago) link

Someone really needs to make a real Mission: Impossible movie, with a non-descript team of agents doing ruthless shit under the radar, etc.

― Joe (Joe), Sunday, 7 May 2006 23:50 (seventeen years ago) link

MI2 made me think everyone had false faces

― Onimo (GerryNemo), Sunday, 7 May 2006 23:56 (seventeen years ago) link

a non-descript team of agents doing ruthless shit under the radar, etc.

well, the thing is, i don't think you need them to be all that non-descript e.g. Ving Rhames is great in his role, which is admittedly just being a Ving Rhames-type incarnated as an operative. There's plenty of value in a well-contructed team of folks doing something; like a semi-crazy helicopter pilot, a tough mechanic/driver/demolitions expert, a smooth-talkin' chameleon/covert ops type, and a cigar-chomping leader who loves it when a plan comes together.

For instance.

― kingfish doesn't live here anymore (kingfish 2.0), Monday, 8 May 2006 00:03 (seventeen years ago) link

Crazeh suckuh, talks to plants!

― Joe (Joe), Monday, 8 May 2006 01:56 (seventeen years ago) link

i liked this film a lot

― gear (gear), Monday, 8 May 2006 02:01 (seventeen years ago) link

As did I. Well maybe not a lot. But some. Ving Rhames rulez. The wife pissed me off.

― uptoeleven (uptoeleven), Monday, 8 May 2006 04:17 (seventeen years ago) link

this was a lot more entertaining than i expected. philip seymore hoffman was scary! and they gave ving rhames actual dialogue! that really bugged me about the first two movies, why even get the dude if he's just gonna stand around in shades the whole time. tom cruise was minimally annoying too. laurence fishburn was dope~!~~~

― INSANE CLOWN FOSSE (Adrian Langston), Monday, 8 May 2006 07:09 (seventeen years ago) link

coolness, i'm sold.

― the Enrique who acts like some kind of good taste gestapo (Enrique), Monday, 8 May 2006 07:25 (seventeen years ago) link

I never knew this til recently but apparently Robert Towne was the screenwriter for the first one...which explains why the dialogue is actually pretty slick. Not that MI was Chinatown obv but I think its a pretty great movie on the whole.

Actually looking at IMDB now it appears he was involved in all three. Still the second one was pretty awful.

― deej.. (deej..), Monday, 8 May 2006 07:52 (seventeen years ago) link

This page is the top Google result for "a wee bit of tit".

― Alba (Alba), Monday, 8 May 2006 08:54 (seventeen years ago) link

kudos to rjg.

― the Enrique who acts like some kind of good taste gestapo (Enrique), Monday, 8 May 2006 08:57 (seventeen years ago) link

haha

― RJG (RJG), Monday, 8 May 2006 09:06 (seventeen years ago) link

no GIS :(

― the Enrique who acts like some kind of good taste gestapo (Enrique), Monday, 8 May 2006 09:08 (seventeen years ago) link

my praise is i thought it was as good as it could be

this is of course baring in mind

A) it stared and was produced tom cruise

B) it was the third part in a franchise where ultimately very little can change between films (bar the love interests of course)

C)i haven't seen 24 which from my limited knowledge of this seemed to bare a passing resemblence too

― secondhandnews (secondhandnews), Monday, 8 May 2006 10:06 (seventeen years ago) link

Much better than expected. Should have finished ten minutes earlier though. As a slam bang action film it did nearly everything well without anything being TOO stand-out (Vatican sequence clearly excellent though). Could of been fantastic if Cruise was not the lead.

Of course much redundancy if you have seen the first two series of both 24 and Alias, and was kind of like True Lies without the misjudged gags (so in that way a lot better). Also, it might be a lot like TV series, BUT IS A FILM with plus and minuses of that.

― Pete (Pete), Monday, 8 May 2006 10:22 (seventeen years ago) link

re. vatican -- i haven't seen this yet but is this some kind of da vinci thing?

― the Enrique who acts like some kind of good taste gestapo (Enrique), Monday, 8 May 2006 10:24 (seventeen years ago) link

nah no psuedo religious undertones just a party there but with catholic security to make things more "serious"

― secondhandnews (secondhandnews), Monday, 8 May 2006 10:34 (seventeen years ago) link

The idea of casting Angelica Huston and Sigourney Weaver as villainesses has got me too excited for words.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Monday, 8 May 2006 12:30 (seventeen years ago) link

It grossed about $10 M less than the last MI on opening weekend, which has resulted in columns like this one proclaiming THE KING IS DEAD!

http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/archives/2006/05/upside_of_taps.php

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Monday, 8 May 2006 13:02 (seventeen years ago) link

how long is it going to take them to pull this from the Uptown?

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Monday, 8 May 2006 13:04 (seventeen years ago) link

TEH INTERNEST IS KILLING HOLLYWOOD!1!!!!

― David R. (popshots75`), Monday, 8 May 2006 13:05 (seventeen years ago) link

Gabbneb, you're probably going to have to wait 'til X-men.

― Stephen X (Stephen X), Monday, 8 May 2006 13:57 (seventeen years ago) link

no Poseidon, then? I'd rather see MI3. :(

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Monday, 8 May 2006 14:09 (seventeen years ago) link

http://www.newyorker.com/critics/cinema/articles/060515crci_cinema

― Raymond Cummings (Raymond Cummings), Tuesday, 9 May 2006 12:52 (seventeen years ago) link

"he may sell dirty bombs to Middle Eastern regimes and torture an American female agent, but at least he doesn’t drag William Shawn along to watch."

how do i get literary referece?

― the Enrique who acts like some kind of good taste gestapo (Enrique), Tuesday, 9 May 2006 14:15 (seventeen years ago) link

i don't quite get why people like anthony lane

― gear (gear), Tuesday, 9 May 2006 17:23 (seventeen years ago) link

because he's not david denby?

― p@reene (Pareene), Tuesday, 9 May 2006 17:28 (seventeen years ago) link

Whether Cruise is equally dependable is a matter of controversy, and “M:i:III,” alert to the debate, sneaks in a knowing exchange. Ethan is discussing traffic flow, and the guy beside him waits until he drifts away, then gives a hammy snore. Not so a couple of women, listening in. “I’d marry him,” one says. The other adds, “Me, too.”

― Raymond Cummings (Raymond Cummings), Wednesday, 10 May 2006 14:41 (seventeen years ago) link

i don't understand why this movie is getting bad reviews (tom cruise?). its actually quite good. its not perfect, but its entertaining, and most of the action scenes are handled fairly well, script is pretty good, acting is good all around. Its like 100 times better than MI:2(worst movie ever?), and if there are any better action movies this summer, we will all be a lucky movie-going public. Although I expect the Pirates of the Caribbean sequal to be better.

If you want to see a really good Spy Film, watch Munich. Its gotta be the best one ever. Action packed, edge of your seat kinda stuff.

― brontosaur (brontosaur), Wednesday, 10 May 2006 18:22 (seventeen years ago) link

this movie is great!

lots of very entertaining set pieces, well-written, suprisingly well-directed, well-acted

and it has my crush from kiss kiss bang bang in it!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 10 May 2006 18:25 (seventeen years ago) link

best line: "the rabbit's foot isn't in paris, five"

just for the delivery

― gear (gear), Wednesday, 10 May 2006 18:30 (seventeen years ago) link

haha yeah

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 10 May 2006 18:49 (seventeen years ago) link

you know as unfashionable as it might sound i really liked tom cruise in this movie

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 10 May 2006 18:50 (seventeen years ago) link

i think no matter what the film was like it was gonna get bad reviews since the public turned on cruise (see also gwbush)

― -+-+-+++- (ooo), Wednesday, 10 May 2006 18:56 (seventeen years ago) link

tom cruise can be fine, but only in the context of a movie. once he steps into the real world he's creepy.

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Wednesday, 10 May 2006 19:04 (seventeen years ago) link

hahaha unlike most actors i'm sure

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 10 May 2006 19:08 (seventeen years ago) link

"but at least he doesn’t drag William Shawn along to watch."

haha - at first I read this as Wallace Shawn, which is even funnier. kinda.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 10 May 2006 19:10 (seventeen years ago) link

wallace shawn is william shawn's kid!

― -+-+-+++- (ooo), Wednesday, 10 May 2006 19:11 (seventeen years ago) link

i love how they played the (unseen) theft of the rabbit's foot

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 10 May 2006 19:22 (seventeen years ago) link

haha yeah, true. and that slide down the windows of the building was pretty great.

― gear (gear), Wednesday, 10 May 2006 20:01 (seventeen years ago) link

well, I think the unseen theft of the rabbit's foot was actually pretty damn lame. but because I shouldn't complain about what isn't there, I will say it was an interesting choice, and despite not seeing that theft, the tension remained high throughout the whole sequence. its still a cop out though. People went to see an action movie, stuff gets stolen, stuff gets blown up. We should see it all if its integral to the plot.

I do think this is the first movie where I was genuinely amused by the "action-movie-one-liners" in a way that didn't seem as if I was appreciating them for ironic or camp value. they were just funny and cheesy and great. not so great that I can remember any of them right now though.

― brontosaur (brontosaur), Wednesday, 10 May 2006 20:16 (seventeen years ago) link

like when ving rhames asked tom, "ever fuck your sister?"

― gear (gear), Wednesday, 10 May 2006 20:22 (seventeen years ago) link

the rabbit foot=pure 100% unapologetic MacGuffin

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Wednesday, 10 May 2006 20:22 (seventeen years ago) link

the first time i ever heard the term "macguffin" was in an episode of g.i. joe in which they were pursuing a device called...the macguffin device

― gear (gear), Wednesday, 10 May 2006 20:25 (seventeen years ago) link

what exactly were they "copping out" of by not showing the rabbit's foot theft? i thought it was a great way to avoid a very ordinary part of a heist sequence and it made for a great surprise. the swinging/parachuting stuff was what that scene was all about!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 10 May 2006 20:25 (seventeen years ago) link

A 1986 episode of G.I. Joe, Once Upon a Joe, features a MacGuffin Device which "alters the fabric of reality" by projecting as solid hallucinations the imagination of the user.

― gear (gear), Wednesday, 10 May 2006 20:27 (seventeen years ago) link

i liked it because during the whole planning sequence everyone was asking TC, "how are you going to do it?" and he never really answered, he didn't know, etc, and we never see it. i thought it was a good joke.

― gear (gear), Wednesday, 10 May 2006 20:28 (seventeen years ago) link

Skipping 682 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.