Given the strong anti-Cruise bias out there I know a lot of you won't bother to see the latest M:I installment, but for what it's worth I thought it was a lot of fun -- much more so than the first two. The tone is more in keeping with the spirit of the original series, Phillip Seymour Hoffman makes a great villain, and about an hour into the story Nathan Hunt had made me forget what a loon Tom Cruise is.

I heard they brought back the "IM Team" for this one. I hated that the first two dropped the whole team idea.

Saw Cruise on Letterman the other night. Basically, he saved his co-star's life several times during the course of filming. Can egos implode? Cruise's can't get any bigger.

I'm really looking forward to this ... I may even go tonight! Cruise does seem to be a loon, but if I stopped going to movies because one or more of the actors said or did something I thought was stupid or even borderline lunacy, I'd have missed a whole lot of movies and some great performances.

Qapla'

SSB

...if I stopped going to movies because one or more of the actors said or did something I thought was stupid or even borderline lunacy, I'd have missed a whole lot of movies and some great performances.

Truer words were never spoken.

Peter Sellers may be my favorite screen actor, and by all accounts he was a complete lunatic.

The best artists are often unbalanced.

:freak: :freak: Ya mean ta tell me that all of my favorite actors are "bonkers, nuts , crazy , insane , hasn't got both oars in the water , two bricks short of a full load , isn't operating on all thrusters?" :freak: :freak:

Peter Sellers may be my favorite screen actor, and by all accounts he was a complete lunatic.According to the The Life and Death of Peter Sellers, the HBO movie with an incredible performance by Geoffrey Rush, Sellers off-camera was a complete bastard. Shirley MacLaine is a complete lunatic.

As for Mission: Impossible, the genius of the original TV series was getting viewers to tune in every week to watch essentially the same story. The show had one plot: the IMF tricks the bad guys into doing what we (the good guys) want them to do by setting up an elaborate charade, usually involving a lot of rubber masks and cheesy accents. I haven't seen the first two M:I flicks, but if the latest installment brings back the team concept and has something going for it besides mindless action and stuff gettin' blowed up, it may actually be worth seeing.

I've never forgiven Cruise and Company for making Mr. Phelps the bad guy in the first film.- GJS

I've never forgiven Cruise and Company for making Mr. Phelps the bad guy in the first film.- GJS

I never could figure out why they didn't use Peter Graves as Phelps in the first film. Granted, he's no spring chicken anymore, but then neither is Jon Voight.

Peter Graves didn't want to. He didn't like the idea of Phelps as a bad guy. Neither did I.

I was in the discount theatre and saw a poster for MI3 'coming soon".

Yeah, Peter Graves had nothing good to say about the first film. I imagine even if they'd offered him the part he wouldn't have done it.

I don't care about Cruise's private life, whether or not he thinks ALF, or something like him, is God, the reason I have no interest in MI 3, or 2 for that matter, is simply the fact that I saw MI 1.


And on the eighth day God said: I love cats, taste like chicken!

Personally I'm worried about the coming of the Great White Handkerchief.

I thought MI2 made the first MI look like Citizen Kane.

I didn't get a chance to see the movie over the weekend, but I will see it as soon as I can. After thinking about it, I realized that I don't believe that I've ever seen a Tom Cruise movie because of Tom Cruise. This one will be no different; I will see it because it was directed by J.J. Abrams, written by Abrams, Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci, and scored by Michael Giacchino -- all veterans of both Alias and Lost. It could star any number of actors and it would make no difference. In fact, I could see Balthazar Getty (currently on Alias as "Thomas Grace") in Cruise's role, should they ever desire to recast it. Getty looks like the result of genetic experiments combining two-thirds Charlie Sheen and one-third Tom Cruise, and he's in his early 30s. See this link (http://www.imdb.com/gallery/ss/0344487/Ss/0344487/TRAFFIC_USA_00205-lowres.jpg?path=pgallery&path_key=Getty,%20Balthazar) to see what I mean about his appearance.

Qapla'

SSB

Well I knew Tom Cruise had done a lot to damage his career lately, but I didn't realize how successful his efforts had been until I opened the trades this morning.

"M:I:3" received by far the best reviews the series has garnered to date, but its opening weekend fell far short of expectations. $48 million is nothing to sneeze at, but it ain't the $70 mil B.O. pundits had predicted and Viacom had banked on.

Cruise's problems he brought on himself, but this does not bode well for J.J. Abrams' TREK revival. Nor are things looking rosy for Brad Gray, Paramount's recently appointed chairman. Besides the embarrassment of being caught up in the Anthony Pellicano bugging scandal (the one that's about to send DIE HARD director John McTiernan to jail), Gray is under intense pressure from his bosses at Viacom to reverse Paramount's sagging fortunes. "M:I:3" was to spearhead that reversal, but the numbers are not encouraging.

Just as Jon Favreau's deal do direct "JOHN CARTER OF MARS" for Paramount went south following the failure of "ZATHURA", Abrams' plans to revive "STAR TREK" will most likely go up in smoke if "M:I:3" tanks. And while further TREK adventures are probably inevitable, it would be a shame IMO for the franchise to lose Abrams.

"M:I:3" received by far the best reviews the series has garnered to date, but its opening weekend fell far short of expectations. $48 million is nothing to sneeze at, but it ain't the $70 mil B.O. pundits had predicted and Viacom had banked on.I'm hoping it will have time to make some more cash -- it doesn't seem to me that there's a whole lot of direct competition for at least a couple of weeks -- and surely it won't be blamed on Abrams if it doesn't -- will it?

Qapla'

SSB

t doesn't seem to me that there's a whole lot of direct competition for at least a couple of weeks

POSEIDON opens next week, with THE DaVINCI CODE the week following. Biz for M:I:3 is likely to take a tumble, but we'll see.

surely it won't be blamed on Abrams if it doesn't -- will it?

“Blamed” isn’t the right word, but Brad Gray will have to think twice before telling Viacom chairman Sumner Redstone that he’s entrusting the studio’s most potentially lucrative franchise to the guy who couldn’t open “M:I:3”. I’m not saying Abrams is persona non grata as far as TREK is concerned (no doubt the studio will be happy to let him develop a screenplay), but unless “M:I:3” biz picks up drastically -- which isn’t very likely -- there’s no way he’ll be allowed to direct a TREK feature. It's the politics of reality.

For the record, “M:I:3” will have to gross in the neighborhood of $250 million in order to break even.

POSEIDON opens next week, with THE DaVINCI CODE the week following.I'm thinking the second one will be big, but I'm skeptical about the first one -- probably only because it doesn't interest me at all.

Qapla'

SSB

I've given up trying to handicap these things; the present marketplace is just too fickle. My gut tells me that POSEIDON will do okay business and that DaVINCI is going to be huge, but the truth is I really have no idea.

So far as I can tell the only sure-fire, can't miss, slam-dunk of the summer is PIRATES II.

Hopefully the studio suits might, for once, have enough brains to NOT blame Abrams for the poor performance of a film whose lead actor has spent the better part of the last year making a rather unpleasant spectacle of himself... to the point where several movements to boycott the film sprung up.

(Man, was that a long sentence or what?) :D

I overcame my distaste long enough to see it.

It's worth a sit, if only for Philip Seymour Hoffman's villain. Juicy. Twisted. In a good way of course.

Packed theater. Everyone seemed satisfied afterwards.

Hopefully the studio suits might, for once, have enough brains to NOT blame Abrams for the poor performance of a film whose lead actor has spent the better part of the last year making a rather unpleasant spectacle of himself... to the point where several movements to boycott the film sprung up.

(Man, was that a long sentence or what?) :D

Especially since the reviews are almost unanimous the Abrams has done the best film of the series, it not his fault Tom Cruise has alienated himself to most of the world.

Also, don't Cruise movies traditionally fare well overseas, even with less-than-spectacular domestic numbers?

...don't Cruise movies traditionally fare well overseas, even with less-than-spectacular domestic numbers?

Yep, and that appears to be the case here.

Thing is, this really isn't a Tom Cruise movie per se... it's a MISSION IMPOSSIBLE movie in the familiar "old school" sense that made the TV show so much fun. The best "popcorn" spy movie I've seen in a long time.

Fellow TOS fans: I dare you to see M:I:3 and tell me JJ Abrams isn't the guy to helm a STAR TREK feature.

it's a MISSION IMPOSSIBLE movie in the familiar "old school" sense that made the TV show so much fun.

'cept I don't remember too many women love interests in the old one.*

Fellow TOS fans: I dare you to see M:I:3 and tell me JJ Abrams isn't the guy to helm a STAR TREK feature.

An impressive leap to the big screen.





*maybe I was too young. Barbara Bain never did it for me...

I don't remember too many women love interests in the old one.

Nope, you're right about that. To flesh out the protagonist for a feature- length adventure Abrams borrowed a page from the ALIAS/ TRUE LIES playbook(s), and IMO it worked wonderfully.

M:I the tv sereis rarely, if ever, went into the personal relationships of the characters. It was all business.

Nevertheless it features some hotties of its day - Bain, Leslie-Anne Warren, Linda Day George...

Was Wally Cox in the first season only? And is the show not in syndication? I don't believe I've seen it anywhere since it's original run.

About 10 years ago, roughly, it was running sporadically on a channel up here in the northeast.

. . . Nevertheless it features some hotties of its day - Bain, Leslie-Anne Warren, Linda Day George...Barbara Bain a hottie? I always thought she had all the sex appeal of a department-store mannequin.

Hey Bain was hot, maybe not physically, but her character's brains were enough to convince me.

José

Re: Bain: I'll admit I've always been a sucker for those cool, cerebral, Hitchcockian Ice Queen types. A brunette version of this character appears in the new movie as one of the IMF team members.

Has anyone else seen M:I:3 yet? I must say it's the first "popcorn flick" I've seen in some time that's made me want to shell out the bucks for a second viewing.

Here's the thing... all three of the driving forces behind M:I:3 (Brad Gray, Tom Cruise, and JJ Abrams) have a lot riding on this picture career-wise, and it really shows. They knew going in they needed it to be a good film, and as a result there isn't a lazy, phoned-in beat in the entire show; it's firing on all cylinders. Sure it's got it's share of flaws, but as the action unfolded I really had the sense that the filmmakers were trying to give me my money's worth -- not just in terms of spectacle (of which there's plenty) but also with regard to the story and characters.

It really is a surprisingly (or perhaps not-so-surprisingly) entertaining movie.

I was entertained, but not see-it-again entertained. Maybe view again when it comes on cable...

GREAT MOVIE!

I was expecting pure crap and only went to see it due to a friend of mine wanting to see it. I was spectacularly surprised and immensely enjoyed it.

I'm glad it had many more of the elements of the original TV series which the first movie (the only other one I'd seen) did not.

"M:I:3" received by far the best reviews the series has garnered to date, but its opening weekend fell far short of expectations. $48 million is nothing to sneeze at, but it ain't the $70 mil B.O. pundits had predicted and Viacom had banked on.

Cruise's problems he brought on himself, but this does not bode well for J.J. Abrams' TREK revival. Nor are things looking rosy for Brad Gray, Paramount's recently appointed chairman. Besides the embarrassment of being caught up in the Anthony Pellicano bugging scandal (the one that's about to send DIE HARD director John McTiernan to jail), Gray is under intense pressure from his bosses at Viacom to reverse Paramount's sagging fortunes. "M:I:3" was to spearhead that reversal, but the numbers are not encouraging.

Just as Jon Favreau's deal do direct "JOHN CARTER OF MARS" for Paramount went south following the failure of "ZATHURA", Abrams' plans to revive "STAR TREK" will most likely go up in smoke if "M:I:3" tanks.

No offense Carson, but the quote from the dailies reads like something out of DC or State government: full of insider references (bolded) that the common person out there wouldn't understand or care about.

José

No offense Carson, but the quote from the dailies reads like something out of DC or State governmentI was under the impression those were Carson's own words -- a paraphrase, not an actual quote.

But I could be wrong ... did I read it correctly, Carson?

I swear, I'd go see this movie tonight ... except there's no way I'm missing Alias or Lost!

Qapla'

SSB

No offense Carson, but the quote from the dailies reads like something out of DC or State government: full of insider references (bolded) that the common person out there wouldn't understand or care about.

José
Translation:

Pellicano is a famous Hollywood "PI of the stars" who's in serious trouble right now for bugging folks on behalf of his famous clients(including Tom Cruise), his "black book" is supposedly more feared than Heidi Fleiss's.

Swingers Actor/Director Jon Favreau lost all his indie credibility when the kid movie ZATHURA failed to make a profit.

Thanks Scott and, er, Scott (Scott Squared?)! :wave:

I kind of gathered that there were some scandals afoot but I don't really follow the inner workings of Hollywood so I wasn't sure. Still, that reminded me of the State or federal government publications that come across my desk, where titillation is more important than policy. I fear for our democracy. :(

Back to OT, my wife and I were talking about M:I:III (Cruise notwithstanding) and we are interested in checking it out, but in all likelihood The DaVinci Code will be the next movie we'll go see.

José

I was under the impression those were Carson's own words

Yup.

Sorry if you found my comments confusing, uninteresting, or unduly titillating Jose. I was just trying to put "M:I:3" in context with the stuff that's going on at Paramount, because for the reasons noted it may have a significant impact on the future of "STAR TREK".

Rest assured I never meant any harm to our great democracy. :) The comment about Favreau speaks for itself and requires no special insider knowledge to decipher. As for the Pellicano case, it's been making front page headlines in the New York Times and elsewhere for the last two years, and is not exactly a closely guarded industry secret (check out current issue of Vanity Fair if you don’t believe me).

That assumes I read the NY Times or Vanity Fair, know that Favreau fell out of favor with the Indie community or that I'd know Pellicano is a big-shot Hollywood PI, Carson... :)

But your points on the effect M:I:III will have on Star Trek are right on. A butterfly's wings will cause that hurricane somewhere else. Ah, the wonders of chaos theory...

BTW, I did find the whole thing titillating, just not relevant to my day-to-day stuff... :jest:

José

That assumes I read the NY Times or Vanity Fair, know that Favreau fell out of favor with the Indie community...

Not at all, it just assumes you'd know that ZATHURA wasn't an Indie, but a major studio sci-fi movie which bombed a short while back. Sorry if I went out on a limb with that one, but I just couldn't resist blowing you away with my vast "insider knowledge" :p .

Speaking of which... don't tell anyone where you heard this, but I have it on very good authority that Michael Jackson has had cosmetic surgery!

Not at all, it just assumes you'd know that ZATHURA wasn't an Indie, but a major studio sci-fi movie which bombed a short while back. Sorry if I went out on a limb with that one, but I just couldn't resist blowing you away with my vast "insider knowledge" :p .

You're lucky I know Zathura was a movie, Deep Throat... :lol:

José

.....Deep Throat... :lol:


Hey! That was a movie too :tongue:

You're lucky I know Zathura was a movie:lol:

Jon Favreau would be lucky if it wasn't.

Gotta add my own BIG thumbs up to MI3! :thumbsup: What a great way to kick off this summer's movie season.


I don't quite know what all the fuss/backlash is about Tom Cruise. Yeah, he occasionally acts a little bizarre and says dopey things; but that's kind of par for the course for today's celebrities.

But check out the film if you haven't already!

... don't tell anyone where you heard this, but I have it on very good authority that Michael Jackson has had cosmetic surgery!NOOOO! Say it ain't so!

Next thing, you'll be telling us Liberace was gay! And that Amos ’n Andy on radio were really a couple of white guys!

Seriously, most everyone seems to agree that M:I:3 has much more of the feel and flavor of the TV show than the first two flicks did. I've never understood why a producer would acquire the title, characters and concept of a classic TV series and then make a movie that has nothing to do with the original show (like the recent travesty of I Spy). If you're not going to stay true to the source material, at least do an honest parody (Dragnet, The Brady Bunch Movie, Starsky and Hutch). Of course, an honest parody can still suck.

I liked the movie, action packed with some brains. Abrams is at the top of his game here and it'd be a shame if he didn't get the Trek gig.

The best artists are often unbalanced.

Well that explains a lot about what goes on around here.




MI3 will have to go by me, I could tollerate #1 less so #2...I think my next movie will have to be the DaVinci Code, I enjoyed the book, of course that doesn't mean it'll translate well into a movie.

I've seen very very little of the original show. I sort of have a pop culture sense of what the show was about, but even I thought it was wierd to make Phelps the villian in the first film. If someone like me didn't like that, I can't imagine how a fan felt.

The second film was remarkable in how souless it felt to me. All this flash and glamour and it just felt completely hollow. The third movie looks a lot better, but I won't be seeing in theaters. I'll check it out on DVD or TV.