MI:3

[Gold Trumpet]

Alexandro, I understand your point of realism in the film. Its a good point. I just think the picture painted of Cruise's character has so much showmanship to him that an emotional center needs to be unearthed for me to buy into him.

Also, when I referred to him as smarter than anyone in the room, I was referring to his attitude. His actions in the end are very dumb.

Agree to disagree?

[Alexandro]

Totally...

Cruise, even despite of himself, is actually a pretty good actor. He has a screen persona that gets in the way for recognition on that area but that's now, and that at some point is gonna end. Years will pass, his bullshit movies will fade, and only the good ones (and he has quite a few) will remain, and people with a vague idea of who tom cruise is will only see the character, and maybe some of his better works will be more appreciated.

[pete]

I just got the latest american cinematographer, and HOLY SHIT.  I had no idea that much of the film was cgi-ed, shot on green screen on all sorts of elaborate fake sets.  I kept on wondering how they did that thing in shanghai and noticed something a little fishy when the neon tower was in like every shot (like the fuji mountain in Japan in non-Japanese movies) but holy crap, I thought they cut back on the cgi and it was just the opposite.  everything was just really awesomely plated and matched--sometimes with different locations, different takes, even different cameras!  it was crazy.  I need to watch it again now.
and as I was reading that on the train, I heard loud music from the other side of the subway cart and saw these two dudes busting out acrobatics.  one dude backhand sprung his way to my side of the cart and capped it all off with a very low and sharp backtuck, in the midsts of all these people.  I was so psyched.  you don't need millions of dollars, some dudes just do it inside a moving train.

[w/o horse]

Kind of like how Tom Cruise looks like a fast runner because he moves his arms in that way.

[©brad]

Did anyone else get a headache from the camerawork in this?

ur getting old dude.

[pete]

spoiler

die hard did not have a low key ending.  the dude fell from a skyscraper. PSH got hit by a suv, not the same thing.

[polkablues]

The important thing in both cases is that the movies ended with the intimation that the hero was about to totally get some.

[Ravi]

M:I3 had some pretty cool action set pieces (The Vatican, the bridge, the Shanghai skyscrapers) and PSH was absolutely evil as the bad guy.  PSH's character needed more scenes to balance out the Tom Cruise scenes and provide more reason for us to care about the mission.  We've seen most of this stuff before, but its meant to be disposable fun entertainment.  Don't go in expecting a film that explodes the action-adventure genre and you'll be satisfied.

[MacGuffin]

Did anyone else get a headache from the camerawork in this?

When I saw clips on TV, I noticed it a lot, but somehow on the big screen it didn't seem to distract me.


My two cents:

It felt like a rejected Alias script, which was good and bad because it's what JJ does best, but at the same time it felt familiar. After an excellent opening and set-up, when the conclusion came, I felt cheated. It was like the writers were painted into a corner and you expect Ethan to kick some ass, but no. It was a weak MacGuffin. This all leading to double-crosses and twists that I found more confusing than everyone found the first Mission. And that too many cooks spoiling the plot got in the way of Hoffman being the supreme villian that he should have been. When you have a Hanz Gruber, you let him loose because that's when you and the hero become one at getting the nemesis. I feel if MI:3 scaled it down to being a triangle of Ethan, fiancee and Davian, the movie could have really been a top-notch actioner, because the action was excellent; like the best parts of Alias.

[polkablues]

I noticed the shaky camera less in this than I did in Bourne Supremacy, though it didn't bother me in either film.

[©brad]

I noticed the shaky camera less in this than I did in Bourne Supremacy, though it didn't bother me in either film.

on a somewhat related note, i think soderbergh is the master of the hand-held camera.

[Gamblour.]

I noticed the shaky camera less in this than I did in Bourne Supremacy, though it didn't bother me in either film.

on a somewhat related note, i think soderbergh is the master of the hand-held camera.

Yeah, I've noticed on Lost and MI3 (not that they share any cameramen or real link, except Abrams) that the shaky camera sometimes loses too much of its central focus, shifting too far off center and lingering elsewhere. Soderbergh knows how to magnify and heighten his subject with the camera movement.

[Ravi]

And that too many cooks spoiling the plot got in the way of Hoffman being the supreme villian that he should have been. When you have a Hanz Gruber, you let him loose because that's when you and the hero become one at getting the nemesis. I feel if MI:3 scaled it down to being a triangle of Ethan, fiancee and Davian, the movie could have really been a top-notch actioner, because the action was excellent; like the best parts of Alias.

Without a really good nemesis I kind of stopped caring about what happened and enjoyed the action scenes on their own.  Which means I wasn't invested in the film.  PSH stole the show whenever he was on-screen, but he needed more screen time.

[MacGuffin]

The MI:3 Film That Never Happened
Source: Cinematical

Right now, I know what you're thinking: "But dude, they already made a Mission Impossible: 3 and it came out in May -- what the hell are you talking about?" See, Hollywood is like a serial dater -- they keep screwing different people until eventually committing to what, at the time, seems to be the best thing out there. In the case of MI:3, the film swapped hands a number of times before finally landing in the lap of J.J. Abrams.

For example, did you know David Fincher was originally tapped to helm the third installment in the Mission Impossible franchise? Yes, David freaking Fincher. Imagine that one. However, with Tom Cruise running the show and Fincher being, well, Fincher, no one expected that relationship to last long. Actually, Fincher's version had Cruise playing his age and not acting like the superhero he was in the first two films. Seeing as Cruise is, in fact, a superhero in real life, that idea was shelved immediately. Following the Fincher affair, writer Joe Carnahan (Narc) was brought on to try and update the franchise by giving it a grittier, darker edge. However, in the end, Tom Cruise doesn't do dark stuff and so J.J. Abrams was brought on to make sure the film retained its "commercial blockbuster" status.

In a recent interview with the French website, Mesclun Art Media, storyboard artist Rusty Dumas provided us with some details regarding Carnahan's version of the script. Dumas was the original storyboard artist on MI:3 and even went as far as to give us a peek at his storyboards for what was supposed to be an opening sequence set in Africa. While the interview is in French, the good folks over at Dark Horizons were able to get a rough translation. It seems Carnahan's version was awfully political, focusing on the "links between arms sales in the States, the Baltic and the African West."

[MacGuffin]

MI3 to hit DVD October 30

According to the USA TODAY, Paramount's MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III will hit shelves on October 30 as a special collector's edition DVD. Interesting to note that the release date is a Monday, and not the typical Tuesday. The studio is calling it "Mission Monday."

The DVD will release simultaneously on DVD, HD DVD and Blu-ray disc formats. Each two disc set will include four behind-the-scenes featurettes and various deleted scenes.

The HD DVD comes with extra enhanced commentary by Tom Cruise and J.J. Abrams.