Sounds like the Brocolli's REALLY have to up their game now....

[Daltons Chin Dimple]

Sounds good though, and proves that a hero is only ever as good as his villain, and the better the villain - the better the movie !

http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=23062

[BeauButabi]

Makes me want to actually see M:I-3 if it's better than True Lies. Although, the stuff with Hoffman in the trailer I found quite laughable, and when seeing the trailer in the theater with my friend I MST3K'd it and continued on his "I'm going to kill her...blah blah blah" rant with some pretty explict results. But anyways, I'll definately catch this when it comes out, though I'll take what this guy is saying with a grain of salt because J.J.'s television work isn't anything special IMO compaired to what this guy thinks.

[LeiterCIA]

Sweeeet!! I can't wait to see this one now!

Sounds like it will be even better than '2'... and I think I am the only guy on earth who really loved MI:2.

[Cooper]

Wow.... you liked Mission Impossible 2? You're right, Leiter.. you may be the only one. Just too slick for me. ...and too many masks being pulled off.

I felt like I was the only one to like the first one when it came out. My brother hated what they did to Jim Phelps. Being too young to remember the show on tv, I didn't really have a big connection to Mr. Phelps.
However, they missed out on a chance to correct this slander to the character's good name, by naming Anthony Hopkin's character Phelps in the sequel. Making the name a title, like "M".

But I am looking forward to MI: III. Making the IMF team more involved is a good move. Bond acts on his own in the movies. MI's thing is the team effort.

[BeauButabi]

Count me on the list of those who liked M:I-2, if only for the action. May not have been a great movie, but the John Woo action was awesome and worth sitting through the rest of it. I didn't like the first for a long time until I figured the whole plot out. I love it now. The tv show was way before my time, so I had no idea there was a Phelps in the series.

May I also say that I LOVED that guy who played Kittridge.

"I can see you're very upset."

"I want him manning a radar tower in Alaska by the end of the day. Just mail him his clothes."

"These guys are trained to be ghostsssss."

"If you want to shake hands with the devil, that's fine with me, I'll just make sure that you do it in hell."

:D

[TrekSucksHard]

While I kinda liked MI:1 I hated MI:2, the villians were pretty lame and it all felt like youve seen it before.

I liked how the first movie upended the mystique of Phelps- it was like making Capt. Kirk a bad guy in the Trek movies.

And as for Fat Harry Knowles, I don't find him to be a credible critic at all.

Am I the only one to find it funny that the villains in both MI movies were rogue IMF agents? Talk about your own worst enemy. http://messageboard.cinescape.com/cinescape/forums/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Magell]

I liked MI1 but I didn't care for MI2, mostly because the feel of the movie was way too different from the first one. It was more like an action movie than the spy movie that it should have been.

The trailers for MI3 look cool but if Knowles likes it I'm pretty dubious. His latest thing that bothers me is calling Hostel the scariest movie this decade when it isn't scary at all.

[Boromir006]

Yeah, Harry's a bit of a shill. I always doubt any review that claims a movie will "f*** you in the a**" - as the Ain't It Cool crowd likes to trumpet.

I've also heard that test audiences are laughing at and cheering a scene where the Cruiser gets the snot kicked out of him. I really think his off-camera antics have damaged his box office cred. Who am I kidding, the movie will still make a ton of money anyway.

[Cooper]

BB, I loved Kittredge in MI: I. Loved the fact that he was not a bad guy in the end. There's that great scene in MI: I, where Hunt meets Kittredge at that restaurant and starts pointing out all the IMF agents in the restaurant, before blowing up the fish tank. DePalma can be a little too flashy sometimes but it works.

I did like that the two films had such powerful directors whose visions are unique. The first one was pure DePalma and the second was unmistakably Woo. That's why I was happy when Fincher was attached to III. It would have been another very different film with a powerful director's signature.

Not only was MI: II too much action where the first more of a spy film, it also was overpowered by Cruise's personality. All I can remember is him flashing that grin over and over. ...it's been a while since I've seen it, though.

To bring back to the Bond theme of the forum, would it be good for the Brocolli's to loosen their grip on this films and allow big name director do a Bond film (like Tarantino, Spielberg, Soderbergh, etc...) to notch up the artistry of these films or are Bond films not supposed to be unique? Should they all have that generic Bond movie feel? That being said, I HATE the little camera-move tricks that are employed in Die Another Day. The movie is 4 years old and that already looks dated.

[Magell]

To bring back to the Bond theme of the forum, would it be good for the Brocolli's to loosen their grip on this films and allow big name director do a Bond film (like Tarantino, Spielberg, Soderbergh, etc...) to notch up the artistry of these films or are Bond films not supposed to be unique? Should they all have that generic Bond movie feel? That being said, I HATE the little camera-move tricks that are employed in Die Another Day. The movie is 4 years old and that already looks dated.

To back this up it would be when ER and CSI had Tarantino direct episodes. They still fit into the series well but they were different from the other episodes and you could tell the difference. That's not a perfect example because Tarantino used Movie techniques in a TV show so it's obviously different but no Franchise has lived as long as Bond and it's a fairly similar situation. I think it would be cool to see a big name director take a Bond film and do something with it and I'm sure Tarantino would be more than happy to do a Bond film. I don't know if he's a Bond fan but he's a huge movie fan so I bet there is that possibility.

[TrekSucksHard]

Speaking of other directors and Bond- they interviewed Woo (I happen to like his Hong Kong movies but he started to suck when he went Hollywood) and asked what he would do if he directed Bond and Woo said simply, "I would give Bond two guns because thats just me".

[Magell]

John Woo is awesome. Plus then we would get to see Doves in a Bond movie.

[BeauButabi]

We got to see doves with the John Glen movies.

"I would give Bond two guns because thats just me".

LOL!!!!!!!

[LeiterCIA]

You can be sure Uncle Agent will have plenty to say on this topic. He was able to explain to me why the 'M:I' crowd hates the movies so bad... ;)

Uncle and I had a lot to say back and forth on the topic of Mission Impossible back in the day. He hated the MI films, and 2 was worse than 1.

I personally didnt see the tv show, so I never got what the fuss was about. I didnt understand why the MI loyaliists were so against the movie. I mean.... What did one have to do with another? I imagined comparing the 'M:I' tv show to the movie, was akin to comparing the He-Man movie (think Dolph Lundren) to the He-man 'doll' (forget the cartoon in between).

Knowing I was a little ignorant of the show, Uncle sent me a video of a few episodes of Mission Impossible. I watched all of them, and he was right...they were great! Really great!

Still... I didnt realise why the great tv show was supposed rto make me hate a great movie.

They tell me it's the group of M:I guys that made the show so good. (Yeah... I did get that from the episodes.) So..I tried to think backwards. What if I were a Trek TV fan when the movies came out (which I was)? Lets say they kiled off the other members of the Enterprise in the first 20 minutes?? Um... ok well it might have made for an interesting plot. But wait...

What if they hired Brad Pitt to play Kirk, and then quickly wiped out the entire rest of the Enterprise crew... so that handsome Brad Pitt could single handedly save the universe???

Ok..with that in mind... yeah I can see how I might have hated the celluloid M:I incarnations. But for a guy like me, a Mission Impossible novice ... I still say they made a pretty wicked movie with M:I-2.... (M:I-1 was ok.... but even after seeing it 10 times on cable, I still cant get the plot.)


Anyway... I say the show were awesome.... M:I 1 was cool.... M:I-2 was awesome... and M:I 3 sounds like its gonna blow the first two away...


Although.... I certainly understand the M:I purists pining away for a more authentic interpretation of the originals... the way I pine for an authentic interpretation of the Ian Fleming originals.

[LeiterCIA]

...but he started to suck when he went Hollywood.

BAH!

I remember the first time I saw Broken Arrow and Face-Off... I was blown away at the time! Now it might look bland...but I loved the ride.

[Daltons Chin Dimple]

I just made a bit of a comment about that in the script review thread (don't worry, no spoilers really in that thread...... yet !) where I cast a doubt over just how much they really, really will change him.

[LeiterCIA]

Ahem...

HEY UNCLE!!

We're talking about the new Mission Impossible movie!

I think I heard someone say that the movies make the TV show look like Hogan's Heroes!!

Any thoughts???

:D

[BeauButabi]

The movie has been out for a while now. Anyone see it? I for one was very dissapointed. Although I wasn't expecting much, I was at least hoping for some dumb shallow popcorn entertainment (which I though M:I-2 excelled beautifully at). What I got here was a boring styleless 2 hours of crap.

[Kara Milovy]

I thought Mission Impossible 3 was a very entertaining summer movie. It is the best Summer movie so far.
Eldarion, it's not summer yet. It's a little early to judge!