380 replies to this topic

[Blonde Bond]

I, too saw this movie again today. My views hasn't changed much, or not at all from my theatrical viewing. I'm a fan of alias tv-show, and JJ Abrams was right man to direct mission impossible movie. The result; though exciting action, the movie itself is a bit bland.
Though I liked MI:III as an action/spy flick ,it's not great the way Brian De Palma's first Mission Impossible was. That movie both had great actors, story & tension, which, of course, is very common for De Palma's movie.

Third one was and is like Alias tv-show, but with a bigger budget and different cast.

I still like it

BTW, I suck at writing reviews, so you will never get one from me
(but I try sometime...)

edit: and it didn't humanize Ethan Hunt. He's still that "roadrunner", from the last movie.

Edited by Blonde Bond, 09 November 2006 - 04:22 PM.

[spynovelfan]

Let's just rip into this, shall we?

On Loomis' location point, one major standout for me was the Vatican. Not only was it simply the Vatican, because hey, the Vatican's cool, they never even bothered for one micro-second explaining why this international arms dealer was invited to a charity do there! On second thoughts, it was probably one of the more plausible moments in the film.

Rhys-Meyers' little trick with pretending to be a guard at the Vatican's gates counts on two things:

1. The building unaccountably not having a two-hour queue to get in, as it does every other day of the year.
2. The guard not knowing all his colleagues, and therefore asking who the he is.

Hoffman's character tortures Hunt, then just leaves. Taking all his guards with him. Leaving behind Hunt's boss, for no particular reason, so Hunt can overpower him. Hunt's boss, remember, is acting under orders from the White House, and can commandeer shock troops and helicopters to recapture Hoffman. And yet he couldn't intercept whoever passed the message to Hunt at Farris' funeral that she had left a message for him (who was that who passed the message to him? How did they know about it), nor bother to trail Hunt. So now he reveals himself so he can ask: 'What did she say on the tape?' It's pretty weak. They repeat the first film's trick of having a close-up of Hunt as they explain a whole hell of a lot of exposition that is hard to follow, and we watch Hunt 'thinking it through'. Only, unlike in MI:I, we don't see what's gojng through his head, get the visual or aural clues as to how it all fits together, presumably because that would be far too much like the first film, and because well, there's not actually much to figure out as there was then. Hunt's boss is a baddie, and we get it because we saw the first film, and we don't want to think about it too much or we wonder why he didn't bother getting hold of the microdot himself.

[marktmurphy]

They repeat the first film's trick of having a close-up of Hunt as they explain a whole hell of a lot of exposition that is hard to follow, and we watch Hunt 'thinking it through'. Only, unlike in MI:I, we don't see what's gojng through his head, get the visual or aural clues as to how it all fits together, presumably because that would be far too much like the first film, and because well, there's not actually much to figure out as there was then. Hunt's boss is a baddie, and we get it because we saw the first film

I was never quite sure of that scene- couldn't be entirely sure that what we were seeing what was Ethan was thinking or just the truth and he's taking Jon Voight at his word. I'm pretty sure he was figuring it out, but at the time it wasn't easy to decide which. Lovely music in that bit, though.
The first one just had so much more style and properly constructed tension. It's still the best of the bunch for me (it's ten years old! Eek!).

[spynovelfan]

People seem not to like the first because it was overly complicated. It was, but I think it makes a whole lot more sense than II and III, and agree that it had more style, smarts and tension. I like that it had the atmosphere of a spy thriller: Hunt hiding out in a small safe house in London, etc. III did not feel to me like it was made ten years later. It could easily have been the second film, and made in 1997. The bit where he dresses up as a Polish backpacker, and also as a priest - all the sort of stuff that could have been in the TV show. But I was just reminded of Val Kilmer's Saint film. I think so far the first film's the only one with any longevity.

[00Twelve]

I agree with you. It seems many folks down the first film because of a complicated plot, but I diagree...it's a Mission: Impossible plot. The atmosphere of the film worked for me. A great spy flick. I personally didn't agree with Phelps turning renegade, but it was a bold move and I understand the statement they were making.

[Loomis]

Let's just rip into this, shall we?

On Loomis' location point, one major standout for me was the Vatican. Not only was it simply the Vatican, because hey, the Vatican's cool, they never even bothered for one micro-second explaining why this international arms dealer was invited to a charity do there! On second thoughts, it was probably one of the more plausible moments in the film.

What a piece of luck that Hoffman's translator (interpreter, surely? Although she's referred to as his translator in the dialogue) speaks Cantonese. But then, even at the Vatican you just never know when a woman who apparently speaks only Cantonese is going to come along and spill her drink on your shirt.

Incidentally, which language are the baddies using during the bridge attack? There's a line that's subtitled in English - "Turn the drone around, there's another IMF agent in the truck" (or something like that). Is it Afrikaans?

[Loomis]

So I had another butcher's at MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III. Damn, but this film rocks the house.

Any chance of BOND 23 taking inspiration from it?

[Safari Suit]

Hopefully not, but thank you for bumping this as it makes an interesting, and surprisingly bulky, time capsule.

[Loomis]

This is indeed a curiously meaty thread. But such is Ethan Hunt's contribution to popular culture.

[marktmurphy]

So I had another butcher's at MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III. Damn, but this film rocks the house.

Any chance of BOND 23 taking inspiration from it?

Hope not, no. What's to take inspiration from? Be more bland?

[The Ghost Who Walks]

So I had another butcher's at MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III. Damn, but this film rocks the house.

Any chance of BOND 23 taking inspiration from it?

Hope not, no. What's to take inspiration from? Be more bland?

The Bond films are literally screaming for those AMAZING masks that can miraculously turn Tom Cruise into Philip Seymour Hoffman! I would kill to see Craig's Bond wear one and disguise himself as Dench's M! Yeah!

[Sark2.0]

So I had another butcher's at MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III. Damn, but this film rocks the house.

Any chance of BOND 23 taking inspiration from it?

Hope not, no. What's to take inspiration from? Be more bland?

The Bond films are literally screaming for those AMAZING masks that can miraculously turn Tom Cruise into Philip Seymour Hoffman! I would kill to see Craig's Bond wear one and disguise himself as Dench's M! Yeah!

I take it you're joking? Please say you are?

Personally I hated MI:2 and MI:3. The stunts were borderline ridiculous in the first one, but it made up for that with a down-to-earth (no take over the world type stuff) and intelligent (or if you're in Rio Linda, indecipherable) plot. The second two were just big dumb action films where the most distinctive thing was those impossible masks. And that John Woo slow motion made me want to punch a small child.

Also, since this thread was a complaint about CR being a reboot, I think we need only to look at the critical response (94% on rottentomatoes vs 70%) and worldwide gross (594 million vs 397 million) to see that if anything, Hunt should be taking inspiration from Bond.

[Loomis]

So I had another butcher's at MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III. Damn, but this film rocks the house.

Any chance of BOND 23 taking inspiration from it?

Hope not, no. What's to take inspiration from? Be more bland?

Two areas spring to mind: MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III has some genuinely likeable characters* (although perhaps we wouldn't agree on this point), and it's also quite witty (we may also not agree there, though) - it pulls off its lighthearted moments well and without making heavy weather of them. There's nothing wince-inducing like QUANTUM OF SOLACE's "You and I had a mutual friend" quip, where you can sense someone making a script note reading "Put some 'comic relief' here".

Where I think you and I may be in agreement is on the point that MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III has a better, more smoothly-flowing and coherent screenplay than QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

*As far as I'm concerned, it's tough to like any of the characters in QUANTUM OF SOLACE apart from Mathis.

[JimmyBond]

This is indeed a curiously meaty thread. But such is Ethan Hunt's contribution to popular culture.

Also curious is the fact that you seemed to be a tad indifferent to MI:III after your first viewing. What changed your mind Loomis?

[00Twelve]

Any chance of BOND 23 taking inspiration from it?

Nah.

[The Ghost Who Walks]

So I had another butcher's at MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III. Damn, but this film rocks the house.

Any chance of BOND 23 taking inspiration from it?

Hope not, no. What's to take inspiration from? Be more bland?

The Bond films are literally screaming for those AMAZING masks that can miraculously turn Tom Cruise into Philip Seymour Hoffman! I would kill to see Craig's Bond wear one and disguise himself as Dench's M! Yeah!

I take it you're joking? Please say you are?

But off course.

[Safari Suit]

The Bond films are literally screaming for those AMAZING masks that can miraculously turn Tom Cruise into Philip Seymour Hoffman! I would kill to see Craig's Bond wear one and disguise himself as Dench's M! Yeah!

I love that shot in M-I:III where Hunt starts putting on his official Phillip Seymour Hoffman mask, and the camera pans to Ving Rhames' back which covers the screen and then, low and behold, Hunt is now played by Hoffman!

This is indeed a curiously meaty thread. But such is Ethan Hunt's contribution to popular culture.

I've obviously undersetimated the boy, much like IMF understimates potential traitors. Nobody start a Cole Trickle thread or it'll crash the server!

[marktmurphy]

So I had another butcher's at MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III. Damn, but this film rocks the house.

Any chance of BOND 23 taking inspiration from it?

Hope not, no. What's to take inspiration from? Be more bland?

Two areas spring to mind: MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III has some genuinely likeable characters* (although perhaps we wouldn't agree on this point)

I'm struggling to think. Ving is, as always, very good- but that's one character in the whole thing. In QoS (if that's what we're comparing this to now: which is cheating a bit- you've had to compare it to the worst of the Bond series in order to make MI3 look good!) you had Mathis and Fields (who I thought did very well), and that's if you don't like Bond in it; and I do. Certainly prefer him to eyes-and-teeth I'm-doing-my-own-stunts Cruise. And I say Cruise purposefully: he's playing Tom Cruise in this- not Ethan Hunt. I don't know why that is; there's the whiff of ego hanging around the two MI sequels.

Where I think you and I may be in agreement is on the point that MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III has a better, more smoothly-flowing and coherent screenplay than QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

There's nothing wrong with it, no. Quantum is, almost mercifully, shorter; but if Bond were going to take inspiration for B23 from anywhere, I'd rather they just looked to Casino Royale again and work out what they missed from that when making QoS. There's nothing in particular about MI3 that flows better than any other film which is better than QoS.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Certainly prefer him to eyes-and-teeth I'm-doing-my-own-stunts Cruise. And I say Cruise purposefully: he's playing Tom Cruise in this- not Ethan Hunt. I don't know why that is; there's the whiff of ego hanging around the two MI sequels.

Very true; there's even the rock-climbing bit at the beginning of M:I2 that recalls (horror of horrors) William Shatner scaling a cliff in the godawful Star Strek V!

[Loomis]

This is indeed a curiously meaty thread. But such is Ethan Hunt's contribution to popular culture.

Also curious is the fact that you seemed to be a tad indifferent to MI:III after your first viewing. What changed your mind Loomis?

I often find that certain films play better on the small screen than on the big. At the cinema, MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III struck me as a thin, flimsy affair, but in the home it becomes a decent rainy day rental.

Also, I tend to become less picky about films on subsequent viewings. The first time I see something I'm usually concerned with looking for what's wrong with it rather than what's right with it. Not a very sensible way to go about things, I suppose (it's led to a lot of letdowns at the cinema), but it's the way I'm wired. Many's the time that I've come out of the cinema severely underwhelmed or even nauseated by what I've seen, only for the flick in question to subsequently become a bit of good fun in my eyes, or even a firm favourite.

[Loomis]

MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III has some genuinely likeable characters* (although perhaps we wouldn't agree on this point)

I'm struggling to think. Ving is, as always, very good- but that's one character in the whole thing.

I think all the characters are pretty likeable, apart from the villains, but even then the villains are charismatic and engaging in a way that they're not in QUANTUM OF SOLACE (Phil Hoffman and Billy Crudup give compelling performances).

The characters played by Maggie Q and Jonathan Rhys Meyers are - for me, at least - charming folk, and they have good chemistry together. I'd like to see them return to the series, along with Larry Fishburne. I didn't feel the same way about Anthony Hopkins or that Aussie pilot guy from MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE II.

Are they great characters? No, probably not, but then again I do find them pleasant people, whereas most everybody in QUANTUM OF SOLACE is a cold fish, Bond included.

you've had to compare it to the worst of the Bond series in order to make MI3 look good!

Well, I don't think QUANTUM OF SOLACE is the worst of the Bond series - one of the worst, perhaps, but certainly not rock bottom of the barrel. TWINE still holds that dishonour in my eyes.

and that's if you don't like Bond in it; and I do

Bond is certainly a fairly interesting character in QUANTUM OF SOLACE (more interesting than Hunt, I'll grant you), but I don't really find him likeable. Sure, he's not meant to be Happy-Go-Lucky Chortling Roger Moore™ in this one, but I find nothing to admire about 007 in this flick. At no time do I want to be the Bond of QUANTUM, and I think Bond should always be an aspirational figure to some extent. A cold and crazed Bond is a bit of a turnoff.

Back to MISSION III: I do wonder whether the Agent Farris stuff and the rather underwhelming factory shootout/helicopter chase was really needed, though. Might have been a smoother, snappier flick had it gone straight from the flashforward PTS to Hunt being coaxed out of retirement to track Davian and then the Vatican mission.