380 replies to this topic

[Leon]

tdalton:

There is A LOT of stuff from the book in this film. They hadn't filmed any of those scenes when they made that teaser. Even the Vesper martini recipe is exactly the same

One thing I want them to change to make it's faithfullness complete (to the degree it can best be for a modern cinematic update) is to extend the torture scene a little more.

[Seannery]

I guess my main problem is with EON, not with Daniel Craig. Craig's a fantastic actor, and he'll play Bond in whatever style that EON wants him to. But, judging from the promises of "back to the basics" before during the Brosnan Era, I'm nervous and afraid that they're just going to do the same thing they did then, start out with something serious and then turn it into something else entirely by the time the film is completed. I thought that they were going to breathe some new life into this franchise, and it looks as though they might have with some of the B&W stuff, but the color stuff in the trailer looks to be as bland as ever, just more action upon more action, and I have serious doubts as to whether it'll even resemble Fleming's Casino Royale once they're done with the film.

Come on, you knew this was never going to be a 100 percent faithful adaptation of CR. None of the EON series entries have been.

This is where you are putting too much thought into the negative. It's marketing. They HAVE to show some action stuff. Bonds are action pics, make no mistake; they will lose a big part of the audience if they don't include it. They never said it was going to be a Hitchcock psychological suspense flick all the way around. CR just may hold the promise of a better blend of this and action.

I never said that it was going to be 100% faithful. But, nothing in this trailer even looks like it could have been inspired by Casino Royale either. Hopefully the trailer we get in September or October will be better and feature better action (because the action that they're showing in this trailer is quite ridiculous) and something that looks as though they could have come up with the idea by reading Casino Royale.

But, I will go back on a previous comment and say that I now believe that CR will probably be a better film than MI3, judging from the horrific reviews that it's getting both on this site and elsewhere.

I'll just add to the point about MI3--some didn't like it here but others certainly did if you read the whole thread. AND it is getting A LOT of good reviews. And there are hardly ANY "horrific" reviews. MUCH MORE POSITIVES than negatives--you gotta realize that no film will be universally lauded.

[tdalton]

tdalton:

There is A LOT of stuff from the book in this film. They hadn't filmed any of those scenes when they made that teaser. Even the Vesper martini recipe is exactly the same

One thing I want them to change to make it's faithfullness complete (to the degree it can best be for a modern cinematic update) is to extend the torture scene a little more.

Good to hear. I think that the things that they take from the CR novel will work very well, especially with Craig as Bond. It's the things that EON is adding themselves, such as much of the action in the trailer, that I'm not sure about.

I guess my doubts about Craig himself are starting to fade a bit, but EON has a lot to prove before I'm willing to take their word on it that it will be a return to the basics for Bond.

Still, good to hear that some of CR will still be there. It's difficult to know that as I'm trying to keep away from specific spoilers, so I don't venture into the script reviews or anything like that, so all I have to go on is what I've seen so far, and based on that, I feel as though Craig will be good, but I have questions about Campbell and EON.

I'll just add to the point about MI3--some didn't like it here but others certainly did if you read the whole thread. AND it is getting A LOT of good reviews. And there are hardly ANY "horrific" reviews. Much more positives than negatives--you gotta realize that no film will be universally lauded.

I had already heard that M:I3 was bad before I had logged on here yesterday, and I was mainly going on the reviews by people that generally think the same way that I do regarding the Bond films and spy films in general. I'm sure that M:I3 is somewhat decent, but after the expectations that I had built up for it, it doesn't appear as though it's going even come close to living up to them. I suppose I'll find out soone or later whether I'm right on that, though.

[Harmsway]

I'll just add to the point about MI3--some didn't like it here but others certainly did if you read the whole thread. AND it is getting A LOT of good reviews. And there are hardly ANY "horrific" reviews. Much more positives than negatives--you gotta realize that no film will be universally lauded.

This is true. I don't think MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III is getting trashed - just getting okay reviews. The film promised us something different, and what M:I:III essentially gave us as a product was somethign that combined the first two installments. M:I:III is ultimately not something new and exciting as promised - it's just the same old Tom Cruise show.

I don't think anybody has absolutely torn it apart. It does have some entertainment value, but it's just no great film.

[tdalton]

it's just the same old Tom Cruise show.

That's where I was hoping that it was going to be different. I had enjoyed some of Cruise's other films where he took a backseat to other actors (like Jamie Foxx in Collateral, as well as both Dakota Fanning and the special effects in War of the Worlds) and his performance in The Last Samurai felt somewhat different from the normal Cruise outing. But, I was hoping that he would do something different this time around, because neither of the other two MI movies were all that great (although the first was decent, not great, but decent) and they really needed to do something different this time around, like add some more teamwork and add some more intrigue to the whole thing rather than just blowing stuff up for 2 hours.

[Turn]

And I love the action we're getting in the preview - the free running sequence looks like it'll be an absolute blast.

So do I. Remember when the Bond films used to give you something new and different? That's what free running will hopefully do, get people talking. And years from now they'll remember they first saw it in a Bond film the way they saw a jet pack, Aston Martin, ski jump off a cliff or snowboarding.

To borrow a phrase from a local sports talk host -- It's a great time to be a Bond fan.

[Seannery]

I'll just add to the point about MI3--some didn't like it here but others certainly did if you read the whole thread. AND it is getting A LOT of good reviews. And there are hardly ANY "horrific" reviews. Much more positives than negatives--you gotta realize that no film will be universally lauded.

This is true. I don't think MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III is getting trashed - just getting okay reviews. The film promised us something different, and what M:I:III essentially gave us as a product was somethign that combined the first two installments. M:I:III is ultimately not something new and exciting as promised - it's just the same old Tom Cruise show.

I don't think anybody has absolutely torn it apart. It does have some entertainment value, but it's just no great film.

I'm just replying to tdalton who used the words "horrific reviews"--just wasn't accurate at all. I'd submit its getting better than okay reviews--more like mostly good to very good. Regardless IMO it was an excellent action spy thriller--i'm fine with big action if it works in the film and it does. I personally liked this one way better than the first 2 which I was lukewarm on. I think you can make a big action spectacle with no pretense of being "a great human story" and still have an excellent film--which is what MI3 did for me. And of course everyone is going to have different takes on this or any other film.

it's just the same old Tom Cruise show.

That's where I was hoping that it was going to be different. I had enjoyed some of Cruise's other films where he took a backseat to other actors (like Jamie Foxx in Collateral, as well as both Dakota Fanning and the special effects in War of the Worlds) and his performance in The Last Samurai felt somewhat different from the normal Cruise outing. But, I was hoping that he would do something different this time around, because neither of the other two MI movies were all that great (although the first was decent, not great, but decent) and they really needed to do something different this time around, like add some more teamwork and add some more intrigue to the whole thing rather than just blowing stuff up for 2 hours.

By the way there is some nice suspense, some emotional resonance and more teamwork this time along with a ton of action(not just blowing stuff up the whole time ). It may not be the serious kind of spy film you like though--it's all taste.

[Harmsway]

By the way there is some nice suspense, some emotional resonance and more teamwork this time along with a ton of action. It may not be the serious kind of spy film you like though--it's all taste.

I wouldn't say there's any more teamwork than in the first film.

I would have liked MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III fine if it had given us a better plot (what it had was barely there and very predictable), given us some more character-building all around with a little more actual teamwork, and if the resolution hadn't been so cornball.

[Seannery]

By the way there is some nice suspense, some emotional resonance and more teamwork this time along with a ton of action. It may not be the serious kind of spy film you like though--it's all taste.

I wouldn't say there's any more teamwork than in the first film.

I think so--it's that way until the end with a full team until the end. The first dispensed with the team for much bigger blocks of time. But I agree that 1 wasn't as bad as 2 in that regard. I think they used the team thing rather well in 3--not totally but well nonetheless.

[Robert Watts]

I guess my main problem is with EON, not with Daniel Craig. Craig's a fantastic actor, and he'll play Bond in whatever style that EON wants him to. But, judging from the promises of "back to the basics" before during the Brosnan Era, I'm nervous and afraid that they're just going to do the same thing they did then, start out with something serious and then turn it into something else entirely by the time the film is completed. I thought that they were going to breathe some new life into this franchise, and it looks as though they might have with some of the B&W stuff, but the color stuff in the trailer looks to be as bland as ever, just more action upon more action, and I have serious doubts as to whether it'll even resemble Fleming's Casino Royale once they're done with the film.

Come on, you knew this was never going to be a 100 percent faithful adaptation of CR. None of the EON series entries have been.

This is where you are putting too much thought into the negative. It's marketing. They HAVE to show some action stuff. Bonds are action pics, make no mistake; they will lose a big part of the audience if they don't include it. They never said it was going to be a Hitchcock psychological suspense flick all the way around. CR just may hold the promise of a better blend of this and action.

I never said that it was going to be 100% faithful. But, nothing in this trailer even looks like it could have been inspired by Casino Royale either. Hopefully the trailer we get in September or October will be better and feature better action (because the action that they're showing in this trailer is quite ridiculous) and something that looks as though they could have come up with the idea by reading Casino Royale.

But, I will go back on a previous comment and say that I now believe that CR will probably be a better film than MI3, judging from the horrific reviews that it's getting both on this site and elsewhere.

I'll just add to the point about MI3--some didn't like it here but others certainly did if you read the whole thread. AND it is getting A LOT of good reviews. And there are hardly ANY "horrific" reviews. MUCH MORE POSITIVES than negatives--you gotta realize that no film will be universally lauded.

Die Another Day got a lot of positive reviews when it came out, didn't mean it was good. On Rotten Tomatoes it has a 69 as average mark of all the reviews, that means there is a fair few of negative reviews out there.

[Harmsway]

By the way there is some nice suspense, some emotional resonance and more teamwork this time along with a ton of action. It may not be the serious kind of spy film you like though--it's all taste.

I wouldn't say there's any more teamwork than in the first film.

I think so--it's that way until the end with a full team until the end. The first dispensed with the team for much bigger blocks of time. But I agree that 1 wasn't as bad as 2 in that regard. I think they used the team thing rather well in 3--not totally but well nonetheless.

The team is there more in manner of screentime, I suppose, but aside from the excellent Vatican job (the sequence that really captures the essence of MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE as a concept and is just fantastically entertaining - it really made the movie worth seeing for me), they're all just backup to Hunt's one-man show. For example, look at the break-in in Shanghai (which also seems almost directly copied from the similar break-in in M:I 2 - which is why it's the moment I thought was the most contrived in the film). The first film had just as much actual M:I-style teamwork, and used it prominently in the opening sequence and Langley sequence.

I wish Joe Carnahan and Darabont's M:I:III had been made as a film - it seemed so interesting. The rumors are that Cruise didn't go ahead with that proposal because it chopped down his role significantly.

[Seannery]

By the way there is some nice suspense, some emotional resonance and more teamwork this time along with a ton of action. It may not be the serious kind of spy film you like though--it's all taste.

I wouldn't say there's any more teamwork than in the first film.

I would have liked MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III fine if it had given us a better plot (what it had was barely there and very predictable), given us some more character-building all around with a little more actual teamwork, and if the resolution hadn't been so cornball.

There's a fine line between cornball and emotional--it worked for me fine. The plot was efficient, simple and straightforward and propelled the story forward well--something that the latter day Bonds have been criticized for not doing...overly diffuse plots. The character building wasn't "deep" but was more than sufficient IMO to add resonance for an action adventure. It did what it had to do for the type of film it was--it wasn't striving to be a "serious" spy thriller. Popcorn thrillers are just as valid as their more serious counterparts. Hmmmmmm...I think we disagree. And i'm not easy on films...I don't grade with a curve.

[Harmsway]

There's a fine line between cornball and emotional--it worked for me fine.

Spoiler

Milking Hunt's death for as long as they did was just cornball and predictable. It would have been fine if they'd just resurrected him sooner and hadn't gone into slo-mo with the emotional music, when we all knew he wasn't dead. Furthermore, from that point out, it was just really cheesy. Hunt's conversation with Julia and then that cheering good-bye at the end... ugh.

The plot was efficient, simple and straightforward and propelled the story forward well--something that the latter day Bonds have been criticized for not doing...overly diffuse plots.

Unfortunately, it was also remarkably predictable. There was one surprise towards the end, but otherwise, there were no surprises there. There's a difference between a straightforward plot and one that's terribly predictable and boring.

The character building wasn't "deep" but was more than sufficient IMO to add resonance for an action adventure. It did what it had to do for the type of film it was--it wasn't striving to be a "serious" spy thriller. Popcorn thrillers are just as valid as their more serious counterparts.

I was hoping for a really intense film with great character after all I'd heard praised about it. As it was, it was just another popcorn film. That's fine, but I was hoping for a lot more.

There's no reason MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III couldn't have had some actual character building where we got to know the characters a little more than just having them be shells. It would have only improved the film and made it an extra special popcorn film.

As it was, M:I:III was just another action film. I was hoping for and somewhat expecting an absolutely knock-my-socks-off fantastic thriller, and from some of the advance reviews, it seemed it was going to be. It wasn't.

[Robert Watts]

By the way there is some nice suspense, some emotional resonance and more teamwork this time along with a ton of action. It may not be the serious kind of spy film you like though--it's all taste.

I wouldn't say there's any more teamwork than in the first film.

I would have liked MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III fine if it had given us a better plot (what it had was barely there and very predictable), given us some more character-building all around with a little more actual teamwork, and if the resolution hadn't been so cornball.

There's a fine line between cornball and emotional--it worked for me fine. The plot was efficient, simple and straightforward and propelled the story forward well--something that the latter day Bonds have been criticized for not doing...overly diffuse plots. The character building wasn't "deep" but was more than sufficient IMO to add resonance for an action adventure. It did what it had to do for the type of film it was--it wasn't striving to be a "serious" spy thriller. Popcorn thrillers are just as valid as their more serious counterparts. Hmmmmmm...I think we disagree. And i'm not easy on films...I don't grade with a curve.

Doesn't that last comment contradict the title and original point of the thread?

Edited by Robert Watts, 07 May 2006 - 04:13 AM.

[Seannery]

By the way there is some nice suspense, some emotional resonance and more teamwork this time along with a ton of action. It may not be the serious kind of spy film you like though--it's all taste.

I wouldn't say there's any more teamwork than in the first film.

I think so--it's that way until the end with a full team until the end. The first dispensed with the team for much bigger blocks of time. But I agree that 1 wasn't as bad as 2 in that regard. I think they used the team thing rather well in 3--not totally but well nonetheless.

The team is there more in manner of screentime, I suppose, but aside from the excellent Vatican job (the sequence that really captures the essence of MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE as a concept and is just fantastically entertaining - it really made the movie worth seeing for me), they're all just backup to Hunt's one-man show. For example, look at the break-in in Shanghai (which also seems almost directly copied from the similar break-in in M:I 2 - which is why it's the moment I thought was the most contrived in the film). The first film had just as much actual M:I-style teamwork, and used it prominently in the opening sequence and Langley sequence.

I wish Joe Carnahan and Darabont's M:I:III had been made as a film - it seemed so interesting. The rumors are that Cruise didn't go ahead with that proposal because it chopped down his role significantly.

Well I mentioned they could have done more teamwork but there was a fair deal of it and yes with a big star that is part of the animal--he's gonna do more. I am not that bothered that it wasn't all teamwork--they need not follow the TV template even though I liked the series. They more than used the team enough to see it as a true team with Hunt the leader and therefore most active. He's the Kirk or Bond of team leaders. We agree on the Vatican part but the Shanghai thing was fine by me. We are like the Siskel(not the new bozo) and Ebert here since we disagree on films often(though not always).

[Harmsway]

I am not that bothered that it wasn't all teamwork--they need not follow the TV template even though I liked the series.

If they're not going to follow the TV template, don't call it MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE. That's just how I feel.

Just like how Matthew Vaughn was going to make THE MAN FROM U.N.C.L.E., realized it was too different from the original show, and decided he'd make his own unique spy picture.

[Seannery]

By the way there is some nice suspense, some emotional resonance and more teamwork this time along with a ton of action. It may not be the serious kind of spy film you like though--it's all taste.

I wouldn't say there's any more teamwork than in the first film.

I would have liked MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III fine if it had given us a better plot (what it had was barely there and very predictable), given us some more character-building all around with a little more actual teamwork, and if the resolution hadn't been so cornball.

There's a fine line between cornball and emotional--it worked for me fine. The plot was efficient, simple and straightforward and propelled the story forward well--something that the latter day Bonds have been criticized for not doing...overly diffuse plots. The character building wasn't "deep" but was more than sufficient IMO to add resonance for an action adventure. It did what it had to do for the type of film it was--it wasn't striving to be a "serious" spy thriller. Popcorn thrillers are just as valid as their more serious counterparts. Hmmmmmm...I think we disagree. And i'm not easy on films...I don't grade with a curve.

Doesn't that last comment contradict the title and original point of the thread?

Actually no since my point is I thought MI3 an excellent popcorn thriller and I rarely find thrillers I enjoyed this much. If i'm lucky maybe one or two a year--and I see a lot of films.

[MrDraco]

Mission Impossible-2 was a reboot look at the changes compared to the first, the first almost reads like a sorta comic bookie spy novel while the second turns into the bits in pieces they left out of the matrix action scenes...

[Seannery]

I am not that bothered that it wasn't all teamwork--they need not follow the TV template even though I liked the series.

If they're not going to follow the TV template, don't call it MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE. That's just how I feel.

Just like how Matthew Vaughn was going to make THE MAN FROM U.N.C.L.E., realized it was too different from the original show, and decided he'd make his own unique spy picture.

I see your point there but once the deed is done we can only judge what is up on the screen and how it works. That said you can take a lot from a series but not follow a rigid template. And as you know A LOT of TV adaptations change things more than MI. Unfortunate or not, it is done.

[Doubleshot]

Saw the film last night. I left the theater with a low feeling. It must have been the "happy send-off" montage with the cheesy make-up with Fishbourne, or the awful end titles song. Over-all, I felt the film had some moments that were well thought-out, but I was tired of the wall-to-wall action and eventually just turned off on it, checking my watch to see how much time was left. Like I told my folks last night, it's better than M:I-2... but not much.

Edited by Doubleshot, 07 May 2006 - 04:29 AM.

[Seannery]

Saw the film last night. I left the theater with a low feeling. It must have been the "happy send-off" montage with the cheesy make-up with Fishbourne, or the awful end titles song. Over-all, I felt the film had some moments that were well thought-out, but I was tired of the wall-to-wall action and eventually just turned off on it, checking my watch to see how much time was left. Like I told my folks last night, it's better than M:I-2... but not much.

Your with Harmsway then--all I can say is I had no probs with the parts you mention. I would describe them in more positive tones but hey to each his own.

[Harmsway]

The first third of the movie had me pumped. I was expecting a great film after that really terrific first third (that Vatican sequence kicked so much butt... and then the Hunt/Damien interrogation? Good stuff!), but after it, the action just got dull with action sequence after action sequence.

M:I:III just needed some more story. All it had was a paper thin story with lots and lots of action sequences. I walked in expecting a real thriller with a good story that had been kept under wraps and I didn't know much about. I was wrong.

I'm very much a story-based thriller lover. Action-based thrillers, while fun, I always find very forgettable.

[Seannery]

The first third of the movie had me pumped. I was expecting a great film after that really terrific first third (that Vatican sequence kicked so much butt... and then the Hunt/Damien interrogation? Good stuff!), but after it, the action just got dull with action sequence after action sequence.

M:I:III just needed some more story. All it had was a paper thin story with lots and lots of action sequences. I walked in expecting a real thriller with a good story that had been kept under wraps and I didn't know much about. I was wrong.

I'm very much a story-based thriller lover. Action-based thrillers, while fun, I always find very forgettable.

Eh...I like both story-based and action-based if done well. And there is a bit of a false dichotomy there since rarely are films pure types of either. Regardless yes they can be more of one or the other--and i'm very open to both. And to me MI3 had sufficient story to be an excellent popcorn thriller which to me is just as valid as a more story based thriller. Again everyone has different tastes in movies. I like all kind of different movies if done well.

[ludger pistor]

MI3 is very disappointing.
Totally forgettable, seen it all before. The story is weak, the ending is horrid and the action scenes get more boring the longer the film goes on.

Edited by ludger pistor, 07 May 2006 - 05:21 AM.

[Seannery]

Strange how MI3 is said to be getting good word of mouth and has been getting good reviews--BUT not on this Bond site to a degree. Oh well.

[Loomis]

M:I:III just needed some more story. All it had was a paper thin story with lots and lots of action sequences. I walked in expecting a real thriller with a good story that had been kept under wraps and I didn't know much about. I was wrong.

That was the most disappointing thing about the film for me. Early reviews had led me to believe that the script was terrific and full of surprises, but all there was was a ridiculously paper-thin "plot" built around action sequences, exactly the same as with M:I-2. I don't understand how people like Harry Knowles, who blasted M:I-2 because of its nonexistent story, could go so wild with enthusiasm for M:I-3, since it's essentially the same film. And at least in M:I-2 we learned what the Chimera virus actually was!

[Loomis]

As the AICN guy who read the CR script said--"mammoth changes aren't necessary to bring a franchise a healthy shot of adreneline or freshness. MI3 shifts more to characters and doesn't start from scratch. It gives emotional resonance to the action, not mere spectacle. These differences are often simple and subtle YET PROFOUND--and falls in nicely with what Bond could have done." Seeing MI3 I see he was so right on here.

That AICN review severely overrates M:I-3. It is mere spectacle, and the so-called emotional resonance is absolutely dirt basic stuff. "Simple and subtle YET PROFOUND"? Okay, whatever. It's about as profound as ROCKY V.

Still, it's not an awful film, just not nearly as amazing as it's cracked up to be by some. It may or may not be the best of the MISSION: IMPOSSIBLEs - they're all much of a muchness, really.

[kneelbeforezod]

Its all about expectations I think.. If you go into MI3 expecting a truly great action thriller, then you're liable to be disappointed. However if you are expecting an empty soulless affair like MI2, then you'll be pleasantly surprised.

A lot of the action in MI3 is ludicrous, and I have no problem with that because its done well and it is, after all, Mission Impossible... but I'm definitely hoping for something different from Casino Royale in both the action (less crazy, more grounded) and the story (more grown up and complex).

[Onlooker]

I'm very much a story-based thriller lover.

Me too, and the best one of those I've ever seen was The Firm which, strangely enough, also starred Tom Cruise.

[Dr. Noah]

'Mission' Fizzling? Box Office Imploding

http://www.foxnews.c...,194537,00.html

Friday night's numbers are in for "Mission: Impossible III," and they aren't what Paramount or Tom Cruise might have hoped for.

The JJ Abrams-directed blockbuster took in only $17 million according to website www.boxofficemojo.com. That's a good $3 million off the lowest predictions, and $8 million off what a real mega hit would have been.

Box Office Mojo's Brandon Gray says that the weekend total should now be in the $45 million range. It's not a catastrophe by any means, but it does show that star Tom Cruise's public persona and negative publicity plus a raft of mediocre reviews for the film have put a dent in his plans to rule the universe.

Grays says the new "Mission" numbers are a disappointment because both installments 1 and 2 did much better. "They each sold around 50 percent more tickets on their opening weekends (Friday-Sunday)," Gray says, "despite opening on Wednesdays."

At this rate, Cruise may want some kind of pharmacological drug to ease the pain on Sunday night. Paramount execs definitely will.