It was a good film. I don't really remember 1 and 2 much. Only a vague recognition that they did the mask switcharoo thing a bunch. And this one continued in that tradition. So I don't remember if the first two were like this, but this movie was non-stop intensity. It started off with a bang and didn't let up. It kind of reminded me of War of the Worlds which went off in the first 20 minutes and sustained it throughout. I mean it's good and bad. I guess I could have used a little break here and there to catch my breath, but that's just my preference. It was a superbly crafted action flick.
Not nearly as good as I thought it would be but it was ok at best. I liked the first 2 better. I had high hopes but certain parts kept me wanting more. It took me a while to get into it also. The first action scene just didnt do it for me eventhough it was kinda cool. The bridge scene was the best part to me.
I find it strange how he ends up with the Rabbit's foot although they make it seem like its the hardest thing ever.
I actually enjoyed it a lot more than I thought I would. Plot was fairly straight forward and the twist at the end was telegraphed from the get go but still very enjoyable action flick.
While it might've been cool to show how he was able to get the Rabbit's Foot, as it was supposed to be harder than Langley, I think it probably ended up better this way. The movie had plenty of action/spy/mission scenes, it really didn't need another. Seemed the most difficult part was getting onto the roof and out of the building anyways, which they did show. But was there any doubt that he wouldn't get it, no matter how impossible it was?
I thought it was good, better than the second. You can't really compare 1 and 2 as they are really different genres in a way with one being a thriller while 3 a full on action movie. It looks like it underperformed though as it made only 48 million this weekedn. People were expecting 60 to 70 for opening weekend. Paramount says they had put it in the 50 million range.
`M:I3' Has Lower-Than-Expected Debut Sunday May 7 1:24 PM ET Fewer people chose to accept Tom Cruise's latest mission, a possible sign that the odd behavior of Hollywood's biggest star may have taken a toll on his box-office charm. Paramount's "Mission: Impossible III" debuted with $48.025 million, a solid opening yet well below industry expectations and almost $10 million lower than the franchise's previous installment, according to studio estimates Sunday. Industry analysts had expected the movie to open in the range of "Mission: Impossible II," which debuted with $57.8 million from Friday to Sunday over Memorial Day weekend in 2000, and Cruise's "War of the Worlds," which premiered with $64.9 million from Friday to Sunday over Fourth of July weekend last year... Debuting in about 55 other countries, "Mission: Impossible III" took in $70 million, for a worldwide total of $118 million. Paramount noted that the new movie beat the $115 million worldwide debut of "Mission: Impossible II" in those same countries. Factoring in higher ticket prices, the debut for "Mission: Impossible III" looks worse. About 7.3 million people saw the new movie, compared with 10.7 million over the opening weekend for "Mission: Impossible II" and 10.3 million for "Mission: Impossible," which opened with $45.4 million over Memorial Day weekend in 1996. http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/news/ap/20060507/114703344000.html Can't say that I'm not surprised. I think a combination of the long hiatus since the previous installment, the general dissapointment of II (despite it's revenues) and Cruise's public ramblings have hindered the movie in its opening weekend. But strong critical reaction and word of mouth might help it improve its numbers. Cruise used to be a very private person and I think he needs to realize that this very public persona that he's changed into is starting to hurt him at the box office. I noticed that a little when War of the Worlds was released.
yeah i was suprised when i went on friday and the theater wasn't full (like 85-90% full). granted it was 10:40 and they had 9:40 and 10:10 showings already, but still a little weird and i figured that was less than expected. of course, according to that article, with international money it's already made $115M of it's $150 production budget (though i'm sure marketing will come in as a lot of money too) so paramount probably isn't hurting too bad. and maybe good reviews will keep it from falling off, but probably not. big movies all seem to follow nearly the same decline curve (50-60% loss by 2nd weekend) whether the reviews are good or not.
The trailers really didn't make this film worthwhile for me aside from that one cool action scene on the bridge where the missile hits and Cruise is thrown sideways. Fantastic scene. The rest came across as somewhat mediocre, and I have no idea what or who Keri Russell is in the movie. Probably see it this week, though on matinee.
It's pretty easy to compensate for that sort of thing in these movies. Hell they made Elijah Woods look like he was 3 feet tall in LOTR.
got a ten buck gift card for amc from work and decided to see this. pretty good movie except for the last ten minutes... spoiler alert.... didn't dig the whole "matrix reloaded" scene when the character was brought back to life. wouldn't the f'er be vegetable after being dead for two or three minutes? ridiculous. i did dig the villain (sp?) though. just seemed like a normal guy with too much money that knew he had too much money and wanted to prove a point. pret-ty cool. good actor whoever the hell he was. one thing though. tom can run. looks like he used to run track in high school or college or something. almost perfect form when he was running to the northeast corner of that building or something. i'd leave his arse in the dust though.
SPOILER... For your reservations about the last scene. I don't think it was a cop-off of Reloaded so much as a nod to The Abyss, as many things in the film reflected things done in James Cameron's body of work. I believe Cameron was influential in Abrams style, according to stuff I've read. Also, I don't think you'll suffer brain damage as long as you're brought back within eight minutes, so I didn't have a problem with that. The whole pounding of the chest thing for dramatic effect wasn't too realistic though if you're really digging for faults.
Another spoiler Was anybody else a little disappointed in the way Phillip Seymore Hoffman died? It was cool at the moment, but looking back, it seemed like a ripoff of Speed...
