Thoughts on MI:3 ----SPOILERS AHEAD----

It's funny how people praised the choice of the screenwriters to make MI:3 a more "teamwork" oriented action film instead of the one-man odyssey we saw on the previous two. I Say funny because even if the team exists, it's only there to supply gadgets to Mr.Hunt. It's like those buddies you only remember when you need something from them. As characters they are flat, specially the chineese woman whom her name i forget, that starts praying during a scene, when asked by another character what is she doing, she starts talking about her childhood years and a cat she had.
That other character,Jonathan Rhys Meyers is even flatter, he even says it in the film when he receives commants over the radio from Hunt , "I copy,i copy, all i do is copy". It felt strange to see an actor like mayers who gave a haunting performance in Woody Allen's Match Point to play the guy that only stands there to fill the 2:35 ratio.
Talking about that ratio... JJ.Abrams perhaps was thinking that he was directing another TV show, because the damn framing is so up-close you get dizy in the cinema, maybe it will make things easier for the studio's when they press it onto dvd, but on the big screen, it's hell. He also uses the handheld style that Mr.Paul greengrass used in "Bourne Supremacy", which is defined by the simultaneous fast zoom as the scene progresses.
As for Philip Seymour Hoffman, a complete waste of talent. He appears for a total of maybe 20 minutes, before he dies in a very idiotic way.
I remember saying to my friend while were walking to the cinema "don't expect to see true lies", but i was wrong. Hunt has a wife that doesn't know he's a spy, there's a big fight with a jet plane and a helicopter on a bridge, husband and wife meet while under captivity by the terrorists... etc etc. It's pathetic.

It's better than the other two (which i'm not a big fan of), but it still is a crap movie.

This movie should've been called "Felicity: After College".

Heh, it almost sounds like you didn't go to watch a movie Coaster, but to find reasons to bash it!

I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Claiming flat characters in a film such as this is stating the obvious if you ask me. Personally, I've come to expect the lack of in action movies of this nature. I know that raises the whole debate about whether or not we should lower our expectations because a movie falls into a certain category, but Tom Cruise + Mission Impossible... you had to see it coming.

Definitely better than two, I would put it on par with the first if not better.

I don't think Hoffman was a waste. Since when is an actor's worth in a movie determined by their screentime? He was effective in the scene's he was in, and to me thats all that matters.

And while I agree that the "prayer" moment was cheesy, I think you are over emphasing it. It's not as if it was a prolonged attempt at injecting depth into the characters, it was like a 20 second exchange of words used to kill time until Hunt jumps out of the building.

I will however say that I am glad Michelle Monaghan's role was kept to a minimal. Her and Cruise really lacked any chemistry in the scenes they were together in.

Okay, first of all, cut the "Tom-Cruise-sucks-because-he's-a-scientologist-and-is-married-to-Katie-Holmes" crap. It matters not that Cruise's personal life bothers you because that does not affect the quality of his work. Matters like this should not even be taken into account. Say what you want, Tom Cruise is an exceptional actor that functions in both action and drama films.This goes for all entertainers; Michael Jackson may have an unhealthy fascination with kids, but I will still listen to his music guilt-free which is classic regardless of his personal life.

Second of all, the first Mission Impossible was a GREAT film. Lots of mystery, backstabbing, great acting and a great plot with clever twists. They set up this whole team to see them all slaughtered in the first twenty minutes and you never know who is working for who, etc. The scene with the terminal at Langley and the bullet train are deservedly famous. I find this to be an inarguably classic '90's film.
M:I-2 was a step down. It had sweet action scenes but a flimsy plot that completely changed Hunt's character. Instead of a resourceful, cunning agent we get a long-haired badass type that shoots first and asks questions never. John Woo seemed to lose his talent when directing American films; Face/Off was his only truly awesome American effort.
SPOILERS:
Which brings us to M:I-3. While I will never hold it with as high a regard as the original, I enjoyed this film a lot. It managed to blend the action of the second with some of the cleverness of the first to make a great action film that will find a nice niche in my collection. The beginning scene with Hunt and his wife being interrogated was the perfect way to start this film; very intense and nice to see the heroes suffer right off the bat in "Kill Bill" style. Hoffman did a terrific job, although he could have been in the film a little more. I guessed the ending about Crudup's character a little early on but I didn't care because I enjoyed the film so much. My only major complaint is this: I would have loved to see more of the espionage/mystery elements of the first film in this one. THe action sometimes overshadows moments where intrigue could have been injected. It's like comparing Bond films "From Russia With Love" to "Die Another Day"; I much prefer that tone of anxiety and pursuance of the former. I didn't totally dig how the plot involved yet another world-destroying disease like M:I-2, but I found it cute that they never told you what the rabbit's foot was. Simon Pegg's little cameo gave this film an automatic extra boost as well. M:I-3 is definetly a step up from the second and a worthy sequel to this franchise, which could easily be extended to become a new James Bond type of deal.
My ratings:
Mission: Impossible 1: 9
M:I-2: 5.5
M:I-3: 7.5

I'll probably get bashed for my opinion on this film as usual, my opinions are pretty controversial around here (I still think that Crash kind of sucked and that Munich should have been crowned as the best picture, but oh well...) So what, I got my money's worth and got to see Cruise kick ass. What more can I ask for?

what a terrible movie...1 out of 10 from me.

as others have noted, the basic plot is a re-hash of "true lies" (which itself was a re-make of "la totale"). once again, ethan hunt goes into a free fall with a rope until his body is parallel to a surface, and once again, he jumps out of a tall building with a parachute. this guy is short of tricks, and j.j. abrams is a hack.

what's most disturbing is how the movie is a manifestation of how "extreme" tom cruise has become. there's something very wrong with this man, and someone needs to keep him away from his three kids.

why didn't cruise just cast katie holmes in the movie?

Watch for the review to come this weekend...caught a 10 am screening today.

tgp,

once again, movies are not made in vacuums, and they are not viewed in vacuums. this goes for all things in life as well. watching a movie "for what it is" is an attitude that sometimes completely misses the point. for example, if you watch "on the waterfront" without any context, then you might think that it's a pretty good movie about standing up for what's right. however, if you know about elia kazan's life and the era in which he lived, then you might perceive the movie as a defense of his actions with regards to HUAC.

in the same vein, "MI3" was an attempt to show how great tom cruise is. his character will do anything to save his wife, even though sacrificing friends and family members is a routine thing in the line of duty. at the end of the movie, when everyone was cheering the happy couple, it felt like cruise wanted to force us to accept his relationship with katie holmes. this movie left me with a really bad aftertaste, and i'm someone who has liked cruise's work in even the lame "war of the worlds".

eddie

jason,

"MI2" was a gorgeous movie that was more about the beauty of movement than anything else. man, that was a romantic vision of falling in lust/love.

eddie

[Post edited by posters5 on May 21, 2006]

Eddie,

It very well could be. The only things I remember clearly about it were wondering when it was going to end and how badly I wanted to cut Cruise's hair. I mean, longish hair looks good on some people...just not him.

"And the real stand-out is Hoffman. He shines. "

And there's the first strike. Sorry, don't think so. We all may have wanted him to shine, but MI3 certainly isn't a showcase for PSH. It's more like someone wanted another big name next to Cruise. He had a nothing part, zip to sink his teeth into and became yet another "stock" villain that is getting played and double-played.

Blech, no thanks.

I actually enjoyed the first one more than just about anyone I know. It was inventive, new and twisty. II was just deplorable; 3 tried to recapture I's magic and, most of the time, failed.

sorry, johnson316, i liked the first two but hated the third one.

I thought the movie was alot of fun. If you liked the other two, then you'll like this one. That's all there really is to it. And the real stand-out is Hoffman. He shines.

i'm in agreement with people who think that jonathan rhys-myers looks a bit weird. however, he's still very charming in a unique way, and i've liked him just about every time i've seen him in a movie. he was particularly good in "bend it like beckham".

by the way, what's up with that really odd facial reference to "born on the fourth of july"??? cruise grinned right at the camera, as if daring viewers to recall ron kovic or something.

I was actually hoping for a *bit* more from Rhys Meyers for purely selfish reasons. ;)

But I'm totally with you, Eddie. Anyone not named Cruise or Rhames got shafted.

May there never be a MI4.

julia's brother had more personality than julia. (n)

- Thankfully, marketing didn't promote "Oscar winner PSH" anywhere in the avertising campaign. He was hardly in the movie at all.

- It makes zero sense that Davian is, basically, a pawn in the bigger game and IMF goes to incredible lengths to stop him and NOT the people who are going to buy the Rabbit's Foot.

- The characterization for anyone not named Cruise or Rhames is non-existant. Ugh.

the only sequence on that bridge that was good, was cruise looking at the cars while a helicopter rises from behind. But even that is a copy of true lies and the harrier that rises while the terrorist looks with the binoculars. Remember that same harrier hitting the building and "amusing" the janitor in TRUE LIES? well, something similar happened in MI:3 right?
All im saying, is that JJ picked a really great and familiar actioner to rip off, It's true lies for christ's sake.
Even the cgi, the famous explosion scene that is visible in the review thumbnail, the shockwave pushes him sideways instead of front. It's visually "good looking" but not real.
Overall, it's like watching True Lies directed by 10 year old Paul Greengrass and the ending written by Steven spielberg.

Surely we can be in agreance that the action scenes were well staged? I thought the bridge sequence, while a complete rip off of True Lies, was handled very well in terms of cinematography and effects. The scene in Berlin was also very grungy and different in a good way. But most of the film to me felt like an episode of Lost meets Alias. Hell, even some sequences from the shows made it to the film (I'll leave it to others to guess which ones). I thought the Ron Kovic get-up was made as a pun for Bourn on the Fourth of July as well. PSH really had nothing to do in this movie other than sneer at Tom Cruise and make threats. He was easily one of the most under-stated villains this past decade. But in the end it was not as good as M:I but a thousand times better than M:I 2 so all is forgiven.

actually, i can't agree that the action was well-staged. the whole movie sucked, with the exception of the vatican sequence (which was, while still below-average, at least cute in some moments).

Onijay...

Nope, sorry. On some level I enjoyed the sequence in Berlin inside the wharehouse where Hunt was rescuing Lindsay. Maybe it was the lighting...I'm not sure why I remember that part more than anything else.

I will say I immensely enjoyed the Vatican sequence. Seeing the entire plan come together, creating the PSH mask...yadda yadda yadda... I enjoy those type of sequences (there was one in a DS9 episode I particularly enjoyed even though most people hate the episode).

I'm actually hoping to find a good "smaller" film the weekend of the 19th instead of seeing DaVinci...

I thought that the Vatican scene could have used more of an "This is completely and utterly impossible" approach that we the viewers had towards the CIA headquarters in Langley for the first M:I. Instead the viewer is (at least I was) barely aware of the monumental task of breaking into the Vatican (and I've even been there!). It almost felt as if they considered it a walk in the park. But the rest of the action scenes conveyed this fluid momentum that really carried me along, properly mixing running and shooting with some kick-ass stunts. But apparently I'm the minority who thinks that. I don't have a problem with that though.

I didn't particularly care for the first two films (actually felt the second movie was one of the worst things I've ever seen), but rather enjoyed the third. It was exactly what I was looking for: A fast-paced action movie with some thrills that kept me rivited for two hours. Would I go see it again? No. There wasn't enough substance there to make it worth while.

In his limited role, I loved PSH. He was menacing and downright scary. This role showcased his amazing range.

Eddie: I'm sorry you weren't able to buy in to the character of Ethan Hunt and could only see Tom Cruise. I go into movies wanting to get lost. It's why I get annoyed when I'm watching animated movies and my roommate wants to stop and figure out who is doing the voicework. I'd rather view the character as a complete package for the 90 minutes of the film. If I want to think about it in other terms later, I do that, but the initial viewing I want unfettered by the strings of the "actors." It's actually why I prefer movies without the so-called "Big Stars," because it is easier to achieve that end.

Regardless, I thought this movie was a fun little ride and worth a rainy Saturday matinee ticket.

Justin,

You're sorry, and I'm sorry. ;)

At any rate, I'm going to have to repeat myself again: movies aren't made in vacuums, and movies aren't viewed in vacuums. I bet you a lot of money that, while in the middle of watching "MI3", you thought about Tom Cruise's real life, even if only for the briefest of moments.

Eddie

[Post edited by posters5 on May 14, 2006]

We're in the same book... same chapter, even, but different pages. I get lost in movies while they are playing and reflect on their implications later. I went in to MI:3 with every intention of putting Cruises' personal life on hold and accepting completely his role as "Ethan." After, I thought more about the implications of the character based on the actor, as I would of anyone with a life so prominent even a recluse like I know the intimate details.

Ultimately, it's just different schools of thought, or preferences.

zimmer used the same hero theme for "gladiator" and "the last samurai". it made me want to laugh during "the last samurai" even though i enjoyed that movie a lot.

Well, I think most composers go through seasons where their works for different films sound similar to one another. James Horner, Danny Elfman, John Williams: All of these guys go through those phases.

Zimmer, on the other hand, sounds very similar almost all of the time to me. While I enjoy the Gladiator soundtrack, much of his other stuff uses that same brass and bass motif, something he and Mark Mancina turned the industry on to in the mid nineties. Now, as you've indicated, Badelt, Gregson-Williams and the lot seemed to have jumped on the bandwagon.

Giacchino captured a pretty fun jazzy tone reminiscent of the sixties in MI 3, similar to his work on The Incredibles, but much more toned down. I had fun with the score and saw its uniqueness within his body of work thus far. Don't know if I'll buy it, but...

Sean (...as Pee-Wee says, we all have our big buts...)

I Would say the same thing for any composer from the Media ventures group. That damn waltz zimmer did in gladiator and the use of brass in "the rock" is being copied all over the place! (well, it's his company). Most recent example "Pirates of the carribean". Klaus badelt. ew.

Danny elfman is not that bad. He has different touches in every score. It's the score it self that freakin repeats itself. He's better off with quirky tim burton footage.

Now that you point it out, I did notice a lot of the music cues were eerily similar to those on Lost. Of course having the same person doing the scoring certainly facilitates that. Same goes for Danny "Every piece sounds the same" Elfman.

Justin,

Truly, MI 3 borrows heavily from Abrams' leanings on Alias. IMF is more of a government agency similar to the CIA, SD6, and APO in Alias than the clandestine organization of previous MI lore. Abrams even went so far as to, and I don't consider this a spoiler since it is in the previews, use the ole "bomb planted in the character's head" trick in both MI 3 and an episode of Alias 3 or 4 weeks ago.

While it does borrow heavily, it didn't really impact my enjoyment of the movie, it simply left itself open to comparison with Abrams' other current work. One of the things I did enjoy, which I also enjoy on Abrams' show Lost, is that relationships made more sense for me this time around than they did in MI 2. Save for some of the supporting cast, I love what they did with Luther and Ethan. They had actual comeraderie and reference to the past which I felt was lacking in 2. Also, I believed the relationship between Ethan and Julia more than I did his relationship with Nyah in 2. I think Abrams has a knack for leaving things known but unsaid which is where most of us live our own lives.

There have been lots of comments regarding flat characters and the like, but secondary characters in this type of movie generally get that treatment. I was just glad to get as much characterization as I did!

Sean (...i, myself, could use more characterization. any writers out there?...) :)

A lot of the criticisms I've heard relate this to feeling "rehashed" from Alias. I'm wondering if my lack of familiarity with that television program helped my enjoyment of the film.

He could play anakin allright. But why? Nobody wants the curse of the Skywalkers.
Once you're through with SW, you're through with acting.
It's like the jesus movies, robert powell, jim caviezel more recently.

Anyway, I think that guy is a great actor. He was brilliant in Match Point. Woody allen couldn't cast it better! (Well, he could remove the beautiful yet not-so-talended scarlette, but the irony is that she plays just that in the movie :) )

As a popcorn flick, this worked alright for me. I had a great time. In terms of engaging me as a viewer, it did this moreso than 2. However, it definitely played like an extended episode of Alias.

And while Cruise's real-life persona has affected the way I walk into his films, I was surprised that his character was as reserved as it was. In an over-the-top action film like this, he could have easily jumped into Pacino mode, but it felt like he was dropping some of the bluster of the 2nd MI movie and pulling out of the MI 1 hat a little more.

Overall, better than 2 for me, but 1 is still my favorite. De Palma created a great visual atmosphere there, while, visually, this one is a bit run-of-the mill for my tastes. And while I do feel that MI 2 was beautifully filmed, I don't think its visuals served the story as much as they distracted us from the lack thereof.

Popcorn fodder, and decent stuff at that. But if it's a toss-up between this and more thoughtful fare, I'll take United 93 any day.

Sean (...popcorn's lite and fluffy fare, after all...) :)

Oh, and does anyone else out there think that Rhys-Meyers would have made a fantastic Anakin Skywalker?

skspence:
I Do agree, zimmer's synth-approach is really harsh sometimes. He follows a path that Vangelis paved first, what zimmer does though is using fake orchestra over the small real one for a stronger effect.
They also tend to use Sound effects alot lately, like narnia or batman begins. Those two soundtracks are like ambient tracks, you have airplane engines, wings spreading, everything!

(Just listened to the Da-vinci code soundtrack, re-worked batman begins with some nice pseudo-string use, He even has a track named "Kyrie for magdalene" which is quite OK"

And getting back to less interesting of topics . . . I did see MI:3 last Thursday and I've had the time to think it over.

With some of the shortcomings that people have mentioned, I didn't have a problem with any of them. I've seen much worse in popcorn action films, i.e "Con Air" or Bad Boys", etc. I thought it made a good effort as a serious, popcorn action drama, and compared to the other two, I actually like MI:3 the best. In comparing, I liked some of the action in the first film but the plot was a freaking nightmare to follow. The second film was fun but much more dummied down than the first, making it almost the complete opposite from the first movie. To me, MI:3 seemed to fix all the problems from I & II and finally delivered a decent action film that fits that summer viod of escape.

Sure, the plot may have been too redundant, but the truth is, we still don't know what the rabbits foot is. And besides, I think *spy* films have used up about every plot possible. I could really care less anymore; highjack some nuclear weapons and hold the world hostage works fine for me and it worked for Dr. Evil. The way I see it, if any of you out there have any better ideas, then send it to Hollywood and make some cash.

Nevertheless, I thought it was decent enough to burn ten-bucks, and about 20-bucks in gas, for you average summer blockbuster. It had its over-the-top moments but I expected that going into the film. However, they were *fun* over-the-top moments that work best in this kind of movie.

Coaster,

Oh, without a doubt Zimmer draws from "Mars" on "Gladiator," much like Cliff Eidelman did on his opening credits peice for "Star Trek 6." However, I find his music to be highly synthesized sounding, not so much as Badelt and the others, but it feels less orchestrated and more Casio-ed. Like Eddie pointed out, his themes over his body of work as a whole seems somewhat reheated from previous efforts.

I too, love the "Kingdom of Heaven" soundtrack, but it feels more like a soundtrack sequel to "Gladiator" than one of its own. Doesn't diminish my like of it, but definitely sounds like a companion piece.

And certainly, Holst's "The Planets" is a great piece of work. I have an RCA Classics disc that contains this symphony along with some Ralph Vaughan Williams pieces including "Fantasia on a Theme by Thomas Tallis" which Badelt included in his soundtrack for "Master and Commander." Truly one of my favorite pieces of all time. If you haven't heard it, take a listen. It's breathtaking.

Sean (...as a matter of fact, i need some oxygen. anyone got some?...)

well, zimmer also tends to copy classical alot.
The gladiator soundtrack, specially the track "The battle" is a rip of Holst's "MARS" from the PLANETS COLLECTION. Download it and trust me, you will be amazed.

The same goes for the track "This land" in the lion king soundtrack, which many say it's heavily dependend on Mozart's requiem.

Also, try HOLST's "JUPITER" which im sure will remind you of john williams and star wars, and the first five notes of james horner's braveheard :)

I Liked Harry gregson Williams in Kingdom of heaven and i enjoyed Narnia even though it was a crap film. His sound is different.

TGP,

Unfortunately for you and others with similar opinions, real life does matter. In fact, real life is more important than movies, and I've stopped watching movies to escape from reality. If you feel the need to dissociate from reality, then there may be serious problems other than being able to watch movies with blinders.

People choose to do certain things for specific reasons. Tom Cruise chose to produce and act in "MI3"; therefore, his narrative and acting choices for the movie are extensions of his beliefs as well as his total being. Look at how he's changed from "MI1" to "MI3". In "MI1", he was this nice, jolly, happy-go-lucky young man with bright prospects. In "MI2", he was a slightly older man who tried to appreciate the finer points of life. In "MI3", he seems to want to be the poster boy for extreme everything, from killing people (including himself) in order to save them to running and screaming in a bid to beat back the effects of aging. It is a very frightening transformation.

Eddie

P.S. Cruise wearing a priest's vestments was a nod to his once considering becoming a priest in real life.

[Post edited by posters5 on May 19, 2006]

"At any rate, I'm going to have to repeat myself again: movies aren't made in vacuums, and movies aren't viewed in vacuums. I bet you a lot of money that, while in the middle of watching "MI3", you thought about Tom Cruise's real life, even if only for the briefest of moments." - Yunda Eddie Feung

You may be correct. From my perspective however, you view movies incorrectly (awkward term but it's the best I could come up with). Very often, you dismiss the opinions of others with a holier-than-thou tone that disregards the following principle: The personal life of an actor should not be taken into account on a film because you are watching a character and not the real man. When I watch Hamlet, I don't see Mel Gibson or Laurence Olivier, I see Hamlet, which is precisely the goal of drama and entertainment. Actors and their audiences are not serving their respective purposes if we cannot separate the actor from the character; the illusion from reality. This is not a defense for Tom Cruise but a fact about ALL artists. Much like Kurt Cobain and Nirvana celebrate a mystique thanks to Cobain's suicide that boosts album sales, so does Cruise receive unfounded treatment based on personal matters. It is unfortunate that we all think we know so much about Tom Cruise but the fact is that the unhealthy fascination and obsession with the derrings-do of overhyped celebrities has been overinflated to the point that it distracts us from enjoying the art of filmmaking. It is none of our business what happens with the personal lives of these people, but thanks to overzealous actors and media we are constantly saturated with who's-going-out-with-who-and-why-they-broke-up bullcrap that we have the audacity to call "news." I care not about the actors, their lives or even the plot of their films as long as they can sell the subject matter with convincing, powerful acting (cinematography and direction also help). That is all they are obligated to do and all that concerns me.

On a more positive note, the True Lies comparisons are quite valid and this is certainly not the best film ever, but it serves as the current epitome of the arguments presented. And yes, Tom Cruise is a weirdo Scientologist Kate Holmes obsessed couch-jumper, but if he upholds the quality of his work without being imprisoned than I am satisfied.

tgp,

once again, the qualities of the movies that i mentioned were not a part of the issue at hand. regardless of whether or not one thinks "the passion of the christ" and "the last temptation of christ" were good or bad movies, they were extensions of their directors' personal lives. making movies that are expressions of personal feelings doesn't make movies good or bad, either.

for example, kieslowski made the "three colors" trilogy (to use a non-religious example) in response to the ever-increasing integration of western europe. he addressed the benefits, the perils, and ultimately the great hope of unification because he personally felt that way (as evidenced by interviews with him). however, that didn't necessarily make the movies good or bad. they were good/bad depending on one's response to the movies' artistic merits. (similarly, "mi3" was not bad because tom cruise put his life into the movie but because it was terribly scripted, poorly shot, amateurishly edited, badly acted, etc.)

eddie

p.s. i did not give "the passion of the christ" a 6 when i reviewed the dvd. the 6 was john's rating. i refused to give the movie a rating on dvd because i admired the craft and the forcefulness of the movie but was disgusted by mel gibson's atrocious behavior in promoting it. he made a movie about christ's love and sacrifice, but he promoted it talking about killing people and their dogs.

Regardless of any "motivations" that exist in one's creation of a film, it still should have no bearing in the judging of its quality. Following your (once again) example of religions, "Passion" and "Last Temptation" should not be considered better or worse because the filmmakers were not atheists. It's almost like saying that "Brokeback" should have been directed by a gay man instead of Ang Lee. The fact of the matter is, more often than not, actors have very little say in the motivations of their characters; they do not have the power to make every character an "extension" of themselves. You seem to indicate that actors are in the business of sneaking their own opinions and propaganda into their films to an unsuspecting public.
I have also noticed that your reviews in particular have several times been false in execution or reflective of the majority as opposed to subjective and unbiased. Perhaps it is because of your views of actor extensions that this is true. You gave "Passion" a 9 in theater and a 6 on DVD with no explanation for such a dramatic switch in a period of months. You gave SW Ep. III a 1 and then altered the scores of every other SW film to knock each one down a peg because of your dislike of the one. You made unflattering comments about Matrix Revolutions and then claimed to had never seen it later on. But, you are the "executive" reviewer of this site and thusly I have no real say in the reviewing process.
In any case, I think this argument is over. Our comments have been contradictory to a true debate because neither is willing to consider the opposite side, hence we are butting heads and getting nowhere. Agree to disagree I suppose. (Actually, I'm just getting sick of shouting at a brick wall).

TGP,

In my post about "Battlefield Earth", I did not write anything about the movie's quality. It doesn't matter if "Battlefield Earth" is good or bad--it is an extension of John Travolta. I'm not persecuting Scientologists. I could've written about Mel Gibson belonging to a "traditionalist" branch of Catholicism as being a prime motivation for making "The Passion of the Christ", or I could've written about Martin Scorsese being an Italian-American with strong Catholic roots for being a prime motivation for making "The Last Temptation of Christ".

Curiously, you're the one (and no one else) who's been making negative comments about Scientology in this thread.

You don't see the Woody/Soon-Yi relationship in Woody Allen's movies? Start with "Manhattan".

Eddie

"Of course real life matters and movies are solely entertainment, but characters are rarely extensions of the actors that play them." -TGP

Well, the key word here was "rarely". While your statement is true, it would be unwise to call "Battlefield Earth" a crappy film just because you "know" about Travolta's life and his religion and choose to pinpoint that as a reason to bash the film. Personally, I call "Battlefield Earth" a crappy film simply because it sucks. Also, I detect one of those previously mentioned biases again in your new example. You are very stuck on Scientology, aren't you? This "religion" seems more like a cult to me and it is quite ridiculous but to judge actors and their work based on their beliefs is borderline religious persecution. It would be similarly offensive of me to say that you grant good reviews to foreign films and samurai/anime films because you have Asian heritage. In that case, I would be assuming that I know something about you because of your profile on this site, which would be completely unfounded and pretentious. Roman Polanski was deported from this country for statutory rape, yet I still enjoy his films and see little reflection of that in his work. Woody Allen married his adopted daughter, but I still enjoys his films and see little refelction of that in his work. Actors are people that make a living by constantly pretending to be other people, and they deserve to have their own lives and privacy. While they are often the first to violate their privacy, it remains a principle that ought to be upheld. Those that have the hardest time seeing the differecne between fiction and reality are those that often gain the problems you accused me of having earlier.

TGP,

How do you explain John Travolta making "Battlefield Earth", then? "Battlefield Earth" is a sci-fi/fantasy movie. Is it "an escape from reality"? Sure, but it is also an extension of reality--Travolta wanted to make a movie adapted from a book written by his religion's founder.

Eddie

"Unfortunately for you and others with similar opinions, real life does matter. In fact, real life is more important than movies, and I've stopped watching movies to escape from reality. If you feel the need to dissociate from reality, then there may be serious problems other than being able to watch movies with blinders." -Eddie

Gee, once again I'm wrong and you're right. Although this time you are insinuating that there is something "wrong" with me, and this is where I draw the line between being polite and calling you just plain rude. Of course real life matters and movies are solely entertainment, but characters are rarely extensions of the actors that play them. If movies never allow an escape from reality, than what is the point of fantasy films or sci-fi films or purposefully improbable and overexaggerated action films? Will I shoot up my school a la Columbine because I view films as fictional, because the above quote seems to imply such a ridiculous situation. As far as your assumption of the films reflecting Cruise's mentality goes, that is a self-fulfilling prophecy. You choose to interpret the events of the films in a way that support your views on Cruise's life which are spoon-fed to you through oh-so-reliable People magazine covers and headlines. It is popular and trendy to lash out at rich actors these days, and you have developed preconceived notions about Cruise just as you have developed preconceived notions about my "problems". When it all boils down to it, you have NO IDEA how these people live. He could be a whacked out nutball but you'll never know, and I find it foolish to uphold any vindictive or hurtful opinion without evidence, reason or personal experience. It is more than okay to hate Cruise as an actor, a producer or anything else, but to attack a film because of supposed life details is quite possibly the dumbest thing I have ever heard. I hold no special preference for Tom Cruise but I defend this point for the reasons in the last post; that this is an epitome for the argument of unhealthy celebrity fascination and audience responsibility in viewing any art. You have allowed foolish biases to affect your reviews of films and are perhaps thusly not fit to review films, not to mention the fact that you have insulted a member of this site for similarly unwise reasons. I will end my rant there. Do not feel that it is completely necessary to respond, for I am likely not going to visit this site again.

TGP,

I enjoyed the film. And I had no problem accepting Cruise the secret agent as opposed to Cruise the Hollywood star. Movies are only movies, after all. But I can see Eddie's point because sometimes it is hard to get past an actor's public persona. I had a little more trouble with Cruise in "Last Samurai" than in any of the "Mission: Impossible" movies, but maybe it's because I don't bother to keep up with actors' personal lives much.

John

tgp,

as sean eloquently writes from time to time, we're here to participate in respectful discussions. some people liked "MI3", and some people didn't. no one has tried to change anyone's opinion about the movie's quality.

on the other hand, you attacked people for not liking the movie on the basis of their negative feelings about tom cruise. while no one actually used that reason, it's entirely okay to hate a movie just because you also hate one of its makers. it's the same the other way; some people like movies for the sole reason that their favorite female supermodel appears in it for five minutes, and we should accomodate that opinion, too.

still, the most revealing aspect of your rants was your inability to understand different issues. you conflated my discussion about people using their movies to reflect their personal beliefs with me saying that those kinds of movies are bad (even though i already wrote that they're not automically bad or good). you attributed john's 6 rating for "the passion of the christ" to me even though i didn't do that. just because i didn't give it a number rating doesn't meant that i didn't review or explain my views about "the passion of the christ" (for example, just because "the new york times" doesn't have numbers or stars with its reviews, does this mean that "the new york times" does not have movie reviews???).

finally, i'm not telling you to leave--you're the one who wrote something about not visiting this site again.

learn how to understand what you read, and make up your mind.

eddie

I'm not leaving the site, how else could I get DVD news? I can still say sayonara to the message board, however. I tried to bury the hatchet and end the argument but you just had to have the last word and be correct all the time. Any time people make comments contrary to yours you shoot them down with your wealth of infinie knowledge instead of considering their stance or letting them be. If I didn't know any better, I'd say that you had given me an open invitation to leave and that you are blatantly asking me to leave on the grounds that I disagree with you on virtually every count. I was unaware that this was an elitist club of people that cannot allow for agreeing to disagree or any difference of opinion from yours. God forbid I enjoyed M:I-3!? So this is my "final jest" as Poe might say. Eddie, thank you for adequately doing your job by condescendingly dissuading others to frequent the site and chime in with their two cents as opposed to hearing your hundred dollars. You have been a fountain of help and inspiration to me. I bid the rest of you adieu, I'm sure I will be dearly missed around here for all eternity.

TGP,

Um, I DID review the movie, but I did not assign it a numerical rating. There's a difference between writing words and doling out numbers (or stars for that matter).

By the way, I thought that you were going to leave the site for good? You spoke too soon, huh?

Eddie

"i refused to give the movie a rating on dvd because i admired the craft and the forcefulness of the movie but was disgusted by mel gibson's atrocious behavior in promoting it" -Eddie

Wow, that's a great reason not to review a film. I'd be hard pressed to find positive reviews of any films on this site from you, except perhaps "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within" which I found to be, using your words, "atrocious".

"every film and piece of art reflects the society and time in which it was created." -skspence

Exactly, this is exactly true. But we as an audience select the worst parts of society to make our judgements. Munich was an amazing film because it was a reflection of the fear and paranoia that are dominating our culture right now. But to say that a film "reflects society" because it shows Brad and Jen having an argument on film, that's not society, that is gossipy junk that does not matter a lick in the big picture. I admire your comments and expertise on the acting topic, but would you or would you not agree that these preconceptions can hurt or at the very least alter the perception of your work? In the case of M:I-3, it seemed to me that people were predisposed to disliking the film because of Cruise's alleged oddities, therefore overshadowing the overall work. Maybe the movie just sucks and I was the only one that liked it some, but I can't shake the feeling of the former. Anyway, it matters very little in the long run.

Eddie,

No, no, no... That was "Dunston Checks In."

Sean ;)

Sean,

I thought that "2001" was about apes learning to use weapons? :o

Eddie

Personally, having been an actor for many years and playing a variety of roles, I looked for a touchstone of myself in each role I played. Whether it be a noble gentlemen or a lecherous creep, I had to find something within the role I can relate to. Something that allowed me to justify the character's motivations and actions. Therefore, as an actor, I invest a great deal of myself into my characters.

But that's just me... And every other actor I've worked with.

Without a doubt, people came to see me in shows with a preconceived notion of what to expect. Now, I'm no Tom Cruise, but I do have friends and those others who simply know me by my work. I think most people would describe me as a jovial, easy-going, and friendly guy. So when I played a world-class creep, they each had a different take on how I could possibly pull that off. Even before setting foot into the theater, people had preconceived notions of the performance I would give.

And I haven't even been on Oprah! I have to agree with Eddie, here. Call it media proliferation or whatever, I went into MI 3 with an idea of the kind of performance Cruise would give. I was quite surprised at just how much he downplayed his own persona, but I still had a preconceived idea.

I don't see how anyone couldn't. This seems more like a lashing out because someone had a negative preconceived notion. Well, that his prerogative. He's a big boy and he can make his own choices.

As for the whole idea of escapism in film, while I do think you can check your brain at the door for a couple of hours and enjoy a film, every film and piece of art reflects the society and time in which it was created. Don't tell me that since 2001 is science fiction, it doesn't have a meaning deeper than 2 guys and a computer in space. Fantasy, Sci-Fi, Action, Comedy, Drama: These are all outlets of expression for ideas that go beyond what is presented on the screen. Real ideas in a real world. To dismiss that is to miss a great deal of what makes art great.

Sean (...personally, i've never met art, but i hear he's a heckuva guy...) :D

TGP,

I, too, enjoyed MI3 and I even remembered to leave my *Cruise* bagage at the door. I find the best way to stay clear of the actors persona is to stop following the entertainment, media bandwagon. Like you, I feel there is no reason, nor does it do anything to improve my life, to follow an actors every move in their private life. If I was truly affected about an actor because of their own persona then there would certainly be a lot more films I would avoid.

Nevertheless, there are those small handfull of actors I can't stand, and not because of their social lives, but because they just get on my nerves. For me, Woody Allen is a prime example of an actor that is like nails on the chalkboard. Granted, Woody has his share of issues in the entertainment world but that is not the reason I would ever base on not seeing any of his films. I don't like his films because it's simply not my taste and I think the guy sucks at film making, plain and simple.

Anyway, I've said this before; the rich are weird because they can afford to be. I'm like you, I go to a movie to be entertained and expect the actors to do their job and nothing else. I could care less who is dating who or who got a DUI last weekend. And just because a certain actor might have social issues or jumps on Opra's couch is not going to change my point of view when seeing his/her efforts in a film.

So there! I've said my two-cents, now can't we all just get along?

Tim ;)

TGP,

Not sure if you're still out there, but wanted to answer your query:

"...would you or would you not agree that these preconceptions can hurt or at the very least alter the perception of your work?"

I completely concur that preconceptions affect the perception of my work, but I take that as an inevitability. It's part of the challenge of it all. As an actor, I have to make the audience believe my character, therefore it is up to me to be so aware of myself that I can go beyond me and into the character. Sounds totally metaphysical, but it's just what you kind of have to do.

Like John, I had difficulty getting past Cruise in "Samurai," but not so much in "MI 3." He seemed more in control of his performance, or at least his persona. This whole discussion brings me back to Paul Greengrass' rationale for casting relative unknowns in United 93. His whole reason was that he didn't want big name actors to get in the way of telling the story. It would have been easily distracting to see a Mel Gibson or Julia Roberts in the midst of the harrowing events that took place in United 93. Thankfully, Greengrass was able to make an immersive film experience with the accomplished lesser-knowns that he cast.

I think this debate comes down to being able to see past the actor to the character, and I think we all have different actors that affect us that way. I don't keep up with actors' personal lives, but for me the bigger names are still harder to get past just due to the media blitz they constantly have on their lives. I can't watch a Julia Roberts film and not see Julia Roberts up there. Accomplished actress though she may be, I can't leave her at the door and pick up with her character. Perhaps I'm one of a very few, but throwing Gibson, Roberts, Pitt, Cruise, Ford and the like on screen requires more effort on my part to see past the actor to the character.

This is likely just the bane of the actor's existence. You work so hard to be recognized, but that selfsame recognition is what makes it that much more difficult to completely melt into a character; bowing and preening to perception.

Likewise, I think this flows over into the realm of directing, writing, scoring, production designing, etc. Expectations regarding individuals in each of these fields determine perception when those who are familiar with their works are viewing their films. It may not be "fair," but it is an inevitability when you are making art to be judged by the public at large.

Thanks for the discussion!

Sean (...or as many would call my remarks: "disgust-tion...")

Buuuuurp! :o