I had the unfortunate experience of watching this dreadful movie, and in the interest of sparing you the ordeal, here is how it goes.

Tom Cruise is madly in love and engaged to be married. He keeps leaving his girlfriend to do things like "go out for ice," or "go to Houston" when he is really going off to Germany to rescue an IMF member who, for whatever reason the secretary decided not to disavow. In the Germany sequence we see Tom running a lot, and there are explosions helicopter crashes and more explosions. Then he has a heart to heart talk with a fellow agent who says "our kind don't marry." I don't know whether this is a subtle metaphor for Tom's alleged sexual preference or not. Then he returns home and gets married, but then Tom and friends have to infiltrate the Vatican where the arch villian is attending a cocktail party (I did not know the pope entertained rogue arms dealers, but --- hey). There is more running and more explosions, and the bad guy has a set back, so he kidnaps Tom's wife to Shanghai where he goes to rescue her. There he does lost of running and there are many more explosions. Tom saves the girl, and spills the beans about what he does for a living. We dont know for sure if the villain is dead (so we could have to endure MI IV), and of couurse the guy who is betraying Tom from the inside is not the guy we are led to think it is. Then everyone lives happily ever after. The end....to be continued....

You should heal the wounds with either Collateral or Magnolia.

Cruise needs to start accepting some more serious roles. Fuck this Mission Impossible shit.

I've no real clue, or reason, why I am not as excited about this as I should be, considering I loved the first film and find Woo's sequel intermittently decent. Perhaps they waited too long to make this, and my imagination and needs have simply outgrown the slow-motion action rackets these films have come to be.

Though if the movie is that bad, I'd be more disappointed with Hoffman than Cruise.

Hoffman is the only good thing about the movie. He plais a great villain, but he is only on screen for about 12 minutes. The rest of it is Tom with that stupid grin, and Tom running.

Since it is brief, I have copy+pasted my review from the movie discussion thread. Pathetic movie, to say the least.

The first MISSION:IMPOSSIBLE flick was decent if forgettable summer blockbuster action fare that was directed with flare by the great Brian DePalma. However, the sequel was dogshit on a silver platter.

As for M:I 3, I have no interest in seeing it, even if Hoffman probably outacts everyone(including Mr. Cruise) in the darn flick itself.

M:I (1996) - **1/2
M:I2 (2000) - *1/2
M:I3 (2006) - Fuck It

I never watched the tv show until it was on late night reruns years ago. It grew on me.

I saw the first MI and actually enjoyed it. Haven't seen the others. Was this a box office flop then?

TIS

Flop, oh no.

This was just wasn't making as much money as Paramount probably wished. Oh well, there's always INDIANA JONES IV...

The only good thing about the MI series is MI1 music score.

Thinking about all these crappy movies going around.....the question is: how stupid people must be to like them? Because that's for sure. People like them. Otherwise they would never go on producing multimillion dollar budget crappy movies. Am I right? :rolleyes:

If the Mission is so impossible, how could they get past the first mission? :p

Hey DJ...don't ever ever EVER doubt the power of Peter Graves, mother fucker.

I couldnt wait to see this movie, mainly because Phillip Seymour Hoffman plays the villain. But long story short, it was pretty bad. Painfully mediocre and unoriginal.

The problem is that Cruise is a shitty actor.

The problem is that Cruise is a shitty actor. [/b][/quote]Only when the movie is a shitty one. Otherwise he can be a great actor at times, while he public image is ridiculously annoying.

The problem is that Cruise is a shitty actor. [/b][/quote]Have you ever seen Collateral?

I think Cruise exerts a charm onscreen, an energy, which few others are able to achieve. I don't even think De Niro's "capable" of it. Different styles, completely. It sort of went hand-in-hand in his youthful years, in The Color of Money, but his physical age has sort of outgrown it, which makes his performance in Magnolia incredible to watch.

By which of his performances are you going by when calling him shitty, Dontomasso?

I thought he was good in Risky Business, and in but began his downhill slide after Jerry Maguire. He is just too old to play the young hot shot.

Guys, you're all wrong or right but not exactly hitting the button in regards to Scientology Action Hero Boy.

He CAN be a great actor when he gives a shit, but most of the time, he simply wants to be the popular and very rich movie star, and you all know that movie stars don't necessarily need talent to be who they are.

Take Brad Pitt. Really, with SEVEN, FIGHT CLUB, his bit part in TRUE ROMANCE, and of course 12 MONKEYS, the fucker can act.

However, save for those examples, he coasts his way through his other movies, like TROY, SPYGAME, MR. & MRS. SMITH(oh dear lord!), OCEAN'S 11, whatever....and if one had not notice those other films where he really does act, one would think of him as simply a pretty if insignificant movie star.

Tom Cruise CAN act, but why do we have to wait for years for him to decide to care enough to bother with it, i.e. MAGNOLIA or COLLATERAL, and yet get stuck with his average-ass summer movies.