comment #1

berkguru says ...

just what the world needs - another lame sequel

comment #2

actionman says ...

UA is gearing up on a new spy franchise for Cruise so it seems unlikely that he'd do another Mission: Impossible and start a new series of spy films at the same time...

comment #3

vansmith says ...

i heard UA financing is suddenly shaky, sub prime fall out

comment #4

Movie fan09 says ...

all i ask is that they bring back depalma.

comment #5

storymark says ...

There's room for more than one (or four) spy franchise - especially if Cruise isn't planning to star in the UA one.

comment #6

Major Calloway says ...

all i ask is that they bring in carnahan.

comment #7

BlueRaymondBabbit says ...

all i ask is that they bring in stone.

comment #8

D.Z. says ...

DePalma's version was awful. I'm glad they kicked him out of there.

comment #9

Mr. Gittes says ...

If Tom Cruise knows what's good for him, he'll NOT do a 4th Mission Impossible and try find roles that are challenging, daring, and against type. Like, for example: Magnolia, Jerry Maguire, Born on the Fourth of July, Eyes Wide Shut, Collateral, etc. Cruise and his representation have been way too inconsistent in regards to the roles Mr. Cruise has chosen over the years. I mean, how the hell did Fincher and Carnahan get the boot from MI:3? Creative differences my ass. I'd like to see Cruise be a great actor...not a action movie star. But whatever.

comment #10

Josh Massey says ...

Gittes: I'm not sure I agree with a single thing you've written there. Cruise has always done a superb job of mixing "Hollywood" (the Mission: Impossibles, War of the Worlds, etc.) with more challenging work. I mean, you named a movie he did just four years ago as an example of what he should be doing now, and seem to ignore he just took a part in a low-budget, talky political drama. And while I don't think Lions for Lambs was even a shred of good, I certainly think it falls under the category of "challenging" and "against type."

You write about Fincher and Carnahan as if Cruise must not be able to work with exacting directors (Smokin' Aces, of course, is a sign Carnahan's departure/ousting could have been a wise move). But, um, Michael Mann? Paul Thomas Anderson? Oliver Stone? Brian DePalma? The guy attracts, not repels, that kind of director.

Say what you want about Cruise off-screen, but he has already proven himself to be a great actor. He should have won Best Actor twice by now, and Best Supporting Actor once. And generally, he's a great judge of script - in the past 20 years, I only see three movies he has made as truly bad - Cocktail, Mission: Impossible 2 and Lions for Lambs. Even his lesser efforts, the Last Samurais and Far and Aways of the world, prove rewatchable. And when the guy is truly on - Magnolia, Minority Report, and yes, Vanilla Sky - it's easy to see why he has had such lasting power.

(I realize I lost a lot of you with Vanilla Sky, but that is one of my all-time can't-understand-why-people-don't-love-that-film films).

comment #11

Mr. Gittes says ...

Josh Massey: Well that's kinda my point. Cruise attracts the big time directors -- Mann, PTA, Spielberg, Stone. But he should reach out to those guys right now. All this MI: 4 talk and that recent story about Cruise setting up another action franchise upsets me. Obviously, who am I to tell Cruise what to do, right? But I'd wish that Cruise, after all the fair and unfair media scrutiny he's received in the past couple years, would try to focus on more, uh, "tougher" films and give the big F-You to all those doubters out there and show the world why he's still a great actor. Dabbling in action franchises for the next 3-4 years is a bad career movie, in my opinion.

P.S. Cruise should have been smart enough to realize the crap that was the Lion for Lambs script. But there will always be misfires. I liked Vanilla sky, too.

comment #12

insidah says ...

I will only watch MI:4 if it's about the M.I. group infiltrating a nutty ,high-tech religious cult that is buying up suspiciously large amounts of land in Florida and destroying their maniacal, sociopathic leaders.

FIGHT THE (BULLSHIT) POWER

comment #13

Josh Massey says ...

Gittes: Unfortunately, Cruise now finds himself in a place where he needs a hit. MI:3 underperformed, and Lambs was his lowest-grosser since Losin' It (seriously). Now whether or not MI:4 is the right move is certainly a valid question.

comment #14

moviemaniac2002 says ...

Presumably, Redstone is trying to re-negotiate
Cruise's typical deal for the "M.I." films - where
Tom gets 99 cents of each box office dollar
immediately delivered in cash to his front door
within an hour of each individual 3000 theatre
multiplex showing.

comment #15

AH says ...

Cruise does need a hit but more importantly he needs the right kind of hit i.e. a critical hit more than a commercial one. He should not do M:I 4, no matter how strong his desire for a commercial hit. If he wants a new franchise then he should go for a new one.

comment #16

btwnproductions says ...

Wasn't he touted for IRON MAN? I bet he regrets letting that one slip away, unless he was already on the outs with Paramount. Better that han another dead-tired M:I installment, which Uwe Boll would probably pass on directing.

comment #17

actionman says ...

He was attached to Iron Man in the 90's.

I didn't think Lions for Lambs was as bad as everyone made it out to be. It was brilliant but it wasn't horrible...

I have always loved Cruise as an actor and I never see myself turing against him as so many people seem to have.

comment #18

Josh Massey says ...

I can see MI:4 being a "hand-off" of sorts to whatever actor Paramount wants to continue the franchise. Cruise might even have a supporting role. Wahlberg? Farrell? The Rock?

And yes, Cruise was attached to Iron Man, in the late '90s if memory serves. I remember thinking, "No way will he cover up his face for two hours."

comment #19

Movie fan09 says ...

D.Z. [TypeKey Profile Page] says ...

DePalma's version was awful. I'm glad they kicked him out of there.

how was it awful?
sure you couldn't understand what was going on half the time, but it sure was fun figuring it out.

comment #20

scooterzz says ...

cruise jockeying for mi:4 now might suggest that he, too, doesn't think that 'valkyrie' is going to be any more of a hit than several of us do.....

comment #21

BurmaShave says ...

DePalma's version was the best, and gets more so with every passing overkinetic summer season.

comment #22

actionman says ...

DePalma's M:I is an underrated gem. I didn't like it when I first saw it in the theater but on repeated viewings, it really, really grew on me. I was not a fan of the second one at all (there is one BRILLIANT edit towards the end with the knife in the eye but that's it) but very much enjoyed the third. If Cruise did a fourth film I'd definitely check it out.

comment #23

Redmond says ...

I agree with D.Z. 99% of the time, but I have to part ways on DePalma's Misson: Impossible. I watched it after seeing M:I 3 in the theater and it blew me away. I watched it again recently and it aged quite well. Though I still hate the last action sequence with the helicopter in the tunnel.

In the meantime, no one needs another M:I movie. The last one was basically a 2-hour episode of Alias but with Tom Cruise in place of Jennifer Garner.

comment #24

Jeffrey Kunze says ...

I think he's locked for doing Hardy Boys with Ben Stiller.

The birth of that pairing :

---------->

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYtsvTlEeFw

comment #25

Josh Massey says ...

"I agree with D.Z. 99% of the time,..."

And with one tiny phrase, you've nullified any future comment you make on this site.

comment #26

Chris Willman says ...

Nothing says "We want and need this guy!" quite like "...I will not object."

comment #27

D.Z. says ...

bt+actionman: I thought it was Leo they wanted as Iron Man.

Bloodvessel: It was awful, because DePalma clearly never saw the series.

redmond: Well, I understand how you feel, given that the sequels were clearly vanity projects more than the original film. But the show still trumps the first one by a long shot.

Anyway, Ellen Page is going to ruin Jane Eyre. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i4552e786232dd91bfe7848fb5cbaa3f1

comment #28

D.Z. says ...

The dumbest news I've heard, though, is McConaughey as Capt. America. http://www.darkhorizons.com/news08/080506j.php

comment #29

actionman says ...

Ellen Page is not Jane Eyre. What a horrible idea.

McConaughey isn't the worst idea for Captan America; he has the look down.

And no, Tom Cruise was attached to Iron Man. It's possible Leo was too but Cruise was attached for a while, and from what I read, really wanted to play the part.

comment #30

moorish says ...

I think it's great that Cruise didn't play Iron Man. Downey Jr IS Tony Stark.

MI:4 - why? Really... why?!?

comment #31

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

"Bloodvessel: It was awful, because DePalma clearly never saw the series."

I never understood why they even linked it to the old series. You do that with a small movie so it will evoke vague memories at the video store. Mission Impossible with Tom Cruise would have made exactly the same amount of money if it had been called ASSIGNMENT: HOPELESS or ETHAN HUNT, SPYCATCHER or THE MAN WITH ONE BLACK SOCK.

comment #32

swordandpen says ...

I can't believe that anyone wants to continue such an underwhelming franchise with diminishing box office returns.

comment #33

nemo says ...

MI4? Yaw-w-w-w-w-n.

The only thing the MI movies ever had in common with the television series was the cool theme song. The only way MI4 would be the slightest bit interesting is if they dumped Tom Cruise and brought back Martin Landau. Or at least brought in a youngish actor to play a Martin Landau character in the starring role. But then it would be a completely different movie than the previous three (thank God). But nothing that good will ever happen.

"I can see MI:4 being a "hand-off" of sorts to whatever actor Paramount wants to continue the franchise. Cruise might even have a supporting role. Wahlberg? Farrell? The Rock?"

Kal Penn!

comment #34

Movie fan09 says ...

D.Z. [TypeKey Profile Page] says ...

bt+actionman: I thought it was Leo they wanted as Iron Man.

Bloodvessel: It was awful, because DePalma clearly never saw the series.

yep.
it actually reminded me of a james bond movie.
but less crappy.
the series itself..it was ok.

comment #35

Terry McCarty says ...

Josh Massey wrote:
I can see MI:4 being a "hand-off" of sorts to whatever actor Paramount wants to continue the franchise. Cruise might even have a supporting role. Wahlberg? Farrell? The Rock?

Given Paramount/Viacom's thriftiness, it would make sense to hand the leading role to Jonathan Rhys-Meyers.

comment #36

jany says ...

Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of db2 high availability