“I went to see Mission: Impossible III at one of the sneaks last night (i.e., Thursday, 5.4). I enjoyed it very much, and think it’s the best of the three films. And yet last night there were maybe 20 other people in the theatre besides my party of five. The theatre I went to see it in is a 10-plex that is opening the film today on five of their screens. They were apparently prepared to show the film on all five screens at 10 pm to accomodate crowds, but the need didn’t materialize. I think it√ɬ¢√¢‚Äö¬¨√¢‚Äû¬¢s gonna do well this weekend (I mean, with a 4,000 screen opening, no one will have much of a choice), but I wonder how strong it will be in the long run.” — David Adams, Boston, MA.
Day: May 5, 2006
Mission: Impossible III “is almost a video nerd’s spoof of a whole genre of loud, cold, exhaustingly extreme thrill-ride films , Cruisified into extravagant pulp,” writes the San Diego Union-Tribune‘s David Elliott. That’s a pretty vivid sentence, but this one is even better: “[It’s] about as much fun as somebody dipping into your brain with a motorized ice cream scooper.”
“I have to echo what you and others had said about Cruise being damaged goods, especially when my girlfriend declared ‘no interest whatsoever in seeing another Tom Cruise movie,’ including ones where things explode and the early word is strong. Do you think it’s a gender thing? Are guys more forgiving of a star’s very public ‘private’ life as long as they deliver the goods on screen, while women can’t shake the fact that the guy they’re supposed to be cheering for on screen is something of a nutter in real life?” — Brad Abraham
MSNBC’s Eric Lundegaard is calling Mission: Impossible III a “fun movie, the best of the series,” in part because “it gets rid of that awful, floppy Hong Kong hipster haircut Ethan Hunt sported in the [John Woo] film.” If you read his article, you should know in advance that a fairly significant M:I:3 plot spoiler is contained within.
And yet Lundergaard has written it and it’s out there…whaddaya gonna do? Kids in Mumbai and Fairbanks and Panama City are mulling it over as we speak. SPOILER ALERT: What is Lundergaard’s Big Spill? A traitor-mole is a significant plot element in all three IM films, and going back to the same well over and over is a problem. “Which is why I√ɬ¢√¢‚Äö¬¨√¢‚Äû¬¢m urging Congress to look into IMF,” Lundegaard concludes. “Call a bi-partisan commission. Get Richard Ben-Veniste on the line. Three movies and three traitors is enough.”