Mo (1 out of 10 ) When did mission impossible become all about Tom Cruise? The show was about a team of people, that's right a TEAM of people doing something near impossible. Instead these idiotic movies have turned into the Tom Cruise version of James Bond. I hate the way he has taken over the genre. It's a damn shame. It should really be more group effort with many lead characters.
Jo (10 out of 10 ) hey Tom Cruise is the main character that's why and critics would like to see more Cruise than other lead characters.
Korey (10 out of 10 ) Since when was ANY Mission Impossible NOT about Tom Cruise. He is indeed the main character and the movie is based on him. As I recall every Mission Impossible movie starred him and follwed HIS series of events. It is about a team of people led by Tom Cruise. A motion picture is hardly ever starred with many lead characters.
Jack (10 out of 10 ) Hey, Tom is a very good actor. All the missions are good, no they are excellent. Tom is Ethan Hunt.
harry georgatos (4 out of 10 ) The box office under-performance of M. I 3 is not really because of Tom Cruise outlandish behavior on the media circuit, it is because it ain't a very good movie. When one sees what we're going to get with the new James Bond film Casino Royale has to offer the mission impossible franchise should hold their heads in shame. M. I 3 may have ten-fold the action that the first two films don't have but that doesn't make it a better film. The problem is it's preposterous plotting. It has flimsy plotting leading to it's action set-pieces, leading to further flimsy plotting leading to another action set-piece. The last twenty minutes of this film is downright appalling. The way Ethan Hunt gets out of one dire situations to the next is an insult to peoples intelligence. The best sequence is the Vatican sequence. The use of team work and the doppleganger is handled with impressive skill. Unfortunately it is the only sequence that works well. J. J reworks elements from the first two movies in his interpretation with corrupt IMF agents. He borrows from True Lies and other movies. With a plethora of villains such as Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Quader, the russian mafia, african warlords, the columbian drug cartel etc J. J has to concentrate on corrupt IMF agents, and evil arms dealers. I haven't a problem with arms dealers as villains, but the only problem is the first film had a corrupt arms dealer. The filmmakers could have chosen a fresh villain thet wasn't reminiscent of the first film. Why Tom Cruise forwent an earlier script written by Frank Darabont, and a script to have been directed by David Fincher boggles the mind. Why Tom Cruise let J. J. Come up with his teenage interpretation further boggles the imagination. Tom Cruise did the same on M. I. 2, where Oliver Stone was set to direct from another script, only to go with John Woo's pathetic mission impossible film that was a further insult to audience intellect. The first M. I movie is still the best in the franchise, directed by Brian de palma. De Palma was a director for hire working from a flat and uninspiring screenplay. De Palma made it more interesting then it should have been. There are great directorial flourishes by De Palma that keeps you watching on an intoxicating level. The CIA computer sequence is handled with great finesse. My favourite sequence is when Ethan Hunt has his flashbacks to what really happened to his assassinated IMF team. That is such a sophisticated sequence that the movie could have become a classic. Unfortunately the script is pretty bare with lengthy exposition where hardly nothing much happens. The tv series relies on the surreal illusion of deception within the methodology of the IMF operation that the movies fail to successfully capture. The tv series is such an immensely popular brand name, and with a star such as Tom Cruise would have even been more successful at the world wide box-office if we got better stories, and better scripts then concentrating on the science of sensation. With Tom Cruise sacked from Paramount Pictures maybe the studio can reinvent the franchise and capture the spirit of the tv series with a new IMF team, relying on the intelligent nuances of storytelling.
Improvise (7 out of 10 ) What you uninformed idiots are missing is that it's based on a series that was about a team of people. You people are complete morons. The did enjoy the movies but they are horribly unfaithful to what Mission Impossible was. It was indeed a TEAM of people working together. Such ignorant comments from you guys.
Killabot 69 (9 out of 10 ) "Harry Georgatos" and "Improvise": get a life, you absolute nerds. No-one cares about the old series. Obviously the director re-invented Mission: Impossible, trying to take it in a new direction/possibly make it more exciting. No, he may or may not have achieved this, but DOES IT MATTER!? NO! Just because it isn't exactly identical to your precious TV series, you have to go and bitch about it continually, and abuse anyone who likes it! If you don't like the movie, then don't pay attention to it. FACE!
harry Georgatos (4 out of 10 ) In response to killabot. You're entitled to your opinion but you're not going to get me to agree. Maybe Tom Cruise wanted to take mission:impossible in a different direction. It was the wrong direction. In MI1 the take was Jim Phelps was the traitor. That's it! End of movie! MI2 is so atrocious it isn't worth talking about. MI3 might be better than MI2 but that ain't saying much. Planet Earth has been subjected to three mission:impossible movies but not once have we been given original and inventive IMF sting operations. The classic movie 'The Sting', which won best picture at the Academy Awards, is closer to the spirit of the tv series then the three disappointing movies. The only saving grace with the three movies is that they're expertly photographed. If one wants to watch good spy movies with a ruthless backbone watch "Casino Royale" the Jason Bourne movies or even "Shooter".
Peter Avery (1 out of 10 ) Let me say this. I like Tom Cruise as much as I like being eaten by a shark. This picture is woeful. His acting is woeful. What possessed the producers to make a film that centers entirely on one person such as Cruise, beggars belief. It is nothing like the the MI 1. Has no real affiliation with MI 1 and personally, it was a waste of my time. I actually wrote to the movie company, asking them to refund 2 hours of my life. As yet, I am still in the red!
Duane (10 out of 10 ) Improvise, YOU may be the biggest idiot of all. Yes, we all know that the IMF television series was about a team of people, but what rule says that the movies have to be EXACTLY like that? They simply took the IDEA of the Mission Impossible tv show and turned it into something that could work on the big screen.
Z (4 out of 10 ) Terrible script. It's been a long time since CHINATOWN for Mr Towne. The dialogue was painful, the scene descriptions were often confusing and choppy (just one example. Who on earth is Ambrose, who randomly appears without introduction in the opening?).
DeviousD (6 out of 10 ) Mission Impossible- if you ever knew the series (which the movies are based on) was about the team of skilled professionals who go the incredible lengths to make the impossible happen. Albeit, the mission impossible movies are great to watch but they are all about Tom Cruise.
(6.33 out of 10)
(1 out of 10 )
(10 out of 10 )
(4 out of 10 )
(7 out of 10 )
(9 out of 10 )