Posted May 5, 200618 yr Saw it last night the action sequences were amazing. this movie had me on the edge of my seat throughout. i also enjoyed the performance of Ving Rhames, he had great chemistry with Cruise i wasnt too impressed by Phillip Seymour Hoffman playing the villain. hes a great actor, but i dont think he was good for this role and, last but not least, Tom Cruise proved why, at least IMO, he is the best action star there is very exciting and entertaining movie, ill give it a 3 out of 4
May 5, 200618 yr I'm praying it's a lot closer to the first one than the second one. The second one had some good action sequences, but it turned Ethan Hunt into Jackie Chan or some sh*t. It was stupid as hell. The first one wasn't exactly realistic, but it wasn't ridiculous.
May 5, 200618 yr i wasnt too impressed by Phillip Seymour Hoffman playing the villain. hes a great actor, but i dont think he was good for this role very exciting and entertaining movie, ill give it a 3 out of 4 about the only bright spot in the movie ... that guy is a gem for acting and the movie had no plot. but what else is new, explosions and punches will you keep you glued on to the screen so you really pay no attention to the script
May 7, 200618 yr 1230 am show was crowded as hell. Got there 15 minutes early and had to sit in those front seats. That probably distorted my perceptions of the movie...That, and it felt like it was really hot in the theater at times. Anyway, good movie overall. It started with pretty poor acting/script. As the movie developed, it got a lot better. There were some great stunts and action sequences. I liked the storyline more toward the middle and end. This movie felt more personal to Ethan Hunt than the other two. We learn his feelings, emotions, personal life, etc. The other two are just superficial flicks with action and mystery. Overall grade would be 7.5/10
May 7, 200618 yr Going to watch these action movies is just getting sorta cliche, does anyone value writing anymore? Though I did like the "I'll die unless you kill me" part and the kidnapping the villan part.
May 7, 200618 yr Author i wasnt too impressed by Phillip Seymour Hoffman playing the villain. hes a great actor, but i dont think he was good for this role very exciting and entertaining movie, ill give it a 3 out of 4 about the only bright spot in the movie ... that guy is a gem for acting im a big fan of his, i just dont think he was given alot to do this movie more of a criticism of the writing and not of Hoffman :thumbup
May 8, 200618 yr The part of the movie where Cruise is talking to his wife at the hospital, and he just stands there, was pretty awkwardly done. I think J.J. Abrams was a little unsure of how to write the beginning of the film. After leaving the theater, I was pretty unclear as to the motivation of the main bad guy (although he explains it somewhat, it wasn't very clear). I don't like it when that happens. Interestingly, the film does not show Hunt infiltrating a Chinese bio-lab in a skyscraper. We see him enter, and then time fast-forwards, and he's running out the window in a hail of bullets. I guess that was taken out during editing? Usually that doesn't happen in action movies. I liked the team aspect of the film much more this time, it reminded me of the early parts of the first movie. The second one was very Hunt-centric. I would have liked to see more of Simon Pegg (Shawn of the Dead) who had very little screen time at all, except at the beginning and the end. The main reason that MI2 turned Ethan Hunt into Jackie Chan was simple. The film was directed by John Woo. All of his trademark directing was present in that film, including the now-cliche slow-motion birds.
May 8, 200618 yr I still cringe everytime I see the knife almost at Ethan's eye. I can't believe they used a real knife either.
May 9, 200618 yr The part of the movie where Cruise is talking to his wife at the hospital, and he just stands there, was pretty awkwardly done. I think J.J. Abrams was a little unsure of how to write the beginning of the film. After leaving the theater, I was pretty unclear as to the motivation of the main bad guy (although he explains it somewhat, it wasn't very clear). I don't like it when that happens. Interestingly, the film does not show Hunt infiltrating a Chinese bio-lab in a skyscraper. We see him enter, and then time fast-forwards, and he's running out the window in a hail of bullets. I guess that was taken out during editing? Usually that doesn't happen in action movies. I liked the team aspect of the film much more this time, it reminded me of the early parts of the first movie. The second one was very Hunt-centric. I would have liked to see more of Simon Pegg (Shawn of the Dead) who had very little screen time at all, except at the beginning and the end. The main reason that MI2 turned Ethan Hunt into Jackie Chan was simple. The film was directed by John Woo. All of his trademark directing was present in that film, including the now-cliche slow-motion birds. Pretty sure the baddy was a pawn used by the corrupt agent. Then again, the actual storyline went over my head a bit.
May 9, 200618 yr Then again, the actual storyline went over my head a bit. Wait, there was a story line? The movie was fun, but there was barely a story to speak of.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.