Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

Supastring Heard Tom Cruise Talking About MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE 4!!

Merrick here...
An AICN Reader named supastring sent the following, self explanatory message:
Just a tidbit regarding everyone's favourite operating thetan... Tom Cruise was on the popular SMAP SMAP program here in Japan (HERE), and when asked about the Mission Impossible franchise he revealed that he has started work on the fourth installment...he's working on the story right now. He also commented that during his visit here he'd been thinking about how to stage a big action sequence in downtown Tokyo..dunno if he was just being polite, but sounds like a cool setting for the series, what? Tom seemed like an all-round nice guy, by the by. If you use this call me supastring
Not sure how I feel about this. The first M:I film was boring...the second one was aloof and OTT...I rather liked the third one even though no one else seemed I don't know how to relate the the concept of a fourth movie. Always kinda wondered how Oliver Stone's MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE II would've shaken out if he'd remained attached to the project. If memory serves, it was about a sentient supercomputer which convinces the world that all IMF are bad guys. Or, something like that.

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • March 18, 2009, 1:20 p.m. CST


    by Strangelover

  • March 18, 2009, 1:20 p.m. CST


    by seagrass

    Big ole meh.

  • March 18, 2009, 1:20 p.m. CST

    I'm cool with it.

    by HoboCode

    MI3 was actually damn good. It's a shame nobody went to see it.

  • March 18, 2009, 1:21 p.m. CST

    So close...

    by seagrass

    to my first first. Oh well..was my first second!

  • March 18, 2009, 1:21 p.m. CST


    by Spyderpig

    Woo, 4th!!!

  • March 18, 2009, 1:22 p.m. CST

    Or fifth...

    by Spyderpig

  • March 18, 2009, 1:22 p.m. CST

    MI3 was indeed the best of the bunch


    Helped greatly by PSH's turn as the big bad.

  • March 18, 2009, 1:22 p.m. CST

    I would like to see a Oliver Stone directed MI...

    by We_Are_Trapper_Keeper

    but sounds like his idea got turned into "Eagle Eye"

  • March 18, 2009, 1:25 p.m. CST

    Mission Impossible 3 Was Great

    by DKT

    Best one of the series. But that had as much do with JJ Abrams as anything else. If he's not back (which he won't be) I can't imagine this being good...

  • March 18, 2009, 1:26 p.m. CST

    but where's the lost talkback?

    by Mr_X

    i liked the 3rd. I still like tom cruise even though it's fashionable to be a hater

  • March 18, 2009, 1:26 p.m. CST

    what's with the random what?

    by walrusholder

    anyone else find it strange? What?

  • March 18, 2009, 1:27 p.m. CST

    MI3 was the only one even close...

    by robotdevil

    But really, it's a crime what they did to that franchise. The old show was fantastic and intelligent and Cruise turned it into a run of the mill superspy crapfest.

  • March 18, 2009, 1:28 p.m. CST

    masturbation video

    by Mr_X

    my hands do the sound of i dream of jeannie whilst i normally have a wank

  • March 18, 2009, 1:30 p.m. CST

    M:I 1 was boring??

    by RobertBaron

    That was a fantastically entertaining spy thriller.

  • March 18, 2009, 1:31 p.m. CST

    MI3 was terrible

    by kwisatzhaderach

    The best thing out of all three films was the vault heist in the first one. Classic DePalma.

  • March 18, 2009, 1:31 p.m. CST

    First and third M:Is were fantastically entertaining.

    by NinjaRap

    The second one was pretty strong for an action film, but not very M:I. The fact remains that this is the most consistently quality spy franchise I've ever seen, so I'm on board for more.

  • March 18, 2009, 1:32 p.m. CST

    Bring back De Palma

    by Samuel Fulmer

    I still think his MI was the best. He was the only one to grasp the suspense aspect of the old shows.

  • March 18, 2009, 1:35 p.m. CST

    now thats what i'm talkin' bout

    by IndyAbbey Jones

    good to see some actual news posted this week, and this is great news, While I tolerate the first one, and I don't understand the second one, I absoulutley love the third one<P>i'd love to see JJ come back (perhaps this will be his next movie after star trek is finished and released?), but even if he isn't coming back as long as they get a capable director (martin campbell after he finnishes GL perhaps?) and have a good story i'm in <P>also, i thought cruise ended his paramount production contract after the whole south park scientology thing (he demanded they pull the episode, paramount refused, he walked away and ended any further production with them) this still being made with Paramount, or did cruise take the property with him and is shoping the idea around to other studios

  • March 18, 2009, 1:35 p.m. CST


    by TheMcflyFarm

    What are you some little kid with no comprehension?

  • March 18, 2009, 1:36 p.m. CST

    There are good moments in MI1, but three is actually good

    by theneonsamurai

  • March 18, 2009, 1:36 p.m. CST

    Merrick (De Palma's MI being boring???? )

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Are you letting your 15 year old son write for you again?

  • March 18, 2009, 1:36 p.m. CST

    MI3 Was Great

    by SnakesOnABicycle

    But I don't think its out of the realm of possibilities to have Abrams back if Cruise gave him his feature film break with MI3. That's my only hope, unless Cruise can unearth another unproven director, because there's no way he commands the same drawing power. And wasn't Fincher attached to do 3 or 2 at some point?... John Woo, what an overrated piece of shit. I even heard that awesome last scene in A Better Tomorrow II was directed by somebody else.

  • March 18, 2009, 1:37 p.m. CST

    The 1st and the 3rd are really well done.

    by iamnicksaicnsn

    Especially the first, one of my favorite spy films. But MI:2 is such an incredible piece of garbage. From the unbelievable action to the horrible porn soundtrack, I can't believe it was the same guy that did Hard Boiled. But then I realize the problem is that John Woo should never do a PG 13 movie.

  • March 18, 2009, 1:37 p.m. CST


    by _Palmer_Eldritch

    M:I 1 was boring??? Are you INSANE?! Easily the most original, entertaining and re-watchable of the series. <p>I'm beginning to seriously doubt your judgement, Merrick. Just because you didn't get it doesn't mean it's boring.

  • March 18, 2009, 1:38 p.m. CST

    MI2 was when I realized

    by Samuel Fulmer

    John Woo would never make another good film.

  • March 18, 2009, 1:39 p.m. CST

    Are you nuts? the 1st Mission was good

    by Jugdish

    The 2nd one was shit! Depalma did a fantastic job for what he was given.

  • March 18, 2009, 1:41 p.m. CST

    M:I is an awesome film

    by panicdawg

    Yeah, pretty much one of the best action/thriller films of the 90s. It never got too convoluted, kept the twists coming, and ended with one of the most superb action sequences ever put to film.

  • March 18, 2009, 1:41 p.m. CST

    Lemme guess- the 1st Bourne too boring for ya?!

    by Jugdish

    Losing crediblilty Merrick

  • March 18, 2009, 1:42 p.m. CST

    Midget Impossible 4

    by Darth Macchio

    Impossible midget standing next to Katie Holms. Creepy I say! Midget!<p>I'm a fan of the first one, didn't like the 2nd, thought the 3rd was ok (seriously, outside of Hoffman, the movie is rather bland). Abrahms is a decent enough director but still apparently thinks in terms of "action set pieces" first and foremost, I suppose.<p>Do you guys even remember some of the dialog between Cruise and Morphus in MI3? Bad, bad, bad...and that's bad meaning bad, not bad meaning good.

  • March 18, 2009, 1:43 p.m. CST

    MI: 3 was awesome

    by Bob of the Shire

    Fer realz.

  • March 18, 2009, 1:43 p.m. CST

    1 was good, 2 was great, 3 was rubbish

    by superunknown85

    Part 3 was nonstop shakycam and fast editing, like a videogame. And JJ Abrams sucks.

  • March 18, 2009, 1:44 p.m. CST

    I like the atmosphere in MI1

    by belasco_house

    especially early on in the gloomy Prague backstreets Surely MI2 was the boring one, the whole dragging mid-section MI3 was a good action flick, and PSH was a bastard of a bad guy

  • March 18, 2009, 1:45 p.m. CST


    by Bumb48

    I guess MI:3 felt the closest to the old TV series because it felt like it was made for TV (with a huge budget). MI:3 was terrible all around, especially the end where everyone is laughing and walking in slo-mo and all happy (if I remember correctly, it's been awhile since I saw it). MI:1 is a decent movie, MI:2 is laughable and all over the place but still better than MI:3.

  • March 18, 2009, 1:45 p.m. CST


    by -guyinthebackrow

    Merrick just invalidated his own opinion. Well done.

  • March 18, 2009, 1:45 p.m. CST

    Really, none of the MI films were that good

    by JuanSanchez

    The first came the closest. It had some great elements and some good scenes, but was still highly flawed. MI2 was a step down. Flashy and action packed, but somehow even more disconnected. MI3 was the worst of the lot, unsuccessfully bringing a personal element into the film and failing to create a real team. It was a feature length episode of Alias with Tom Cruise.

  • March 18, 2009, 1:45 p.m. CST

    Sorry, punctuation failure

    by belasco_house

  • March 18, 2009, 1:46 p.m. CST

    And yes...if MI1 is boring and MI3 is awesome then...

    by Darth Macchio might be smokin a little thin on the immature tip here and there. Nothing wrong with that of course, but push that opinion far enough and you start saying things like, "It's a movie about giant robots blowing shit up, what do you want? Citizen Kane?!?!?!!? Yo! Summer popcorn fun dudes!" or "Alien remake with McG helming and starring the boob-o-licious Pam Anderson as Ripley? I'm there dudes!!!"

  • March 18, 2009, 1:47 p.m. CST

    You made Jim Phelps a traitor, Tom...

    by Manos

    And I will never forgive you for that. Talk about raping a classic series.

  • March 18, 2009, 1:47 p.m. CST

    first MI boring...yes...very

    by IndyAbbey Jones

    i'm just going to post the exact same thing everyone else above me posted because i think that if i "get" MI:1 then that means i am a student of film<P>face it people it was a boring movie, it lacked action except for a few places and other then the vault break in, its entirely its severly dated, even more then the wire fu sequel

  • March 18, 2009, 1:49 p.m. CST

    I agree/disagree/don't care

    by Buzz_Aldrin

    M:I was great when it came out. Haven't seen it in a long time, but the opening sequence in the embassy where the team gets killed off, the silent vault break in and the show down stick in my memory as a good time at the movies. M:I 2 was boring with a bullshit story and completely forgettable villains (some blond guy? i can't remember). A shame what Hollywood has done to Woo. There was one clever touch in it however: the bad guy pulling off the ridiculous Mission Impossible Hologram Whatever mask of Cruise's smiling mug and crying underneath it. Oh, and Thandie Newton is hot. I have no memory of the third one whatsoever i gotta admit. Pretty much the same crap as the second. Looked like a superpowered TV episode to me, very unengaging. I vaguely remember it being about Cruise's wife and how it didn't work because she was so bland and uninteresting she hardly registered on film, let alone made you care. All in all i think it's fair to say that no one needs another one of these shitfests.

  • March 18, 2009, 1:51 p.m. CST

    The MI tv show was about mindgames

    by wowsah156

    and manipulation with skill and technology. Brian DePalma essentially nailed that and the underlying paranoia of time in the first one. The Cruise/Wagner vehicle is essentially a popcorn movie franchise. Not saying thats bad, but it doesnt get people to go back. The casting Depalm done with the cameos getting killed was a good starting point. MI needs to be unpredictable. so that means Cruise dies in the first 10 mins of MI4 Oh yes!!!

  • March 18, 2009, 1:53 p.m. CST

    M:I series is Shakespeare compared to CRANK series

    by uberman

    I'd rather see a new M:I movie than 90% of the hyper MTV action crap they pump out today.

  • March 18, 2009, 1:54 p.m. CST

    No more CGI maskwork!


    I hate when one actor pulls their face from underneath their chin and voila! it's another actor underneath in disguise. It would be one thing if it were an actual mask but using CGI with the movement of removing a real mask is cheating and it takes everyone out of the movie because we all know it's bullshit.

  • March 18, 2009, 1:54 p.m. CST

    The series

    by richievanderlow

    I really like the first one... I loved the angle of the story. Kept you guessing, wondering what was going on.. the whodunnit element served that franchise pretty well.. MI2 was just flat out ridiculous in every way and was completely stupid and the action so staged it made the whole movie feel insulting. I liked MI3 and how it seemed to combine the best of both, but nothing earth shattering IMO. Doesn't really matter to me what they do with 4..

  • March 18, 2009, 1:55 p.m. CST

    the series so far...

    by cifra

    MI 1 was an almost masterpiece, pure moviemaking in its excellence and that's what some people call boring, lol. MI 2 was a shame, starting with the rape of Spanish traditions that even Tom was ashamed to acknowledge and ending that made it a forgettable movie. MI 3 was damn good but with a couple of plot cheats that were embarrassing once you get to think about them. So, I'm all for MI4 IF they get a right screenplay and director

  • March 18, 2009, 1:57 p.m. CST

    M:I3 was the best marriage of the first 2

    by kenjinattix

    M:I3, my favorite of the series, took what we liked about the first one and what we liked about the second put it together. THE OPENING SCENE WAS THE SHIT. Gave you the action and gave you the espionage. PHILIP SEYMORE RUNS THAT MOVIE. Most believable bad guy I've seen in a while. No catch phrases. No quarter. No jokes. He says he's going after his wife. And he goes after his wife. How is this even a debate?

  • March 18, 2009, 1:57 p.m. CST

    1 was great, 2 was dumb, 3 was good - I'm up for 4

    by Primus

    Bring it on, though I wouldn't miss Tom if he decided to bail out.

  • March 18, 2009, 1:59 p.m. CST

    by the BYE

    by BadMrWonka

    no worries, even professional writers don't know that one half the time.<p>also, Tom Cruise is an insane cultist...

  • March 18, 2009, 1:59 p.m. CST

    Phelps in MI:1 was brilliant (spoilers)

    by Samuel Fulmer

    I thought making the hero of the old show into the bad guy was a great twist. De Palma's film fails if you're looking for just another generic action movie (which is what the other two are), but if you can handle an atypical action film with heavy doses of suspense, you're in for a treat. Goes to show what a real director can do with "pop" material.

  • March 18, 2009, 2 p.m. CST

    Merrick, you're right...

    by toshiro-solo

    MI3 is, indeed, the best of the bunch.

  • March 18, 2009, 2:02 p.m. CST

    This series has always been deadly dull...

    by TurdontheRun

    Only two good things stand out: the CIA break-in sequence in the first - which is a masterfully done set piece - and Philip Seymour Hoffman in the third (all 2 major scenes he appeared in - what a waste). The rest of the series is total crap. MI2 was horseshit, but it's clear that it was fucking GUTTED to get a PG-13 rating. Just look at that shootout in the chemical lab. You can't tell what the hell is going on, and you never see any direct bullet hits. Cruise went through about two dozen (good) directors and writers for MI3 I think - darabont and fincher among them - doesn't that say something? instead of getting a strong director and just letting him run with it with no restraints, ol' Tom just wants to please all the people all the time and, cosequently, ends up pleasing no one. I blame Xenu.

  • March 18, 2009, 2:03 p.m. CST


    by Omar B

    I loved all 3 for different reasons. Obviously the first one was the best, the second one was a great ballsy action flick and the third one brought that JJ style to a bigger canvas so I'll gladly watch a 4th. Wasn't there a whole bunch of drama about who was gonna direct 3 before JJ signed on?

  • March 18, 2009, 2:03 p.m. CST

    Sentient Supercomputer?

    by drewlicious

    Has one of those things ever done anything helpful for mankind?

  • March 18, 2009, 2:04 p.m. CST

    This mission just got....

    by MamboMan

    ... a hell of a lot more impossibler - Tom Crooze

  • March 18, 2009, 2:05 p.m. CST

    maybe it should be about crystal skulls...

    by MamboMan

    and aliens

  • March 18, 2009, 2:05 p.m. CST

    The first was a great film...

    by photoboy

    ...but 2 was mindless and soulless tripe and 3 had a lot of initial promise but went completely flat in the third act (a bit like Lost really).<br><br> If #4 is going to work it needs to go back to the complex and suspenseful style of the first.

  • March 18, 2009, 2:05 p.m. CST

    Mission: Impossible 1 was big fun...

    by Bones

    It was a smart spy film with lots of reversals happening--until they made the hero of the old show the villain and the last act devolved into an action film parody for the cheap seats.<p>the second film was utter shit. The worst film in John Woo's career (well, maybe Hard Target is still worse).<p> The third film was fun, but was pretty much an ALIAS clone--at least the team stayed alive in that one, and Maggie Q is hotness personified.<p> A 4th one would be great if Cruise could pass the torch to another team, with him as the controller back in Washington. It is time.

  • March 18, 2009, 2:06 p.m. CST

    M:I 3 was easily the best, only shaky cam sucked.

    by Motoko Kusanagi

    DePalmas M:I was pretty good, but the story was all over the place.<p>I kinda loved M:I-2 back then, even though it was a weak-ass movie from a John Woo fanboy standpoint. It's a shame that they trimmed down the violence (originally, it was rated R) and the length (from three to two hours). Would be cool to have an extended directors cut on DVD (FUCK BLU-RAY) someday.<p>M:I-3 was a guilty pleasure fun ride with a brilliant bad guy and some annoying camera work.<p>A fourth one? Yeah, why not.

  • March 18, 2009, 2:06 p.m. CST

    first and third one are entertaining

    by moviemaniac-7

    The second one had some good ideas, but was ultimately too much of a long, long montage sequence. If they could continue in the same way they made part 3 then all would be fine. How would a David Fincher MI movie look like? Since he was in the running for the third one it is a valid question. Organ trafficking I heard. A bit dark, but why not? And as for Cruise working on the story? Whahahaha! "Uhm, guys. I need at least two close ups every scene. And a scene where I nail a cute chick or something. No, make that two scenes, one of them a threesome. And guns. Some guns and an explosion."

  • March 18, 2009, 2:07 p.m. CST

    I have to agree...

    by jimmy rabbitte

    It would be cool to bring back DePalma. MI:1 is the best of the series. MI:2 was slick, and had a lot of kinetic energy, in the frame; as did MI:3, but MI:1 was the most engaging story of the three.

  • March 18, 2009, 2:07 p.m. CST

    Weird MI:3 rumor (???)

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Was that the one where Cruise tried to get Scarlett Johansson in the movie, but freaked her out by going all Scientology on her?

  • March 18, 2009, 2:08 p.m. CST

    MI:3 is a perfect film.

    by natecore


  • March 18, 2009, 2:08 p.m. CST

    Trick is not to show all the good bits in the DAMN TRAILER!

    by Damien Chowder

  • March 18, 2009, 2:09 p.m. CST

    Paying to see a Tom Cruise movie

    by Mr. Lahey

    = giving money to the cult of Scientology. Fuck that noise.

  • March 18, 2009, 2:09 p.m. CST

    i thought mi 3 sucked

    by supercowbell4therequestformorecowbell

    except that pretty cool bridge scene. ive never seen any other movie in the franchise though so maybe its just my taste.

  • March 18, 2009, 2:10 p.m. CST

    And I don't think that HARD TARGET is Woo's worst...

    by Motoko Kusanagi

    ...Mr. Bones, not at all.<p>Yes, it has VanDamme with a laughable hair cut in it. But it is the only John Woo US movie that resembles his Hong Kong work (camera angles, lighting, scene transitions, violence).<p>You obviously have forgotten PAYCHECK which easily is Woo's weakest movie so far. I wonder what the hell happened there?

  • March 18, 2009, 2:11 p.m. CST

    MI 2

    by Vic_Arpeggio

    I worked on the Stone version of MI 2, the one that was being written by Michael Tolkin (who wrote a draft at the same time David Marconi did). It was indeed computer-oriented and much of it was set in China. It was a LOT stronger than the mess the John Woo version turned out to be. I wonder if they would ever go back to that version. Then again, Cruise did the same with Joe Carnahan/Frank Darabont and MI3, which was supposed to be set in Ghana and Berlin. I have an art director buddy who was in Berlin for nearly a year in preproduction before they pulled the plug.

  • March 18, 2009, 2:12 p.m. CST

    MI 1 > MI 2 > MI3

    by bullet3

    The first one is an out and out classic, just a fantatstically constructed thriller, extremley tense and exciting. Second one is really stupid and boring in places, but the action is very sweet and if you just go with it its a pretty fun time. Third one is just generic and boring if you ask me. JJ clearly can't shoot a major motion picture, the whole damn thing is shot with close-ups and shakey cam, and despite the budget it feels like a tv show episode. He tries to combine the best of the first two movies, but he can't do the tension of the first one or the action of the second nearly as well, so its actually my least favorite.

  • March 18, 2009, 2:12 p.m. CST

    re: Motoko Kusanagi

    by jimmy rabbitte

    The motorcycle stunt rocked as well.

  • March 18, 2009, 2:14 p.m. CST

    Who's the guest director this time?

    by Stuntcock Mike


  • March 18, 2009, 2:14 p.m. CST

    The third one was the only one to treat the masks right

    by IndyAbbey Jones

    even though its bullshit, sci fi technology, the third one was the only one where i beleived they actually were capable to tricking other peopl with a fake mask...perhaps its because it was the oly one that showed the process of how they are made..or prhaps the other 2 just suck..i don't know do you

  • March 18, 2009, 2:15 p.m. CST

    MI 1 was great until the Jim Phelps betrayal

    by SpyGuy

    All they had to do was change the name of the character and it would've been fine, but NOOOOOOOO...

  • March 18, 2009, 2:15 p.m. CST

    re: Stuntcock Mike

    by jimmy rabbitte

    Mission: Im-Bourne-able?

  • March 18, 2009, 2:16 p.m. CST

    MI was excellent, MI2 lame and MI3 was much better

    by zapano

    it will be interesting to see which director will be chosen. Stone would be an interesting choice, or what about peter weir? or maybe friedkin?

  • March 18, 2009, 2:20 p.m. CST

    MI:3 could have been made by Fincher or Carnahan

    by kwisatzhaderach

    and we ended up with JJ Abrams. Talk about diminishing returns.

  • March 18, 2009, 2:20 p.m. CST

    Of course AICN orgasams over MI:3

    by scriptgirl_nipples

    It was written by JJ Abrams.

  • March 18, 2009, 2:20 p.m. CST

    Friedkin would be interesting

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Too bad he hasn't made a compelling film since 1985.

  • March 18, 2009, 2:21 p.m. CST

    MI1 rocked, 2 was pretty lame, and 3 was a blast

    by Col. Tigh-Fighter

    Had a Bourne feel to it too. <p>Merrick, you're a crazy man

  • March 18, 2009, 2:22 p.m. CST

    NinjaRap, I couldn't agree more

    by sambafreak13

    1 and 3 were excellent and 2 was way over the top but still a lot of fun. Not sure why all the hate, but I never watched the show so maybe that's the issue.

  • March 18, 2009, 2:25 p.m. CST

    I think MI2 gets a bum wrap

    by Rob0729

    yes, it was dumb and definitely was boring at times, but it had some great action sequences. It was not a great film by any stretch, but it had it's moments.<br><br> My problem with MI3 was that is was too much like an episode of Alias. Right off the bat, they stole the non-linear plotline that started with Alias (and copied endlessly from JJ Abrahms productions) of having a pivotal scene start the movie and then right before that scene climaxes, go back to the start of the movie and go through the entire linear plot.

  • March 18, 2009, 2:28 p.m. CST

    fucking bullshit

    by Richard Richard Mayhew

    These talkbacks are fucking ridiculous. All they ever amount to is to prove that every commenter on here a) has an opinion and b) is an asshole. At least no one on this one is talking about how your childhood memories were RAPED by Abrams. You're all just snobbish assholes. Boo-fucking-hoo. AICN is about having fun with movies. Granted, there's a far cry between having fun watching a "Syfy" original and watching something with some actual production value (ie, some movies do possibly deserve the derision that many of you pour on them, but what so many of you fail to realize is that your asshole posturing is totally not in the spirit of AICN. AICN is about loving movies and the whole process behind how a film geek can come about and NOT about just standing around and being assholes. All 3 MI movies were fun. None of them were great, but they were fun and mindless. Maybe they could be held up as the B-movie crap of our day comparable to so many trash sci-fi movies that we love to hate from the 50s but even so I'm rather glad that not every movie is top notch. Sometimes I just want filler. Go ahead. Lambast me now. My shoulders are broad enough.

  • March 18, 2009, 2:29 p.m. CST

    Rich Midget Cruise = WIN

    by donkey_lasher

    Whiney AICN talkbacker = FAIL

  • March 18, 2009, 2:30 p.m. CST

    Robo729, I agree

    by Richard Richard Mayhew

    MI2 certainly wasn't perfect. It was really just a vanity project for Cruise. As producer, I'm convinced he just wanted the movie to be all about making him look cool which, I think, probably worked so far as it goes.

  • March 18, 2009, 2:32 p.m. CST


    by mr.brownstone

    Carnahan is NOT a better director than Abrams. Narc was good, everything else is post Tarantino horseshit.

  • March 18, 2009, 2:32 p.m. CST

    My guess for director of a 4th one

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Bryan Singer

  • March 18, 2009, 2:33 p.m. CST


    by BadlyDubbedPorn

    order of watchableness

  • March 18, 2009, 2:34 p.m. CST

    Hard Target...

    by Indexical

    ...was amazing. End of.

  • March 18, 2009, 2:36 p.m. CST

    MI3 is one of the most underrated action movies ever...

    by Davidia

    Fucking awesome flick, with a grade A villian. If they can get Abrahams or at least retain the thirds vibe, than go for it.

  • March 18, 2009, 2:38 p.m. CST

    I agree, 1-3-2

    by SithMenace

    with 2 being very far behind. 1 and 3 were very good.

  • March 18, 2009, 2:38 p.m. CST

    I think its getting to the stage where....

    by emeraldboy

    Nobody really cares about tom cruise the action hero. or indeed cruise the actor. both attempts to re-launch his career have failed. He is not the big BOx office draw that he once was. I for one and I am not alone in this, found his come back in Tropic Thunder to be utterly embarrasing. it was a wretched movie anyway. Wild horses would and havent dragged me to see Valkyrie. The Tom cruise action ship has sailed. It would have to take a very special story to convince me to a tom cruise film again.

  • March 18, 2009, 2:38 p.m. CST

    they should get an established director

    by IndyAbbey Jones

    someone like ridley scott or james cameran, or what about john glenn, he did all the 80's bond movies and he's like 90, but he comes from that generation of filmakers that still understood story and action can coexist...most directors today think a good action movie consists of shaking the camera alot and having the colour timing up really high so skin is orange and everything else is a shade of neon

  • March 18, 2009, 2:41 p.m. CST

    I concur - MI3 was good fun!

    by NeilF

  • March 18, 2009, 2:44 p.m. CST

    yeah not one GREAT film in this series

    by SomaShine

  • March 18, 2009, 2:46 p.m. CST

    Fuck this

    by technotranceporter

    Tom Cruise is the shit. I'd watch him him do anything. ANYTHING.

  • March 18, 2009, 2:46 p.m. CST

    FIRST - eat a dick. Seriously. It's OVER.

    by noncents

    The hand farting is the best part about this news.

  • March 18, 2009, 2:47 p.m. CST

    The first was a very good "blockbuster"...

    by C Legion

    a hugely underrated, mainstream action thriller. The sequels were, for me, literally unwatchable.<p>Bring back De Palma! Anyone know why he didn't direct the sequels? It's not like the first one bombed, it made a shitload at the BO.

  • March 18, 2009, 2:49 p.m. CST

    MI3 is one of the best action films ever

    by The Chosen

    I put it next to Terminator 2 and True Lies. J.J. Abrahms talent for creating tension is remarkable. Pacing, action, creativity... It's what a big action movie should be like. The second is goofy. The first is nice.

  • March 18, 2009, 3 p.m. CST

    Tom Cruises acting career was drying..

    by emeraldboy

    after Rain Man. He was still hot and he was a pin up. The roles he got demanded nothing more of him then to take his clothes of and smile his toothy smile. But cruise was getting bored of those roles. He wanted to become player and was frustrated that this wasnt happening fast enough. So he took a decision that stunned hollywood. He announced to friends that he was thinking of buying the mission impossible franchise. This was the biggest risk of his cruise's career. Everyone told him it wouldnt work. When he tried to explain the nicholson argument. they laughed. Mission impossible one made well over 150 million worldwide. of that Box office tom cruise took home 100 million. The wretched MI 2 took in 200 million. Cruise take home pay sky rocketed to something like 1.2 billion dollars and Mi3 was no failure. the risk payed off. Cruise is the only ctor in hollywood get one percent of his box office takings. no other actors gets that. Cruise doesnt have to work again. Cruise is unique in that he is the only actor in hollywood. who owns and runs a studio. He can quit tomorrow and nobody would notice. or care quite frankly.

  • March 18, 2009, 3 p.m. CST

    MI3 is one of the best action films ever?

    by Rob0729

    Ok I enjoyed it eventhough I was waiting for Sydney Bristow to pop up at any moment. But one of the best action films ever? I don't even know if I would put it as the best action movie of 2006 (I felt Casino Royale and V for Vendetta were better).

  • March 18, 2009, 3:06 p.m. CST

    M:I-3...ruined by Shakey-Cam

    by Nasty In The Pasty

    It was a pretty good film, but easilly the weakest of the three because of that Parkinson's-Cam BULLSHIT.

  • March 18, 2009, 3:06 p.m. CST

    M:I 3 next to T2 ?!?!

    by Motoko Kusanagi


  • March 18, 2009, 3:11 p.m. CST

    How about Roger Donaldson?

    by skimn

    Made a name for himself in the '80s, with the screwiest of resumes..The Bounty to No Way Out to Cocktail to Species, and so on. But last years The Bank Job was superb, and wasn't that just a cockney MI anyway?

  • March 18, 2009, 3:13 p.m. CST

    Stanley Kubricks Rotting Corpse for M:I 4!!!

    by Kief_Ledger

    make it happen Cruise

  • March 18, 2009, 3:15 p.m. CST

    M:I was boring?!?!

    by cool_britannia79

    Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck right off with that. Best popcorn flick of the 90's.

  • March 18, 2009, 3:19 p.m. CST

    The first Mission Impossible was the only good one.

    by JackPumpkinhead

    But if one didn't get it, there's always an easier alternative, such as "Alien versus Predator".

  • March 18, 2009, 3:25 p.m. CST

    I'm sure DePalma was hired because his previous

    by skimn

    film, The Untouchables, was a big hit for Paramount based on an old '60s TV series. And it is entertaining, but toned down DePalma. No five minute tracking shots and the such. And c'mon, the hanging from the ceiling gag has been referenced by how many shows and movies? Whats funny is that his expertise in the '70s was his use of split screen, which is now done to death on 24.<p>If he's free...a John McTiernan MI??

  • March 18, 2009, 3:28 p.m. CST

    It should be someone old school

    by skimn

    Who knows how to orchestrate an action scene from A to B to C.

  • March 18, 2009, 3:29 p.m. CST

    Best unmasking (SPOILER WARNING)...

    by I am not a number

    .. that I've seen in a movie was in DOMINIQUE IS DEAD. The movie was made in the late 70s, and they were able to pull it off without any fancy CGI trickery. Go to Youtube and search for "Female Masking Scene: Dominique Is dead" to see it (WARNING: VIDEO CONTAINS SPOILER).

  • March 18, 2009, 3:32 p.m. CST

    Oh...I get it...

    by Darth Macchio

    So it's either we're asshole snobs or real movie lovers eh? Being on AICN means we must like all movies even if they suck. Or we must turn in our geek creds?. Gotcha. Check. So my point is correct then, sooner or later, FUCK quality, fuck drawing you into the story, fuck everything and just enjoy the movie or else be labeled an asshole. Brilliant.<p>You know, I actually am very conscious of avoiding being a media snob. Not just movies but music, culture, etc. I'm not a wee rat anymore but my memory is very long and I remember my "elders" mocking my tastes in music and movies. I don't think a REAL difference of opinion comes from purely being older and more "mature" altho it makes for an easy excuse to be a pretentious asshole. I don't mean to say a preference of MI3 to MI1 means you're a booger-eatin moron livin in momma's basement but you must prefer action to story/suspense as I think (read that part again "I think" aka "my opinion") is that MI1 is a thriller and MI3 is an action movie. If you prefer one genre over the other, it doesn't mean you're right or that I'm right either. Maybe, like most of us, you actually like both genre's but that means you can't be absolutist on this and that's all the room we have in our heads. On/Off; yes/no; awesome/suck, etc/<p>But nope, even that's not enough. Nothing worse than someone who comes along and says shit like "You just don't get it, it's not that you didn't like it, you didn't understand it." Of course that's idiocy and arrogant.<p>My thinking is if you think MI1 is boring, with the vault scene, the great restaurant scene, and yes, even the speed train at the end...if you think that's boring and the movie has no action but yet MI3 is full of action, with it's great Vatican scene, the great bridge attack, Cruise going apeshit on Hoffman hanging him out of a plane, the personal twist reveal at the end, etc...well maybe you missed the story and atmosphere that was far more present in the first one? Abrahms is a decent director but if I don't call MI3 a "perfect film" now I'm the snob? And yet you come in here and say all talkbackers are assholes...heheheh...ok. That bullshit goes both ways bub. You insisting people are pricks for not liking something is just as dumbass as said pricks insisting you "don't get it" (implication being you're a dumbass) for movies you didn't like.<p>Now, wouldn't it be more fun for the spectators if you guys just threw shit at each other and picked fleas off each other's dried scalps?<p>Sorry to rant but it seems as soon as more than 2 or 3 posts show up about people not liking something and there being a theme to this dislike, along comes the righteous with the insight into the psyche of each and every talkbacker who has a difference of opinion.

  • March 18, 2009, 3:32 p.m. CST

    there are so many M's in this talkback!!!

    by BadMrWonka

    just scroll up the talkback and look at the sea of M''s weird to look at!

  • March 18, 2009, 3:36 p.m. CST

    Steven Spielberg's MI:4

    by Stuntcock Mike

  • March 18, 2009, 3:41 p.m. CST

    Tarsem Singh for MI:4...

    by iwasredempted

    search your feelings....just don't hire the wanted director. seriously, that would be too safe a directing choice.

  • March 18, 2009, 3:43 p.m. CST

    MI series it pretty damned good!

    by olraz75

    I rather enjoyed MI 1. It was fun. WOO's 2 was pretty kick ass as well. I liked 3 but must say the original was the most enjoyable of the bunch. These flicks are great popcorn summer escapism and I think Cruise can pull this series off as long as the bond series!

  • March 18, 2009, 3:44 p.m. CST

    MI3 was the big budget spy treatment "Alias" deserved....

    by Mr. Profit

    It's a shame. I liked the movie. But it was just like a big budget version of Alias. The "start at the end beginning" that reveals how he got to that point was pure Alias.

  • March 18, 2009, 3:44 p.m. CST

    The first one was NOT boring!

    by Royston Lodge

    I really, really, really enjoyed the first one, ALMOST in its entirety. If my memory serves me correctly, it came out the same year as Goldeneye, and was mostly praised as the movie that Goldeneye should have been. The first MI worked so well because it wasn't all about Tom Cruise! It was about the team, and it included an ensemble cast. (I was actually saddened when Emilio Estevez' character was killed.) NOT casting Cruise in the role of the team's leader was a BRILLIANT move, because it really heightened the suspense when he was cut loose. His character was used to being part of a team and following orders. Having to survive on his own was a foreign concept to him! The first MI was the closest thing to a "realistic" spy movie we would get until Jason Bourne came along. If you can't stomach the "realistic" label, it was certainly closer to a "classic" spy movie than any of Roger Moore's or Pierce Brosnan's Bond flicks. The only thing that ruins the first MI for me is the scene where the helicopter follows the train into the Chunnel, with a flagrant disregard for the laws of physics. As far as I'm concerned, superspy movies are allowed to bend the laws of physics, but they aren't allowed to break them. It destroys the suspension of disbelief. That was the cardinal sin of the Brosnan Bond movies (which curiosly featured an almost identical helicopter law-of-physics violation in Tomorrow Never Dies. You'd think they would have learned from MI's mistake). The MI sequels were SHITE by comparison because 1) they focused way too much on Tom Cruise, 2) they had virtually the same plot as Goldeneye, and 3) they got rid of Henry Czerny and replaced him with Anthony Hopkins, thereby removing all the delicious tension between Cruise and his bureaucratic boss. (Trivia time! I also like that MI features the very first on-screen appearance of Tom Cruise holding a gun.) If they were able to put together a fourth MI movie with the same atmosphere as the first one, and a script with the same level of integrity as Casino Royale/Quantum of Solace, you would end up with a really fine spy flick.

  • March 18, 2009, 3:48 p.m. CST

    Tarsem is busy the whole year...

    by Mr. Profit

    Directing "War of the God's".

  • March 18, 2009, 3:50 p.m. CST


    by WhinyNegativeBitch

    Is one of the worst movies I have ever seen and is blazingly oblivious to the fact that its pretty much a parody of itself and an advertisement for the heterosexuality of Cruise. Really, why bother going back to the fucking well on such a shitty series. Tom should move on and face the fact that hes no longer a movie star.

  • March 18, 2009, 3:51 p.m. CST

    MI Was Not Boring.

    by AgentCross

    It just had no action in it. I don't count Cruise running from a broken fish tank as action...sorry. Also, what's with people saying they didn't understand MI2? More or less it was a rouge IMF Agent that wanted to release a Virus that people would need to pay for the antidote, which only he had.

  • March 18, 2009, 3:52 p.m. CST

    Keep Making Them...

    by A-COD

    ...and I'll keep watching them. The three movies are very different from one another, but I had fun with all 3. They are not perfect but I like them. MI:2 Is a guilty pleasure, I still love the knife in the eyelashes stunt.

  • March 18, 2009, 3:59 p.m. CST

    Going back to the well

    by Faust_8

    Since Valkyrie and Lions for Lambs did so well. You shouldn't have gotten so much press over Katie and pissed off Spielburg. And Paula left UA as well. Still reaching for that blockbuster Tom. Go quietly into that good night.

  • March 18, 2009, 4:05 p.m. CST

    Tony Scott for MI4.

    by ganymede3010

    Come on Tom, I know you're reading this talkback;)

  • March 18, 2009, 4:06 p.m. CST

    First was good, 2nd was lacking (lost the team aspect), 3rd was

    by OgieOglethorpe

    4th? If the story is good, I'm all for it. Also agree with Mr. Profit about the Alias connection. Alias deserved that sort of flick from JJ & Co; too bad that didn't happen for Jennifer instead of "Elektra".

  • March 18, 2009, 4:11 p.m. CST

    Will this one actually be about the TEAM?

    by DarthCorleone

    All three films are a complete betrayal of the spirit of the original show. They are just Tom Cruise action vehicles.

  • March 18, 2009, 4:13 p.m. CST

    Tintin sounds crap, but some retards are actually...

    by WhinyNegativeBitch

    ...Looking forward to this? All three films were giant fucking turds, just like the giant piece of shit TV show they are based on.

  • March 18, 2009, 4:18 p.m. CST

    Why don't they just Reboot M:I without Cruise?

    by Zardozap2005

    That alone would make it about 10x better.

  • March 18, 2009, 4:21 p.m. CST

    Who didn't like MI3?

    by The Funketeer

    Aside from geek fanboys predisposed to dislike it without actually seeing it, that is. First one was good too. 2nd one ended my love affair with all things Woo.

  • March 18, 2009, 4:22 p.m. CST

    M:I was released the year after Goldeneye

    by Acquanetta

    And both films were praised as being entertaining spy flicks. Licence To Kill had nearly derailed the franchise, so very few people were complaining that Goldeneye wasn't serious enough. Mission: Impossible was a great remake, but the sequel was a little too self-indulgent. The third was a very good sequel, and everyone clearly worked hard to make up for the second film. The problem is that it coincided with Cruise's public meltdown. As a result, people weren't sure whether or not it was okay to like MI3.

  • March 18, 2009, 4:26 p.m. CST

    Tom - your career is on shaky ground as it is.

    by hallmitchell

    Don't make MI4. No one cares.

  • March 18, 2009, 4:27 p.m. CST

    George Lucas for MI4!


    I'm sure someone out there is currently scanning just the titles of the Talkback here with a bowl of cornflakes in their mouth. That mouthful is all over their keyboard and I win.<p>I fucking win!<p>EPIC SUCESS.

  • March 18, 2009, 4:28 p.m. CST

    M:I 1 boring?

    by Bola-PUCC

    Frikkin´ Merrick´s on drugs...

  • March 18, 2009, 4:30 p.m. CST

    Remember all those fucking M-I vault parodies?


    They were FUCKING everywhere. Everyone was suddenly being lowered into vaults like Cruise in that first movie. None of the sequels have inspired anything like that.

  • March 18, 2009, 4:33 p.m. CST

    Best Thing about M:I 2-

    by TedKordLives

    Dougray Scott (the least threatening bad guy of all time) got hurt and couldn't do his next role: Wolverine. To all you who think Jackman is ill-suited for the role, think about this poncey pretty-boy jumping around in a leather jumpsuit.

  • March 18, 2009, 4:33 p.m. CST

    Mi:1 is a fantastic thriller!

    by LightninBolt

    It's soooooo fucking entertaining. I remember QT raving about it too. Which back then meant something more.<P>Mi3 is generic and dull like a big budget TV thriller... if you don't have your finger on fanboy taste maybe don't vent for the sake of it?

  • March 18, 2009, 4:34 p.m. CST

    MI = 8.5/10 MI2 = 4/10 MI3 - 7.5/10


    Mr Woo... why did ya do it? :(

  • March 18, 2009, 4:35 p.m. CST

    Best Thing about M:I 2-


    The end credits.

  • March 18, 2009, 4:35 p.m. CST


    by Bola-PUCC

    Mr Woo´s answer: Money. Lots of.

  • March 18, 2009, 4:36 p.m. CST


    by TedKordLives

    The first one's the best-DePalma just before he went screaming over the edge. Woo's is like being beat over the head with a big black dildo, and, as has been said before, 3 looked like the most expensive tv show ever. PSH was pretty badass, tho. As for a fourth, I vote for Peter Berg. I like his style. And his moves.

  • March 18, 2009, 4:36 p.m. CST

    Finally, some people admit MI:3 rocked

    by Crow3711

    But I didn't think the first one was totally boring. I think it still stands up all right. it's the most "espionage" genuine spies doing shit movie than the other two, that's for sure. The second one is flat out miserable, just a piece of shit. But MI:3 had me interested, entertained, and on the edge of my seat many times throughout. It's structured excellently, Phillip Seymour Hoffman is ridiculously awesome. Just so moral-less and grey. Wicked flick. I'm glad to see people finally admitting to like it, because it came out right after the whole "jumping on Oprahs couch, lecturing Matt Lauer, downward spiral" period where no one would look at a Tom Cruise movie with any objectivity. I think Tropic Thunder helped a lot, and that he's been very normal in public since. Anyway, long post, but just saying, I'm glad MI:3 is getting some respect. It was totally badass and well plotted. I credit JJ with a lot of that, BTW

  • March 18, 2009, 4:36 p.m. CST


    by TurdontheRun

    Was the start of Woo's decline into he was, coming off a shaky start to US flicks and just finding his footing with Face/Off. I thought this was going to be his chance to take his shit up a notch with a huge budget and all, and take his stuff to the masses, maybe to show the Wachowskis how it was really done(coming a year after matrix, which of course, cobbled together loads of his tricks). The original trailer made the thing look completely balls out. <p>I sat aghast in the theatre, wading through an hour and a half of absolutely NOTHING interesting happening at all, only to be greeted with a last half hour of wire-fu, doves (or was it pidgeons this time?), and semi-decent action that had had the shit cut out of it. I couldn't care less if it was faithful to the show or not, but Woo had clearly had his fingers snipped by Mr. Cruise Control, who must have insisted that the film be a two hour ode to his 'masculinity' in headache-inducing slow-mo. Woo thus began a slow slide into the toilet bowl from which he has yet to recover (though I haven't seen Red Cliff).

  • March 18, 2009, 4:42 p.m. CST

    I am so not there for another Cruise MI

    by kabong

    Tom doesn't understand that the Impossible Missions Force is a team, not a vehicle for a screen hog.

  • March 18, 2009, 4:45 p.m. CST

    Anyone who enjoyed FACE/OFF

    by LightninBolt

    Deserved to be surprised by Mi:2. EMPIRE magazine and others in the UK had the biggest hard on for it (and SPEED) fucking ridiculous films. Pretty good action films at best. Sigh...<P> Mi:4 - Paul Thomas Anderson please

  • March 18, 2009, 4:48 p.m. CST

    typical sequence of sequels

    by johnnyangelheart

    each movie worse than the previous.

  • March 18, 2009, 4:51 p.m. CST

    MI:4 should be a mindfuck movie...

    by iwasredempted

    should be an ensemble piece about trying to bring down some mob guy a la departed mindfuck thing. it doesn't need to have crazy set pieces. let it have gritty violence. if you get a good script, good director and good pacing that should be enough. scorsese's departed is a good example of this. i can watch that movie over and over again. and also i don't recall that movie having any cgi in it.

  • March 18, 2009, 4:52 p.m. CST

    Why Tom...Why?

    by DoctorWho?

    I've seen all of them yet... I don't remember a single one. Oh a scene here and there...but it all blends together like one big generic blur.

  • March 18, 2009, 4:52 p.m. CST

    Agreed with Talkbackers: MI1 = the best

    by 7Cal

    Well, I agree with the talkbackers that say MI1 was the best of the bunch. Boring? Gimme a freakin break.<p>Some other talkbacker made the Merricks-15-yr-old-son comment so I won't, but let's just say that is the EXACT sort of thing a 15 year old would say, Merrick's son or not. Boring? Really?<p>MI1 is the only one of the three I bothered to get on DVD, and I've watched it more than a couple of times over the years. It's just good ol fashioned entertainment.

  • March 18, 2009, 4:54 p.m. CST

    Face/ Off...

    by TurdontheRun

    Was actually good. Woo did a fine job of taking his HK style to American action films; not to mention the plot, while patently ridiculous, was actually slyly subversive and blackly comic. Plus, it had the last vestiges of Nic Cage when he was still somewhat semi-cool. Would have been even better if it was Arnie and Sly in the dual roles, though, like originally planned. How much fun would that be?<p>Speed, though, has always been overrated. I'll give you that. The first and last thirds of that movie were tacked on rubbish, and some of it looked cheap as hell (don't think it was a big budget, though)<p>MI4 (if it must happen) - how about Chris Nolan (not that he'd do it). His twisty turny psychological style could be perfect for taking the movies back to the double-crossing, mind games route of the original series. Cut back on the action - do a complicated thriller with it instead - like all those 70's thrillers (Parallax View, Three Days of the Condor, etc.)

  • March 18, 2009, 4:58 p.m. CST

    Mission Impossible: Cruise's hair films.

    by skimn

    MI 1: Spiky '80s cut.<p>MI 2: Long and shaggy grunge.<p>MI 3: Preppy neat.<p>MI 4: Shave it off, bald ala Stratham and Walter White.

  • March 18, 2009, 4:58 p.m. CST

    agreed turdontherun..

    by iwasredempted

    you put it more eloquently then i did. absolutely, cut back on the crazy action set pieces.

  • March 18, 2009, 5:07 p.m. CST

    I agree 100%

    by BlueHawaiiSurfer

    With the ensemble cast and gritty action comments. It could take the series in an "interesting" direction. The overblown matrix/action crap is getting old.

  • March 18, 2009, 5:16 p.m. CST

    Every MI Movie is the same!

    by kdoc13

    I'm sorry to everyone who is trying to put them in some sort of good to bad order. Every Mission Impossible movie is the same, the only thing that changes are the stunts and tom crusie's look. Don't believe me? Ok. Which movie has an IMF insider going bad? All three. Which movie has a scene where someone he loves is used against him? All three. The only really cool part of any of the MI films is in the first movie, when there is an actual team, on an actual mission, and Emilio Estevez dies. I want to see MI do an actual mission, and I want it to be badass. I want them to pull off an Ocean's 11 type mission, to stop a Bond type villain, who isn't some sort of ex-IMF insider/spy. They do that, and do it well, they can milk a whole series of movies out of it. But come on, there are only so many ex-spies, turncoats, and disgruntled contractors to go around. I think MI has beat that premise to death!

  • March 18, 2009, 5:18 p.m. CST


    by Zeegloo


  • March 18, 2009, 5:19 p.m. CST

    Ensemble mind-fuck sounds ideal

    by LightninBolt

    Chris Nolan would be cool too. Shame Cruise won't realise that. It may cross his mind but it's too risky now with this franchise. He surely will try and up the violence and grittiness ala Bourne/Bond though...

  • March 18, 2009, 5:24 p.m. CST

    natasha richardson just died

    by supercowbell4therequestformorecowbell

    damn that sucks

  • March 18, 2009, 5:26 p.m. CST

    MI3 kicked ass you haters

    by zillabeast

    And JJ's Star Trek will rule your world!

  • March 18, 2009, 5:30 p.m. CST


    by The InSneider

    Abrams' film was easily the best. It doesn't have the most iconic imagery (Tom on a wire catching the sweat drop, the helicopter exploding at the end of the first one, the motorcycle collision in midair of the second one), but it's by far the best overall movie of the 3, thanks in no small part, to mr. jj abrams.

  • March 18, 2009, 5:33 p.m. CST

    MI3 was a glorified "Alias" episode...

    by Somerichs

    Even the music sounded like it came straight from the TV show. Not that that's an overly bad thing; it was entertaining, and PSH was great, it just didn't feel large-scale, despite the world-trotting and (presumably) high budget.

  • March 18, 2009, 5:40 p.m. CST

    MI:1 and MI:3 were good

    by JacksParasites

    It was only MI:2 that sucked ass. The first was a film classic. And the third was just really fun. My only issue with the 3rd was how it was just a little bit too happy at the end. But the opening to that film might be the finest beginning in action film history. But I kinda wish they'd put the whole thing to rest already because Tom Cruise becomes more unlikable and less and less believable playing the part of a human being every day. In fact, the only good thing I can say about the crappy film "Invasion" was that Nicole Kidman was very believable playing the role of a woman who's the ex-wife of an alien.

  • March 18, 2009, 5:40 p.m. CST

    Which MI Movie Is This Line From?

    by A-COD

    "Would it make you feel better if I didn't want you to go? Then Feel Better".

  • March 18, 2009, 5:45 p.m. CST

    Do it! The first and third are great

    by lockesbrokenleg

    MI 3 is one of the best action movies. Even TDK ripped it off.

  • March 18, 2009, 5:50 p.m. CST

    No more traitors, please.

    by Chewtoy

    If they're going to make another one (and really, I'm surprised anyone is pushing them to do so) then, for the love of God, please come up with a plot that doesn't involve someone in IMF framing Cruise and forcing him to work against his own organization. (That goes for sentient computers too.) Don't have him go rogue, don't have him working as a lone operative that calls in special help now and again. Don't have the plot revolve around some incestuous spy business... no efforts to out undercover agents, or improve funding for the agency, or whatever. Give me a team of highly trained people, backed by a professionally run organization, working in concert to defuse a major danger to the world. Oh, and come up with a satisfying ending, too. That'd be nice.

  • March 18, 2009, 5:58 p.m. CST

    The FIRST one was the best.

    by Banzai Rootskibango

    Straight up. Awesome movie.

  • March 18, 2009, 6 p.m. CST

    MI3 was exactly what the first 2 should've been: Fun

    by MattmanReturns

  • March 18, 2009, 6:02 p.m. CST

    Phillip Seymour Hoffman was brilliant in 3

    by lockesbrokenleg

    I like that shot where Ving looks at him and says, "Hey what's up?" and Hoffman says, "Nothing. What's up with you?"

  • March 18, 2009, 6:07 p.m. CST

    MI3 was really fun.

    by Fenrisulfr

    Never watched the first one. Number two was pure trash. But 3 was really surprisingly good and entertaining.

  • March 18, 2009, 6:09 p.m. CST

    Fuck I love M.I. with Tom Cruise!!!

    by Azlam Orlandu

    The first one is just plain great. The second one was a disappointment for me. The third one was accurate to kenjinattix's criticims which were mostly positive and I agree with. Bring on M.I.4. I'm totally down.

  • March 18, 2009, 6:13 p.m. CST

    Mission: Impossible kicks ass

    by Mattyboy122

    The second one is so ridiculously over the top that it warrants some chuckling. As for the third, I think there's a compelling film in there, but it's too damn long (and gets too damn monotonous, even with a steady stream of action sequences) and Abrams brings a TV atmosphere to the film. Sure, it looks expensive as hell, it has Tom Cruise and others, but it just looked like a TV show. There's something about Abrams where he can't really bring the juice to make it a cinematic experience, it all feels like TV to me.

  • March 18, 2009, 6:17 p.m. CST

    I liked MI 3 as well

    by liljuniorbrown

    I think Phillip Seymore Hoffman was a kick ass baddie. He should do that more often.

  • March 18, 2009, 6:25 p.m. CST

    Your mission should you choose to accept

    by Powerring to make a sequel that doesn't suck as relentlessly as 3. You are charged with making something that is actually intriguing, intelligent and at least as good as an episode of the 60's tv show. The script will self destruct in 5...4...3...

  • March 18, 2009, 6:34 p.m. CST

    MI:1 is fucking gold. MI:3 is insanely fun.


    John Woo- FUCK YOU.

  • March 18, 2009, 6:41 p.m. CST

    Let it be OLIVER STONE! M:I-4

    by The_Genteel_Gentile

    Let it beee, letit be, let it beee, letit be. Olie for director. Let it beee...<p> I like the fact that each film is done by a different and unique director. DePalma's supence and mystery. John Woo's operatic action. JJ Abrams' whiz-bang adventure. Now it's time for a Oliver Stone conspiracy thriller. <p> Mission 1 is the only installment to be truely great. One of the best spy movies ever made and maybe DePalma's most complete and satisfying film (along with The Untouchables). I think M:I-1 is pretty perfect, full of good intrigue, great action, excellent suspense, interesting characters, fine performances, spectacular effects, Danny Elfman's sublime tribute to Lalo Schifrin's original score and a nice intricate plot that DOES make sense (including the ending). I don't know why people were so baffled by the plot when it came out, I always understood it perfectly. It's actually one of the least fancifully baffeling movies DePalma has made, all the dots connect to a smart, logical and gratifying conclusion. <p> I'm not sure we all mised out on that much by not having Fincher do M:I-3, I've seen little evidence that Fincher is adapt at action (David Glenn Hogan diected the action portions of Alien3). Fincher's got better things to do anyway, I for one don't want him waisting his time on things that don't play to his strengths (Benjamin Gump, the only Fincher film I felt could have been, and already was, directed better by someone else). <p> I've enjoyed all the films in this series, I hope it can continue forward with or without Cruise.

  • March 18, 2009, 6:48 p.m. CST

    The_Genteel_Gentile -- I agree with 98% of your post.


    You are too right dude. Now fuck off.

  • March 18, 2009, 6:48 p.m. CST



  • March 18, 2009, 6:51 p.m. CST

    I don't get why everyone HATES M:I-2

    by The_Genteel_Gentile

    I's was a cool reworking of Hitchcock's Notorious, with John Woo signature "Sergio Leone meets the ballet" style all over it. Everytime I see it on TV, I'm compelled to stop and watch a while. Not a great film but some good fun all the same. At least it didn't try to be the same exact film as the first. I'll never understand all the hate.

  • March 18, 2009, 6:52 p.m. CST

    MI:4 - Replace Tom Cruise with Christian Bale

    by scriptgirl_nipples

    And I might just give a fuck.

  • March 18, 2009, 6:52 p.m. CST

    And this is what Tom said...

    by Sal_Bando

    "...Yeah it's really cool-we've got some Thetan coming in-Travolta plays them-4 roles at once this time-and we have Erika Christensen as his pissed off Half-Thetan, half human daughter, and she builds these blue nuke reactors and hides them all over the globe set to go off-and tries to pin it all on me-"

  • March 18, 2009, 6:54 p.m. CST

    DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD - I agree with 75% of you post.

    by The_Genteel_Gentile

    'cept for the end. <p> "How Rude!" - Michelle Tanner & Jar Jar Binks

  • March 18, 2009, 6:57 p.m. CST

    Ya know some'yall' are WORSE than a church sewing circle

    by The_Genteel_Gentile

    gossiping about peoples religions and relationships. Who cares?

  • March 18, 2009, 6:58 p.m. CST


    by big_twinkie

    You've been called out. Explain your opinion that MI:1 is boring. Was it the bit when all the agents get bumped off? Was it when the fish tank explodes? Was it the noc-list heist? Was it the helicopter flying through the FUCKING CHANNEL TUNNEL TIED TO THE BACK OF A TRAIN?

  • March 18, 2009, 7:07 p.m. CST

    Bring back Peter Graves as Jim Phelps. No, seriously!

    by The Ghost of Scrappy Doo

    The solution is simple: "Jim Phelps" is a code name like "Mr. Smith" or "007." So you bring back Peter Graves (if he's still able to perform) as the original Phelps back in action as Hunt's boss and Jon Voight's Phelps was his traitorous replacement.

  • March 18, 2009, 7:11 p.m. CST

    MI:2 is a reworking...

    by Baryonyx

    ...of Alfred Hitchcock's Notorious (as The_Genteel_Gentile has pointed out): in both films the hero must send the woman he loves into the arms of the villain, and he hates himself for having to do this. MI:2's rock-climbing scene looks great, as does the motorbike action at the end. And Dougray Scott makes for a decent villain.

  • March 18, 2009, 7:18 p.m. CST

    Smash Drama - I like that idea.

    by The_Genteel_Gentile

    I remember thinking something along those lines back when the first film came out too. Never thought about bringing Graves back though, he may be too old now, the best way to explain that idea is to bring in a new Phelps propbably. But if were bringing Graves back, then I'd like to see Leonard Nemoy and Martin Landau return as well. Yeah, I don't know how they'd make that work either. Maybe a old case from back in the day becomes relevent again for some reason, and the geezers are wheeled in to assist with what they know. I admit that does sound stupid and gimmicky though.

  • March 18, 2009, 7:18 p.m. CST

    The first one was OK

    by Xiphos_2

    The second one was god awful and the third one was hampered by the shitastic writing duo of Kurtzman and Orci. Those two are the semi-human equivalent of shit flinging monkeys.

  • March 18, 2009, 7:22 p.m. CST

    MI:1 had ONE really great sequence (you know which one)

    by CreasyBear

    and the rest was boring: all hammy overacting with no bang. Okay, except for the helicopter Chunnel blast, that was decently fun. MI:2 was complete ass. MI:3 was a complete, fun spy movie. How can some of you hate it? The plot was respectable for a big, fluffy summer action movie, PSH made for a great villain, the pacing was quick and lively, . . . I don't understand how you can outright hate MI:3.

  • March 18, 2009, 7:24 p.m. CST

    Needs more Maggie Q

    by lockesbrokenleg

    Oh yeah

  • March 18, 2009, 7:27 p.m. CST

    Abrams, Kurtzman and Orci FUCKING RUIN everything!

    by scriptgirl_nipples

  • March 18, 2009, 7:30 p.m. CST

    I liked how MI 3 started

    by lockesbrokenleg

    with the teaser where you don't know where its at in the movie. I thought that was great.

  • March 18, 2009, 7:30 p.m. CST

    Maggie Q

    by big_twinkie

    Oh god yes..

  • March 18, 2009, 7:31 p.m. CST

    RIP Natasha Richardson

    by Sal_Bando

    Dang. That was quick. That's sad. She was pretty good.

  • March 18, 2009, 7:34 p.m. CST

    Christian Bale for MI:4 would have to be a 15min film

    by vaudeville villain

    he'd kill everyone in IMF before they could get a chance to go rogue... and if the first 3 movies are any indication, you know at least one of them would've.

  • March 18, 2009, 7:35 p.m. CST

    Cruise's only franchise= why its being made

    by #1 Zero

    This franchise is essentially Tom Cruise's James Bond or Indiana Jones or Die Hard. Its his commercial property and probably a guaranteed successful box office which means he can reestablish his "worth" to hollywood after his bug out episodes of three or four years ago. Its funny though, basically it was his turn as Lex Grossman in Tropic Thunder that got him this franchise back. Remember after MI III only did so so, Sumner Redstone or whoever runs the studio that puts out MI series took Cruise off of it saying his bad press cost it $100 million at the B.O. So I guess that's all patched up, but anyway its weird that his comedic performance got him back in the good graces and not Valkyrie. I don't really know how well that one actually did.

  • March 18, 2009, 7:36 p.m. CST

    "Is this news making you very upset?"

    by TedKordLives

    "Cruise you've never seen me very upset." <P> Best scene in the whole series, for my money.

  • March 18, 2009, 7:38 p.m. CST

    Cool scene in Part 3

    by lockesbrokenleg

    where Ethan hangs Hoffman out of the plane's cargo hold. Brilliant.

  • March 18, 2009, 7:41 p.m. CST

    M:I 2

    by TedKordLives

    Watching that was like watching a flaming, gold-plated frieght train roll by for two hours in slow motion.With doves.

  • March 18, 2009, 7:42 p.m. CST

    M:I-3 had the best team element.

    by The_Genteel_Gentile

    And is closest to the original television show. So that was a good idea. I do agree it's like a big budget episode of Alias, but that's alright, Alias started off as being a really good show. Michael Giacchino of course did do the music for Alias, but his score for M:I-3 harkens back to all of Lalo Shifrin's vintage themes from the show. I also appreciate that Abrams & co tried to explained HOW they get all those mask, which was always a lingering question and really should have been addressed in M:I-2.

  • March 18, 2009, 7:44 p.m. CST

    funny to accuse of ripping Alias

    by Boborci

    because when Alex and JJ and I were working on Alias, many at the time called it a rip off of the original mission impossible series.

  • March 18, 2009, 7:46 p.m. CST

    Crusie in Valkyrie was miscast.

    by scriptgirl_nipples

    He wasn't good, and wasn't dire. But he shouldn't of been in that role. The film had an awful script, was lacking in suspense was just plain awkward.

  • March 18, 2009, 7:49 p.m. CST

    MI is the best

    by Mr. Zeddemore

    Voight may be hammy, but he's a fantastic antagonist. PSH is great in III, but Voight sells his role with every line... and is a complete prick to Hunt in increasingly hilarious ways.

  • March 18, 2009, 7:51 p.m. CST


    by scriptgirl_nipples

    Tell JJ, he looks a prize nonse.

  • March 18, 2009, 7:53 p.m. CST

    Yeah, bring back Magie Q & Jonathan Ryse Meyers

    by The_Genteel_Gentile

    along with Ving Rhames. What about Henry Czerny (Kittridge), Dale Dye, Anthony Hopkins, Laurence Fishburne, Michelle Monaghan and Simon Pegg as well.

  • March 18, 2009, 7:57 p.m. CST

    Boborci - Hey, what up!

    by The_Genteel_Gentile

    Yeah, it's very obvious that Mission was one of the inspirations behind Alias. You're not saying it wasn't right?

  • March 18, 2009, 7:59 p.m. CST

    so no respect for natasha richardson?

    by supercowbell4therequestformorecowbell

    but you guys fuckin post scriptgirl reports all the least recgnize its liam neesons wife for fucks sake

  • March 18, 2009, 8:11 p.m. CST

    MI 2 sucked harder than a Rush Limbaugh show

    by lockesbrokenleg

    Only cool scene was where he was rock climbing

  • March 18, 2009, 8:16 p.m. CST

    MI 3 was fucking ace.

    by MMacKK

  • March 18, 2009, 8:20 p.m. CST

    MI 1 WAS boring!

    by BigTuna

    What's with the stupid comments about 15 year olds and having no attention span? The first MI was freaking boring. As dull a summer blockbuster as ever has been made.

  • March 18, 2009, 8:22 p.m. CST

    scriptgirl_nipples - Disagree with you on every point regarding

    by The_Genteel_Gentile

    I thought Valkyrie was surprisingly great. Very taut and suspensful. I like the way Singer sets up the contrivance of having everyone speak in their normal english accents with the beginning diary voiceover in German slowing overlapping and going into english. Cruise always brings alot of conviction to his performances, Valyrie was no exception. The whole conspiracy plot was meticulously laid out and full of tension. The characters are given just enough background so as to be compelling but not a distraction. The camera work is deliberate, the editing crisp. John Ottman provided an effectively slow burning score to keep accelerating Christopher McQuarrie's compactly precise script. My only complant would be the choice to use digital camera's (although it wasn't really noticible).

  • March 18, 2009, 8:27 p.m. CST


    by Mr. Zeddemore

    Alias was a cracking good show, boss. And if it was inspired by MI, then Alias in turn inspiring MI:3 is a nice bit of full-circle. <p> Only problem with MI:3 for me is that it took JJ away from ending Alias properly.

  • March 18, 2009, 8:27 p.m. CST

    RIP Natasha Richardson

    by kershner


  • March 18, 2009, 8:32 p.m. CST

    RIP Natasha Richardson.

    by Fenrisulfr

  • March 18, 2009, 8:39 p.m. CST


    by Get_Me_An_18-Man_Fire_Team_In_12_Hours

    How UNPROFESSIONAL! Seriously, fuck this movie. Nothing comes close to M:i2!

  • March 18, 2009, 8:50 p.m. CST

    vaudeville villain -- amen.


  • March 18, 2009, 9:03 p.m. CST

    Matt Lauer as the new villain.

    by lockesbrokenleg

    He's so glib

  • March 18, 2009, 9:03 p.m. CST

    no one liked 2?

    by Joker Gordon Levitt

    "Tha baul's in yourr courrt naue, Hoont.."

  • March 18, 2009, 9:05 p.m. CST

    I liked 2.

    by The_Genteel_Gentile

  • March 18, 2009, 9:06 p.m. CST

    they were all ok

    by Jesiah

    Ethan hunt is my coat role model. I have a leather blazer because he looked to cool in his in mi1. In april 2000 I saw at gap for $40 this leather jacket similar to the one he wore in mi2. And because he looked cool in that brown suede/leather(?) coat in mi3, when I saw a similar looking one with a faux fur hood a costco I bought one light brown one and one regular brown one (everyone seems to love those jackets most out of my whole wardrobe). Other than being entertaining spEYE candy (see what I did there?) being an inspiration for my wardrobe is all I could hope for; Wonder who'll take the directorial reins for mi4.......or better yet, what kind of jacket he'll wear muhahahahahah

  • March 18, 2009, 9:21 p.m. CST

    2 was so silly.

    by lockesbrokenleg

    I liked the set up, but the slow mo scenes really made me very sleepy

  • March 18, 2009, 9:38 p.m. CST

    Two had the Milli Vanilli mid air flying chest bump

    by Sal_Bando

    Off those speeding crotch rockets. STOOPID STOOPID STOOPID

  • March 18, 2009, 9:40 p.m. CST

    Get John Woo back!!

    by GibsonUSA Returns

    Haters can kiss my butt!! lol<BR><BR> The main criticisms against MI2 were due to the writing. John Woo did not write the thing, fools!!

  • March 18, 2009, 9:41 p.m. CST

    My MI4 plot: Dan Briggs' mission: kill Ethan Hunt.

    by kabong

    Phelps, you've been avenged.

  • March 18, 2009, 9:42 p.m. CST

    MI2 sucks, 1 & 3 are sweet (if only Crusie vehicles)

    by TallBoy66

    1 is almost All Tom Cruise All the Time (and the plot is too convoluted by half) but it manages to be zippy and have some good performances. 3 is pretty high caliber stuff, it EVEN has a scene where the M:I team acts as a bloody team and gets things done together (possibly the first time it ever happens in these movies), but it does love Cruise a bit too much and JJ's direction overdoses on handheld. But, really, those are mostly just small quibbles with the 1st and 3rd flick. MISSION IMPOSSIBLE 2 IS TERRIBLE!!! That's all it deserves to be talked about.

  • March 18, 2009, 9:48 p.m. CST

    Gibson USA Returns - Good call on Woo

    by samuraiwahoo

    It would be great if they got Chow Yun Fat to play the big bad.

  • March 18, 2009, 9:51 p.m. CST

    Jon Voight kicks ass

    by lockesbrokenleg

    I like it in Part 1, where Hunt has the Phelps mask on and he rips it off.

  • March 18, 2009, 9:54 p.m. CST

    M:I-2 is grossly underrated

    by Nasty In The Pasty

    A cool riff on Hitchcock's Notorious (as well as featuring a total rip-off of the "Stay alive, whatever may occur!" scene from Last Of The Mohicans) and some terrific action setpieces. It's just funny how so many people complained about De Palma's film being too "cold" and "impeneratible", and yet when Woo went for splashy action setpieces and swoony romance (I don't think Cruise has ever had better chemistry with a female co-star than he did with the smokin' Thandie Newton) and a pretty basic "get the virus back" storyline...and everyone suddenly did a 180 on De Palma's original!

  • March 18, 2009, 10:17 p.m. CST

    the films so far...

    by BendersShinyAss

    first one was great. Never laughed so hard as when someone farted during that extended quiet scene. <p> The second one is quite possibly the most pointless film in history. <p> 3 was good... except for the happy slow motion waving and clapping and laughing ending. what a cop out load of shit. she should have been killed and remained dead. THAT would have been a ballsy film. erh.... i shudder just thinking about it. what a fuck up. <p> anyone else notice that MI:2 was helmed by trek personel while now trek is helmed by MI:3 personel.... is it paramount giving out orders or just a coincidink?

  • March 18, 2009, 10:20 p.m. CST

    Wasn't MI:3 made for TV? Seemed like it...

    by Flip63Hole

    Definitely the worst of the bunch. At least MI:Poo had Woo Doves in it. And MI ruled. One of the more fun and exciting spy films I've seen. Loved what DePalma did with it.

  • March 18, 2009, 10:25 p.m. CST


    by The_Genteel_Gentile

    *Keeping in the spirit of chosing different, high profile, action proficient directors with distinct styles for each subsequent mission. Here are my best choices for M:I-4 director and exampels of why. <p> 01. OLIVER STONE (JFK, Nixon)<p> 02. STEVEN SPIELBERG (Munich, Catch Me If You Can, Minority Report) <p> 03. JAMES CAMERON (True Lies, Aliens) <p> 04. JOHN MCTIERNAN (Die Hard, Predator, Hunt For Red October, Thomas Crown Affair) <p> 05. MICHAEL MANN (Heat, The Insider, Collateral) <p> 06. TONY SCOTT (Spy Game, Enemy Of The State, Man On Fire, Crimson Tide, Top Gun) <p> 07. EDWARD ZWICK (Blood Diamond, The Siege) <p> 08. WOLFGANG PETERSEN (In The Line Of Fire, Das Boot, Air Force One, Outbreak) <p> 09. MARTIN SCORSESE (Casino, The Departed, The Aviator) <p> 10. RIDLEY SCOTT (Black Hawk Down, GI Jane, Body Of Lies) <p> 11. MICHAEL BAY (The Rock, The Island, Bad Boys) <p> 12. KATHRYN BIGELOW (The Hurt Locker, Point Break, Strange Days, K-19) <p> 13. ANTOINE FUQUA (Tears Of The Sun, Shooter, Training Day, Bait, Replacement Killers) <p> 14. PETER BERG (The Kingdom, The Rundown) <p> 15. LUC BESSON (Leon, La Femme Nakita) <p> 16. RICHARD DONNER (Assassins, Conspiracy Theory, Lethal Weapon) <p> 17. BRIAN SINGER (The Usual Suspects, Valkyrie, X-Men) <p> 18. STEPHEN HOPKINS (24, Judgement Hight, Blown Away, Under Suspicion) <p> 19. ANDREW DAVIS (Under Siege, The Fugitive, The Package, The Guardian) <p> 20. RENNY HARLIN (Cliffhanger, Long Kiss Goodnight, Die Hard 2) <p> THE REST: Martin Campbell, Christopher Nolan, Doug Liman, Paul Greengrass, Roger Donaldson, William Friedkin, Steven Soderbergh, Peter Weir, Adrian Lyne, Jan DeBont, Florent Siri, Jean Francois Richet, Louis Letterier, John Badham, Peter Hyams, Phillip Noyce, F. Gary Gray, Simon West, Dominic Sena, John Moore, Brett Ratner, McG, Corey Yuen, Roland Emmerich, Stephen Norrington, Mimi Leder, Phil Alden Robinson, Jon Amiel, Michael Caton-Jones.

  • March 18, 2009, 10:39 p.m. CST

    JOE CARNAHAN hasn't proven his action prowess yet.

    by The_Genteel_Gentile

    Although he showed potential with his BMW short for The Hire series. But Smokin' Aces was a step backwards from Narc. I already saw Domino, and Tony Scott HAS proven his action prowess. I did,'y particularly care for his low budget debuet feature Blood, Guts, Bullets & Octane, so I'm still not certain about this guy.

  • March 18, 2009, 10:41 p.m. CST

    MI3 was the best, and it had the best ending.

    by Evangelion217

    Why even try to continue the franchise?? :(

  • March 18, 2009, 10:56 p.m. CST

    Bring back Abrams. MI3 was awesome.

    by polyh3dron

    People allowed their views of Cruise's personal life affect their opinion of MI3 more than the actual movie. Number 2 was shit with the masks and everything but 3 knocked it out of the park. I'm all for this if they bring back Abrams.

  • March 18, 2009, 10:57 p.m. CST

    MI:2 for the Australian crowd

    by BendersShinyAss

    Never has an american produced in australia film been so laughed AT during a screening. People litteral threw lollies at the screen, and the owners were just like "yeah... it's pretty fucking bad, hey?" <p> I've tolen a couple pounds now I'm orf to tha loo. then I'll have some shrimp from a barbie down Bazza's place. <p> And when it was over everyone just pointed and laughed when ever Tom Cruise walked the city streets. <p> the film was hitchcockian?? buuuuulshit. it wasn't even jon woo!

  • March 18, 2009, 10:57 p.m. CST

    RE: Flip63Hole

    by polyh3dron

    yeah let's say something looks made for TV solely based on the fact that a guy involved with lots of TV shows wrote and directed it. lolololololololololololol

  • March 18, 2009, 11:05 p.m. CST

    Television is where JJ Abrams belongs.

    by scriptgirl_nipples

    Because he's shit in the film world.

  • March 18, 2009, 11:09 p.m. CST

    Oh I fucking love Tony Scott. And I would take him over Joe.....


    .....but I think there is a much greater chance Joe would take the gig.

  • March 18, 2009, 11:25 p.m. CST


    by genrefanboy

    MI1 was insane. De Palma is a god and this movie was one of the best spy movies ever made. Only a full retard would have trouble following the plot (the critics biggest complaint). MI2 was goofy fun. Sure it was overlong & OTT but it still worked as a mindless action fest. MI3 was absolutely terrible. The camerwork was reall poor. TV 4:3 framing on a 2:35 canvas and the shaky cam was vomit inducing. The biggest problem however was not the actors performances but the story was just dire DTV level aimed at the PG13 crowd only. No suspense and criminally boring for the most part as the director was well out of his depth which is why the public did not connect with the movie as the direction was poor & even amateur in places. MI4 should have Cruise hire someone who understands what action cinema is about. He should try and patch up things with De Palma and let him do his thing as the man is a genius when given the right budget & material to work with. It will not happen though we will probably get a McG or Ratner MI4!!

  • March 18, 2009, 11:32 p.m. CST

    Someone had trouble following MI:1? Hehehe.


    Really? Jesus Christ-- congratulations, you ARE JUDD APATOW'S TARGET DEMOGRAPHIC!

  • March 18, 2009, 11:40 p.m. CST

    Mr. Zeddemore

    by Boborci

    We were gone from Alias after season 2, and JJ left a year or so later for LOST, not for MI3.

  • March 19, 2009, 12:20 a.m. CST

    Agree, John Woo with Chow Yun Fat as the bad guy

    by GibsonUSA Returns

    Think of the international appeal.<BR> Think of the Cruise/Chow standoff. <BR><BR> Maybe MI4 could be a Woo sequel to MI2 with long hair Cruise, and MI5 can be a JJ MI3 sequel with short hair cruise. Alternate! lol

  • March 19, 2009, 12:27 a.m. CST

    DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD - Apatow's demographic must be critics.

    by The_Genteel_Gentile

    Is there anything as useless as a film critic? Highly doubtful. There's not a one I have full blown respect for. I respect artist not leaches. Peter Travers is probably the least wrong of the bunch. If they really knew what they were talking about they would either be making movies or be hanging their head in depression because they're not making movies. The only scholars of film or those who actually make them. I mean, I know for a fact I could do their jobs better than them, but I'd rather walk into the ocean never to return first. I'd be willing to read or watch actual filmmakers critique each other though, as long as they had to say it directly to one another's face, and endure a response. I'll pay good money to that show. Can you imagine Oliver Stone critiquing Michael Bay straight to his face, or vice versa. Now that would be worth while entertainment.

  • March 19, 2009, 12:48 a.m. CST

    Although DANNYGSDB

    by The_Genteel_Gentile

    Filmmakers are usually very politic so as not to upset their Hollywood masters, so it would never work. Remember that Spielberg produced game show On The Lot, where struggling directors made short films and had them judged by guest filmmakers? I recall Michael Bay was the only one with enough nerve to tell people the truth and give some insightful advise, meanwhile people like Brett Ratner, Gary Marshall, Carrie Fisher and D.J. Caruso were spinlessly polite.

  • March 19, 2009, 12:50 a.m. CST

    first MI boring?

    by onezeroone

    it had the best sequence of ALL MI movies, maybe of all heist-action movies. Me and my buddy travelled across statelines coz no screen in our town was screening it [well, not on first day] and I have a very strong memory of a hall full of people, deadly silence... only to be broken by collective release of breath that every single person was holding. You know which scene am talking about.<p> MI3 was... okay. Never been an Alias fan so maybe that put me off MI3.

  • March 19, 2009, 1 a.m. CST

    onezeroone - Yeah man, remember that bead of sweat

    by The_Genteel_Gentile

    slowing rollin off the frame of Cruise's glasses and falling in slow motion toward the previously set up weight sensitive floor (the drop of condensation from a beverage), all in complete silience. Ahh that was great! DePalma's the master of suspensful setpieces.

  • March 19, 2009, 1:20 a.m. CST

    Yeah. Agreed. Great set piece.


    DePalma is the master of two things-- the tense set piece, and hammering cunt with a clenched fist.

  • March 19, 2009, 2:38 a.m. CST

    I fucking love M:I-3.

    by a goonie

    So I'm all for a fourth installment, as long as a talented director is attached. I still really like Cruise in the Ethan role and I loved the energy he brought to the third movie. I'd love to see Abrams return to the director's chair, but if that doesn't happen, then maybe Martin Campbell could take a stab at this franchise.

  • March 19, 2009, 3:10 a.m. CST

    genrefanboy - yep

    by LightninBolt

    Couldn't agree more. The amount of love for Mi:3 on here really shocks me. I think people WANT to be entertained and anything reasonable is enough now. Maybe I should watch it again, don't think so though.<p>And yeah I vividly remember all the criticisms of Mi:1's plot. Hilarious and sad, it was definitely massively critically underrated.<p>WOuld prefer Fincher over Oliver Stone for 4

  • March 19, 2009, 3:13 a.m. CST

    I understood MI and saw it in theaters....

    by GibsonUSA Returns

    The thing is though, it has the least replay value of the three.<BR> Like when i wanna just casually play a movie with the surround blasting, I definately put in MI2 first. <BR>

  • March 19, 2009, 3:18 a.m. CST

    The bead of sweat was awesome the 1st few times...

    by GibsonUSA Returns

    But how many times can you replay it?<BR><BR> Often times, "good" movies have low casual replay value. Sometimes the way they are simply make em impractical for casual quick replay viewing. I understand here on AICN there are some proud geeks that watch full TV seasons on DVD back to back...but dude. You know what I mean.<BR><BR> The most recent two MIs have higher replay value. When I go to my friends house to test the sound system, one of the first DVDs we put in is MI2 and skip to the last sequence where Ethan is escaping, followed by the bike chase and all that. AWESOME. Watched that sequence 10000000x more than the sweat bead sequence from MI, though that scene was awesome too for the first few times.

  • March 19, 2009, 3:57 a.m. CST

    MI: 1 is the shiznit Merrick, DePalma was perfect

    by zbobroberts

    That is how you film a goddamn movie. To this day it still takes my breath away in many places, and not just from the effective suspense but also from the bravura film-making. <p> MI: 2 was a poor fuckin excuse of a movie. The cinematography was sublime but how can John Woo make a boring action movie(cough Payback)???? <p> MI: 3 gained back some street cred by at least having a plot and decent characterisations.

  • March 19, 2009, 4:08 a.m. CST

    In fact if he's gonna go back to the well, the Cruister should<p

    by zbobroberts

    Other examples of his greatness....<p> Scarface, The Untouchables, Casualties of War, Carrie, Carlitos Way.

  • March 19, 2009, 4:24 a.m. CST

    also(some people gonna have a problem with this) but.....

    by zbobroberts

    after watching Valkarie I gotta throw Bryan Singers hat in the ring. Fuckin cool old school flick.

  • March 19, 2009, 5:24 a.m. CST


    by Mr Gorilla

    I agree. I thought the De Palma one was super-stylish. Very exciting. And even quite scary (when everyone started dying in Prague). Not a film with much emotion, but brilliantly executed. The third one was a fantastically enjoyable blockbuster. JJ Abrams delivered some genuinely exciting moments, and it was fuelled by great performances. A 4th would be great, but it strikes me that this is a difficult genre to pull off. Only a clutch of directors could pull it off. And, god, they need a brilliant, brilliant script.

  • March 19, 2009, 6:28 a.m. CST

    A decent trilogy

    by Baryonyx

    MI: 1 Best moments: the opening mission, then the killing of Hunt’s team. The exploding fish tank. The breaking-into-the-CIA-vault sequence. The Channel Tunnel finale. Less good: film flags slightly before the vault sequence. Trains can’t pass one another in the Channel Tunnel (because the tunnels are separated.) Good villains played by Jon Voight and Jean Reno (but surely Jim Phelps couldn’t become a bad guy?) MI: 2 Best moments: ‘Ethan’ killing his scientist mate on the plane (but it’s Scott, not Ethan.) The rock-climbing scene. The car chase ‘mating ritual’ on a cliff-hugging road. The skyscraper lab break-in. The escape from the island/bike chase/fight on the beach finale. Less good: Story is too romantically-inclined for some viewers. The Aussie IMF agent (played by John Polson) is lame. Decent villains played by Dougray Scott, Brendan Gleeson and Richard Roxburgh. MI: 3 Best moments: shooting-Ethan’s-wife shock opening scene. The abandoned factory/helicopter chase through the wind turbines sequence. The Vatican break-in/how-the-masks-are-made set-piece. The Shanghai skyscrapers/fulcrum scene. The drone attack on the bridge scene. The final confrontation with Philip Seymour Hoffman. Maggie Q is the hottest female in the three movies. M:I3 has the most likeable IMF team and is most like the original TV show. Less good: the Hunt-trying-to-live-a-normal-life story-line. Hoffman’s off-screen demise. Great villains played by Philip Seymour Hoffman and Billy Crudup All three movies: Ving Rhames is okay in all three. The theme tune is brilliantly used in the trilogy.

  • March 19, 2009, 6:39 a.m. CST

    Ratner will direct. Mark my words.

    by ricarleite

  • March 19, 2009, 8:43 a.m. CST

    Series has never had a good plot

    by Laserhead

    The Jim Phelps Plan in MI:I was ludicrous and made no sense, when you thought about it. If Phelps knew they were hunting him and framed Ethan as the mole, then he'd know that disc stolen in the beginning was a fake. Yet he still tried to sell it to Max. Then the movie wants you to think that Phelps knew Hunt would escape the frame, and he knew that Hunt would try to steal the actually NOC-list, knew he would succeed, and knew he could steal the money from him when he sold it to Max. A plan with that many contigencies isn't a plan at all-- it's bullshit. And there's no reason for Hunt to even steal the real NOC-list, because he never lets Max verify it anyway. Cruise at least had good hair in that one.<p>MI:3 was almost decent, but how about the Laurel and Hardy routine between Cruise and Moynahan while he had the bomb up his nose at the end? How about for the next installment, the villain ISN'T a rogue MI agent? Huh?

  • March 19, 2009, 9:05 a.m. CST

    There's no way he'd do it now, but...

    by DanielKurland

    Fincher would be good. De Palma's was NOT boring.

  • March 19, 2009, 9:49 a.m. CST

    da da da don don doodoo dooodoo

    by greekloveropa

    yea baby yea

  • March 19, 2009, 11:18 a.m. CST

    C'mon, nobody had trouble following MI:1

    by Stuntcock Mike

    Except maybe Gene Shalit. He had process cheese on his 'stache the whole time. It was fucking DISTRACTING!

  • March 19, 2009, 11:24 a.m. CST

    Fucking Tintin? Who is interested in that shit?

    by Stuntcock Mike

    The Beard can, and has, done better. He's above that crap.

  • March 19, 2009, 11:29 a.m. CST

    The last 20 minutes of MI:2 makes up for the previous 1:40

    by Stuntcock Mike

    Flying motorbikes, Cruise-Fu. Why the fuck not?

  • March 19, 2009, 12:32 p.m. CST

    Can't wait for Tom Cruise to suffer a stroke!

    by Snake Foreskin

    You know it's just a matter of time. Then Katie will be free. And the population crisis will be solved since right now Tom Cruise's ego is occupying a space roughly the size of all our oceans combined. Do the world a favor, Tom, and stroke out.

  • March 19, 2009, 12:41 p.m. CST

    How to do an MI:4 movie properly.

    by Royston Lodge

    1) Tom Cruise should be in it. If they made it without Tom Cruise the "where's Tom" publicity would overshadow the movie.<p> 2) Ethan Hunt should not be the leader of the team. He should return to his rightful place as the "master of disguise" member of the team. A possible plot hook: Hunt's retired from the CIA and recruited for "one last impossible mission", but the powers-that-be don't trust him enough to lead the team. Hunt has to adjust to taking a back seat since he's so used to being the team leader.<p> 3) Bring back Henry Czerny as the team's handler. It would nicely explain why the CIA refuses to let Hunt be the team's leader.<p> 4) Do not make it a traitor story.<p> 5) Do not make the villain an evil multi-national corporation.<p> 6) Try to cast a pretty big name to play the new team leader.<p> 7) Do not write it so Hunt and the new guy are hostile at the beginning of the movie but gain respect for each other by the end. Keep 'em hostile for the whole movie. This would keep things interesting for a possible MI:5.<p> 8) Base the plot on one of the James Bond novels that was brutalized when it was adapted for the big screen, or one of the Bond short stories that was never adapted for the big screen. Change it JUST enough so Eon can't sue. Personally, I'm fond of From A View to a Kill (the short story).<p> 9) If you can't get the rights to a Bond story, base the plot on some pulp spy novel that was never a bestseller. There are tons of them out there. I remember reading A Raft of Swords (I don't remember the author's name) and thinking it was a mediocre book but that it could make a pretty decent movie.<p> 10) I think it's a pretty good rule of thumb that, just as good novels often make for bad movies, bad novels can often make for good movies.

  • March 19, 2009, 2:20 p.m. CST

    GibsonUSA Returns - Gotta agree.

    by The_Genteel_Gentile

    M:I-2 is highly watchable, probably more so than it's superior predecessor. Kind of the same way I think The Lost World is more watchable than Jurassic Park. It's inferior, but maybe those flaws are what make it so interesting. Judgement Night is one of my all time favorite replay value movies. I can also watch Adrian Lynes' Lolita, Hollow Man, Starship Troppers, The Predator/ Alien/ Lethal Weapon/ Beverly Hills Cop/ Back To The Future/ Rocky/ Rambo series', The Die Hard films and all their knockoffs, Conspiracy Theory, The Running Man, Commando, Kindergarden Cop, Last Action Hero, 13th Warrior, Wayne Kramer's Running Scared, Pee-Wee's Big Adventure, U-Turn, Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas and ANYTHING from Kubrick, Malick, Tarantino or The Coen Bros at the drop of a hat. Can just watch'em over and over without ever getting tired of them.

  • March 19, 2009, 2:24 p.m. CST

    Royston Lodge - Tommy Lee Jones for 'Team Leader'.

    by The_Genteel_Gentile

    Or even better: MEL GIBSON! I could dig Costner or Kurt Russell doing it too. Someone you believe would be a no nonsense leader of men.

  • March 19, 2009, 3:18 p.m. CST

    Not Sure

    by Cobbio

    I haven't liked one "Mission Impossible" movie. The first wasn't horrible, it just wasn't good. The second was overblown and stupid beyond belief, and ended up on my Worst Movies of All Time list. The third was slightly better than the second, but Cruise overacting all over the place when he's required to be subtle and blend in made me laugh. I thought it was hugely stupid, meaningless movie.<p> So I'm not terribly excited about a fourth installment. Cruise seems like a nice guy despite his delusional religious beliefs, but every movie I've seen him in recently has been over-the-top bad. I wonder if he can even act anymore.

  • March 19, 2009, 3:33 p.m. CST

    The problem with M:I 2 is John Woo

    by RobertBaron

    His direction was a parody of itself. And his style didn't really fit. The entire theatre erupted in laughter when Tom Cruise walked through the door and the doves flew up.

  • March 19, 2009, 5:21 p.m. CST


    by Charlie_Allnut

    Loved the 1st was actually an espionage thriller instead of a retarded Michael Bay style action movie w/ out the blood and tits. Hated the last two. Reboot this franchise and actually make it a team effort.

  • March 19, 2009, 5:42 p.m. CST

    Needs some kind of bank heist

    by lockesbrokenleg

    or more twists like 24

  • March 19, 2009, 7:39 p.m. CST

    Ooh. I like the idea of a bank heist.

    by Royston Lodge

    Could be a nice way to tie the plot to the "global economic crisis".

  • March 19, 2009, 7:40 p.m. CST

    Ooh. I like the idea of a bank heist.

    by Royston Lodge

    Could be a nice way to tie the plot to the "global economic crisis".

  • March 19, 2009, 7:50 p.m. CST

    How does a full "team effort" make sense for Cruise?

    by GibsonUSA Returns

    This is a Cruise vehicle. MI1 made $180 (mil), with the next two making $215 and $134, respectively.<BR><BR> How does de-emphasizing Cruise, and rebooting the thing as a team effort make any sense? Whats the business case? can you guarantee a over $100 mil take? Cause Cruise's minimum is $134 mil so far.

  • March 19, 2009, 9:11 p.m. CST

    The first one was great

    by BBSloth

    after that they went waaaaay down hill.

  • March 19, 2009, 10:38 p.m. CST


    by Vitter


  • March 19, 2009, 10:44 p.m. CST

    Get the alias

    by Phategod2

    Guy I liked PT 3 the best except for the last 5-8 minutes. they went a Return of King like Tangent of non editing.

  • March 20, 2009, 5:32 a.m. CST

    It's time to get the Woo back for another $200 million.

    by GibsonUSA Returns

    People actually say the problem with MI2 was Woo? So you guys saying if another director worked with the exact same MI2 script, it would have been so much better????<BR> imo...thats BS!<BR><BR> In fact I say its the other way around...I say Woo took a pretty average script and spiced it up with some of the most exciting and memorable action sequences in recent memory. The whole rock climbing and bike chase and main fight were AWESOME...and you wouldnt necessarily get that with another director using the same script. IMO Woo made things better than they would have been.<BR> You can bash the dove scene, but people love it. Go on Youtube and you'll see people expressing love for it. Perhaps some of you were in theaters where people laughed at it, but those may simply be instances that dont at all represent the whole. <BR>MI2...the highest grossing MI movie.<BR><BR> Woo, bring that baby back, and bring Chow Yun Fat with you.

  • March 20, 2009, 6:50 a.m. CST

    hey now...

    by The Amazing G

    the first one is a classic 90's action movie

  • March 20, 2009, 6:44 p.m. CST

    Watching The Lost World is like

    by Mattyboy122

    Watching paint dry. God, what a boring film. And you can tell Spielberg was bored out of his mind while making it. As for getting a fourth one off the ground, making Cruise the point man for a team again, rather than the team leader would be cool. Get back to good old-fashioned espionage, rather than wire-fu with doves and brain bombs and shit.

  • March 20, 2009, 8:45 p.m. CST

    Mattyboy122 - Yeah you can tell Spielberg wasn't inspired

    by The_Genteel_Gentile

    You can just imagine him on the set thinking about what he's gonna do on Amastad. But still Spielberg's genius does come through on some of the great action set pieces. I wouldn't Say The Lost World is like watching "paint dry". It's more like watching a train wreck. You feel guilty for staring but you can't seem to turn away. I think it's the deeply flawed nature of Lost World that draws me to it. But also, I don't care what ANYONE says, I KNOW Spielberg REALLY did clone those T-rex's. I mean those thing's are REAL! Compare Spielberg's dinosaurs in his Jurassic Park movies to Jackson's on King Kong. There's no excuse why a film made in 1993, at CG's infancy should be so lightyears more realistic looking than a gigantic budget epic made in 2005. And I'm not talking about the Winston animatronics, I'm talking about when those things are running around eating folks. The scene with the two T-rex's in stomping around in the rain and mud in The Lost World is alone enough to give the film a favorable pass.

  • Feb. 15, 2010, 4:24 a.m. CST


    by TmvEqK

    wUCrhU <a href=" ">cWSVYGg</a>

  • Feb. 15, 2010, 4:25 a.m. CST


    by TmvEqK

    lumOvQS <a href=" ">TtjGOd</a>