Mi:3

by **TiNM@N** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 2:46 pm

With all the odd? behavior from Tom Cruise of late i'm torn on seeing MI:3 this summer. I saw War of the Worlds and thought it was a good flick (even though it made me feel hopeless for 70% of the film).

I don't really know if this behavior is being blown out of proportion by the media / sciencetology / or Cruise himself. I've liked the first 2 films for the fact that he (Ethan Hunt) seem's vulnerable [unlike the James Bond series].

Do you look past and actor/artist/entertainer who you might enjoy their work, but you have a distaste for their personal views/life/attitudes?

Just curious on your thoughts.......

by **Bromsin** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 2:51 pm

I think it will be good. He doesnt usually bring is phycho scientology bullcrap into his acting. He knows that if he did, hes FKed as an actor...

by **Hat Rack** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 3:21 pm

I liked the first movie. The second one was gay. It was like he had "the force" or something.

I wish actors and musicians would keep their personal beliefs aside. They surround themselves with yes men and think they are so smart and cant believe that others would disagree.

by **cartboy519** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 4:25 pm

To me the flick looks pretty good, usually when i want to see a movie i usually don't look at what the actors personal political/social/religious views are. I just go to see the movie if it looks good.

by **JimmyTango** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 4:43 pm

Originally posted by TiNM@N
I've liked the first 2 films for the fact that he (Ethan Hunt) seem's vulnerable [unlike the James Bond series].

That is changing with the new direction of the Bond series.

Trust me, the kept a very graphic scene that can only happen to a man when tortured(especially graphic for the year the book was written).

As for it being a Cruise movie, it will not matter. The first MI was great as it was a smart movie with action not the main part of the movie.

The second one ventured into typical Bond territory, which was lets make a really big explosion, add a motorcycle chase, an RPG with special motorcycle seeking ability, a boar that does 50 foot jumps and a barely clothed woman. Besides the last part, the rest was pointless.

This third one looks to be action first, story second. This means I wait until it is on DVD.

As for Cruise himself, I have learned one thing. Tom Cruise annoys the fuck out of me. It was not even after he started running his mouth about scientology or about his new girl and jumping on furniture while visiting Oprah. He has always annoyed me. Since the first time I saw him in his underwear in Risky Business, he annoys the fuck out of me.

However, he is a damn fine actor, and his movies are usually excellent.

Which annoys me even more. I see the preview for the movie and think 'great, another Tom Cruise movie.'

Then I see the movie and think 'damn it, it was good.'

by **jfmaday** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 5:55 pm

I go to see movies based on what their entertainment value might be. I honestly give two shits less about what actors might be in it. The only names that might make any difference are the directors. Directors like John Woo and Jerry Bruckheimer rarely put out bad movies.

by **TiNM@N** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 6:48 pm

Originally posted by jfmaday
...and Jerry Bruckheimer rarely put out bad movies.

uhh... Pearl Harbor?

by **cartboy519** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 10:48 pm

What are you talking about pearl harbor was a pretty good movie!

by **Evan** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 11:32 pm

Originally posted by cartboy519
What are you talking about pearl harbor was a pretty good movie!

I agree.

by **TiNM@N** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 3:54 am

well i guess i have a different view since i have a more intimate view of the Navy.

Men of Honor was a GREAT Navy Flick..........
Behind Enemy Lines has some great flight scenes and the BEST ejection seat scenes EVER!!!

Just seems like Bruckheimer goes over board at times....

Mi:3

Mi:3

Re: Mi:3

Who is online