not *that* impossible

posted by tom / May 10, 2006 /

Just got back from Mission Impossible 3. I know, I know, don't support the Scientologists, etc. I'm sorry. I'm a sucker for high-tech heist movies. Also, strictly following that dictum would rule out large parts of Hollywood.

The verdict on the movie: indisputably loud. And it sort of made sense. It's not very satisfying, but not disappointing either. A solid entry in a personality-free whizbang franchise.

Anyway, I probably wouldn't mention it at all except at one point the inevitable CIA mole explains that he's behaving the way he is — allowing a dangerous arms dealer to roam free and complete a sale to terrorists — in order to provide justification for a major military campaign in the middle east, which will eliminate the "real enemy" and allow democracy to flourish. It's ripe for being turned into strained analyses of the new anti-neocon zeitgeist, or a segue into a review of the recent Zarqawi revelations. Surely somebody can find the courage to take the afternoon off work, go to the movies, and write up What It All Means for America.

Comments

Is kind of startling resonant with this season's 24. Something in the zeitgeist, I guess.

Posted by: Tones on May 10, 2006 10:38 AM

> I know, I know, don't support the Scientologists, etc. I'm sorry. I'm a sucker for high-tech heist movies. Also, strictly following that dictum would rule out large parts of Hollywood.

Not to mention Beck. Beck. I know... it saddens me as well.

How was Philip Seymour Hoffman?

Posted by: Dan on May 10, 2006 04:34 PM

He was good, although clearly just there until the check cleared. Not a huge amount of screen time either. But his character's menace was sort of grounded in the idea that Tom Cruise was an idiot worthy of scorn — that he was just going to methodically dispense with this annoyance, then move on. So what I imagine was his attitude toward the production actually kind of helped him.

Gotta say though, the way he ultimately meets his end is pretty anticlimactic.

Posted by: tom on May 10, 2006 04:58 PM

When I bought the tickets, I was cursing myself for supporting Scientology. Ugh.

But... I thought it was pretty good for what it is. Long on action, short on plot, and the head charge detonation definitely skeeved me out. And I think PSH makes a great villain. It was definitely very loud - did you see it at gallery place? Even the previews are ridiculously loud.

Posted by: rcr on May 10, 2006 05:46 PM

Agreed with tommy's analysis, though the movie might increase your appreciation for Ving Rhames, who has never once varied character he has played or shaded his quality in the slightest, whether for altruistic or evil or even comedic roles.

Posted by: Kriston on May 10, 2006 05:50 PM

Saw it at the Uptown. It wasn't all *that* loud I guess -- not uncomfortably so. But the constant frenetic jerkiness of the camera during the action sequences (esp. on such a big screen) sort of made it look louder.

Posted by: tom on May 10, 2006 06:07 PM

Gotta say though, the way he ultimately meets his end is pretty anticlimactic.

Also, totally ripped from Speed.

Posted by: heather on May 12, 2006 01:05 PM

Post A Comment

Name


Email Address


URL


Comments


Remember info?



Google Analytics