It's just objectively the worst Mission Impossible. It doesn't excel at anything, action is mediocre, Ethan's storyline with his boring wife is boring, the Rabbits Foot is just a gizmo and the scene where he retrieves it is cut short. On top of that it lacks the fun, light-hearted adventure feeling of the other ones. It's uncomfortable watching people scream in agony from bombs in their brains, or PSH threatening to mock-executing Ethan's wife.
It's just objectively the worst Mission Impossible. It doesn't excel at anything, action is mediocre, Ethan's storyline with his boring wife is boring, the Rabbits Foot is just a gizmo and the scene where he retrieves it is cut short. On top of that it lacks the fun, light-hearted adventure feeling of the other ones. It's uncomfortable watching people scream in agony from bombs in their brains, or PSH threatening to mock-executing Ethan's wife.
>It's just objectively the worst Mission Impossible.
It's the best one behind the first >action is mediocre
it's intense >Ethan's storyline with his boring wife is boring
wrong >the Rabbits Foot is just a gizmo
good
>somehow my pithy one word responses will counter and entirely discredit the original argument despite very obviously being contrarian to fish for based (you)s >heh
Amateur
it has its flaws: namely trying to give Ethan a normal life. But it also has by far the best villain in the entire series that PSH had an absolute ball bringing to the screen. The correct answer as to why Cinemaphile Hates this movie is that it was created by JJ Abrams and Alex Kurtzmann - both of which are filthy hebrew hacks.
He just shows up and stands there threatening to be interesting, but he never is. The villains from all the other films are better. It also chalk full of lame TV tropes like getting married with dumb childrens rings, hospital sex, pot head deadbeat brother, a Vatican heist, lip reading, red herring double cross that you knew was coming, killing a loved one but their not really dead, etcetera. It's a lame soap opera with two non villains.
ill give you most of that. But it has some redeeming stuff. The Vatican heist sequence is pretty good. The scene where Tom in disguise ambushes PSH in the bathroom was pretty good. Billy Crudup twist was shit but Lawrence Fishburne was excellent and well written. The prologue sequence where they introduce Phillip Seymour Hoffman's character is easily the best villain scene in the entire series.
Expectations were low at the time because John Woo fricked up 2 so bad. Sure it had some cool stuff but ugh the writing was so bad and whoever decided to make the whole thing set in like suburban Australia and not in any cool globetrotting locales completely screwed the pooch.
9 months ago
Anonymous
they actually did globetrot but they still fricked it up and made it seem samey and boring. they went to vatican and china
9 months ago
Anonymous
yeah and that was up from 2 where they didnt globetrot at all. The series just was finding its feet and realizing what people wanted to see in 3 and then perfected the formula in Ghost Protocol.
I love it, his wife is hot and the villain was cool and it played up that cold war kinda trope pretty well, but still not as well as MI:1
I prefer 1,3 and perhaps whichever one it was that had Henry cavgill
Because it was made by JJ Abrams, the master of exciting but forgettable bland movies that never leave an impression. It also defined the tone for the rest of the series and it lost its appeal of each movie having a unique feel
>hype this stunt up for literal years >make it a focal point in some of the marketing >film comes out >it actually looks like crap and the ramp is covered in CGI
>>it actually looks like crap and the ramp is covered in CGI
Well duh. How would they explained a massive white structure would be situated on the mountain.
Because israelite israelite is the worst fricking director of all time. It introduced Simon Pegg and he is insufferable in this one. The final battle is laughable, his wife's acting is comical.
I would rate it 6/10. The most interesting aspect though is that it's actually a prequel to Breaking Bad.
You mean Tom Cruise III ?
Checked.
Looks like their programming is breaking
oof ferguson looks like a haggard meth head from that angle
Kirby looks like she'd be an amazing frick.
Because it’s not very good. Sorry, it’s just not.
It’s an action thriller, not a spy film.
/thread
>It’s an action thriller
but without any action or thrills
It's just objectively the worst Mission Impossible. It doesn't excel at anything, action is mediocre, Ethan's storyline with his boring wife is boring, the Rabbits Foot is just a gizmo and the scene where he retrieves it is cut short. On top of that it lacks the fun, light-hearted adventure feeling of the other ones. It's uncomfortable watching people scream in agony from bombs in their brains, or PSH threatening to mock-executing Ethan's wife.
Yeah the first one had that fun mystery conspiracy thing going and the second one had dope action scenes so 3 just felt like a letdown.
you could replace any of the words in this tiresome paragraph with names of random shit in any other mi movie
It's just a long, boring episode of alias
bingo
>It's just objectively the worst Mission Impossible.
It's the best one behind the first
>action is mediocre
it's intense
>Ethan's storyline with his boring wife is boring
wrong
>the Rabbits Foot is just a gizmo
good
>somehow my pithy one word responses will counter and entirely discredit the original argument despite very obviously being contrarian to fish for based (you)s
>heh
Amateur
it has its flaws: namely trying to give Ethan a normal life. But it also has by far the best villain in the entire series that PSH had an absolute ball bringing to the screen. The correct answer as to why Cinemaphile Hates this movie is that it was created by JJ Abrams and Alex Kurtzmann - both of which are filthy hebrew hacks.
He just shows up and stands there threatening to be interesting, but he never is. The villains from all the other films are better. It also chalk full of lame TV tropes like getting married with dumb childrens rings, hospital sex, pot head deadbeat brother, a Vatican heist, lip reading, red herring double cross that you knew was coming, killing a loved one but their not really dead, etcetera. It's a lame soap opera with two non villains.
ill give you most of that. But it has some redeeming stuff. The Vatican heist sequence is pretty good. The scene where Tom in disguise ambushes PSH in the bathroom was pretty good. Billy Crudup twist was shit but Lawrence Fishburne was excellent and well written. The prologue sequence where they introduce Phillip Seymour Hoffman's character is easily the best villain scene in the entire series.
mi3 sucks donky dick and i don't get the hype. jj abrams and kurtzman just poison everything they touch with their bottom drawer goyslop
Expectations were low at the time because John Woo fricked up 2 so bad. Sure it had some cool stuff but ugh the writing was so bad and whoever decided to make the whole thing set in like suburban Australia and not in any cool globetrotting locales completely screwed the pooch.
they actually did globetrot but they still fricked it up and made it seem samey and boring. they went to vatican and china
yeah and that was up from 2 where they didnt globetrot at all. The series just was finding its feet and realizing what people wanted to see in 3 and then perfected the formula in Ghost Protocol.
I love it, his wife is hot and the villain was cool and it played up that cold war kinda trope pretty well, but still not as well as MI:1
I prefer 1,3 and perhaps whichever one it was that had Henry cavgill
It was peak abrams/kurtzman slop and followed the absolute woo-kino that was MI2.
I don't hate it. It also had a great soundtrack.
Because it was made by JJ Abrams, the master of exciting but forgettable bland movies that never leave an impression. It also defined the tone for the rest of the series and it lost its appeal of each movie having a unique feel
The ones after it were all better.
the franchise went to shit after 3
ghost protocol has fun action set pieces.
also the ones before it
What's Sir Tom Cruise's endgame?
Did he died?
do mediocre stunts to market his failing shitty movies
hong kong legends of the 80s and 90s had way better stuntwork and choreography
Ok Jackie Chan calm down.
>hype this stunt up for literal years
>make it a focal point in some of the marketing
>film comes out
>it actually looks like crap and the ramp is covered in CGI
>>it actually looks like crap and the ramp is covered in CGI
Well duh. How would they explained a massive white structure would be situated on the mountain.
It's ugly as frick.
Because israelite israelite is the worst fricking director of all time. It introduced Simon Pegg and he is insufferable in this one. The final battle is laughable, his wife's acting is comical.
I would rate it 6/10. The most interesting aspect though is that it's actually a prequel to Breaking Bad.
No one hates it, it's just not good enough to be talked about or remembered.