HOW the hell could Tom think that going from JON MOTHERFU**ING WOO to J.J. Abrahams was a GOOD idea!!???
M:I:3 dosn't hold a candle (or cigarette) to the awesomeness that is this film.
BALE-BRODY
Batman: Haunted Knight
JUNE 2008
I did not like any of the three movies that much, but I could not stand to watch the third one without fast forwading at some points. I found it very painful too watch. Not even Luther (Ving Rhames) made watching this movie bearable.
The first one had an okay story, but somehow did not manage to thrill me as much, because apart from Luther none of the characters remotely interested me.
The only reason why I like and own the second one, because I like the villains, especially Hugh - but apart from them and a few scenes, I don't know, if I would say it is way better as a movie *lol*
"Why a spoon, cousin? Why not an axe?" - "Because it's dull, you twit, it'll hurt more"
[deleted]
this is a shame on John Woo's resume. He deserves better script than this
sharecompletely agree
share[deleted]
Agreed
http://theexpendableszone.exofire.net/expendables%20banner.html
I use to like MI2 but after reading everyone's reason for hated, I went and watched it again and now I see. I kinda agree. too. It's not good but not bad either. Don't know why people think it's that bad. But ya the first half is not very interesting or compelling now that I watched it again. It doesn't get good till McCloy is kidnapped. Everything else from then on was good. But a bad first half makes it the lesser one now that I see it.
sharehttp://www.salon.com/entertainment/col/srag/2000/06/01/towne/
read this. it provides some insight into the production of the movie. Sounds very chaotic....
cheers for that...a surprisingly brilliant insightful article into the mind of Robert Towne for that movie...though chaotic is not a word that springs to mind!
"He's in town with a few days to kill"
I very much enjoyed that article and I agree on it being insightful to Towne's style, especially his ideas like the final mask twist at the end.
share[deleted]
well, let´s see:
John Woo: MI-2, Broken Arrow.
JJ Abrams: Cloverfield, Star trek.
Results are at sight. Sorry, man, your view is just pointless. Not, because Abrams is outstanding but because Woo is a mother***ing a55hole.
PS: I believe JJ Abrams to be a brilliant Marketing genius and a poor screenwriter (Lost sucked fat dicks and Cloverfield, although I liked it a lot, has a plot that was overused).
PS 2: MI2 = MI3 = PURE 5HIT.
You think Woo is a hole because of his American films?
Do yourself a favor and watch his Hong Kong works. He deserves all the credit in the world for movies like A Better Tomorrow I & II, Bullet in the Head, The Killer and Hard Boiled. His American stuff is nowhere near as good.
The Zimmer score alone makes this movie far better than mi3 imo and this just gets better as it ages. Mi3 was very average although I liked jj's Star Trek.
shareI just completly laugh when people say Mission Impossible 2 is better than three. What were you smoking. Mission Impossible 3 had the best action scenes of all three movies, most interersting plot, had the best villan and was entertaining all the way throughout. Mission Impossible 2 only had action scenes going for it. The villan was really really weak, the plot was not interersting, the taking off the mask thing was so so annoying, the love story was weak no chemistry. Yes the action scenes were great but that's it. The movie was either really fun at times or incredibly boring at times. Mission Impossible 3 was a huge improvement and even slightly better than 1.
shareThe Zimmer score alone makes this movie far better than mi3
I don't think it was the best Mission Impossible but it was far more enjoyable than the 3rd and 4th films. This actually demonstrates that Ethan is not only able to outsmart his enemies but also kick their a$$es. Then in the 3rd film, they show this slick, capable super agent turn into a bumbling buffoon. Why? Schtick?
It's definitely not perfect but I certainly don't understand the hate for M:I:2.
Mission Impossible 3 is way way way better then 2. It's more liked by the fans and the critics then 2 as well.
The reason number 2 made more money was because it was going on it's reputation of number 1. When number 3 came out it did worse because 2 was derided, that alot of the fans didn't show up to watch it at the cinemas. Also take into account that when Mission Impossible 3 came out, Tom Cruise was getting alot of bad press for being so outspoken about Scientology.
J. J. Abrams is getting world wide acclaim for his the latest star wars movie he directed is not a coincidence.