Watched this for the first time today going in with low expectations, since /tv/ said it was the worst Mission Impossible.
Not going to lie and say the movie doesn't feel dated or suffer from bad pacing, but man does Tom Cruise carry a film. The second and third acts were flickino.
Why is he so damn likeable?
>>70688567
it's what he does, play men that border on god. it's a Scientology thing, you would understand if you're level 4 or under, once you cross the bridge of fire you'd understand better. you capture?
>>70688567
Thetans
>>70688567
How could anyone possibly think 3 is worse than 2? That's almost as bad as the people saying Episode 7 is worse than Episode 2 for Star Wars.
Does /tv/ really hate jews this much?
its really the box that he stands on the keeps him in the frame.
based PSH as the villain
>>70688653
>it's a KV lanklet attacks Tom for his height episode
>>70688567
>since /tv/ said it was the worst Mission Impossible.
2 is the worst
>>70688567
3 is the one where the series started to get good actually.
>>70688567
He picks his roles perfectly.I really, really liked Oblivion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PU5pIsflvS0
>>70688652
2 Was John Woo.
3 was just messy. I mean the cinematography and coloring were off for the first half, the repeating scene wasn't necessary. The bad guy was half assed at that, and his "THEY GOT YOUR WIFE" was hackneyed in like a bad 80's film rip off.
It could have been worse if they included him running around in china just to reel in the foreign market.
>>70688772
>2 Was John Woo.
So was shlock like Replacement Killers, there was good action at the end of 2 sure but overall the movie is very poorly made
>>70688770
Oblivion was kino
>>70688811
that's john woo, i didn't make him a legendary movie director, it's just who he is. The movie was made to bring the appeal with the China Market, and so was 3, but without the legendary director. Just the locale.
4 was the best and 5 shows a marketable level of quality. it's 1 that really blew up the scene and 2 and 3 just cash gras until they realized that this "spy" movie genre was bankable because the new bond and ultimately bourne series.
Threw in a splash of star trek and avengers, and poof, liquid money.
>>70688811
It was John Woo because of Face/Off. Like that's literally a plot point in the movies.
>even here JJ even here
>>70688772
2 literally didn't even feel like Mission Impossible. It felt like a foreign film that had Tom Cruise in it.
I don't see any legitimate way to believe 2 is better than 3. 3 literally saved the franchise. 2 killed it for like 5 years.
>>70688971
3 was directed by JJ? Damn. Can't believe he got his shit together in time for Star Trek.
Interesting how films progress in fashion/CGI/quality up until about 2010 and then all progress just halts, and slowly reverses to rushed, bloomy CGI, shot-reverse-shot dialogue, and shakey-cam action.
>>70688652
>How could anyone possibly think 3 is worse than 2?
Because 3 is made of plot tablescraps of 1 and 2. They took MI1's villain then combined it with MI2's McGuffin. Then don't even deliver on the McGuffin heist.
>>70689010
3 didn't feel like Mission Impossible. It felt like True Lies with Tom Cruise in it.
>>70689010
I thought Ghost Protocol saved the franchise
it made more than all the others before it
i genuinely believe that the 2nd and 1st are the worst
>>70689020
it's about managing the budget.
you only have 250 million to make a movie you can't waste it on cgi. you have to think of the actors, and the kraft.....
>>70689108
4 did save the franchise, no one doubts that, it was a fantastic movie.
3 was just an action flic, 2 was just a john woo flic, 1 was authentically cool spy movie that was fresh and new and compared to now is stale cliched and obvious.
It set a tone for movies, that's kinda why 1 is important. 4 really upped the game, obviously. and 5 just kept up that pace.
>>70689093
To be fair, nothing has really felt like Mission Impossible since the original one.
>>70689108
They don't get to Ghost Protocol without MI3 being accepted by the general audience though.
>>70689041
I don't really think 3 was even that good, I just specifically remember watching 2 and wondering what the fuck I was watching.
If I had to rate, I'd say MI2 is a 4/10, and MI3 is 6.5, perfectly average enough to continue the franchise at Tom's discretion.
>>70689376
HONESTLY, you millenials won't understand that when Tom Cruise rips the mask off was probably one of the coolest CGI tricks ever done at that point.
This is pre-episode 1 CGI, which was PUSHING the limits at the time. 1996 didn't have great CGI, and MI1 did great.
I mean Duke Nukem did a parody on it, that's how old that shit was.
I finally saw Mi II the other day. I liked Mi III when it came out. I still think its pretty good probably not as a Mi film and just as a normal film.
>>70688772
I liked the repeating scene starting off the movie it was a surprise and drew me in I thought hoffman waa a really good bad guy.
This is how I'd rank them. I've only seen 5 once I need to rewatch it.
1>3>2>4>5 or 1>3>2=4>5
Wasn't feeling the bad guys in 4 or 5. And I love nyqvist howd they fuck that up. He was so uninteresting I dint remember a damn thing
>>70688971
This part was cool as fuck tho...
