At the risk of offending some of my more purist readers, I give this one a Good. I liked it. I am not ashamed. Yes, Tom Cruise is a freak. But I wouldn't know it from watching this movie. He seemed like your normal everyday action hero. The action moved along very nicely, there were tense moments, there were lots of cool effects (though the pull off the face to turn into someone else is starting to get old, maybe it was a staple of the series?). The cast was also very broad. I like the movie version of Tom Cruise. I think Seymour Hoffman was not very good and way underused. I think Ving Rhames has been reduced to kitsch to some degree, but I like him anyway. There was some definite eye-candy in the form of Maggie Q. And a nice turn by Jonathan Rhys-Meyers showed plenty of stars in the cast. Which is fine with me. I also really like Laurence Fishburne and he played a character that was fun in his assiness. So, good fun, good action, good visuals, good times.
7 comments:
i can't get past tom cruise, i just can't.
but i do like jonathan rhy-meyers. not enough to see this movie though.
What is a purist reader? Pure what?
I have not reached the point where Tom Cruise's presence in a movie discourages me from seeing it. As I've said before, the Freak has been in many of my all-time favorite flicks, including Jerry Maguire, Far and Away, The Firm, Born on the Fourth of July and A Few Good Men . But I am way past the point in which the old-face-pull-off repels me. I doubt that it was a staple of the original TV series.
If Seymour was not very good, why would you say he was underused? Ebert and Roeper both thought he was underused, but they also thought he was good. He looked good in the trailer.
Hey, I was just about to say what Steve just said. I woulnd't want to meet Tom Cruise, but I've enjoyed lots of his movies.
Purist in the sense that there is little of value here beyond adrenalin-type fun. No deeper message. As for underused, I just thought his character could have been around more than he was.
The rubber mask was indeed a staple of the original, but they didn't have an instant facemaker. The original, while it may sound kitschy/campy, never played it that way. Is it possible that, like the Bond movies, creeping kitschy/campiness grows with the sequel? Neither the Bond novels I read in hs nor the earliest movies were anything but spy thrillers as I recall. Maybe I was too naive for the kitsch. Hmmmm
DA
Well, there you go, then. Rubber masks indeed. They were just smart enough to stay away from that staple in the first of these movies.
And speaking of Bond and camp, the BBC reported last September that for the next installment in the film series, "James Bond is to be given a new image as a younger character with no gadgets . . . Paul Haggis [director of Crash], who is working on the script for Casino Royale, said: 'We're trying to reinvent Bond. He's 28 - no Q, no gadgets.'"
And later in the same report, "In Ian Fleming's 1953 Casino Royale book, the first Bond novel, the spy was introduced as a more youthful, realistic and cold character than the films."
In my highly medicated state of mind, I really enjoyed MI III, which we saw at Jen's insistence - her favorite was the first - because she has sentimental and emotional attachments (she played Kyra Sedgwick's stand-in in Born on the 4th). What I didn't enjoy was at the conclusion, just as they started playing the theme in all its glory in the DLS theatre we had waited for, on opening night, the white lights came on and elevator music started to play. I was furious and drugged and didn't mind letting everyone know. I shouted at the top of my voice, "WHAT ABOUT THE CREDITS?" Everyone in the theatre heard me and I immediately couldn't believe I had said it aloud! Jen said, "Mom, I will handle this." She complained to management and we got gift cards.
Post a Comment