Mission Impossible III sucks. J.J. Abrams has proven that he is a television director with zero cinematic style. Sorry, but shaking the camera and extreme close-ups are not a style. If I wanted to see a Tom Cruise movie that makes me nauseas, I'd watch Cocktail. And those types of tricks are meant for small budget movies and TV shows, not $200M action movies. What is up with the shitty cinematography? The script didn't make sense. Dreadful.
It was boring. And the main reason it was boring was that it was on 11 for the entire two hours. There's no where to go. Which leads me to my point (other than bitching that I spent $6 on crap), which is this: stories need a definite structure that allows the plot to build. This can be done like a gradual slope that is steeper toward the end, or like a sine wave in which the arcs tighten and spike as we reach the climax. The trouble with Mi:III is that it shot right to the top and plateaued. There was no build up. Bad bad storytelling. If anything, you can watch the movie as an example of how not to plot.
2 comments:
What I want to know is, when are they actually going to find a good looking guy with a half decent script and make a good action flick again?
Tom what's-his-name? Never that good looking, and his best movie was probably...one I didn't see.
Collateral. That (and Eyes Wide Shut) are the only movies I can take him seriously in, because he's such a deeply flawed character in both.
So this doesn't bode well for an Alias movie, does it?
Post a Comment