+- The Lurker Lounge Forums (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums)
+-- Forum: The Lurker Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Why i didnt go see MI3 (/thread-4412.html)
Pages:
1
2
Why i didnt go see MI3 - kandrathe - 05-11-2006
Mithrandir,May 9 2006, 03:46 AM Wrote:Touché sir.
The only reason I would want to see MI:3 would be for Philip Semour Hoffman. Honestly, has the guy ever done anything that was not awesome? He was even the lone high point of the otherwise utterly underwhelming Along Came Polly, for example. Stolen from imdb.com:
I concur that Cruise is pretty retarded, but I think he gets more flak than he deserves just because he is more outspoken about his Scientology beliefs tha most others. Personally, I feel like it takes just as much of a leap of faith to believe the things Scientologists do as it does to believe that someone can rise from the dead, walk on water, and mass produce bread from nothing. But whatever. I'll wait for MI:3 to be on DVD to see it.
[right][snapback]109312[/snapback][/right]
This site: http://www.christianorigins.com/miracles.html has a nice exploration of the Christian miracle evidence. When you include non-biblical historical accounts I think it is clear that L. Ron Hubbard might be lacking in comparison.
Why i didnt go see MI3 - Occhidiangela - 05-11-2006
kandrathe,May 11 2006, 02:20 AM Wrote:This site: http://www.christianorigins.com/miracles.html has a nice exploration of the Christian miracle evidence. When you include non-biblical historical accounts I think it is clear that L. Ron Hubbard might be lacking in comparison.While I thank you for the link, I am still hoping to keep this line of argument on the curb for the nonce, per my remarks to Mith.
[right][snapback]109583[/snapback][/right]
Occhi
Why i didnt go see MI3 - Zarathustra - 05-11-2006
Mithrandir,May 9 2006, 02:46 AM Wrote:The only reason I would want to see MI:3 would be for Philip Semour Hoffman.[right][snapback]109312[/snapback][/right]
Agreed.
Why i didnt go see MI3 - Rhydderch Hael - 05-11-2006
The only Tom Cruise movie I've watched in theaters was Collateral, and it was Jamie Foxx's performance that gained my admiration.
Still think it odd that Foxx was given a Golden Globes' Supporting Actor nomination for that film. I suspect it was Tom Cruise's star power that blinded the Foreign Press boys to the fact that Cruise wasn't playing the main character here.
Why i didnt go see MI3 - Occhidiangela - 05-11-2006
Rhydderch Hael,May 11 2006, 12:02 PM Wrote:The only Tom Cruise movie I've watched in theaters was Collateral, and it was Jamie Foxx's performance that gained my admiration.The were only two parts of that film that I didn't like
Still think it odd that Foxx was given a Golden Globes' Supporting Actor nomination for that film. I suspect it was Tom Cruise's star power that blinded the Foreign Press boys to the fact that Cruise wasn't playing the main character here.
[right][snapback]109615[/snapback][/right]
A short rant/philosophizing about two thirds of the way through by Cruise's character. It took him a bit out of the hit man role, and sounded like a script writer playing psychologist badly. Otherwise, Cruise was very effective and understated in the role.
Foxx's character in the den of the Drug Lord outwitting/out psyching professional hoods with nothing but BS behind him.
I'll "me too" Foxx as the "main character."
Occhi
Why i didnt go see MI3 - Rhydderch Hael - 05-11-2006
The biggest problem I had with the movie was that it spent too much time on the things that Cruise's character did. Sure, you've got to show a hitman on the job, but the true conflict of the story was between the cab driver and the killerâ and there wasn't too much of that until the very end. At these points, Foxx's character became as much as bystander to the plot as he was a bystander to the killings.
A little more involvement between the men, rather than watching more of the assassin on his assassination missions.