Movie Review
MI:3

By: Paolo Cabrelli
2006-05-10



Posted 05/10/2006 - 11:14:12 AM by TysonT:
 Like the author, I find myself defending Tom Cruise a lot lately. I honestly don't know what is going on in his "private" life, other than having a child with his girlfriend. When it comes down to it, I can't name a single movie in which Cruise has acted badly, and what's more, I can't name a movie in which he's starred that isn't at least entertaining. He's a fantastic Hollywood actor, better than any other good-looking A-list male I can think of off the top of my head.

Also, "It's needlessly exciting, like staring at your own erection" is one of the best lines of criticism I've read.
 
Posted 05/10/2006 - 12:42:08 PM by aroddick:
 I have to say I reluctantly enjoyed the first two. All about going in with the right mood (i.e. to be just entertained). However, I must take issue TysonT -- Tom Cruise has acted badly -- War of the Worlds was awful, and he was too.
 
Posted 05/10/2006 - 01:30:51 PM by gM.Ed.:
 perfect review. I also laughed several times while reading
 
Posted 05/10/2006 - 05:01:32 PM by toasteroven:
 Let's not forget that Abrams also wrote for "Alias", "Lost" and "Felicity". These comparisons are so noticeable that Keri Russel even co-stars in this movie. This movie worked like a hyper-realistic combination of the television shows Abrams has written for.
 
Posted 05/11/2006 - 09:13:09 AM by wmdavidson:
 I thought he was pretty good in "War of the Worlds."
 
Posted 05/11/2006 - 10:07:03 AM by jhitting:
 Tom Cruise: capable, sometimes glorious (see Magnolia) actor hindered by a dependancy on action flicks, smiling, and cult religion. I was thinking about Magnolia in the shower this morning and how perfect he was for that part. Goddamn. Magnolia.
 
Posted 05/11/2006 - 10:22:18 AM by keag76:
 Holy shit people relax, this is tom cruise not robert deniro. what defines a great actor is someone who becomes the part. no matter what movie cruise is in, he is never remembered as the character he plays.
 
Posted 05/11/2006 - 03:22:14 PM by JimFitz:
 Sometimes during the film I found myself giggling at Tom Cruise... it's just he does the emotion of love so much better and bigger in real life, in regard to the love interest in this film... it just doesn't seem as hyperreal-head-over-heels as the man himself.
 
Posted 05/12/2006 - 03:58:40 PM by proffokker:
 This movie really pissed me off. Why? The ending was so damn anticlimatic it was ridiculous. And the little narrative trick at the beginning? Useless--only a trick. And the love interest? Strictly perfunctory. And this is even more disappointing given the quality of Abrams' TV work. And for the record, I rather liked Mr. Cruise in "Minority Report." But, yeah, "War of the Worlds" was pretty weak.
 
Posted 05/12/2006 - 04:32:27 PM by Darragh:
 Good review, but I can't believe you didn't mention Hoffman's wonderful performance. He was an incredibly refreshing departure from standard action movie villain fare, insofar as there was a real element of nonchalance about the character, a kind of "I do this shit every day, it doesn't bother me", like villainy was just a day-job to him.
 
Posted 05/15/2006 - 11:05:45 AM by TysonT:
 I didn't think War Of The Worlds was truly awful until the last half hour or so, and I thought Cruise was good in it. Also, he runs in the film, and he's the best-looking runner in Hollywood. While we're speaking of running and his better roles, how about Collateral?