The opening box office totals for Mission Impossible III, while big, were less than expected:
Paramount Pictures and its leading star, Tom Cruise, failed to live up to expectations this weekend when "Mission: Impossible III" opened to weak numbers at the domestic box office despite a barrage of public appearances by Mr. Cruise to promote the film.
The poor opening followed nearly a year of public mocking of Mr. Cruise, Hollywood's most reliable star and the centerpiece of Paramount's biggest franchise, across the pop culture landscape — by Internet bloggers and late-night comedians and constantly on tabloid covers — after his public, over-the-top wooing of the actress Katie Holmes and his outspoken remarks against psychiatry and antidepressant medications last year.
Opening in 4,054 theaters, "Mission: Impossible III" had estimated ticket sales of $48 million for the weekend, according to Exhibitor Relations, almost $10 million less than the second "Mission: Impossible" movie in 2000, which opened in 385 fewer theaters and at lower ticket prices. Based on market research, the film had been expected to reach about $65 million at the box office.
Many in Hollywood had been watching expectantly to see if the negative publicity surrounding Mr. Cruise would have an effect at the box office, and this weekend — as "Mission: Impossible III" kicked off the film industry's peak summer moviegoing period — it appeared as if it had.
Paramount reported that "Mission: Impossible III" took in $118 million worldwide in 55 countries, doing well in Asia, Latin America and Britain and poorly in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, where there is public opposition to Mr. Cruise's championing of his religion, Scientology.
Or it may just have been the "South Park" factor.
(click to enlarge)
Now that I think about it, I avoided War of the Worlds at least as much for Spielberg's sake as for Cruise's ... the combination is just too revolting.
If anything, I think part of the problem is that there aren't a lot of movies that are getting people out to the theatres much at all. I'm a little interested in going to see MI:III, but I haven't gone to a movie in quite a while, just cause nothing's been good for so long, as a result, I'm kind of in a DVD rut, perhaps the summer season will knock me out of that, but I doubt it.
Overall, I do think Cruise has damaged his reputation. I do not think South Park can do anymore than recognize that fact.
Down with the clams!
That being said, I'm not surprised that MI:3 did worse at the box office the first weekend than MI:2, but I don't think the entire blame can be placed on Cruise's public weirdness (though I clearly think some of it can).
I thought the first Mission Impossible was a really fun movie, and that got me jazzed up to see the sequel. I thought the sequel was boring and not well done, so if you had asked me 18 months ago (before Cruise's weirdness really came out front and center) I would have been less jazzed to see another sequel. So, I think some of the decline is due to a declining franchise based on the first movie being (in my view) much better than the second.
An interesting test would have been how I would have felt about seeing MI:3 if the second movie had been really good. That would have told me how much of my lack of desire to see MI:3 is based on Cruise's public persona.
I agree.
I somewhat enjoyed MI 1, though it is not my style of movie. MI 2, on the other hand, was soulless.
I was never a big Tom Cruise fan, though I liked Minority Report. Like you, I'm disinclined to see MI 3 because I didn't like MI 2, not because my view of Cruise has changed much.
What Homer Simpson said about rock stars is also true of actors:
"Rock stars. Is there anything they don't know?"
Over the past year, he's been so strange and over the top that it takes a bit more effort to see him as his character instead of creepy Scientologist/sofa jumping/Katie Holmes impregnating person.
I liked MI2 a lot. Not sure if MI3 is worth the effort.
I too, thought Minority Report was a good movie. OK Tom Cruise has a weird personal life, but why should I care about that?
Cruise doesn't help the movies cause either.
If I see MI:3, it will be because (1) I want to know if crazed-Scientologist Tom Cruise can pull off his role, (2) I heard good things about Hoffman, and (3) I like the director of Alias. The fact that MI:2 stank will hold no sway, because the director is different here.
But I didn't see it in context. Maybe in context it was weirder than it seemed to me.
- RJT
I disagree - it was far and away the BEST of the the three! (Is this a great country, or what?). I've watched the first two uncountable times. The first is overwrought, but saved by the "2001"-inspired CIA sequence. The second has atrocious dialogue (which sounded much better in "Notorious"...was this a Viswanathan screenplay?), but had a kick-ass chase/fight ending.
MI: 3 is an entirely different movie that delivers some of the best stuntwork in the series (yes, the subtle editing improvement made possible by Cruise's stuntwork are well worth it for the enthusiast), one of the great villains in action moving history, and a semi-human Tom Cruise.
I've always been a fan. I don't miss any of his movies. He can act, but often chooses not to (strangely, I think Ethan Hunt is destined to become his signature role). But, he is clearly insane, and I am so sorry that many friends of mine will not see his movies on principle. He asked for it, truth be told, but I'm more forgiving. Go see it!
BTW, if you're a fan of "24" - and what right-thinking person isn't - there are many nods to that show's influence here. You will particularly like Hunt's evident completion of the "Jack Bauer School of Interrogation". It's worth the price of admission.
I'm going to see this flick, but not until after May 20.
Thank god Spielberg didn't get him in with George Lucas to do a turn as a Jedi Master in Episodes I-III.
Many times, the failure to live up to expectations creates a kind of self-fulfilling prophesy as the person trends away from their (supposedly) high-level.
For an example of this, see the discussion surrounding expectations for the New Hampshire primary. It's all about the expectation. "Admirable showings" don't count for much.
I used to watch Mission Impossibe, the original TV series, and the movies are nothing like it. What happened to the team of equals? There is a huge potential, like the 'Oceans 11' format, for a team approach.
I certainly am not jumping at the bit waiting for M III. I'll watch it after it's done it's pay-per-view and on regular cable channels, where I can flip the channel if I think it sucks.
One reason why MI3 is being considered a failure even with the decent money it made is because there was a management change at the studios to "turn things around" and MI3 is the flagship movie for the new management.
The following is purely fictional:
BTW anyone else see Tom pimp his kids for PR at the red carpet event? Nice one. Tom is one scary dude. When I see him I can't help but think of those stories of what happened to him when he reached OT3 and went "nuts". Story goes he lost it and declared he wanted nothing to do with the "religion". He was going around in a daze with deep dark circles around his eyes and threatened to expose them. They went into major damage control mode and threw everything at him. Next thing you know he was wisked off too an unknown location for a "retreat". He comes back all shiny happy and pro Scientology again.
Now we all know the blackmail techniques used via the audits but the brainwashing is what is really scary. What I wonder is how crazy is Tom exactly? Does he "know" and is stuck(like travolta)? Is he back to being complete brainwashed?
FREE KATIE! heh
Or both.
I went to see War of the Worlds despite the fact that Cruise was in it, and because it looked good and the concept was one that interested me. I still wish they'd cast someone else, but I could deal with him in the role of a clueless loser stuck in a situation much bigger than he was and doing a barely tolerable job of muddling through.
I cannot stand the Mission:Impossible movies. The first one (again, despite Cruise) almost met its potential, because in all the series episodes, they always set up impossible situations, and they always skated on the edge of "What if it goes horribly wrong?" -- and that was an amazing idea to pursue for the movie. It stayed with the idea of a broad team of elite experts all working together seamlessly, until it unravelled, leaving Hunt out on his own (mostly).
The second one (yes, I went) through that out the window. I sat there both dumbfounded and enraged when they effectively said, "Mr. Hunt, the world as we know it will end in 48 hours, and as a member of an incredibly well funded organization with huge, huge numbers of agents (remember that NOC list from the first movie? HUGE!!!), you can take any two people you want to go save the world."
And solve the problem, not by incredibly tight teamwork and brillian psychological manipulation, but by kicking the crap out of the bad guy on the beach. For this we need the IMF?
Would you make a James Bond movie and have it be about how James retired to a small town in England to solve murder mysteries in the county? It might be a good movie, but it wouldn't be Bond.
Mission: Impossible is about teamwork, trickery, tight timing, and psychological manipulation. Not about spin kicks and big explosions. MI:2 might have been a good movie if it hadn't been pretending to be Mission: Impossible.
Casting Cruise in the lead for the franchise just adds insult to the injury.