Sign In Now ►
or Create A New Account ►
Rank This Matchup or Comment/Reply Below
This is a tough one. I like the whole trilogy (with the first M:i being my favourite), and M:i-2 and M:i:III couldn't be any more different; but I think I favour the second one because of John Woo's amazing job as director and the film's great soundtrack.
The first Mission required a second viewing just to get what the hell was going on. The second had nothing for a plot, just a vague storyline to tie together the action sequences. M:i:III was the best of both worlds: great action, but it actually had a story. For my money, that makes the third installment the best of the trilogy.
not a hard one at all. MI2 was flat out horrible. 3 was really good (overhated on because of its lead actors antics at the time....)
MI2 sucked. MI3 was awesome. Its as simple as that.
"M:I-2" was great fun; a stylistic popcorn flick. I don't know why so many are taken with "M:I:III." Nearly ever major sequence was all but plagiarized from other movies. In fact, the entire middle section of the movie (the rescue of the villain and Ethan's frantic drive to the hospital where his fiancee works) were right out of "Licence to Kill" and "Patriot Games." Sorry, but it just felt like an amateur's "greatest hits" movie to me.
M:I sucked, M:I:II was better, but M:I:III was the best of them all!
M:I III is OK, forgettable, but a decent action film. M: I II isn't, it's terrible.
Anything is better than the ludicrous paint-huffing exercise that is Mission: Impossible 2.