New mission impossible: Shut celebs up

By Chris Hicks
Deseret Morning News

Does anyone remember when summer movies actually started in summer?
OK, they probably never waited until June 21, but for many years the summer-movie season began on Memorial Day weekend — at the end of May.
Here it is May 5, and already we have "Mission: Impossible III," a major-studio, big-budget action epic, which officially kicks off this summer's movie season.
By the time it really is summer, the season will be nearly over (discounting August, a dumping ground for leftover bad movies).
If they start coming any earlier, we won't be able to tell summer movies from Christmas movies.
Still, "M:I III" looks pretty hot.
Even though I had some problems with the two earlier "M:I" movies, I have to admit there are several aspects to this one that I find intriguing: great-looking action and stunts, Philip Seymour Hoffman as the chief villain, a new director in J.J. Abrams, who was behind the exciting TV series "Alias" (as well as "Lost").
But this new "M:I" movie does have one big hurdle that I'm not sure I can get over: Tom Cruise.
True, he's probably the biggest of the big movie stars, and he has that killer smile and great teeth, and he certainly seems game for anything on the action front.
But he's still Tom Cruise.
I've just seen too much of him over the past year or so, I guess. I know too much about him.
I want to go to "M:I III" and see agent Ethan Hunt, not Tom Cruise.
Not that zany guy jumping on Oprah's couch, the one who had a baby with his 16-years-younger girlfriend Katie Holmes (in a secret Scientology kind of way), then named the kid "Suri" (did she have a fringe on top?) and now talks about getting married somewhere down the road; late summer, early fall; when the kid goes to college (Suri, not Katie).
Hey, call me old-fashioned . . . and I'm sure some of you will (among other, perhaps unprintable, names) . . . but there are certain things, 21st century or not, that just ain't right.
I think I liked it better when we didn't know nearly so much about actors we see in the movies.
These days it's impossible to avoid celebrities' personal lives screaming at us from People magazine and its many weekly clones, and "Entertainment Tonight" and its many nightly clones.
And it's not just A-list celebs — and not even just B-, C- and D-list celebs. It now extends to the correspondents and hosts of the "E.T." shows, who treat each other like celebrities. (Z-list celebs?)
And how about all the talk shows and magazine shows and late-night shows and awards shows, and all the other avenues of exposure that compete for stars?
Cruise may be the most overexposed star of the moment, but he certainly isn't alone.
How about Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt (and, by extension, Jennifer Aniston)?
Will I ever be able to take Jolie or Pitt seriously in a movie again?
Or Gwyneth Paltrow? She really named one of her kids Apple?
Or such other overexposed "stars" as Jessica Simpson and Nick Lachy, and Charlie Sheen and Denise Richards, and Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie. . . .
Oh wait, different category; no one takes them seriously.
Maybe we should petition for a National Celebrity Shut-up Day.
Hey, if they thought it would get them some attention, they just might do it.



I couldn't agree more. National Celebrity Shut-up Day. Fabulous idea. Though I was able to look past Tom Cruise being Tom Cruise in Mission Impossible 3 last night and thoroughly enjoy myself. Great job J.J. But I truly wish the likes of TomKat and Brangelina would just GO AWAY!! And why not just make a national holiday out of it?