Attitude in the least likely places

The movie critics over at The New York Times are all about the attitude today, God love 'em.

First, Manohla Dargis utterly nails what's really at stake in Mission Impossible: III: Tom's vanity.

It would be a stretch to say that Tom Cruise needs a hit. What this guy needs is an intervention. . . [Y]ou have to wonder if the real mission in his newest film isn't the search for the damsel in distress or the hunt for the supervillain, but the resurrection of a screen attraction who has, of late, seemed a bit of a freak.

Word, Manohla.

The cost of attempting to rehabilitate a movie star gone amuck, Dargis writes, is that the movie:

[T]urns a perfectly good franchise into a seriously strange vanity project, as the simpering brunette is swept into a new world by a dashing operative for a clandestine organization.

Sing it, sister; sing it.

And then, Nathan Lee brings the sarcasm in his review of An American Haunting:

It is possible, given his hairdo, makeup and costuming, that Mr. Sutherland simply wandered over on his lunch break from Pride and Prejudice and was tricked into the role of John Bell Sr., patriarch of a beleaguered clan of 19th-century Tennesseans.

In case you couldn't glean from that excerpt: Hates it. So much so that in the usually sober part of the review, where you find warnings of the juicy stuff (sex, violence, cussing), there's also this:

Extremely loud sound effects try their best to spook you.

Awe and also some.