In 2000, star Tim Cruise was in top of the world. By 2006, he had a bit of a PR problem. Though his previous film War of the Worlds was a certified hit, his off the screen presence was becoming more and more of a problem. Some people would say toxic. Getting in arguments played out in public with Brooke Shields’s about the need to do away with prescribed drugs. To marrying a woman who was twenty years his junior. And of course jumping on talk show couches proclaiming his love for said woman. Directors were not wanting to work with him. And the general public, the same people who had spent tons of money to buy tickets to his movies, was rapidly starting to turn on him.

So after a dissolved attempt to get David Fincher to direct Mission Impossible 3, perhaps the most important movie of Cruise’s career, who does he turn to in order to resurrect his career? An unknown in the cinematic universe director by the name of JJ Abrams.

Listen to Matt, Garrett and Adam dissect the sequel that would set a tone that would permeate through the entire rest of the franchise. Matt, not the biggest Abrams fan, and Garrett, certainly have their opinions that have been known in the past. But what about Adam?

Stay tuned. mission Impossible Ghost Protocol isn’t far behind.

By 2000, Tom Cruise was a made man. He had worked with Stanley Kubrick on the so-so erotic thriller Eyes Wide Shut, and even received an Oscar nomination for Magnolia. So in the interim between sequels, Cruise once again found himself in the position of being able to do anything. Why not return to the action franchise he had launched four years before?

Now being helmed by Face Off’s John Woo, and despite some pretty tepid reviews, Mission Impossible 2 proved to be a huge hit. It would also seem to have made itself an action star in the (ego?) adrenaline infused film that also starred the at-the-time upcoming X-Man Dougray Scott as the villain.

Join Garrett, Matt, and Adam as they reassess the movie that is looked at in a lot of circles as being the worst in the Mission Impossible franchise. Do the podcasters agree?

In 1996 Tom Cruise could have done whatever he wanted. He was married, had a positive public image, and the Academy was starting to recognize his work by nominating him for acting Oscars. However, seven months before he would try his hand at another shot at an Oscar with Jerry McGuire, he would add another perk to his resume. A perk that he would ride for nearly 30 years. That, of action star.

Being a huge fan of the original TV series, Cruise (and his producing partner Paula Wagner) went to Paramount studios to pitch an idea that would make him a part of the Impossible Mission Force in a feature version of Mission Impossible. A hiring of director Brian DePalma later, Cruise and company were on their way to a franchise that would mark both the positive and negative aspects of its lead star.

Join Garrett, Matt, and Adam as they talk about their overall view of the Mission Impossible franchise, their anticipation for how this podcast series will go. And of course, give their full on reviews of this 1996 original film.

Strap in listeners. We’re in for a two month ride through the adventures of the IMF!

In 1987, Arnold Schwarzenegger was well on his way to becoming the biggest action star in the world. Later on in the year, he would be in Predator. But first, he’d star in the Stephen King adaptation The Running Man. Or is it a Richard Bachman adaptation? What’s the difference, and why would the rights to this book be $100,000, surprising the hell out of producer George Linder? We get into all of this, as well as a full review of the Paul Michael Glaser (Starsky?) directed film, in the podcast below.

Also, find out what franchise we’ll be attacking next. That is, should we choose to accept it. All this, as well as many puns, when you listen to this week’s Three Men and a Retrospective Podcast!

As we already established on our The Dead Zone podcast, 1983 was the Year of the King. That year, Stephen King fans were treated to not one, not two, but THREE adaptations of the author’s work. The Dead Zone, Christine, and Cujo. Now common usage to explain a mean dog, Cujo had next to zero meaning to people who picked the book up ready to read King’s first all out horror novel in years.

Like Drew Barrymore in Firestarter, producers once again used ET as a stepping point, and plucked everyone’s favorite mom Dee Wallace to star in a film about her and her son (Who’s The Boss’s Danny Pintauro) being terrorized by the film’s title character.

Listen in as Garrett, Matt, and Adam talk about the film many (King included) count as among their favorite adaptations of King’s work. Will Adam think the same as, unsurprisingly, this is yet another first time viewing for him? And how did Garrett stumble upon the book, making it the first King novel he ever read? Find out by clicking below!

And be sure to come back next week, as Matt finally gets to talk about Ah-nold Schwarzenegger when the co-hosts review the first Richard Bachman adaptation, The Running Man!

By 2022, Stephen King adaptations were five years into a renaissance that began with 2017’s adaptation of It. And after his successful Halloween legacy series began with a bang with 2018’s Halloween, producer Jason Blum also wanted to get in on the act of adapting King. So he hired Zac Effron and director Keith Thomas (The Vigil) to once again bring King’s Firestarter to the screen.

Join Garrett, Matt, and Adam as they look at the 2022 version of King’s 1980 novel that was generally panned by critics and audiences alike when it came out in the summer of 2022. Will they like it any better?

Note: if anyone knows where we can get our hands on a copy of Syfy’s Firestarter Rekindled, please let us know as it seems to of disappeared off the planet.

After E.T., Drew Barrymore could have done anything. Turns out that producer Dino de Laurentiis was about to scoop her up to be in two adaptations of author Stephen King’s work. The second, Cat’s Eye, is one we already covered way back at the beginning of Night Shift. But the first was Firestarter, King’s borderline science fiction novel about a girl who sets fires with her mind.

Join the Three Men and a Retrospective Podcast as they review Commando director Mark L Lester’s 1984 adaptation of King’s 1980 novel. Unsurprisingly, it’s Adam’s first viewing of the film. Will he be genuinely surprised?

And come back next week as the boys review not the syfy adaptation as outlined here, but the 2022 Zac Effron starring film of the same name.

After 1994’s The Stand proved to be a monumental hit, ABC and other networks were intent on bringing other Stephen King properties to the small screen. This is why we got things like The Langoliers, The Tommyknockers, Kingdom Hospital, among others.

But 20 plus years later, there were once again rumblings that The Stand was going to be adapted, this time with one film for the big screen. Directors like David Yates (Harry Potter) and Ben Affleck came and went from the project, all not knowing how they were going to keep the magnum opus book to one film. Enter Josh Boone (New Mutants) and Benjamin Cavell (Justified). With James Marsters (X-Men) and Alexander Skaarsgard (Big Little Lies) amongst many others -including two extremely toxic actors with turbulent personal lives- the nine part miniseries came and went at about the worst time imaginable for a piece of fiction about a virus that wipes out the world, which was the end of 2020.

Join Garrett, Matt, and Adam as they review all nine episodes -including a brand new coda written by King himself- and determine if this is the ultimate version of The Stand.

Come back next week, as the boys start their dive into the adaptations of King’s first 80s novel, Firestarter.

1983 was quite the year for fans of author Stephen King. That was the year they didn’t get one, or even two King adaptations for the screen. They got three. These consisted of The Dead Zone, Cujo, and Christine. The other two will get their just due on this podcast down the road. But today, we review The Dead Zone. A film touted as the teaming up of schlock director David Cronenberg (he wouldn’t make The Fly until three years later) and horror writer Stephen King. To top it off, Cronenberg tapped recent Oscar winner Christopher Walken to be this story’s lead Johnny Smith.

Join the Three Men and a Retrospective Podcast as Garrett continues taking listeners, as well as Matt and Adam, along on his journey through all of King’s cinematic adaptations with this review of The Dead Zone. Does Cronenberg’s toned down style satisfy Matt, a long time fan of the director? Will Adam EVER come into a movie in this series after having actually seeing the film in question BEFORE having to watch and review it for this podcast?

Listen below to find out! And come back next week, as the co-hosts once again get into plague territory with a long review of the CBS All Access 2020 adaptation of The Stand.

Much to two of their chagrins, podcast hosts are back to Stephen King! To kick off this set of reviews, they’re reviewing two adaptations of what many King fans STILL call his best novel. Ladies and gentlemen, we bring you The Stand.

After years of trying to get a feature film adaptation of his beloved epic novel off the ground, King saw what ABC did with a miniseries adaptation of his novel It, and knew that’s how he wanted to adapt it.

With King writing the script himself and future Shining miniseries director Mick Garris directing, King fans finally saw his magnum opus onscreen in a four night epic. Garrett leads the discussion as Matt and Adam watch the 1994 adaptation for the very first time. Will they be pleasantly surprised? Or will residual corn hate from the last time they visited King’s adaptations leave them cold