Today on Blogcritics
Home » Movie Review: Mission Impossible III (2006)

Movie Review: Mission Impossible III (2006)

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Mission Impossible IIIA third movie in the series, a third director and it’s anyone’s guess how it will turn out. Tom Cruise returns as Ethan Hunt in the Mission: Impossible series, this time working with first time movie director and Lost and Alias producer J.J. Abrams. The first installment was a solid double off the center field wall. The second movie was a ground out to the shortstop. The third one… call it a sacrifice fly to right field that at least moves the runner into scoring position.

[ADBLOCKHERE]The familiar character of Ethan Hunt has retired from field work and, though maintaining a double identity to fool civilians – even his fiancée – he now works as an instructor for up and coming IMF agents. One day – you guessed it – John Musgrave, played by Billy Crudup, shows up to ask him to come back to field work to rescue a fellow agent, a woman with whom Hunt developed a strong though platonic bond. Hunt is initially reluctant but – you guessed it – does accept the mission. However, what is supposed to be a quick rescue mission – good job! You guessed it again – is quickly revealed to be a small part of a larger scheme. Ethan follows his clues and comes into conflict with the arch villain Owen Davian, superbly realized by the wonderfully gifted Philip Seymour Hoffman.

The script for the movie is nothing special. It comes up with some clever gadgets, as we might expect, and allows for an ample offering of action and adventure. The characters in the film live and die on the actors’ merits alone; the script does little to flesh them out, though there are some clever lines of dialogue which show that someone was trying for something other than ordinary. In particular, Lawrence Fishburne’s character is blessed with some well-conceived remarks.

With weak characters it is no surprise that there is very little gripping drama in the movie. The best it has to offer in this respect is the opening scene, a clip from the third act to which we realize we will eventually return. Though the scene is a good one, what follows is mostly action. As for the story, it is unremarkable but logically constructed enough to carry the action scenes.

Mission Impossible IIIAnd this is where the movie shines. Mr. Abrams demonstrates some real ability in choreographing the camera and the actors in a scene. It’s not artistic, but it is rock-solid orthodox filmmaking, and he does a great job of getting the adrenaline rushing. There were a few times when I found myself gripping the arms of my theater seat. The visuals are also quite lovely, and to the extent that the movie is well done it is for those reasons. Those and Hoffman’s knock out portrayal of the villain. Hoffman simply must be considered in any serious debate about the best actor of that generation, premature though any such debate might be.

The movie, as mentioned before, falls flat in terms of character and real drama. It also presents a question which modern cinema is in the process of answering: How big can an action movie get before it is simply too much? For my taste, M:I3 has begun to dance along that line. Though any one action sequence is perfectly well done, how many explosions, flying bodies and daring stunts can a person take before he’s had too much? Some accomplished musicians have taken time off from their profession because they began to complain of the songs all sounding the same; that they were hearing bunches of notes instead of music. I got a taste of something similar from M:I3, and I thought back on the wonderful scene from the first movie where Cruise is suspended in midair as he infiltrates the CIA’s main computer. The sum of the individual action sequences from M:I3 together do not equal the tense thrills of that one solitary scene.

Mission Impossible IIIIt’s not like the movie is pure action. J.J. Abrams does demonstrate some, though not a ton of, patience in the beginning of the story, and he does occasionally pause for breath as he goes. Nevertheless I felt at times like there was too much action and too big action. Every great event needs a foil to set it off. There is precious little of the small and the quiet character moments to make the big and loud stunts stand out. As always, I direct the good reader to Raiders of the Lost Ark for a lesson in how to do exactly that.

Amazingly enough, for all its size and volume the climax of the movie is disappointing. And it’s not a matter of relativity either; the resolution is simply nothing special in and of itself. It’s almost as if Abrams accidentally got the scenes out of sequence. A potential gut buster of a climax involving Ethan Hunt swinging from one skyscraper to another is simply another action sequence, told mainly from the perspective of his teammates waiting outside. It is an odd choice, perhaps done to give us a break from the unrelenting kineticism, but it might have served as a more appropriate pinnacle if during it we were given more of Hunt’s point of view.

The movie, by all rights, should be a C+. It’s an ordinary cookie cutter action film done just a little bit better than the other brainless Hollywood offerings. So why the higher grade? Great visuals that make the slick production values work well, and a truly phenomenal performance by Philip Seymour Hoffman. No, the role is no Capote, but with so little to go on Hoffman manages a chilling portrayal of a villain who otherwise would have been ordinary.

The Upside:
The movie is solidly crafted with respect to the director/editor/director of photography. The acting is universally sound at worst and, with men like Hoffman and Fishburne, is often good or even excellent. The action sequences are perfect for the moviegoer who, having reached his surfeit of Chaucer and Cicero, wants popcorn and explosions.
The Downside:
Not much character development, and not much gripping drama. The story is a bit ordinary too.

On the Side:
At one time or another, David Fincher, Carrie-Anne Moss, Joe Carnahan, Kenneth Branagh, Scarlett Johansson and Thandie Newton were all going to work on the project. Fincher dropped out to produce Lords of Dogtown, Carnahan left, Thandie Newton chose not to reprise her role from M:I2 in order to spend more time with her family, Branagh had to back out when shooting delays interfered with his forthcoming As You Like It, Scarlett Johansson pulled out and when Abrams came on Moss’ character, which had taken the place of the Thandie Newton character from the previous film, was scratched.

Final Grade: B-

Film Stats:
Starring: Tom Cruise, Ving Rhames, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Keri Russell
Directed by: J.J. Abrams
Writing Credits: Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci, J.J. Abrams, Bruce Geller (television series)
Country: USA
MPAA: Rated PG-13
Run Time: 126 min.
Studio: Paramount (official site)

By Matthew Alexander, Staff Writer for Film School Rejects

Powered by

About Film School Rejects

  • Victor Lana

    I enjoyed your review, Matthew. I found it very honest. I was going to write one myself, but I really had no motivation (and certainly nothing to rave about) after seeing the film.

    You captured that in essence by saying it all about the huge action sequences and the horrendous climax and resolution. Simply dreadful ending. James Bond used to fight the bad guy on top of Golden Gate Bridge; here we get the bad guy and hero rolling in the streets of Shanghai.

    My biggest problem is the film is so derivative. I found that to be even a worse flaw than the poor characteriztions. Yes, Hoffman is brilliant as always, but should have had more screen time.

    Okay, how derivative is it? here’s how. The movie borrows heavily from other films and TV”s greatest show 24.

    24: the mole who is not a mole; the poor security at IMF; the lone rogue agent out on his own

    Total Recall: the device shot up Cruise’s nose

    True Lies: the wife not knowing her husband is a secret agent

    Speed: villain literally loses his head whilst on top of the hero

    Goldfinger (and other Bond films): the impossibly gorgeous scenery; the implausibly brilliant nutcase villain

    Besides these things, there is no humor in the picture. Bond always had humor, the quick retort, the arched eyebrow as he got the girl. We have none of that here (except a few good lines from Ving Rhames or Fishburne). Cruise doesn’t take ownership of the part or imbue Ethan with any exciting traits. There simply is no reason to keep this hero or this franchise going.

    The worst part of the film is starting it with Cruise handcuffed to a chair. We have nowhere to go from there. Most of the rest of it is flashback, so I know he’s not going to fall off the building in Shanghai or die on the bridge or whatever. I think that was the poorest choice of all.

    Final Grade of B-? Man, you are way too generous, Matthew.