Movie Review: Mission Impossible III (2006) - Page 2

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.

Continued on the next page Page 1 — Page 2 — Page 3

Article tags

Spread the word
Bookmark and Share
Profile image for film-school-rejects

Article Author: Film School Rejects

Film School Rejects is the world's best forum for aspiring film critics. Every day we deliver the most insightful reviews, news and commentary on the world of film from the best critics that you've never heard of! Want to become part of the FSR team? …

Visit Film School Rejects's author pageFilm School Rejects's Blog

Read comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own

Article comments

  • 1 - Victor Lana

    May 13, 2006 at 8:26 am

    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.

Add your comment, speak your mind

Personal attacks are NOT allowed.
Please read our comment policy.
Please preview your comment.

blogcritics lists for Nov 25, 2009

fresh articles Most recent articles site-wide

fresh comments Most recent comments site-wide

most comments Most comments in 24hrs

top writers Most prolific Blogcritics for October

top commenters Most prolific Commenters in 24 hrs