This has got to be a first for me.  Three weeks in a row and three movies viewed.  I guess that shows that the movies are getting better.

Anyway, today I decided to check out the Tom Cruise Action/Thriller Mission Impossible III.  I wan't a big fan of the first two, and I don't believe I saw them in the theaters.  I saw both on DVD recently which piqued my interest in the third installment.  The first one was decent and the second one was alright as well.  However, when I heard JJ Abrams was directing, that was the selling point as I was a big fan of his series Alias (the earlier seasons, the one he actually wrote).

Mission Impossible has a simple plot to say the least.  Ethan Hunt is a secret agent torn between his wife-to-be and his job.  The cliche gag of the wife being kidnapped and Hunt having to rescue her ensues along with some pretty amazing action sequences and gunfights.  Phillip Seymour Hoffman plays Owen Davian, a black market weapons provider.  I must say I never was a big fan of Hoffman, but he portrays Davian in the most badass way I have ever seen a villian on screen.  Hoffman is by far the best villian in this series and possibly in any movie.  He has this nonchalant way of speaking his lines and he doesn't fuck around.  The beginning of the film shows this perfectly when he pulls the trigger on a certain someone without hesitiation.

All of the classic gadgets, weapons, and team are here.  Ving Rhames, and newcomers Johnathan Rhys Meyers and Maggie Q (who is absolutely beautiful in this).  the staple of breathtaking aerial sequences and stunts are all here and will leve you on the edge of your seat.  The facial recreations still amaze me everytime and are even better in this film.  

Now back to JJ Abrams.  I was very happy to see him finally get his work on to the big screen but after seeing his film, I can see he does not really belong in movies.  His place is on television.  This movie played so closely to a TV episode it was scary.  I was waiting for Jennifer Garner to pop out with her red wig and then a commericial break to follow.  Abrams also co-wrote the screenplay and it shows.  It plays like a pilot episode of a TV series.  I invite all of you to point out the different acts that Abrams has his movie follow, because the breaks are quite obvious.  The love story between Cruise and Michelle Monaghan was cheesy at best.  Abrams tried to hard with it and it made me cringe at some parts.  Mission Impossible is an action film, not a love story.  So Abrams, I love your work on Alias and I hear your show Lost is being praised as well, but brush up on your screen stories.  It's a different ball game out there.

Overall this film was great.  It gave me everything I expected from a Mission Impossible film and even a little bit more.  I just wish Phillip Seymour Hoffman had some more screen time, because he was definately the bright spot of the film.

And thank you for not putting Kanye West atrocious Mission Impossible song in this film.  That was a BIG plus.  

*** out of ****    

Oh and during the previews I saw a trailer for the film Click.  Man does this look funny.  Adam Sandler still has it.  And why is Kate Beckinsale so frackin hot?  I used to hate her after what she did to Michael Sheen, but how could you stay mad at a woman as beautiful as her?  

I liked the first, disliked the second, and want to see the third, mainly because of Phillip Seymore Hoffman.I know he can play a dick, I want to see how well he does as a villan.

I heard that they might be considering a TV spin-off,so that might explain the format.

A spin-off of a remake, when will it ever end?!!!

But seriously, I am excited to see this though.Thanks for the review, Guy.

Meh.  Ups and downs.

Up:

-From Hoffman's capture to Cruise being tazered, about ten minutes, keeps up incredible brilliant tension
-Great production values
-Good old Cruise...like him or hate him, he owns Ethan Hunt
-Innovative action sequences
-Phillip Seymour Hoffman's villain was absolutely brilliant...and hoo boy was he evil

Downs:

-Writing veering between poor, flat, and ridiculous...I can give examples of each
-The critics go after Michael Bay for his Steadicam?  He uses it correctly...Abrams' Steadicam work is an incoherent incomprehensible mess which destroyed some of the action sequences
-The climax was a joke
-No sense of fun, but nothing deep enough to replace it
-Lame score, poor use of theme

All in all, I thought it was easily the poorest of the franchise.  The first was innovative, the second was fun, and this one...no character, really.  That said, it had lots of explosions, the bridge action sequence was really interesting, and there were several really creative things.

For me, a letdown.  Abrams better whip his ass into shape for Star Trek.

Alright I haven't seen the first two since I was younger. And when I saw them I liked them.
Maybe if I rewatched them I'd have a different opinon.

The beginning really does quite a job kicking you into the movie. It was really just another action movie. Just with some really done sequences.

The plot really didn't do much for me on this film. But wow. Wow. Phillip Seymour Hoffman was excellent in this movie. And Tom can do the crying thing well. Except when he does it like 4 times you really start groan at the screen.

Some of the sequences were a tad too over the top. But that bridge sequence made the film for me. There was something about the image of the helicopter full of men in SWAT like gear appear behind Tom. Felt kind of like a shot from Metal Gear Solid.

No doubt the most forgettable of the series but it's a nice way to start an explosive summer.

It'll be no surprise that this film will take the lead in the box office and that its audience is quite larger than most of the other films in theaters right now. But that doesn?t always mean that the film is going to be good. In this case, that's exactly what it means.

The intro of the film is the perfect way to kick off this film. Non-stop action! This movie defiantly lives up to its genre. But unfortunately action isn?t all that is required for any film. Plot is also needed, which this film has, only a weak and slightly disappointing one. It keeps you on the edge of your seat most of the time, but its slightly overdone, so you know what?s gonna happen next.

Luckily, all of the actors gave solid performances, especially Phillip Seymour Hoffman as the villain. He rocked! In fact, he delivered better than mostly all of the actors. Tom Cruise also gave a great performance and you could feel the emotion he was putting off on screen. He really knows how to tear up, too. Which is a hard thing for an actor to do, I?m sure.

The music for the film was OK. It didn?t really take advantage of the Mission Impossible theme like it should have. But it did what it was supposed to. It was a background layer that built suspense or terror or action, but you forgot it as soon as you heard it.

The cinematography was pretty good in most of the scenes. Some of the action scenes were a little bit much on the shakiness. I mean, sometimes you couldn?t even see what was going on AT ALL. Not even who was in the shot. It was just a big blur.

The pacing was pretty good. It seemed rather short, though. But it was really put together in a way that made the suspense grow. It had a couple of shots in there of when Tom Cruise had a pointless flash back of his wife?s stomach and them...you know. Ha ha. But it didn?t show anything, thank God.

Overall, this was a pretty good action movie and a pretty good sequel. It isn?t anything groundbreaking and it probably won?t be remembered for more than anything but a good action flick. I?d see it in the theaters, but I don?t know if I want to buy it on DVD.

***1/2 out of *****

I saw this one recently. I thought it was one of the better for its type. I thought the first one was just okay. I thought the second one was an inexcusable pile of sh*t.

This one, however, was definitely the pick of the litter.

First, I don’t like Tom Cruise. I don’t like him personally because I think he’s an arrogant, overrated twerp. That said, I do think he’s a fine actor.

****SPOILERS****

The best thing about this film was its pace. It moved along at a lightning pace and stayed fairly inventive throughout. It didn’t seem like two hours and six minutes to me at all.

It had a few plot holes: for example, there’s a scene where Cruise and associates penetrate Vatican City with the intention of extracting the bad guy who’s holed up there. Using high technology, they show how their amazing facial masks are created. Apparently they didn’t possess enough pictures of the man to make the mask prior. But miraculously, they knew what the guy would be wearing. And how did Cruise know that electrical current would short out the explosive device in his head? Why did Ethan live under his real name? It was entertaining enough, however, to overlook most of its flaws.

The biggest problem that I had with this story was the overwhelmingly typical stereotype of a female character that Cruise’s character married. She was almost insulting to the viewer’s intelligence.

She was so perfect in every way. She was amazingly beautiful. She was sweet natured and well mannered from a nice family. The perfect “nice” girl. She worked at a hospital (a stereotypical job for a woman - the caregiver, nurturer) and she was so incredibly understanding that she didn’t even question her fiancé when she smelled another woman on him after his being out of town. Then when she finally does question him at all (which was pretty mousy), he asks her to trust him and she stops questioning him at all, ever again.

I suppose the writer(s) thought they were making her strong by using her doctor skills to revive Ethan at one point. And the scene of her with a gun was quite ridiculous. The woman is shown how to use a pistol by a barely coherent Ethan and by that few seconds of instruction is able to overpower a henchman for an arms dealer and an IMF agent. Ridiculous.

Overall, it was pretty good. I wouldn’t call it a must see but if you’re into action, it’s one of the better ones in my opinion.

Quoted from Breanne Mattson The biggest problem that I had with this story was the overwhelmingly typical stereotype of a female character that Cruise’s character married. She was almost insulting to the viewer’s intelligence. She was so perfect in every way. She was amazingly beautiful. She was sweet natured and well mannered from a nice family. The perfect “nice” girl. She worked at a hospital (a stereotypical job for a woman - the caregiver, nurturer) and she was so incredibly understanding that she didn’t even question her fiancé when she smelled another woman on him after his being out of town.

And by making her so incredibly understanding, the movie missed a great chance of digging some conflict between her and Ethan. Bill Martell wrote an excellent script-tip/article about this. I liked the film but this guy makes some good points.

Here it is in case someone's interested: http://www.scriptsecrets.net/tips/Tip346.htm

Tom Cruise is a MOWER MUGGER and Scientology is for absolute idiocy. I have become a hypocrite to the point of not watching any Tom Cruise movies...

Magnolia and Vanilla Sky don't count... The 1st is a Julian Moore flick and the later is a Kurt Russell movie to me.

"looks around"

Good link, Z. I agree with that guy about everything. I was expecting sh*t to hit the fan when she was sniffing around his neck and I got mediocrity.

I wasn’t aware they were trying to market this movie as being more emotional. If that was their intention, then they should be ashamed of themselves.

“When we make it easy on our characters, they become shallow.”

I like this line. Wish the writers of MiIII had listened to this. But then they would have already heard the conventional saying: No conflict, no drama.

Hi this is my first movie review.  Tom Cruise does a pretty good job i guess. But I do not know someone who can dodge that many bullets.  I mean i could see a few but i mean he did some pretty amazing stuff dodgin bullets in the open.  All and all it was an allright movie.  Out of 10 i would give it about a 6.5-7.  Should you go to it? I think so but dont expect a film that will move you but you will be entertained

I enjoyed it. Better than the second. But now Tom and paramount of departed ways. Whio is in Line? Brad Pitt apparently!

God I hope they don't make any more Mission: Impossible movies. I didn't like any of them and I think this is the worst one. It's too cluttered, the filmmakers are trying to tell too much story in not enough time. And the not finding out what the Rabbit's Foot is just frustrated the hell outta me instead of being one of those funny little things that intrigues you.

This film was boring, overdone. What is happening to action movies nowadays? It's all quick cuts and a blur of images. No one ever lets action sequences breathe anymore. Anyway, that's just my two cents.


Cheers, Chism.

"to tell too much story in not enough time" have you seen the plot and trailer for spiderman three?

Now that really looks like trying to squeeze too much in.

Better than too little story though!