Explore
 Lists  Reviews  Images  Update feed
Categories
MoviesTV ShowsMusicBooksGamesDVDs/Blu-RayPeopleArt & DesignPlacesWeb TV & PodcastsToys & CollectiblesComic Book SeriesBeautyAnimals   View more categories »
Listal logo

Review of Mission: Impossible III

Posted : 10 years, 1 month ago on 17 March 2014 12:16

The first 3 minutes alone of Mission: Impossible III are better than anything in the previous two Mission: Impossible films. After a middling original, and an unwatchably boring sequel, Mission: Impossible III is a breath of fresh air. The action sequences are tight, the performances are great, and the film is all around fun from start to finish.

Ethan Hunt is on yet another "impossible" mission, though this time, things are complicated due to his recent marriage. Hunt is on the search for a "rabbit's foot" that is also being targeted by the villainous Owen Davian.

While portions of the plot seem relatively familiar to the first two installments, Mission: Impossible III is a significant improvement over the Brian de Palma's (and an infinite improvement over the disastrous Mission: Impossible II). Any and all of the problems with the previous two films are completely fixed here. Thus, Mission: Impossible III is one smooth ride.

The action sequences are fantastic. Some of them are great fun, while others provide impressive tension. Indeed, there are a number of "edge-of-your-seat" moments- something that the first two films were sorely lacking. And thankfully, these sequences are never too long. The second film suffered from (among other things) tedious action scenes that lasted far too long, whereas Mission: Impossible III does a much better job of keeping them tight and manageable.

And surprisingly, the stuff inbetween the action isn't so bad either! That's called "story," yes? It's nice to see that in an action film. It's not as absurdly convoluted as the first Mission: Impossible, nor as insultingly simplistic as the second film. Mission: Impossible III strikes a nice balance to avoid being a massive chore, or a massive bore.

The tone of this film seems a bit more gritty than the previous two films (though it still allots time for fun). With the addition of a spouse, Ethan Hunt is in a much more stressful situation then before (this sort of thing was attempted in Mission: Impossible II, but it failed to provide anything more than a half-baked love triangle). And the villain, Owen Davian is far more menacing and memorable than the villains in any of the previous Mission: Impossible films.

Also, I should add that the screenplay is great. Unlike the first two films, where the combined dialogue highlight was "Hasta lasagna, don't get any on ya," there are some really snappy lines here. Characters are allowed amusing banter and clever quips that make the primary cast more likable, and the downtime between action sequences just as entertaining as the explosions and gunfire.

None of the performances are on auto-pilot here. Tom Cruise gives a performance that far exceeds the depth of his previous engagements with this franchise, and Ving Rhames reprises his role of Luther Stickell (a character that's given a much better script this time around). Laurence Fishburne as the head of IMF is very entertaining in his role, and Simon Pegg in his two scenes alone make this film worth watching. Billy Crudup, Michelle Monaghan, and Keri Russel also provide notable performances, but the acting highlight is Philip Seymour Hoffman as the antagonist, Owen Davian. He's completely despicable and menacing, and brutally unforgiving portraying the most interesting and memorable Mission: Impossible villain of the film series thus far.

The score is composed by Michael Giacchino- thankfully, with an orchestra this time, unlike Zimmer's electric guitar garbage that provided the music for Mission: Impossible II. While full uses of the classic Mission: Impossible theme are used sparingly, Giacchino's own material is entertaining enough to easily forgive this. In fact, it's probably the most engaging and entertaining score of the franchise so far. That said, though, one gets the feeling that Giacchino could probably right this stuff in his sleep. Still, it's good fun.

It's hard to complain about a movie that fixes everything that its predecessors did wrong. That's not to say that Mission: Impossible III is a perfect movie, but it's closer to being one than the previous two films. Simply said, Mission: Impossible III provides what's most important for this kind of film: Fun. But it's certainly appreciated that it manages to add an ounce of intelligence and craft to the offerings as well.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

An average movie

Posted : 12 years, 8 months ago on 30 August 2011 12:28

Personally, I have some rather ambivalent feelings about this franchise. The first one is usually highly praised but I found that the story was really far-fetched but it was still an alright action flick. The second one was hugely criticized but I thought it was not bad at all with some awesome action scenes. Eventually, in spite of the positive buzz, I can't say I was blown away by this third installment. I mean, I did enjoy the action scenes, I thought that Tom Cruise provided a decent performance and Philip Seymour Hoffman was definitely an awesome bad guy, by far, the best one in the whole franchise. However, precisely like the previous movies, the story was far from being convincing. I mean, it was nothing bad whatsoever, but in my opinion it was pure action routine and, as a result, I was amazed by the action sequences but I didn't care whatsoever about the story or the characters involved. And why is there always a rogue agent involved? Couldn't they come up with something else ? Above all, the biggest mistake was to, once again, involve Ethan Hunt's love interest. It terribly dragged down the story (like in the 2nd installment) and it didn't add much to the whole thing. Still, in spite of its flaws, it remains a very well made and entertaining action flick and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you enjoyed the previous installments.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

Involving, overlooked action extravaganza

Posted : 14 years, 3 months ago on 19 January 2010 11:59

"I'm part of an agency... called the IMF."


The mission allotted to the executives at Paramount Pictures sounded impossible. Their assignment? To resurrect Tom Cruise's lucrative spy franchise that was left in shambles following the stylish but critically reviled second instalment. It would seem that six years away from the material rejuvenated both Cruise and the creative team - after going through several directors who walked away prior to filming (including David Fincher), Cruise recruited hot television commodity J.J. Abrams to overhaul the ailing series and start fresh from both a screenplay and a directorial perspective. Luckily, the gamble pays off excellently. Action franchises tend to considerably decline in quality by the third instalment, from Beverly Hills Cop to Lethal Weapon to the belated Terminator 3, but no such sign of fatigue taints Mission: Impossible III - this isย an involving action extravaganza served with wit and panache that wraps its fingers around a viewer's throat during an intense opening scene and rarely loosens its grip over the two-hour mad dash to the end credits.


For this third film, Ethan Hunt (Cruise) has moved away from the high-risk missions of the previous movies to undertake a desk job (of sorts) training new agents for the field at IMF (Impossible Mission Force). On top of this, Ethan is on the verge of settling down in his private life: he's engaged to a nurse named Julia (Michelle Monaghan), who's blissfully unaware of his actual day job. But when one of his former trainees (Keri Russell) is captured while investigating powerful arms dealer Owen Davian (Philip Seymour Hoffman), Ethan renounces his semi-retirement to rescue her. However, the task steadily evolves into the larger job of pursuing Davian and preventing him from placing a biological weapon (codenamed the Rabbit's Foot) into the wrong hands (i.e. non-American hands).


M:I:III is a brutal, intense, edgy action-thriller that propels the series forward in a fresh new direction. The first two M:I movies were well-mounted displays of their respective director's area of expertise (Brian De Palma's penchant for intricate scenarios played out in silence and John Woo's talent for operatic slo-mo shootouts, respectively), but neither instalment shed a great deal of light on Ethan Hunt as a person. Thankfully, Abrams and his writers rectify this. Mission: Impossible III features a fair share of exploding cars and shootouts, but it's more than mere eye candy - with an eye towards Ethan's personal life and numerous stunt sequences that place the various protagonists in believable situations of danger, it's possible to care about the characters and their mission. Naturally, at the end of the day, it's still a big-budget Hollywood production, but heavens me, the constant and very genuine feeling that Ethan might not make it becomes a concern as tension mounts with unsettling speed. Also interesting is that this M:I story leaves room for teamwork. Sure, it's still Tom Cruise's show, but the filmmakers allow the team to play a bigger role in the action.


Being in charge of a well-publicised $150 million blockbuster for his feature film debut, Abrams delivers the goods with a wallop, displaying a strong eye for dramatic tension and gritty action that's fluid and exciting. He directs the hell out of the action set-pieces, with daring camerawork and sharp editing (courtesy of Alias veterans Maryann Brandon and Mary Jo Markey) that belies the director's inexperience with big-screen adventures. The little moments are equally inspired, too. Action flicks tend to contain boring "in-between stuff" (anything that doesn't involve the action bits, that is), but not so in Mission: Impossible III. Acting is uniformly strong, and Abrams shows a talent for building compelling momentum. It's difficult to believe this is Abrams' first outing as a feature-film director; he exudes a laudable confidence that a number of established filmmakers have no clue how to achieve (such as Uwe Boll or Rob Cohen, just to name a couple).


Think whatever you wish about Tom Cruise's increasingly outspoken religious convictions or his tabloid-fodder personal life, but he's a box office star for a good reason. His performance in Mission: Impossible III ranks among his very best work as an actor. He truly puts his body on the line in terms of stunts and fight choreography, but it's in the non-action scenes where Cruise truly delivers; one can sense the pain and anguish of the moment, and Cruise provides the necessary conviction to make every character interchange highly compelling. During the opening scene alone, he passes through a wide swath of emotions (from bewildered to angry to terrified) in mere seconds. He never fails to sell the legitimacy of a scene, no matter how implausible it may seem. From the outset, it's clear Cruise was dedicated 100% to the movie.


Luckily, the rest of the cast is equally strong. Ving Rhames is his usual self, playing Luther Stickell with a spot-on mix of wit and sincerity. However, Philip Seymour Hoffman is the movie's standout. Owen Davian isn't a foam-at-the-mouth lunatic or a suave, cultured sociopath - he's a deadly serious, brutal badass with no compunction about killing an innocent person. Played to perfection by the late Hoffman, Davian is far better than the cookie-cutter, run-of-the-mill antagonists that typically feature in big-budget blockbusters. And yet, for all the movie's grittiness and suspense, there's a light side too - comic relief is present in the form of Simon Pegg (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz) playing a jittery techie who suggests the Rabbit's Foot could just be "a really expensive bunny appendage".


Despite clocking in at two hours, Mission: Impossible III never noticeably drags because it's excellently paced and moves with the speed of a bullet. It isn't perfect - the hero's wife/girlfriend is predictably placed in jeopardy, and it would've worked better as a hardcore R-rated actioner - but it remains an intelligently-realised and amazingly-rendered action fare that's refreshing to witness after all the cartoonish, dumbed-down rubbish which has been passing as mainstream popcorn cinema over recent years. M:I:III is also, quite convincingly, the best of the Mission: Impossible film series to date.

8.8/10



0 comments, Reply to this entry

Fun third Sequel,

Posted : 15 years, 4 months ago on 31 December 2008 06:59

''I'm part of an agency... called the IMF.''

Ethan Hunt comes face to face with a dangerous and sadistic arms dealer while trying to keep his identity secret in order to protect his girlfriend.

Tom Cruise: Ethan Hunt

Director J.J. Abrams and the scriptwriters do a fantastic job in building up the suspense, by giving us glimpses of the romance between Ethan and Lindsey and also the conversations amongst Ethan and his secret partners as they discuss why a marriage and working for the IMF could never mesh well. Also throughout the movie in between moments of tension and action, there are quirky one-liners and funny little moments that gives us a breath of fresh air after it gets sucked out from the last explosive scene. Clever and witty writing is a rarity nowadays in action movies; its nice to see that there is still some effort into writing for action movies at times. To top it all off, MI:3 is not as predictable as the average motion picture.

Tom Cruise is such a versatile actor, he can do comedy, drama, sci-fi, action, he can do it all, and this is why he works well here. In this movie we see him at his angriest, his happiest, and at his weakest. He does his action scenes well and really blends well with the rest of the cast without really overshadowing any other performance. The best performance in the film by far is Philip Seymour Hoffman, he absolutely stole the spotlight the moment he begins his threats. The other actors and actresses did a decent job, none outstanding, with Ving Rhames having the best lines. Watch for a small cameo by an actor that has had plenty of screen time in the cult hit that put Abrams in the director's chair for this movie, Alias.

''Who are you? What's you're name? Do you have a wife? A girlfriend? Because if you do, I'm gonna find her. I'm gonna hurt her. I'm gonna make her bleed, and cry, and call out your name. And then I'm gonna find you,and kill you right in front of her.''

Nothing is too over-the-top, and that is what excels most in this movie. MI:3's moments are not Transporter 2 or James Bonds' "You've got to be kidding me" moments, but more like Alias's over-the-top-but-not-too-ridiculous stunts. Whether it's the awesome scene at Italy, or the action-packed sequence at the bridge, Mission Impossible 3 may be smart, but it is a summer film, and will entertain those action fanatics. The fights are not plentiful, either way that is quickly forgotten when the climax is approaching.

2006's summer box office season is off to a good start as we have a talented man provide his touch to a well-known franchise, and delivering a smart and fun thriller that is sure to entertain audiences of all kinds, from the action buffs to those that like a little bit of everything in their films. J.J. Abrams has done it again, more props to him for skewing the franchise away from the typical mindless action film that we see all the time. Not as much dependence on special effects than on the interaction amongst the characters, the writing, and also the suspense that builds every time the team has to sneak into a building. Highly recommend, this should be the start of a good directorial career for Abrams. Tom Cruise, despite your off-screen antics, you have provided us with a decent third part of a potential trilogy, which almost never happens. Is there a part 4 on the horizon?

Brian DePalma, Robert Towne, John Woo. My personal opinion on DePalma aside, if three critically respected names like those delivered two films that were respectively mediocre and terrible, what hope was there for a "Mission: Impossible" movie directed and written by "Alias" alumni? Not much, really. I had liked J.J. Abrams' work on the "Lost" pilot as director, but there was nothing there that convinced me that he could pull off a big-budget action film.

Shockingly, "Mission: Impossible III" doesn't feel like an extended "Alias" episode. Not at all. It feels like a damn good, straightforward action spectacle. Certainly fans of the TV show still haven't gotten a faithful adaptation, but this film is closer in spirit to the show than the other two films in the series. Abrams' kinetic style works perfectly for the film, and the action scenes are spectacular, hugely entertaining, and quite well-shot and edited. It's nice to actually see what's going on in an action movie these days.

I'm still trying to figure out what went wrong with John Woo and Mission: Impossible II. Woo is certainly a better director than Abrams, but I had much more fun with this film than with the previous two. The action scenes are just pulled off better. There are some iffy moments with Abrams' work, certainly, but for a feature debut this is very impressive. There was clarity in the storytelling, the action scenes were great (aside from the decidedly average helicopter chase early on), and the film just looks good throughout.

I'm still undecided on whether I dislike Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci yet. As screenwriters they certainly did their job here. A hackjob by a good screenwriter is a thousand times worse than a passionate script by average writers, and this is the ultimate proof of that. The love story angle doesn't quite work, but the story is fun enough and provides plenty of excuses for action. Anyway, who cares? You've got explosions, Tom Cruise in the sort of role he was born to play, and Michael Giacchino's score, which I suppose doesn't contain all that much original music, but is still very fun. That's more than enough.

''I need you to trust me.''


0 comments, Reply to this entry