MSB Reviews
If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog :)I am resuming my reviews of the Mission: Impossible franchise, anticipating the release of Mission: Impossible - Fallout, which comes out a few days from now. My thoughts on Mission: Impossible and Mission: Impossible II are already written, and you can click on the titles to read my reviews for those movies. After a massive decline in quality from M:I-1 to M:I-2, this third installment picks the saga back up!There are a lot of aspects improved based on the previous films. First of all, the action. This might be THE movie where the stunt work really achieved jaw-dropping levels. From Cruise's epic runs throughout the streets of Shangai (just a single take!) to the astonishingly filmed money shots, J.J. Abrams makes an impressive debut since this was his first feature film. He knows how to incorporate the actors with the visual effects and this time everything looks incredibly realistic and riveting. This movie has the best action of the first three films, by far.Second of all, the characters. J.J. Abrams brings back the original Ethan Hunt, the one that is not a copycat of James Bond (looking at you M:I-2). Everything about this character's arc makes sense, and his relationship with Julia provides some nail-biting suspenseful moments in the third act, where Michelle Monaghan also shines. Tom Cruise obviously continues to be the star of the franchise, but finally, there is a decent villain ...Philip Seymour Hoffman delivers an exceptional performance as the bad guy. That's just what he is: a bad guy. His character does not get any development, but Hoffman picks up his depthless script and surprisingly makes it work. He is the best villain in the franchise so far, and he is connected to the most suspenseful scene in the movie. Ving Rhames returns as Luther, as well as the character's humorous personality. With so much action and tense moments, it is a breath of relief to be able to smile or even laugh with Rhames' lines.Third and final, the pacing. The second film is an ultimate bore. This one, I even understand people who say that it has too much action and it all comes too fast ... Because it does. The frenetic pacing from the first movie is back, and it goes up a gear or two. There is not a single moment to rest between scenes, and that might be an issue for some, but for me, I needed it after the tedious M:I-2. Dull moments are nonexistent, and the excitement is always at high levels. That is what I call entertainment!Nevertheless, it does has some flaws regarding the plot. Besides being very predictable, its structure bothers me a little. J.J. Abrams decides to begin the film with a scene that I don't really understand why he chose to put it there. I don't want to go into spoilers, but there are a couple of questionable decisions regarding the storyline that just don't quite make sense to me.In addition to this, the story itself is pretty generic. The villain is only amazing due to Hoffman's performance since the script gives zero development. The plot twists are evident by the end of the first act, so they lose their impact towards the end. However, the thing that kind of ruined a perfect ending (still a great ending though) is how they handle Michelle's character. I will just say that it becomes too nonsensical and extremely forced, and Julia is the reason behind it.Despite its flaws, Mission: Impossible III brings the saga back to life with the best action of the entire franchise, some fantastic additions to its cast and a super exciting and riveting pacing. Tom Cruise provides some epic stunts, Philip Seymour Hoffman is the best villain so far, and Ving Rhames continues to be awesome. However, the plot is very generic, predictable and its structure makes some supposedly suspenseful scenes lose its emotional impact. It's a hair below M:I-1 but miles and miles above the awful M:I-2, thanks to J.J. Abrams incredible directorial debut, which is filled with phenomenal camera work, jaw-dropping stunts and a remarkable use of visual effects.
Pjtaylor-96-138044
Essentially, 'Mission: Impossible III (2006)' takes the series back to its roots and eases off on the action slightly, though not entirely, to make a movie much more akin to a spy thriller than a straight up action one. It still focuses much more on its high-octane set-pieces than its espionage elements, though. For all intents and purposes, it sets a precedent for the franchise. Subsequent films would go on to raise the bar significantly every time and it never reaches the heights of the first feature, but this flick towers above the series' second instalment and provides plenty of entertainment in its own right, including a fantastically unflinching opening, even though it falls victim to constantly unsteady camera-work and a weak, macguffin-reliant plot. 7/10
morganstephens512
This is so much better than the second film in the series, but it is still the second worst in the entire series. The film did not do all that well at the box office and I can see why that is the case. While the acting is good and a lot of the visuals are good, the action still was not all that great. The introduction to Pegg's character is not all that great considering how much he is in the series after this point and how good he is later on. In here, he just feels kind of forced in. Although it is nice to see Luthor have a big role. But the villain was just not interesting at all and because he was not interesting, the story is just weak and I don't really know what else to say to it besides just that.
Nadine Salakov
This is by far the worst one out of the Mission Impossible movie series, there's some action scenes, but it's generic. The bad guy is dull, Tom Cruise is bland and the screenplay is something that we've seen millions of times before - the guy has to rescue the girl (rolls eyes in annoyance).The only entertaining part of this movie is the Twista and Kanye song at the end credits.Forget this movie and watch "Rogue Nation" instead.
