Mission: Impossible III

Hunt's most balanced escapade. Innovator Abrams managed to revive a somewhat exhausted series into a position of a strong blockbuster player, and thanks to fast editing, well-developed characters, and a close portrayal of Ethan's character, he achieved a nearly historic success. Despite his specific approach, he never lets us forget which action hero we are watching, taking the best from the cleverly targeted mood of the first installment and the action-packed sequel. This time, I found myself holding my breath for the central adventurer, rooting for him intensely, and shivering during all the action sequences. Until the period when McQuarrie took the series under his wing (forever?), I actually liked the third installment the most among the entire M:I franchise. As the years go by, it loses some of its uniqueness and irreproducibility, but fortunately, not the entertainment value, tangible drive of the story, likable attempts to deviate from genre conventions, and last but not least, the atypical (and cunningly) villain. (07/30/2006)

Mission: Impossible III has only one absolutely great action scene (and we’ve already seen it in the trailer) and it lacks the high-tech charge that was typical of the preceding instalments. However, these shortcomings are offset by the film’s superb balance of authenticity (!) with a detached sense of humor and, mainly, its dynamic story in which something important is constantly happening, driven by urgency and emotions. Ethan’s relationship with his new wife works very well and when her life is hanging in the balance, it’s about more than saving the world. The less we see of the super-villain played by Philip Seymour Hoffman, the more impressive are the scenes featuring him. This is a different but effective instalment in the franchise. It’s a popcorn movie that, like the Bourne films, won’t insult your intelligence. I was most pleased with the breakneck shots, starting on Cruise’s face and continuously following his subsequent acrobatic stunts (jumping off of a skyscraper, running across Chinese rooftops). This makes up for the absence of De Palma and Woo’s eye-candy action from the previous M:I films. (05/02/2006)

Hands-down the biggest and best action hit of the year, impressive in its forcefulness, continuous adrenaline action, and solid performances. J.J. Abrams raises reality and the laws of physics much higher than Brian De Palma or even John Woo did. Ethan Hunt is completely different for the third time, and this image is damn good. It’s nonsense to compare it to the previous installment, as they are two completely different pieces, technically, aesthetically, stylistically, and in terms of the action itself. It is unusually fierce for an action blockbuster, with a solid dose of realism. In addition, Abrams utterly rules the audience with some set-pieces and fast but incredibly clever plot twists, detailed studies of various tricks (like creating a facial mask), and gimmicks. That is one thing this series was missing. Tom Cruise is a capable actor and his physical condition is unbelievable (see the almost minute-long uncut shot of his sprint in treacherous alleyways), and that's exactly how a special agent should look. And just when it seems like there could be some wear and tear, a cool line and a healthy touch humour come into play. Philip Seymour Hoffman is so arrogant and brutal as the villain that he’s a joy to watch. One of the highlights of this year. (10/05/2006)

The intricate espionage games like in De Palma's first film take a back seat, Abrams presents a pure action spectacle, during which you can calmly sit through an unintentionally self-parodic resuscitation scene and the fact that Hunt's emotional relationship with his wife is brought to life through some really toe-curling dialogues, and I, as an ordinary viewer, will hardly care if they are just a mockery of a genre cliché (which I may or may not believe). Leaving aside the recent and brilliant The Bourne Supremacy, the last time I enjoyed a similar ride on the big screen was perhaps twelve years ago with de Bont's Speed. The impressive opening, which introduces Seymour Hoffman as a truly amazing, uncompromising bad guy, is followed by a slowed-down breath to a big continuous action whirlwind that, with a few cool plot twists and very little respite, only ends with the onset of the closing credits. I really enjoyed myself. PS: Cruise seems to be a capable producer and lately a better and better actor, but here again he chose a weaker moment with his sometimes theatrical speech. (05/24/2006)

It was only when I got to this film that I actually realized I had never seen it before. One, two, and four, yes, but the third one somehow cleverly evaded me. I was quite curious, even though watching "M:I 3" at a time when one is nicely chronologically going through all the Bond films is not the best solution. Not that "M:I 3" doesn't have anything to offer, but one has the feeling that it's a bit of the same. However, it is true that J.J. Abrams gave this series a boost again and it's not bad compared to the Bond films. Mainly because the Bond films are often quite exhausted. Abrams added emotions to the film and it really works. Philip Seymour Hoffman once again showed how he was born for acting. (03/07/2014)