Mission: Impossible III

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. (24/05/2006)

I don't know why I don't like Ethan Hunt... It's definitely not a problem of the lead actor, because Tom Cruise has finally gotten into a productive age and I think he's playing one great role after another. But there is something disgusting about the scout Hunt, who is a great partner, a lover and, moreover, runs in a truly exemplary manner, with exemplary body guidance and the way he holds his hands. One has to sigh: "Look how beautifully Ethan runs..." But that's not the worst thing about Mission: Impossible III - the worst things about this movie are the non-action sequences. The family sequences. J. J. Abrams unfortunately proves that his domain is working on series, and I say without exaggeration that in the movie theatre, I was bothered by his shallow and stupid conception of interpersonal relationships. And through his acting, Tom Cruise reminded me of his worse times. It's too bad, because trying to turn the dummy Hunt into a man is a good way to go, but in my opinion he managed instead to make a completely different kind of dummy. Fortunately, there is still action, and here Abrams does well. Mission: Impossible III is an old school action film, with all manner of explosions, a wild shootout and a minimum of hi-tech directing solutions. The conservatively, but perfectly filmed action definitely escalates with stylish Vatican infiltration. Here, the director shows his television clip school in full field and we can only say: it is beautiful to watch and it has a damn good tension. Another positive aspect is the magnificent and cold-blooded villain Philip Seymour Hoffman... Such a repulsive and perverted type of character really gladdens and creates a strong tension in the film. This tension works despite the fact that the relationship between Ethan and his chosen Jules got a little annoying for me. But the duel between the inventive agent and a slimy dealer is just so exciting and its action is so adrenaline-fueled that the final idyll, containing perhaps all the worst clichés, including hilarious slow motion, just can't destroy my impression of a good action movie. However, it is quite obvious that the creators wanted to make Hunt a great character, which they failed at. He's just a picturesque boy from an American textbook in a very explosive world. It could have been even better, but the third film is probably the best in the series... A stronger ***. (06/05/2006)

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. (05/10/2006)

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. (02/05/2006)

There is one positive thing I have to admit about this film. Out of the three sequels about the indestructible agent, it is the best one, but I have a problem with the whole series, just as I have a problem with the majority of action movies. It is simply an unrealistic fairy tale, where you need to turn off your brain and not think about the numerous holes in the logic. Unlike the series of James Bond films, it lacks style and humorous exaggeration. The third part is the most mature in terms of filmmaking, but paradoxically it lacks a truly worthy opponent compared to the previous two films. Philip Seymour Hoffman is a great actor, but he doesn't get enough space and the script doesn't demonize him enough, and if it weren't for the betrayal, he would play a rather embarrassing role as a quickly defeated opponent. If someone is to stand up to such a brilliant invincible agent like Ethan Hunt and the American Secret Service equipped with hi-tech technology, it must be truly a devil in human form, who aims at least, but I emphasize at least, to take over the world... Overall impression: 45%. (14/04/2009)