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. (31/07/2006)

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. (07/03/2014)

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)

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)

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)