IMDb > Mission: Impossible III (2006) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Mission: Impossible III
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Mission: Impossible III More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 2 of 84:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]
Index 837 reviews in total 

18 out of 26 people found the following review useful:

A HUGE improvement over #2

Author: shiftyeyeddog from Illinois
5 July 2007

Not bad at all. After the John Woo craptastic crapfest that was MI2, Lost creator JJ Abrams takes over and makes a flick that is at least as good as the first one, possibly better in some respects. Some real surprises early in the flick start things off fast, and it keeps up the pace pretty well from there on. Sure, it's mostly same-old same-old, but it was fun and action-packed. Phillip Seymour Hoffman was fine as a villain, but was really not even in the movie that much. Tom Cruise was just Tom Cruise as usual, but for two hours I was able to forget about all his offscreen stupidity. You know what this really felt like? 24: The Movie. ...which they are apparently going to make. It should end up being much like MI3, and I think that'd be just fine.

Was the above review useful to you?

19 out of 28 people found the following review useful:

Lots of explosions no substance

Author: xolt from Australia
7 June 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

If your idea of an action movie is limited character development, not much dialog a weak storyline BUT with lots of fancy stunts and things exploding. Then MI-III is the film for you.

However if you like even a minimal amount of intelligent dialog, character development a more detailed plot and reason for these characters to be engaged in this high octane behavior then MI-III fails dismally.

There was the weak, extended and boring party scene early on that only served to highlight Ethan (Tom Cruise) loves his wife to be so very much and he can read lips. Plus everyone smiles a lot and all go to the same great dentist.

Oh yeah Ethan loves his wife to be so much that an out of the blue mission to save a former female infatuation of his results in Ethan accepting the mission almost immediately.

Such love but I guess that childish paternalism with a former employee is greater than your new life with the most important person in your life right? Oh well I guess the film would have stopped there had he refused the assignment, so off we go on a wild goose chase for some "holy grail", "preperation H", "rabbits foot", "mojo" "x" who cares? who knows? nobody it's just an excuse to break into places and blow things up.

I saw it on the big screen and can only imagine how boring and shallow such a production would look watching on small screen.

The overall impression I had was a shallow story, nothing to drag you in and keep you hooked. Zero suspense nothing had me on the edge of my seat not even once. Cardboard cutout characters would have more life than the ones developed in MI-III.

Unless you really like things exploding and watching Tom run, you'd probably get more enjoyment burning your money.

Was the above review useful to you?

134 out of 259 people found the following review useful:

Ethan Hunt is back. Getting involved with some girl - but should he marry her in his line of work?

Author: docbilbo from Norway
2 May 2006

I personally did not have to much expectations to this one. Thought it would be just like number 1 and 2. But I was pleasantly surprised when I saw it at a press viewing in Oslo today. The film is actually really good. The story stronger than before, and they play nicely on feelings this time.

There is also plenty of action :) All in all i would give this 8 out of 10. I personally think there is some really good acting in this one. We have Philip Seymour Hoffman as the bad guy, perfect role for him. Others worth mentioning is Jonathan Rhys Meyers. I recently saw an other movie with him - Match Point - and I must say like this actor.

Tom Cruise is very mainstream as always. But I think this has got be one of his better roles the last years. I did not think he preformed well in for example War of the Worlds. But in this one here he does a much better job :)

So run to the cinemas and see it :)

Was the above review useful to you?

15 out of 22 people found the following review useful:

Okay Blockbuster

Author: Theo Robertson from Isle Of Bute, Scotland
28 July 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

MISSION IMPOSSIBLE 3 was originally to have been directed by David Fincher but he dropped out . Next director was Joe Carnahan but he quit before third choice JJ Abrams was hired . Condidering Abrams had never directed a film before you get the impression that the studio were starting to get desperate not to pull the plug on the project . Humanity might have struggled on without seeing MI3 and evolution wouldn't have been affected one way or the other but a studio needs to make money

It's an okay Summer blockbuster , not something you'll remember days later but not something you think you've wasted two hours of your life over and could have been far worse due to the production problems . . It's an uneasy mix of the two previous films in the franchise , where as the first was too complicated for its own good and the second was overly simplistic the third one tries to be character driven as well as plot driven . The back story involves Ethan Hunt failing to save a female IMF agent from the clutches of international arms dealer Owen Davian so makes it his life's mission to bring Davian to justice . Hunt almost succeeds which leads to Davian making it his life's mission to seek cruel revenge on Hunt and Davian is used to seeing his plans succeed

This character driven dynamic of the narrative just about works but it's more to do with the cast rather than the writing . Philip Seymour Hoffman was considered to be the world's best actor when this was released and easily carries the film as baddie Owen Davian . He's hardly the most multi layered written character in the history of cinema but he probably doesn't have to be . He doesn't have to do anything evil because he has the money and power to get other people to carry out his dirty work . Tom Cruise is of course Tom Cruise rather than Ethan Hunt . He smiles a lot which means he's a good guy and you don't want to see him get tortured or killed . One slight casting distraction for Brits is that Simon Pegg who is forever associated with Channel 4 sitcoms crops up as does Sean McGuire who will be forever known for his role in EASTENDERS along with a spectacurally unsuccessful pop career

The film's major set piece , one which involves Davian being rescued by his mercenary team on a bridge . It's an impressive enough Summer blockbuster set piece but unfortunately after this the final third lacks a climax to match this . Instead there's plot turns revealing a traitor and double crosses , lots of running around and Ethan trying to save the woman he loves along with cinematic convention that says if you're heart has stopped it can be easily started by heart massage rather than a defibrillator

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 15 people found the following review useful:

Not worthy of the legacy...

Author: Enchorde from Sweden
17 September 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***


Recap: Ethan Hunt has found the girl of his dreams and has left active duty at the agency. Now he only train new agents. When one of his former students get captured, Ethan resumes active duty. To his wife-to-be, who of course knows nothing of Ethan's past, he tells that he has to go out of town on a conference. The student, Lindsey Farris, has been captured by a black-market dealer, Owen Davian. Davian is obviously a man with no conscience and has more than a little sadistic twist. Ethan is of course able to rescue Farris, but only to have her die in his arms after Davian planted (during her capture of course), activated and detonated a small explosive charge in her brain.

The mission a failure, Ethan gets a scalding from his superiors. To redeem himself he goes to Rome to capture Davian. This time the mission is a success, but he is about to learn that Davian has a connection to the agency's top level, a connection having lethal consequences...

Comments: I'm not sure whoever took a coffee break here, the director, the writers, the producers, the studio... but somebody did. This is the third installation of the MI movie series. For med MI stands for technical ingenuity, brave plots and plans exercised masterfully keeping everyone (including the viewers) on their edge. This movie does not. The most technical ingenuity, the most MI:ish, I saw was wearing rubber faces and faking voices. I vaguely recall that being done somewhere else. Oh that's it! The previous MI movies!

The problem with a sequel is that you have to top the previous ones. Be a little more clever, have some new gear, offer some new thrills. Evolve. MI3 does not do that. It doesn't even try. I remember the first movie when Ethan and Co broke into and stole from Langley. Apparently so does Luther Stickell as he before what could be the biggest heist yet says (something like) "Langley was easy". The movie makers does not, and instead of giving a thrillingly heist, they offer a big great anti-climax. All we get to see from the heist is Luther and the team sitting in their car complaining that Ethan is late. Not a single shot, view is shown from inside the building Ethan broke into. It is not even described, or for that matter, spoken of. That's the coffee-break people! MI _not_ showing a break in, a heist of epic proportions. COME ON! You got to do better than that... or at least try.

To really rub it in, the mastermind behind the evil Davian is a mole inside the agency. What a shock! Wait a minute... now that too feels familiar. Oh yeah... haven't there been moles and rogue agents in the MI movies before? Ah well, both actually! Actually IMF, as the agency is called, must be the worst agency ever. Want to make the world a safer place? Your first step should be... must be to stop IMF. Obviously it is they who educates and sets free the biggest criminals in the world.

I hope you get it by now. MI3 is not new, fresh and clever. It's old, everything has been done before, by themselves nonetheless!

So what we get is a predictable story, decent action and some decent thrilling moments, but nothing new. Not MI, and that's why MI3 is not worthy of the legacy. It is just like any other action flick.


Was the above review useful to you?

17 out of 27 people found the following review useful:

Author: Haxxploits from United States
7 November 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Good evening, my name is Tom Cruise. I'm going to unload on a plane with my full clip of g36 ammo, then reload and run out after 3 shots when I shoot at the important bad guys. I'm also going to own a defibrillator that takes 30 seconds to charge and has a colorful beeping LCD screen. And I was thinking about being blown to the right, into a car when an explosion goes off 100 yards behind be. I'm also going to shoot a handful of other unrealistic sounding guns. When I am not shooting guns and can't seem to find a 30 second charging defibrillator, I am going to rig up something that would completely eradicate me in the real world, and tell my girlfriend that if she doesn't kill me, I will die. But not before giving her a lesson on guns....because this is a Berreta M92 F, very effective at close range. When I know I could have just said that this is a gun. After my girlfriend kills me with my ridiculous kitchen cookware Popsicle stick defibrillator, I'm going to lie lifeless until she uses about 25 bullets to kill 2 guys. But I am not going to come back alive until she kisses me on the lips. Then on the way out of china, I am going to explain to her that I am part of a GOVERNMENT FUNDED TEAM CALLED "IMPOSSIBLE MISSION FORCE". Because the government thinks up crazy lame names for their organizations that I would expect a 5 year old to come up with for his group of toddler friends.

Was the above review useful to you?

70 out of 133 people found the following review useful:

awful beyond awfuls ability to be awful

Author: tommx from Maryland
8 May 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Let's ignore the fact that Tom Cruise is most likely a self loathing homosexual who has made a complete fool of himself over the last year or so with his publicity stunts and bizarre protestations of love for a girl half his age whose career has probably been destroyed by him. Let's ignore the fact that the last Mission Impossible film really wasn't all that good and didn't really merit a sequel. Let's ignore the fact that audiences seem to be getting tired of movies that are nothing more than extravaganzas of special effects.

Let's judge this movie on its merits alone, shall we? OK...

First of all, the title suggests that it is an adaptation of the series of the same name. Now first of all, that series has not been seen by a significant portion of the target audience. Hence, any references to it beyond the self destructing message and the rubber masks are going to probably be lost. Fortunately, those are the only real references to the original series that you see in this belabored piece of self indulgent hogwash. I went to see it mainly because I wanted to see what JJ Abrams spent the last year doing instead of working on Lost. I also wanted to see what Philip Seymour Hoffman was like as a villain. The latter was very good, as far as he was allowed to go. (which really wasn't all that far). The plot was essentially the same as the previous two movies, only much more poorly executed: Ethan Hunt is handed a mission at the beginning of the movie that ultimately proves to be a failure and winds up involving him in some kind of deeper conspiracy orchestrated by some close friend he works (or used to) work with. He winds up having to steal something that is heavily guarded and is highly dangerous for the bad guy. Eventually, the bad guy loses, he comes through with a few scratches, and the end of the movie suggests somewhat banally that there might be another sequel.

Except this time, he's got a wife. OOooh...we've raised the stakes to a personal level. Well, not really because every scene involving his wife made me want to look for a fast forward button.

Then there is the big honking climax involving Ethan having some kind of explosive device (a nitro glycerin capsule of some sort) inserted into his brain and about to explode. Now first of all, I fail to understand how a defibrillator is going to disable nitroglycerin. More to the point, nitroglycerin is highly volatile and tends to explode if jarred too much. Hence, the electroshock is moot since his head should have gone blammo long before he got zapped. Finally, for a doctor, his wife doesn't seem to know how to give CPR very well.

Bottom was a dumb stupid movie. I hope it doesn't hurt Abram's career, but I doubt it will. Hoffman no doubt got a good salary out of it, and hopefully will get better roles in the future. As for Tom, who really cares? He's pretty much looking like a has-been. He used to be very good, but that time is obviously long gone, as he seems to prefer publicity and wild claims about his ridiculous religion to actually acting. Shame too. Once upon a time, he was very talented. Now he's just a hack.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

Provides plenty of bangs for the buck but lacks tension or excitement beyond the superficial

Author: bob the moo from United Kingdom
28 May 2006

In an attempt to get closer to a "normal" life, IMF Agent Ethan Hunt has stepped back from field work and into a training role. His fiancé is none-the-wiser and believes that he works with the local traffic commission, studying patterns and planning improvements. When he learns that one of his top pupils has gone silent in the field and is believed kidnapped, Hunt accepts the offer to lead a rescue team to extract her. The mission sees him coming directly into conflict with the elusive arms dealer Owen Davian.

I didn't expect a great deal from the man that had given me Lost and Alias – both series that rely on forward motion to keep them going rather than doing anything in terms of depth or foundation. And so it was with MI3, because despite a few failed efforts to flesh out Hunt's life with a dog and a wife, the action is the all and we never go long without something going bang. Opening with a tense and engaging scene, the step back in time to Hunt's training role was a bit of a blow but it moved past quickly enough. The actual plot is then rolled out and despite being total nonsense from start to finish, is probably enough for those looking for summer thrills. Those looking for more (which, as a fan of the first MI film, I was) will probably not get it because generally the film eschews any detail or sense of intrigue and heads right for the action and spectacle. This has its merits of course but I must admit I wanted more than just that. As it was I let the noisy and shaky cameras bully me into submission and I found myself enjoying the film even I never doubted that it was quite an unremarkable film that attempts little of interest outside of the visual aspect.

As director Abrams shows that he has an eye for movement and excitement but he mostly does it by artificial means as the material is not there to help him. It is not a great turn from him but he has certainly improved on the disappointing second film in the series. The cast are a strange mix but surprisingly nobody really makes much of an impression and they almost all come over like mere plastic models in one big special effects shot. Cruise does charming, driven, angry or determined as the story requires but other than that he lacks depth and in this film his charisma only got him so far for me. Hoffman is miscast although I can see why he accepted the role; he has good presence but the material he is given is below him and aside from one or two genuinely menacing scenes, he mostly just shouts. Rhames is so-so but the film doesn't do much with new crew members Maggie Q (who admittedly looked great) and Rhys-Meyers (who has a knack of grating on me in most of his performances, not sure why). Fishburne is an obvious red-herring; Monaghan is a non-person, unconvincing in the extreme and only there as a pretty narrative device. Simon Pegg was a very strange discovery and his version of Alias' Marshall didn't really work for me and didn't fit with the flow of the film.

Overall then a noisy film that has plenty of running, shooting, shouting and bangs to make it fit the "mindless summer blockbuster" gap at this time of the year. Those looking for more will probably have worked out that Abrams was not the man to give it to them, since hollow but engaging movement without substance is what he does best. The story just about hangs together and I did enjoy the noise but by the end I was longing for some actual, quiet tension and build-up, the like of which the film opened with promisingly but then never managed to deliver again.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

great action!!

Author: DouglasK919 from New Jersey
11 May 2006

Overall I thought this movie was great. I went to it expecting it to be a good action flick. One with good fight scenes and explosions and got just that. The story line could have used a little work, but this blew the 2nd installment out of the water. This movie was definitely needed to revamp the Mission Impossible series. I was kind of hoping for a few more lines from Phillip Seymour Hoffman, but he still played an excellent villain.

As far as story line goes...I'd rate the trilogy this way. 1st movie, 3rd movie, and then dead last is the 2nd.

As far as action...I'd rate this 3rd installment as the best! If you are looking for an entertaining movie this will definitely grasp it. Enjoy!

Was the above review useful to you?

15 out of 26 people found the following review useful:

Great Intro and Body, Weak Conclusion

Author: pts55s from Australia
4 May 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The film was what you'd expect, action action action. This was great! All ran smoothly with character development and more focus on the organisation. The action was non-stop, maintaining suspense and excitement that made for a great viewing experience. This film had all the characteristics of a great action movie, until the last ten minutes! It was as if the writers had a block and decided to finish the film with classical repercussions. This was a surprising shock as the script was very solid and elevated this film above the previous Mission Impossible films. This sucked, lost sense of reality with over-used clichés that really let down a great action film.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 2 of 84:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards Newsgroup reviews External reviews
Parents Guide Official site Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history