Mission: Impossible III (2006) Poster

User Reviews

Add a Review
879 Reviews
Sort by:
A rush and raw adrenaline-full movie
Carlos André11 February 2018
Warning: Spoilers
My god! This movie is good.

MI3 is just a class about how to make a good action thriller movie, this thing is just breathless all the way down, you can't take a break, you're tense through the majority of the scenes.

So many amazing moments, like the parkour scene in Xangai, the jump from the building, the interrogation scene (both of them), etc etc etc. This movie clearly build all the path that the franchise would follow for the years to come. It's not a "trash" vibe of movie, it take itself seriously, but in order to do that, it makes you feel worried about the characters.

It's amazing to see how JJ started with the right foot on his first movie. Probably the only little thing that bothered me was the close ups, is not a awful thing or anything, but I think that sometimes the screen can be too "crowded" with the excess of close ups.

Philip Seymour Hoffman destroys as the villain, his character is so threatening even though you don't know anything about him. The interrogatory scene in the plane is fantastic, when you realize that they gave him the only thing that he needed (Ethan's name). Amazing.

Tom Cruise again kills it, the dude is a monster, and continues to impress everybody with his stunts. This is also the first of the MI movies that he needs to use some of his "dramatic skills", and he delivers.

The script is well writing, the twist of "who is the inside bad guy?" really take me by surprise, and I love it. I also love the first minutes of the movie, when you see Ethan's party, it's soo well done, because in a fell different ordinary situations you get almost all that you need to know about Ethan, how is his life, how is his relationship, and that kind of stuff, in something that last like 5 minutes.

In short, MI3 is a fantastic action movie, that with absolutely certain took the franchise to a whole other level.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Completely irrational, for it believes that a mystery can be legitimate even if it's repeated
marieltrokan19 December 2017
Warning: Spoilers
The inspiration of danger is the non-inspiration of safety

The non-inspiration of safety is the preclusion of the ability to be uninspired

The ability to be uninspired is the non-inspiration of ability

Precluding the non-inspiration of ability is to create the inspiration of ability

The inspiration of ability is the ability of ability

Creation is ability

Ability of ability of ability is ability ability ability

Ability is need of inability

Unable need is deceptive inability

Deceptive inability deceptive inability is deceptive ability

Deceptive ability deceptive inability is the ability of a deceptive ability

Deceptive ability is the ability of deception

The ability of the ability of deception is the deception of the ability of ability

The ability of ability is inability

The deception of inability is the deception of impossibility

The deception of impossibility is the sincerity of possibility

The sincerity of possibility is possible sincerity

Possible sincerity is possible truth

Possible truth is fact of mystery

Fact is impossibility of possibility

Mystery is possibility of impossibility

Impossible possible is fact of no mystery

Possible impossible is impossible possible

The fact of no mystery is the mystery of no fact

The mystery of no fact is the mystery of mystery

The mystery of mystery of mystery of mystery is the fact of mystery mystery

The fact of mystery mystery is the ability of mystery mystery
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Mission "The Rabbit's Foot"
cinemajesty9 November 2017
Movie Review: "Mission: Impossible III" (2006)

With release on May 5th 2006, it became clear that the "Mission: Impossible" movie series under the direction of J.J. Abrams, a director coming immediately from high quality television productions as ABC's "Lost" (2004-2010), turned a corner toward major budgetary needs; receiving a production budget of 150 Million Dollars from all-through international investors, mainly coming from the newly engaged market of China.

Shooting with three-angle camera system by followed digital clean ups and color corrections by Stefan Sonnenfeld under supervisions through cinematographer Dan Mindel; the director pushes a screenplay prepared by his long-time collaborators Alex Kurztman and Roberto Orci to the limits with a preliminary open scene for an ultimate stress situation in character Ethan Hunt's evolution, performed by new dramatic grounds testing actor Tom Cruise, who decided as producer to give some ingredients of the first movie from 1996 back to his pre-owned character, which results in a major tension loss after an unless extremely well-made action sequence at a Berlin manufacturing facility within the first 45 minutes of the "Mission: Impossible III". The script gives into a standard set-up of Ethan Hunt marrying the newly introduced character of Julia, before his main assignment of exposing a major bio-weapon trading business man starts.

Nevertheless under J.J. Abrams direction the movie gains immense acceleration, which is also due to an upscale supporting cast, all up front actor Philip Seymour Hoffmann (1967-2014) sharing his first major Hollywood production performance as the menacing, down to no mercy character of Owen Davian to challenge the character of Ethan Hunt, Tom Cruise empowered to let surface honest beats of full range - in getting threat to lose everything - the character just gained from the life-beginning start of the picture, humanizing the character conflicts to an extent of complete desperation in order to build a promised momentum, departing mega bridge jumps, helicopter gun-firestorming action sequences into a chamber up, close and personal fight to death.

The poetic approaches of "Mission: Impossible II" directed by John Woo, have been annihilated and exchanged to a straight forward editorial of Maryann Brandon, who could have used additional trimming down to a 105 minute running time marker, not to diminish all through solid performances by Laurence Fishburne as mission commander, Billy Cudrup, Michelle Monaghan as Julia, dangerously close cast to actress Katie Holmes at that time, and of course the all new from there on not to missed character of Benji Dunn, in nerdy analyst, humor on bureaucracy revolting performance by actor Simon Pegg to sum-up "Mission: Impossible III" as high-end motion picture entertainment as event at movie houses and furthermore staying relevant, open for revisits on home screen devices.

© 2017 Felix Alexander Dausend (Cinemajesty Entertainments LLC)
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
I Remembered It Being Better
slightlymad2224 October 2017
Continuing my plan to watch every Tom Cruise movie in order, I come to Mission Impossible 3 (2006)

Plot In A Paragraph: Agent Ethan Hunt (Cruise) comes into conflict with a dangerous and sadistic arms dealer (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) who threatens his life and his fianceé in response.

This is the directorial debut of J.J. Abrams and was released at a time when Cruise was still being ridiculed for jumping on Oprah's sofa when promoting War Of The Worlds.

I remember really liking this when it was released, thinking it brought the franchise (and ended it) on the right track. A really enjoyable popcorn flick is how I remembered it!! Watching it now I was disappointed in it, and found myself playing with my phone in several occasions. Is it silly to be disappointed in a pop corn flick??

The movie does a lot of things right, but it does nearly as many things wrong. I'll start with what I liked first. Right at the top of the list by a mile is a surprisingly intimidating Philip Seymour Hoffman. Owen Davian isn't the usual lunatic or a cultured villain. He's a deadly serious man who has no problems with killing anyone who gets in his way or those that let him down. Cruise's Ethan Hunt is a bit more human this time round, Laurence Fishburne is decent in his M like role and Simon Pegg is equally fun in his Q type role. The movie opens with a great, intense two-minute pre-credits scene.

Sadly the Bond-like pre credits sequence is so intense, a lot of what follows fella flatter, as we wait to catch up to that scene. The latex face device from the first two movies is still being used and despite a lot actions set pieces it lacks excitement.

It's better than the second one, but not as good as the first. Overall it's nothing more than a routine action movie, when I remembered much more.

I think Cruise's reputation at the time probably hurt this at the box office, as it finished the 14th highest grossing movie of the year, with a domestic gross of $134 million.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Better than 2
morganstephens5128 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
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.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Not bad, not great
Karl Meyers5 August 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I was hesitant to see it because of how bad Mission Impossible 2 was, but I think it more than makes up for the 2nd flop and I would even argue that it's better than the first. The action really is non-stop, and there aren't any cheesy love scenes slowing anything down. The bad guy doesn't change every five minutes either. The plot moves quickly but it doesn't lose the audience at all. You don't need to have seen either of the first two to understand what is going on (I can't remember the plot from either). Lots of guns, loud explosions, cool gadgets and fun locations. I can remember on more than one occasion where the audience clapped or reacted to the action. It does everything an action movie should do very well. I would highly advise anyone who likes action movies to go see it. Even if you think Tom Cruise is a little insane, MI:III is extremely enjoyable.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Very boring.
Nadine Salakov10 June 2017
Warning: Spoilers
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.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Better than the first two.
BA_Harrison31 March 2017
J.J. Abrams is the director for part three in the Mission: Impossible franchise, meaning that there is an excess of lens flares but also a surfeit of top-notch action making this one yet another small step in the right direction for the series.

This time around, retired agent Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) goes back in the field to try and apprehend Owen Davian (Philip Seymour Hoffman), a sadistic arms dealer who is trying to get his hands on a device code-named "The Rabbit's Foot". In doing so, Hunt not only puts his own life at risk but also that of his wife Julia (Michelle Monaghan).

Where parts 1 and 2 were sparing with their action scenes, Mission: Impossible III's pace is much faster, Abrams going all out for tension and excitement, including a superb helicopter chase through a wind-farm, Hunt breaking into the Vatican to capture Davian, an explosive attack on a bridge, and a perilous leap for our hero from one skyscraper to another. As slam-bang Summer blockbusters go, it definitely doesn't disappoint, even though the plot does tend to get a bit silly at times (yes, the rubber mask disguise routine makes an appearance and is still as daft as ever).

In the supporting roles, Hoffman makes for a very credible villain, Monaghan is likable as Hunt's Achilles heel, Simon Pegg is reasonable enough as comic relief tech geek Benji Dunn, and Maggie Q supplies the glamour as IMF agent Zhen Lei (while also adding appeal for the Asian market). Billy Crudup and Jonathan Rhys Meyers, on the other hand, are forgettable and Ving Rhames is sorely wasted.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Great Action But Lacks Originality/Characters
zkonedog10 March 2017
Warning: Spoilers
After the widely-acclaimed disappointment that was "Mission Impossible II" this third installment (helmed by the formidable JJ Abrams) provides some much-needed polish to a franchise in desperate need of it. Sadly, though, there are too many missed opportunities for character growth and plot for this movie to truly rise above an "average" categorization.

For a basic plot summary, "MI3" sees Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) called back to the IMF one more time to save a fellow agent (played by Keri Russell). When that operation uncovers international villain Owen Davian (Philip Seymour Hoffman), Hunt is drawn into the chase in more ways than one when his wife-to-be Julia (Michelle Monaghan) is drawn into the plot as well.

In terms of action/gadgets/technology/freneticism, this movie likely has what you are looking for. The nonstop action rivals anything that, say, a "Bourne" or Jason Statham flick could ever produce, and the visuals are stunning and slick. For those only looking for action/adventure going in, there's no reason to be disappointed.

At the same time, however, two fatal flaws exist in this film:

First, the characters are mighty weak. Monaghan (though perfectly built for her role) is only "the girl to be saved", Hoffman is a terrible villain, and the script doesn't really give Cruise all that much of an opportunity to grow.

Second, the plot (while twisty/turny) is nothing that spy fans haven't seen countless times before. The names/places/dates may have been changed, but pretty much everything else is stock fare for espionage flicks.

Overall, then, while JJ did polish up this franchise a bit, I felt that he didn't buff out enough of the imperfections to make it a truly great film. Enjoy it for what it is, but don't expect it to rocket atop any "best of" lists.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An Unlucky Rabbit's Foot
Uriah439 February 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Even though he is retired from actual field work, "Ethan Hunt" (Tom Cruise) is asked to join an IMF team on a mission to rescue a colleague named "Lindsey Farris" (Keri Russell) who has been kidnapped by an international arms dealer by the name of "Owen Davian" (Philip Seymour Hoffman). At first the mission is a great success as they not only extricate Lindsey but also take a couple of badly damaged laptops with them as well. Unfortunately, Lindsey dies not long afterward due to a small explosive device implanted in her brain and there is some doubt as to whether the IMF will be able to retrieve any information on the laptops. Needless to say, the IMF director "Theodore Brassel" (Laurence Fishburne) is not very happy with the outcome and lets all of the agents involved in the mission know about it. Fortunately, one small piece of information is gleaned from the corrupted disk drive on one of the laptops which reveals that Owen is scheduled for a meeting in Rome and it's at this time that a top-secret mission is launched to capture him alive. However, what Ethan doesn't realize is that there is a traitor within the IMF organization and things are going to become exceedingly difficult for him not long afterward. Now rather than reveal any more I will just say that this turned out to be an exciting film with plenty of action and suspense all the way through. Tom Cruise gave an excellent performance and having three beautiful actresses in Michelle Monaghan (as "Julia"), Maggie Q ("Zhen Lei") and the aforementioned Keri Russell certainly didn't hurt. In short, I thought this was an entertaining movie and I have rated it accordingly. Above average.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Third time's the charm
Leofwine_draca29 August 2016
Warning: Spoilers
The third time's the charm for Tom Cruise in this excellent action flick which blows all the rubbishy memories of WAR OF THE WORLDS away and proves that he's still rightfully the world's biggest star. Easily eclipsing the previous two movies in the series (with the first one's over confusing plot and the second's lack of it), this movie delivers one blistering action sequence after another, getting better and better as it goes along, before finishing with a powerhouse climax that'll have you pounding on the arms of your chair!

Cruise slips into his character of the hero (after his hit-man role in COLLATERAL) with ease and is goofily likable. It's good to see that the charismatic Ving Rhames is back as Luther, while there's a whole new cast list full of kick-ass female characters, a sinister Laurence Fishburne, a funny Simon Pegg, and a truly evil Philip Seymour Hoffman as the villain. The action set-pieces are superbly handled by J.J. Abrams, especially the attack on the bridge (shades of TRUE LIES) which is phenomenal and takes special effects to new levels. The other shoot-outs and various infiltrations are great, the tension off set by genuinely funny one-liners (the humpty-dumpty line still cracks me up) and to say more is to spoil it. All I can say is that MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III is one of my favourite action thrillers of the 2000s, is undoubtedly the film of the year, and everybody should make an effort to see it!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Tried to overdo it and got a standard product.
Warning: Spoilers
This wasn't a horrible movie, but it embodies a lot of the qualities that I dislike in action movies. All genres have equal potential for unique strengths and weaknesses, but MI3 definitely fell prey to most of the pitfalls. It looks nice and the action sequences are good, but it lacks in its story. I don't know who story artists think they're kidding when they jack up the suspense and the stakes when we already know that the hero's going to win in the end. It is possible to maintain this archetype but still have suspense if you make the central conflict something that could go a lot of ways, but this was not the case here.

The Rabbit's Foot plot motivator was okay for the situation. In some ways it was disappointing that it never got explained; the conversations surrounding it would have been more engaging if we knew what it was. But then again, it would probably have been a waste of time to tell us what it was. Plus, Ethan's real goal was Julia rather than anything involving the Rabbit's Foot. Besides, we are naturally more interested in the conflict between Davian and Ethan.

Phillip Seymour Hoffman gives a decent performance, but I thought Davian was a little bit forced as a villain. His taking pleasure in other people's pain is something that is used a lot for villains, but his cruelty is never backed up by anything or given any kind of motive. Our protagonist Ethan presents problems as well. As an action hero he doesn't really need a strong motive, but he gets one in his wife Julia. I think the filmmakers were trying to make him more likable by having him get married instead of being a serial womanizer like James Bond. But their relationship feels static; I never got the sense that they knew each other that personally or intimately. In the end, all Julia really turns out to be is another damsel in distress. I actually kind of liked how Musgrave and Brassell (Billy Crudup and Laurence Fishburne) were incorporated. They had personality, some of which was stereotyped but much of it felt organic. Ethan's team wasn't great, particularly Benji.

The spy action sequences were a bit of a letdown for me, but they won't be for everyone. If you like seeing spy gadgets in action, there is a lot of that featured. But I enjoy more of the strategy and outsmarting the system kind of spy scenes, which there weren't that many of here. The action set pieces are very big and explosive, evoking excitement rather than character tension like one on one fights do.

So you're definitely in for a cool Mission Impossible, but probably not the best one. If you didn't like either of the first two, this isn't that similar to either of them, but I would say it's more like 2 than 1. If you don't mind a weak story or aren't that critical of a viewer, you'll probably enjoy this enough to watch the whole thing. If you are critical, there's a lot of problems to pick out: overly dramatic dialogue, a shaky storyline, C- dialogue, mediocre acting from big stars, and rather predictable twists that can insult your intelligence. Overall Rating: 6.9/10.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Business as usual
Mr-Fusion5 August 2016
Though it's a step up from the last one, "Mission Impossible III" relies on deception and the series' trademarks the most out of these movies; to middling effect. Cruise is surrounded by able players and the story does bend over backward to strike at the heart of Ethan Hunt's domestic bliss, but plot doesn't really matter so much as teasing us with whatever crazy stunt Cruise will do next (indeed, the unthinkable heist is this franchise's bread and butter). But in the end, everything else takes a backseat to the impossible feats and breakneck speed (Abrams' coked-up camera-work and cutting seem well-suited for this sort of dizzying spectacle). One you regain your senses, it's not bad, but also not the best of the lot.

Although, this is the best that this particular writing team has ever done. I suppose that's something.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A Fun Return to Form for the Series Following the Disappointing M:I:II
brando64723 January 2016
Needing to flush the sour taste of MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE II from my mind, I've followed it with a viewing of the 2006 installment, MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III. The third film in the ongoing franchise is the on I'm least familiar with. I didn't get around to seeing it in theaters and I watched once when it was released on DVD before my copy was lost. At the time, I remembered this one blowing my mind and establishing itself as my favorite of the series. Does it hold up now? Mostly, yeah. I don't rank it as my favorite of the original three films anymore (that honor returns to the original 1996 film) but it's still significantly better and more entertaining than the second film. From J.J. Abrams in his feature-film directing debut, the movie begins as IMF agent Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) has settled down in life. He is no longer a field agent, opting to train new agents so he can build a stable life with his fiancée Julia (Michelle Monaghan). When Hunt learns a former protégé (Keri Russell) has gone missing on an operation where she was assigned to follow notorious arms dealer Owen Davian (Philip Seymour Hoffman), Hunt rejoins his team to bring her home. But it won't be that easy…Davian is a mad-man and he's not afraid to murder in cold-blood to discourage others from interfering in his business. Hunt is about to learn the dangers of crossing one of the most powerful, well-connected international criminals when you've got something to lose.

M:I:III improves over its immediate predecessor by scaling down the action and making it serve the plot, instead of vice versa. The action isn't the centerpiece; the characters are. Specifically, Hunt. This is a personal mission for him. He personally trained Lindsey Farris, the agent captured in the beginning, and feels responsible for bringing her home safe. Later in the film, Davian discovers that Hunt has a pressure point in the form of his new wife and uses it to control the situation. These, my friends, are stakes and what M:I:II was missing to make me care about Hunt and Nyah. We get to spend some time with Hunt and Julia in the first act of the film and see them interact. We get a sense of their relationship and how happy they make each other. Hunt is so in love that he's willing to quit his globe-trotting life of spy adventures for the woman. See? Character development. Even Luther Stickell (Ving Rhames), member of Hunt's team since the first film, gets it better this time around and isn't limited to whining about his Gucci shoes. The villain of the piece, as played by Hoffman, is a terrifying man without having to do much. From the moment the movie opens, we see the lengths the man will go to get what he wants. He never loses his cool. He's calm, collected, and soft-spoken and it works for him because we've seen how dangerous he is. Hoffman's a pro and makes for an excellent baddie.

I'd stated before that the action is "scaled down" in this one and that's because it goes for quality over quantity. There are some pretty sweet action sequences in M:I:III. There's an awesome helicopter chase through a wind farm and the big action piece in the middle of the film where the villain employs a military-grade drone to escape a convoy on a bridge. Honestly, my favorite sequence in the film isn't one of the grand battles but the infiltration of the Vatican when the IMF team realizes they have a chance at acquiring Davian. It's not bombastic; it's more of the cooler spy stuff I loved about the first film. I always find I love these movies more when their treated as a spy film with action elements, rather than an action film with spy elements. I love that we get to see more in M:I:III about how the IMF works behind the scenes. We spend some time in IMF headquarters and there's the question of a possible mole working in the highest rankings of the organization (which, you'll remember, was also a big part of the first film). MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III brings the series back to the elements that I loved in the first movie while giving it a little more humanity and personal stakes. It was a fun improvement over John Woo's installment and almost as good as the original Brian De Palma film. A few years after this movie came out, it wouldn't matter as much anyway because Brad Bird would give us GHOST PROTOCOL, what I believe to be the best of the series and the one that blew all of the original three out of the water.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Decent action movie, still not my idea of a Mission Impossible movie.
Dark Jedi12 January 2016
This instalment, the third movie, in the Mission Impossible series is better than Mission Impossible II although it has to be said that this is not that difficult as far as I am concerned. The movie is more balanced in pace and the stunts and action scenes are not so totally over the top and ludicrous as in the second half of Mission Impossible II. Having said that there are still lots of pretty outrageous action stunts. This movie also has a real bad-ass villain that would not have been out of place in a classical James Bond movie.

The plot is as uninspired as one can expect from a Hollywood action movie. Hero crosses bad guys path and acquires something that the bad guy wants. Bad guy gets pi--ed off and grabs good guys wife to force him to get the stuff the bad guy wants. Big show-down at the end and bad guy bites the dust. Throw in a traitor in the mix just to mess things up at regular intervals. Nothing to write home about in other words.

The entertainment value of this film, as of the two previous ones, comes entirely from the various, more or less contrived, stunts, tricks and action sequences in the movie. As one can assume from the movies budget the film delivers well in these areas.

What I find annoying is that Ethan, again, finds himself alone and without support from the IMF team as well as having to deal with a traitor within. I find that kind of stuff tiresome to say the least. While I am in ranting mode I can also say that the silly idea of "dying" and then getting kick-started again, especially given that the time between "dying" and being kick-started again suffered from the usual lack of the concept of actual time elapsed so often being shown by Hollywood directors, was pretty silly.

As I wrote, it is a decent enough action movie but I would really like to see a "true" Mission Impossible movie where the team gets a mission and executes it with the full force of IMF behind them.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A Thrilling and Pulse-Pounding Action Film with Flaws that Make it Fall Short of Greatness
Owen Ogletree11 January 2016
This is considered by many to be the best of the "Mission Impossible" series up to this point. I think "M:I-2" is better, but this is still pretty good. This had a lot of potential to be great, but there are some shortcomings that bring the film down a few notches.

Tom Cruise is great once again, and the supporting cast is also really good. Notable additions to the cast are Laurence Fishburne and Simon Pegg.

The action sequences are electrifying and never let up. From the helicopter battle to the sequence on the Chesapeake Bay Bridge to the mayhem out in Shanghai, the action delivers.

Philip Seymour Hoffman plays a fantastic villain in Owen Davian. He brings a real mystery to the character and shows why he is one of the world's most versatile actors. The story also has some good twists and turns.

However, there were also many areas in which the movie left a lot to be desired. For one thing, Hoffman is woefully underused. He doesn't get nearly as much screen-time for his character to be well-developed and is barely in the action.

As I said, the story has good twists, but the payoff is rather unsatisfying as they never even explain what the Rabbit's Foot is. I also found the ending to be rather bland.

On the whole, though, this was a fun, entertaining summer blockbuster that just could have been better.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Great action that ramps up
mindtrick71112 December 2015
Has foot stomping edginess, very fast, some moments out paces the viewer with tight and awesome action. Little time to digest details but don't worry, discreet details are forgiving. The movie just grabs you and off you go. Story plot is easy to follow, scene to scene has plenty of clever edges and smart angles that won't let you think. Kind of like jumping off a cliff and watching the bottom come at you. The only thing you know is, the fall has to last the length of the movie. Good acting and directing. Timing won't let you sit around to accumulate boring facts. The cast is great, Tom Cruise is relentless, Phil Seymour Hoffman is a cunning and diabolical villain. The scenes sweep by with seamless flowing interaction between characters. Some impossible cinematography scenes look so entirely possible it makes you think, "Is it really possible?" Seen it twice. May have to see it again. A really good movie to watch and entertain friends with. The end feels good as all Mission Impossible movies do. Love this.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Best of the series
josephisuzu2 November 2015
A ferocious, relentless, sugared up, ruthless, and unhinged piece of magic. This "thing" (honestly don't know what else to call it) doesn't even start. It just *is*, punching and kicking and shooting and running until the credits roll and the audience proceeds to run to their nearest garbage bin. So unrefined and yet so controlled, Mission: Impossible III is the equivalent to a neon fever dream that Alien from Spring Breakers probably would've had. It exists in its own singular universe, dropping the audience in with such unforgiving anguish and lost hope that the viewer can't even take their eyes off the screen. Not that the film is humorless, far from it, but the stakes are higher and the mood is grimmer, leading to a much more affecting conclusion than its predecessor.

The set-pieces, while less classical than in MI and less brilliantly idiotic in MI 2, carry significant weight, pushing Cruise to both his physical and psychological limit. His performance is unwavering in its power, and the opening sequence is a perfect example of his layered skills as an actor. And of course, the rest of the cast fits like a glove into either their new or returning roles. Phillip Seymour Hoffman, in particular, is a powerhouse of a villain, even with nonexistent back story.

JJ Abram's direction is dynamic and hot-blooded in a way that recalls the thrillers of Brian De Palma, although it's much more messy in structure and composition. His camera moves through space and people like it's physically pushing bystanders aside, only contributing to the fierce tension throughout. Along with Daniel Mindel's cinematography (who is also shooting SW: Episode 7) and the flavorful editing by Maryann Brandon and Mary Jo Markey, Mission: Impossible III is aggressive and searing in its vitality.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Not Abrams Best But Still Good
KalKenobi8328 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Watched Mission : Impossible III with Tom Cruise(Live.Die.Repeat:Edge Of Tomorrow) as Ethan Hunt, Billy Crudup(Almost Famous) as John Musgrave ,Simon Pegg(Shaun Of The Dead) as Benjii Dunn,Ving Rhames(Dawn Of The Dead) as Luther Stickel ,Michelle Monaghan(The Bourne Supremacy) as Julia, Keri Russell(Alias) as Lindsey Farris ,Jonathan Rhys-Meyers(Match Point) as Declan, Maggie Q(Switch)as Zhen Lei, Laurence Fishburne(The Matrix ) as Theodore Brassell, and Phillip Seymour- Hoffman(Cold Mountain) as Owen Davian . I Really Enjoyed The Film to be honest but it seem to personal also I didn't feel the threat of The Rabbits Foot also it seemed to personal bit I did enjoy the action as well the performances and great set pieces this was an OK for Mr.Abrams, .Great Music By Michael Giacchino(The Incredibles), Cinematography By Dan Mindel(G.I. Jane) , Costume Design By Coleen Atwood(Sleepy Hollow) and Direction By J.J. Abrams(Lost) Not Abrams Best But Still Good 7/10
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
'Watch Bourne Supremacy Instead' <-- GTFO, MI:3 is Fantastic!
Tom Spencer25 October 2015
I'm glad there are so many positive reviews of this movie. It should be telling that the negative reviews are all 0 starts, or ~5 stars, it just goes to show that it isn't meant for every audience, and I'm left wondering why indie-film buffs are leaving reviews on an action title.

As far as I'm concerned this movie is exceptionally well made, I was excited the whole time and was surprised by the precision with which it was executed.

It's an action spy-movie, that sets the bar somewhere in the mid-range, and this title is easily in the top 15 percent, especially considering it's the first box-office endeavor of a young director. I'm not sure why indie-film buffs are even making an entry.

If you find yourself hating movies like this, stay away from any movie with action in it, because obviously you don't get it.

Bourne Supremacy was horrible by comparison, there was much less action, plot, and character development...apparently people think that less dialogue and wide-angle shots of European cities makes a film more artsy. None of us are going to MI:3 wanting artsy, we want well executed action and (sorry but Tom Cruise is an amazing actor) awesome characters.

Highly recommend, esp w/ popcorn and loud sound!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
'Mission: Impossible III', the Rabbit's Foot
Parzival200020 October 2015
I still remember when I saw the first MI movie. For me, it was an amazing movie, full of action and some mystery. Then I saw the second movie, but the truth is that I don't remember anything about that sequel. My brother recently saw it, and as he says that is pure crap, so i'm not planning to see it. But he told me amazing things about the third movie. He says that it is one of the best action movies he's ever seen. With those words he convinced me.

Mission: Impossible III is an excellent movie. For me, Ghost Protocol is a little bit better, but I was astonished with this third movie. I think that what I loved most was its story, because is full of twists. Philip Seymour Hoffman makes an amazing work in his paper of Owen Davian, the main villain if the movie. On the other hand, Tom Cruise keeps doing it awesome. In comparison with the first MI movie, MI3 has very good special effects, but we can't forget that the first movie has many years.

I think that the action scenes are very well achieved. A special mention for one scene in a bridge, where Ethan Hunt has to do his best to complete his mission. What I didn't like was that there is no stealth scene, like the historic scene of the white room from MI1. I recommend this movie a lot. For those who love action and an excellent story, you can't find anything better.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Forgettable but excellent!
craig-hopton19 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
A strong movie in the series. The action is pretty constant and of high quality throughout. But its real strength comes from Philip Seymour Hoffman who is excellent as the ruthless, suave, in-control bad guy.

The curious thing about Mission Impossible III is despite being very good it's the most easily forgettable of the series. I think this is because of the plot - which centres round the theft of a 'rabbit's foot' but we never really find out what the rabbit's foot is.

Highlights include Cruise jumping on the roofs of skyscrapers, electrocuting himself, and plenty of good old face-mask trickery. It's delightful viewing.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The first one I could call...Okay.
noah6 October 2015
With the first one...eh and the second one forgettable, I really wasn't excited for this one. If the X-Men, Jurassic Park, or Taken taught me anything, it was that the 3rd movie will suck. Or will mark the end of awesome movies in the franchise.

With this, I was delightfully surprised.

This was JJ Abrams first movie as a director, but you could never tell. The writing was a lot better, the characters were better, and holy crap, Philip Seymour Hoffman was just GREAT.

Not really much I can say though, because I REALLY wanna see Mission Impossible 4. From what I hear, this film was AWESOME and I just can't wait!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
What is the Rabbits Foot?
rcolgan14 September 2015
For the third outing of the Mission Impossible franchise, JJ Abrams was bought in to bring cruise back for a new mission. Considering that he had already been creating television shows done with a cinematic budget to a cinematic quality like Lost and Alias, it made sense that he take on the reigns of the multi million dollar franchise. But whilst he is able to keep the franchise action packed, his style is unable to flourish the same way that Palma or Woo were able to in the previous films.

Some time after the second film, Hunt has decided to retire from active duty and is now training IMF agents. He also has new fiancée, forgetting Thandie Newton from Mission Impossible II, who is gone without explanation, and is now with a nurse named Julia (Michelle Monaghan). It's a situation similar to True Lies, with Cruise living a double life and his wife being entirely unaware of his life as a secret agent that Hunt has decided to leave in his past to be with her. But just like any other film about a retired agent, it's not long before Hunt has received a new self destructing message with a new mission which he chooses to accept, leading him to assemble a new team to save one of the agents he trained in the past.

And just like every Mission Impossible film, his mission inevitably goes wrong. Thus Hunt is plunged back into the life of a spy, having to take down brutal arms dealer Owen Davian (Philip Seymour Hoffman), save his wife to be, and track down the mysterious rabbit's foot. What exactly this rabbit foot is, we're never really told. It's a Macguffin in a similar vein to the likes of the suitcase in Pulp Fiction. It could some kind of toxin. Or it could be a doomsday device. But whatever it is, we know it's bad, and that if the villain gets his hand on it there will be trouble. It leaves it up to the viewer to decide just how high the stakes will be this time around.

As usual, Cruise is great as Hunt. He still has the American action hero charm mixed with some great stunt and physical work, with one stand out scene where he's sprinting through Shanghai at breakneck speeds. But as great as he is, Hoffman really steals the film as the psychotic arms dealer Owen Davian, who is throughout the film one of the most intimidating villains in a PG-13 movie. At the midpoint when he says to Cruise ""Do you have a wife? A girlfriend? Because if you do, I'm gonna find her. I'm gonna hurt her." We believe him, since he really seems willing to do anything to get what he wants. The only downside to his character is that he does not get enough screen time. The film even pushes him out of the way for a while, instead focusing on the overused traitor from within the organisation cliché we've already seen in both of the previous films in the franchise. You'd really think by now IMF would keep a closer check on their agents.

Abrams is able to shoot a confident action sequence, however he doesn't make the same mark on the franchise that his predecessors did. Few blockbuster films have come anywhere near the nail biting suspense that De Palma was capable of in the first Mission: Impossible and nobody's ever done it in quite the same way. And love it or loath it, no director can make an action sequence quite as over the top as Woo with his explosive 20 minute finale. But with Abrams his style is less distinct. It looks just like every other action movie, which isn't necessarily bad, but doesn't leave the same mark that the first two films had.

Beyond this there's a certain repetitiveness to the sequences. There's only so many time you can watch the same high speed chases and good guys shooting bad guys before it can become boring. And whilst the locations change, throughout the film all the action sequences end up feeling largely similar. Whilst other spy franchises at the time like Bond and Bourne were starting to experiment with darker and more realistic film-making, Mission Impossible remained stuck in the same generic action that's been see many times before. It still lives up to basic expectations, but it never tries to exceed those expectations either and is instead just a very ordinary action movie.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Much better than MI2
Amy Edwards10 September 2015
This third installment of the Mission Impossible series is a mix between MI1 and MI2. While the first Mission Impossible focused on the story and MI2 on action, Mission Impossible 3 is allowing both of them.

The storyline is much better written than the one in the first sequel. The scenarists got the good idea to include a romance within it. A real romance where Ethan is in real love and is about to marry. This makes him more human than in MI2 but also much more vulnerable to his enemies. And Davian is particularly a mean one. The confrontation between him and Ethan is what make this movie so thrilling because the villain is mentally torturing Ethan making him his pawn and forcing him to do the dirty work for him. It's something we haven't seen before and it's quite well played by both the actors.

But MI3 is also an action movie and it's full of it. The only difference with MI2 is it's not overplayed. In MI2, because the story was inexistent, all was focused on the action staging with a lot of explosions, spectacular combat moves and bike chases. Here it is simpler but it's still entertaining because there is an efficient storyline alongside it. The locations are still breathtaking especially Shanghai and the Vatican.

In conclusion I gave it a 7 out of 10. If you are looking for a great action movie, watch MI3.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews