Mission: Impossible III

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)

Uncompromisingly unrelenting from the first seconds, larger-than-life in the action moments with thrilling special effects, and always eases up at the right moment. This is a thriller that is unparalleled in the spy subgenre in recent years (except for the Bourne films, which are in a completely different league). Abrams's direction is like a Swiss watch. It doesn't get stuck even in the more intimate scenes of the engaged secret agent (the return home after a failed operation is one of the most moving parts of the film) and thanks to the brilliant casting, it doesn't slip into theatricality even at its weakest moments. Oscar-winner Phillip Seymour Hoffman is a cold-blooded asshole like no other, Ving Rhames sprinkles dry catchphrases, Michelle Monaghan plays more than just a "damsel in distress," and even Tom Cruise is watchable, though he strikes his usual pose here as well. Even so, Mission: Impossible III is the best possible film for a single watch that can see the light of day from the waters of the standard Hollywood mainstream. (02.10.2006)

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)

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)

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)