Mission: Impossible III

6

LivingTribunalFeb 1, 2019

I love the villain so much, but this movie isn't really my type. Ethan feels little bit dumb and sometimes things go weirdly. Also, the plot wasn't the best. Still, it's pack of many great action sequences and great acting.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

ThatOneNerdyGuyOct 4, 2018

J.J. Abrams knows how to make intense scenes and they work out perfectly in this movie. But there is a mcguffin that is never explained throughout the whole movie. and there is a overuse of the classic "blaring lights and shaking camera" youJ.J. Abrams knows how to make intense scenes and they work out perfectly in this movie. But there is a mcguffin that is never explained throughout the whole movie. and there is a overuse of the classic "blaring lights and shaking camera" you would expect from a movie made by him.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

SoapNuggetJan 11, 2021

It's definitely better than 2, but this is a JJ Abrams film, and that means a lot of close ups, lens flares and a predictable plot, PSH truly gives a performance and Cruise shines as always, but the rest is fine

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

liamexeJul 6, 2022

This is another another mainstream action movie. Stay clear from this movie if you're looking for one with an original plot. Before the film had even reached its halfway point, I knew how it would conclude. That's how foreseeably obvious itThis is another another mainstream action movie. Stay clear from this movie if you're looking for one with an original plot. Before the film had even reached its halfway point, I knew how it would conclude. That's how foreseeably obvious it was. There is only one "good man" slain during the entire film. It is quite improbable that someone could leap onto buildings from great heights and endure numerous gunfights without suffering even a single gunshot wound or serious injuries. The movie appeared to be set in our time period, yet there were a number of high-tech items that were clearly fake. such as the tool that created a lifelike mask of a person's face in a matter of minutes.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

WilsonMay 10, 2006

This movie isn't worth the price of admission. You could get the same thrills and sappy drama from any Alias episode (especially the first two seasons). Cruise is boring, the plot predictable. Worst of all is the fact that they forgot This movie isn't worth the price of admission. You could get the same thrills and sappy drama from any Alias episode (especially the first two seasons). Cruise is boring, the plot predictable. Worst of all is the fact that they forgot to include even one of the elements that made the first MI movie so great!… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

BrandonA.May 29, 2006

It was predictable, the story was simple. To sum it up the action saved the movie of getting a 1.

0 of 1 users found this helpful

5

MaseMay 8, 2006

Were people really clamoring for a 3 mission impossible?? Well the series is getting very stale despite a new director. Abrahms just recyling he better tv shows. Actually all three diffrent mission directors all had better work than the Were people really clamoring for a 3 mission impossible?? Well the series is getting very stale despite a new director. Abrahms just recyling he better tv shows. Actually all three diffrent mission directors all had better work than the mission movies. Which may be why they are all watchable an not necessarily "bad" movies just totally forgetable.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

halbNov 11, 2006

Corny and cliche'-riddled, but with exhilirating action scenes. A 2-hr episode of 'Alias' on speed. Good supporting cast, but who can watch Tom Cruise any more without thinking of him jumping on Oprah's couch or spouting Corny and cliche'-riddled, but with exhilirating action scenes. A 2-hr episode of 'Alias' on speed. Good supporting cast, but who can watch Tom Cruise any more without thinking of him jumping on Oprah's couch or spouting his criminally irrational Scientology philsophy... ? And the plot twist is as contrived as they come. There are better movies to rent, for sure.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

5

GodComplexMay 5, 2006

Borring. Mundane.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

MarkG.May 8, 2006

Ok for a pop-corn munch. But ho-hum factor grows exponentially scene by Ka-boom scene, as the movie delivers way more than is necessary by way of non-stop stunts and explosions. And you have the nagging suspicion they there is a big hole in Ok for a pop-corn munch. But ho-hum factor grows exponentially scene by Ka-boom scene, as the movie delivers way more than is necessary by way of non-stop stunts and explosions. And you have the nagging suspicion they there is a big hole in the plot, which seems non-sensical and circular in an almost Back to the Future way. [***SPOILERS***] To wit. At first, they are chasing the villian because he is going to sell an unspecified super weapon to the bad guys. Only problem is, he, the villian, never had the super weapon to begin with. Nor do we have an idea how he would have acquired it except for the fact that Cruise captures him, the villian, and he gets pissed off. So the villian kidnaps Cruise's wife and forces Cruise to steal the superweason and deliver it to the villain to prevent the murder of the wife. The villian kidnapped her as revenge for Cruise's capture and near jettison of the villian from a jet at 10,000 feet. Cruise captured and was interrogating the villian about the superweapon which the villian was going to sell but actually didn't have to begin with. Nor do we have any idea how he intended to steal it except he got pissed off at Cruise. So he forces Cruise to steal the superweapon to prevent the wife from being killed so the villian can.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

ErkMay 19, 2006

Often when Hollywood makes a sequel, they feel it's necessary to have *MORE ACTION*, the only problem is that it usually results in *LESS PLOT*. Mission Impossible -- the franchise -- is about circumstances conspiring to create a Often when Hollywood makes a sequel, they feel it's necessary to have *MORE ACTION*, the only problem is that it usually results in *LESS PLOT*. Mission Impossible -- the franchise -- is about circumstances conspiring to create a situation that can only be resoved by brilliant planning, guts, and perfect execution. The setup is "there is no way that can be done ... it Impossible!" And then when they do it in a daring and clever way, you are amazed. They didn't spend enough (any?) time on the setup, and so the payoff isn't really there.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

JacobJun 4, 2015

Mission Impossible III gives a lot of stuff I want to see in a Mission Impossible movie and some stuff that I could have done without. The stand out scene is a heist that occurs halfway through the film, which is true to the spirit of theMission Impossible III gives a lot of stuff I want to see in a Mission Impossible movie and some stuff that I could have done without. The stand out scene is a heist that occurs halfway through the film, which is true to the spirit of the series and what I like. All of this is done with a crew who is mostly well developed moreso than the last one. The story is also suspenseful having a lot of surprises that mostly come from knowing how the film will end. The problem with the film comes with everything else. This film is long and exhausting due to it being full of big dumb action scenes, which aren’t that interesting and are poorly made feeling like something out of a Michael Bay film at times. Had the film toned down the action and/or had those moments be constructed as smartly as the heist scenes we could’ve had something. As it is the film is eh. Its an improvement over the second film as we have something resembling a Mission Impossible Movie but nothing special.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

javis10Jan 11, 2012

This is the less Mission Impossible thta I like, I donÂ´t know why but it makes me sleep like in the middle of it and the action is not as good as the second film. And the bad guy, didnÂ´t look like a bad guy to me. IThis is the less Mission Impossible thta I like, I donÂ´t know why but it makes me sleep like in the middle of it and the action is not as good as the second film. And the bad guy, didnÂ´t look like a bad guy to me. I was dissapointed with this.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

RayzorMooseNov 13, 2013

Mission Impossible III was a step in the right direction.
After a very disappointing sequel to the spy series, MI3 recaptures some of the magic with a more "down to earth" Tom Cruise and a much more realistic basis.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

iMakeMyOwnLuckMay 31, 2015

i hate the ending to this movie, its like a joke that noones laughing at....what happened to the bad guy (phillip seymour hoffman)?? why do they keep changing who the bad guy in imf is and ethan hunt is about as smart as a reasonably sizedi hate the ending to this movie, its like a joke that noones laughing at....what happened to the bad guy (phillip seymour hoffman)?? why do they keep changing who the bad guy in imf is and ethan hunt is about as smart as a reasonably sized rock in the movie… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

Toasty87Jul 11, 2020

Where the decline started not terrible but just acceptable quite wooden at times.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

DerrickA.May 6, 2006

Great action and that's about it. The bad guy seemed like a pushover. Very confusing plot line. And I didn't get the answer to what was the "rabbit's foot".

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

MichaelG.May 11, 2006

This was an empthy action/drama movie but definately not a mission impossibble sequel, other than using the franchise name to sell. Plot is very predictible, and the details that make mi1 which was then somewhat gone on mi2 were completely This was an empthy action/drama movie but definately not a mission impossibble sequel, other than using the franchise name to sell. Plot is very predictible, and the details that make mi1 which was then somewhat gone on mi2 were completely gone on mi3. never mind the fact that Tom Cruise's bocome a really irritating actor.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

NatMay 15, 2006

This movie was ok. Not the worst movie I've seen but definately not one of the best. If you've got nothing better to do, this movie will entertain you.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

JasonP.May 16, 2006

Not terrible (despite some AWFUL moments - wait for the "cat prayer" bit and you'll know what I mean). Cruise's woman had almost no personality but the action wasn't bad and the "Felicity" girl was cute. Having said that, Not terrible (despite some AWFUL moments - wait for the "cat prayer" bit and you'll know what I mean). Cruise's woman had almost no personality but the action wasn't bad and the "Felicity" girl was cute. Having said that, you're probably better off watching "Alias" 'cuz swap out Cruise with Garner and this could've been a typical (i.e. not great) "Alias" episode, albeit a two-hour one.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

HalfwelshmanJan 22, 2012

Mission: Impossible III is always competent, and is considerably better than M:I-2 but lacks the excitement and consistency of the first film. The action is generally well handled, but ranges from jaw-dropping set-pieces (the scene where theMission: Impossible III is always competent, and is considerably better than M:I-2 but lacks the excitement and consistency of the first film. The action is generally well handled, but ranges from jaw-dropping set-pieces (the scene where the IMF team frantically try to bring down a lethal military drone on a rapidly disintegrating bridge), to the ridiculous (Ethan Hunt BASE jumping from halfway down a Shanghai skyscraper) to the uncreative and dull (the opening hostage rescue in a guarded warehouse). Concerning the actors, Tom Cruise still does what he needs to do, Ving Rhames is as entertaining as ever, and Philip Seymour Hoffman's makes a terrifically scary villain, but the vast majority of the rest of the cast tend to drift listlessly through the film. Michelle Monaghan, despite being a key addition to the cast in theory (she does play Ethan Hunt's fiancee after all) feels more like a spare wheel, an unwelcome bit of emotional baggage that slows the pace of the story, Billy Crudup and Laurence Fishburne's characters are woefully underdeveloped, Maggie Q plays the same character she plays in every film, and Keri Russell and Eddie Marsan don't get enough screen time to make any impact whatsoever. The film always looks good, and J. J. Abrams gets ample opportunity to flex his directorial muscles on the big screen for the first time, but the main disappointment of M:I--3 is the story. It's flimsy, unable to adequately support the plethora of action sequences let alone allow for any sort of character development. Thankfully, the silly hyper-real facemasks don't play as key a role to the plot this time round, and it's kind of cool that we get to see how they're made, plus the filmmakers finally acknowledge the need for contact lenses and voice--changing software for an IMF agent to convincingly imitate their target (though it still doesn't explain how Cruise can believably pose as any other man considering his diminutive stature). Mission: Impossible III looks good and has a few stand-out sequences and a great performance from Philip Seymour Hoffman to offer us, but the lazy story and the addition of an ill-defined romantic subplot detracts from the viewing experience as a whole, and some of the actors simply don't look like they're really trying. J.J. Abram's film directorial debut is solidly O.K., but nothing more.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

3

BillMay 5, 2006

The special effects were good but the overall movie was Busch League at best. Very predictable.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

3

TallyMay 6, 2006

Even J.J. couldn't put Tommy together again.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

3

GaborA.May 11, 2006

Every scene was either taken from a better movie or too stupid to have ever have been in any other movie. There was one 20 minute strech of classic Mission Impossible awesomeness in this movie engulfed and outweighed by utter ridiculousness.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

3

davidt.May 11, 2006

All the same story. First they steal some gadget that doesn't exist, so that just to trick Ethan to steal the real one witht he help of a bad guy inside the agency who appears to be the good guy. Man very predictible. atleast they All the same story. First they steal some gadget that doesn't exist, so that just to trick Ethan to steal the real one witht he help of a bad guy inside the agency who appears to be the good guy. Man very predictible. atleast they showed how they did all these on the first movie, they somewhat showed it on the second one but fille d the rest with nonsense action and drama. now all you got is the mi name but no mission impossibble. you don't even get to see how they did it this time, just some nonsense action fest mized with romance and drama crap.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

3

SusanS.Jul 24, 2006

A 66?! This movie was reviewed better than Pirates 2? I guess that's why they released it at the beginning of the summer. Seriously, friends, maybe I'm blinded by Tom Cruise being crazy and all, but I purposely saw this in the A 66?! This movie was reviewed better than Pirates 2? I guess that's why they released it at the beginning of the summer. Seriously, friends, maybe I'm blinded by Tom Cruise being crazy and all, but I purposely saw this in the dollar theater, expecting a cliche ridden, over-the-top, stupidly action-packed shooting-fest, and I definitely got my dollar's worth. But that's about it. Really, I do think I'm blinded by Cruise's newly insane-status, but I wasn't the only one who laughed in the theater when Billy Crudup's character asked him if he slept with his "little sister" (that Felicity chick, very under-used). Unfortunately, this movie seems to have been the movie-with-which-good-actors-pay-their-bills. Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Lawrence Fishburne, Billy Crudup, Jonathon Rhys-Myers...it's sad. Really. And I was half-way looking forward to seeing Hoffman playing the villian, like really being evil and enjoying it. But, alas, there is mostly him beating up Tom Cruise and very little conspiring with his minions. And the worst part? [***SPOILERS***] What did we all love about the first MI? It was corny and cheesy and no one tried to make it anything else--the plot twist was simple, the lines were drawn, and the hardest thing to follow in the movie was the heliocopter chase. In this one, however, they wanted to add Substance. So there's a cheesy, completely unnecessary scene between two supporting characters, and followed shortly by a completely nonsensical reveal of the "Real Villain." And the cheesiest of all cheesy endings that doesn't deserve to be tacked on to an otherwise decent action trilogy. Why am I complaining so much? Because I can, and because I want to bring the median score of the audience reviews down. Please. Please come down. This movie is worth a good laugh in the dollar theater, but nothing else.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

3

csw12Feb 9, 2013

A movie of utter garbage. Every scene was either taken from a better movie or too stupid to have ever have been in any other movie. Just a bunch of rerun nonsense.

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

2

WalkerMay 10, 2006

Not Enough Hoffman. Too much drama that no one really cares about. A honest to god end of a franchise.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

KimK.May 8, 2006

Very loud and very, very dumb. Perhaps it's my fault: I've been watching episodes of the old "Mission Impossible," and I've become spoiled. See, the old MI offered, well, missions. Capers. Hell, it offered PLOTS. It let us get Very loud and very, very dumb. Perhaps it's my fault: I've been watching episodes of the old "Mission Impossible," and I've become spoiled. See, the old MI offered, well, missions. Capers. Hell, it offered PLOTS. It let us get to know its villains in order that we could understand what fabulously dangerous people they were. It did not air the private lives of its heroes like so many wincingly embarrassing pairs of Underoos. Its female characters had brains growing between their pretty ears, and they knew how to use those brains. What this miserable, incomprehensible blob of a movie has is NOISE and BLUR. And TOM CRUISE, E-MO-TING. Two stars for the obligatory-- but glorious-- forty seconds in which Phillip Seymour Hoffman pounds the living snot out of Tom Cruise. The rest-- most especially the sickly, sticky-sweet tripe between Ethan Hunt and His Woman-- is trash. I understand now why they delayed getting "Mission: Impossible Season One" out on DVD; it would have made Mr. Cruise's latest ego exercise look even stupider than it already is. They even manage to butcher the theme music. Miserable.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

DominicMay 9, 2006

Tiresome, this show is so out of date. the first scene was more than enough tom cruise. i didn't expect to like his perfromance but everything else was either painful the romance scenes or unoriginal. jj abrams completely mishandled the Tiresome, this show is so out of date. the first scene was more than enough tom cruise. i didn't expect to like his perfromance but everything else was either painful the romance scenes or unoriginal. jj abrams completely mishandled the film. it was bond like a very bad timothy dalton bond movie.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

hoops2448Jan 23, 2012

Mission Impossible 3 might just be worse than its sloppy predecessor if only because it is unimaginative and so incredibly simplistic. It does have some great action sequences (A daring prison transport break on an unstable bridge) but itMission Impossible 3 might just be worse than its sloppy predecessor if only because it is unimaginative and so incredibly simplistic. It does have some great action sequences (A daring prison transport break on an unstable bridge) but it lets them down with some equally dull and uneventful action sequences (the opening warehouse raid). However the main segment of the film that is the most disappointing is the heist in the Vatican which under the direction of one of the previous MI directors Brian De Palma and John Woo could have been electric and adventurous is unfortunately slow, basic and downright boring, thanks to JJ Abrams playing it safe with the entire film playing like a really bad yet expensive episode of Alias (created by Abrams). Every now and then there is some semblance of flair but its quickly discarded in favour of more mundane camera work. Even the music in the film leaves much to be desired despite the fact its by an Oscar winning composer (Michael Giacchino). In fact it's a film that suffers in every possible way because of Abrams, with the look of the film and the actors being fine. It's the direction, writing and general feel of the film that seriously lack. The writing by Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci and JJ Abrams is hammy with key scenes being clunky, bordering on embarrassing. The film is just wrong. Finally someone should tell Mr Abrams that even if you have the money to film a stylish slow motion gun toss it doesn't mean you should, its just unnecessary and unbelievably stupid.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

2

BroyaxJul 1, 2018

Le début du film est particulièrement efficace, saisissant même... et laisse augurer du meilleur pour la suite des évènements. Hélas, ce n'est qu'un feu de paille -assez flamboyant tout de même par la grâce de cet incroyable acteur, leLe début du film est particulièrement efficace, saisissant même... et laisse augurer du meilleur pour la suite des évènements. Hélas, ce n'est qu'un feu de paille -assez flamboyant tout de même par la grâce de cet incroyable acteur, le regretté Philip Seymour Hoffman dont l'intensité crève l'écran. Du coup, même le nabot Tommy tente de se maintenir un peu au dessus d'une simple nullité, comme s'il apprenait à nager tout-à-coup !

Puis, les masques tombent, ceux d'un scénario qui peine à dissimuler son indigence voire sa bouffonnerie totale vers la fin... De l'action, il y en a, ça oui mais quelle importance puisque le trou du cul Abrams est atteint de la caméra de Parkinson ! l'action devient brouillonne et illisible, déjà pas aidée par un montage souvent nerveux. Des tas de trucs explosent, des cascades improbables se succèdent mais à quoi ça sert si c'est filmé par un épileptique ? à rien !

Il reste quelques moments d'infiltration typiques de Mission Impossible à peu près regardables (et délirants) mais le film décidément trop long se perd sur la vie sentimentale de Monsieur Hunt (et ça on s'en branle) et en dialogues parfois d'une telle bêtise qu'on arrive pas à y croire. Abrams a dû se croire dans un dessin animé idiot grandeur nature ou une sitcom avec des explosions pour en arriver là...

Et pourtant la distribution est assurément soignée avec des jeunes couteaux prometteurs, filles ou garçons (Jonathan, Keri, Maggie pour la galerie et même Aaron Paul !) sans compter Fishburne qui a encore grossi. Mais à quoi tout cela sert-il quand le scénario hystéro-bouffon se conjugue avec la réalisation lamentable de l'autre petzouille ? à que dalle !… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

1

DanielC.May 8, 2006

The first mission impossible I can handle, the second one was okay. The thing that had it going for it was that it had that interesting mission's intersting stories. Reminicent of the recent borne series, the plot was sucessful in The first mission impossible I can handle, the second one was okay. The thing that had it going for it was that it had that interesting mission's intersting stories. Reminicent of the recent borne series, the plot was sucessful in engagin the audience. Unfortunately, this one, I can't. The story is hiding somewhere, Cruise is his p*** annoying self (Please, get over yourself, thw whole world would love it if that hapenned) and quite frankly, the missions are boring. Who cares about tthe missions if all you see is explosions? If I wanted to see that, I wuoldn't have gone to the movies. The other parts of the cast are non-existent and I on'y know about you, but watching this, I wondered where the $140,000,000 went. The guy who made alieas and lost is at the helm, which explains alot. When you have a diretor who makes crap TV shows makes a movie, he is likely to make a crap one. Go see Cache instead, far better movie. I'm starting to worry about Hollywood. If this is what the come up with after hundreeds of millions and a star-studded cast, it's not looking good.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

WillieG.May 22, 2006

Yawns, I was bored to death. I'm puzzled as to whether I saw the same film as others who found this flick exciting. No biggie, to each his own, but I was looking at my watch a LOT during this one. I should have seen Over the Hedge, it Yawns, I was bored to death. I'm puzzled as to whether I saw the same film as others who found this flick exciting. No biggie, to each his own, but I was looking at my watch a LOT during this one. I should have seen Over the Hedge, it looks like an adrenaline rush compared to MI3.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

DaleC.May 7, 2006

No. Bad, regardless of the amount of apologizing these other idiots are making for it. I had twelve bucks and now it's gone. Thanks, Tom.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

jamesm.Nov 30, 2006

The absurd physics remove all entertaining apects of this film. they can manage to fit a retina scanner, short film, and self destruct device in a small camera, but they can't manage to make a AED device that doesn't take over 60 The absurd physics remove all entertaining apects of this film. they can manage to fit a retina scanner, short film, and self destruct device in a small camera, but they can't manage to make a AED device that doesn't take over 60 seconds to charge. as well, Tom Cruise has become to old this kind of part, as proven by probably the weakest show of action acting i've seen in my life. he never took a risk in his acting. overall a horrible movie.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

TOMW.May 11, 2006

THE FILM FAILD IMPOSSIBLE MISSION II!

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

MeeepMeepMay 7, 2006

Ehhh... Big budget action movies are tired, overdone, headache inducing crapfests these days. This movie fails, which is too bad, because JJ Abrams has so much talent.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

tremaultAug 3, 2022

The most awful, awful writing and direction. Although I figured out what was going on by rewinding and studying the shots, it was not at all clear what was happening or why. So much explosions and gun fire and noise, on what is supposed to beThe most awful, awful writing and direction. Although I figured out what was going on by rewinding and studying the shots, it was not at all clear what was happening or why. So much explosions and gun fire and noise, on what is supposed to be a covert mission by Ethan Hunt, a man who it has been made absolutely clear in past movies, prefers passivism. The dialogue is also horrendously bad. Ethan says without a hint of irony that he doesn't trust Luthor, a man he literally trusts with his life on many occasions in past films. The helicopter guys complains about how he 'always has to copy' even though he has never once had to in this film and we've never seen him before this mission. Simon Pegg goes off on some rambling nonsense speech about how the mcguffin is probably some doomsday device to destroy humanity because he heard an anecdote from a professor once, and the other guys stand there listening as if they are actually taking him seriously. It's just a small example, the film is absolute trash. I can't watch this all the way through.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

Mission: Impossible III

User Reviews