May 27, 2010
Mission Impossible III (2006)
Should I see it?
No.
Short Review: The media reports of Tom Cruise’s kid’s feces being bronzed may be in error. As it turns out, it may have actually been the shooting script for this film.
There are two big issues with this Tom Cruise movie:
1. Tom Cruise
2. The movie
My issue with Cruise is that he is Tom Cruise in nearly every movie he appears in. He is not an actor. He is a personality. I'm not a fan of personalities.
Looking beyond Cruise, which normally involves simply standing up, you will find Alias and Lost creator JJ Abrams at the helm of this project. This was his first feature film. I enjoy Abrams’ television work. His shows are vacuous and embarrassingly simple. His characters are emotional single-line caricatures but are given enough clever flints of dialog to make them likable. His shows are what they intend to be, disposable yet addictive fluff.
This film is just as disposable as Abrams' TV work. The difference is that this film actually prompts you to throw it away.
Where Abrams’ Alias can get you to suspend your disbelief so you’ll buy that Jennifer Garner can smuggle a XM8 Lightweight Assault Rifle in her camisole, his big fat McMovie can’t get beyond its own bloated subplots. This whole film is one big Alias episode without the benefit of Garner’s charm or Kevin Weisman’s (Marhsall Finkman) humor. Abrams goes so far as to insert, for no reason, Greg Grunberg (Alias’ Eric Weiss) into the first act. This would be like Leonard Nimoy striking it out on his own back in the 70’s but refusing to take off his pointy ears. Absent the distraction of Jennifer Garner in a body sock shooting a TM-203 Grenade Launcher, Abrams' adoration of cheesy scripting is made just that much more obvious.
If you haven’t seen the film you may want to stop reading, I’m about to spoil the works. Although now that I consider my warning, I'm not sure that's really possible. Can you spoil trash?
The central point of the film is that super-spy Ethan Hunt tries to prove to himself (and others) that he can have a normal life with a wife and the whole shebang. All of this is wrapped up in a muddled plot which pushes Hunt to obtain “The Rabbit’s Foot”. This is currently in the pudgy hands of bad guy arms dealer Owen Davian (Philip Seymour Hoffman). Yes, the villain’s name is really Owen. Owen. " Oh, no here comes Owen." "I'm so scared of Owen!" Why not Karl, or perhaps Irwin?
“The Rabbit’s Foot” is a toxin Owen is looking to sell to bigger badder guys. Actually, we’re never told what “The Rabbit’s Foot” is and why we should care. For that matter, we’re not given the identity of the bigger badder guys and why they're so scary. Everything is nebulous, which means they are meaningless.
Owen, while performed well by Hoffman, is not an ominous figure. Since he and Ethan aren’t the focus and the conflict between the two is not clearly established, the climatic scenes lose their wind. Any momentum found in the first act is spent by halfway through the film because Abrams is too intent on wedging in a conspiracy subplot into the piece that the film simply can’t support.
Here is a heads up for all of the big time, huge budget Hollywood goofballs; If you have a big, fat McMovie and you need to reach a broad international audience, the recipe is easy:
One clearly defined hero
One clearly defined villain (with a better villain name than Owen)
Make the villain more powerful than the hero
Give them a like goal
Let them have at it
One clearly defined villain (with a better villain name than Owen)
Make the villain more powerful than the hero
Give them a like goal
Let them have at it
What this does is create a firm central plot from which you can hang subplots and any other nonsense you want.
If you’re a fan of JJ Abrams’ work, stick with his small screen products. This film, while offering a few well crafted moments, will ultimately waste your time. If you’re going to do that you may as well see Jennifer Garner kill a dozen guys with a flame-thrower while parachuting wearing nothing more than a teddy.
Related Reviews:
Tom Cruise movies
War of the Worlds (2005)
Vanilla Sky (2001)
Other Critic's Reviews:
Film School Rejects
Beyond Hollywood
Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See and learn
to change the world from your couch
Labels: Billy Crudup, Eddie Marsan, film, Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Keri Russell, Laurence Fishburne, Michelle Monaghan, movie review, Philip Seymour Hoffman, sequel, Simon Pegg, Tom Cruise, Ving Rhames
posted by Michelle Obama's Left Nut at 8:00 AM
Share
Previous Posts
Friends & Reads
Christian & Culture
Film Resources
Christian Sites
Faithcom
Featured On
Good News Film Reviews LLC 2004-2010 - used with permission
Images, video and titles are the property of their respective copyright holders. Good News Film Reviews LLC claims no ownership or connection to them.
The views expressed on this site are not the opinion of any advertiser or external entity.
While we take care to only link to responsible entities, Good News Film Reviews LLC takes no responsibility for the content linked from this site. There are sharks in the waters. Surf at your own risk.
The Template is generated via PsycHo and is Licensed.
1 Comments:
Very nice. Actually, I gave up on this one after the first one, but my dad rented the second one once while I was in town and had to watch it also. Mission Impossible (the TV show) was about a unit. When they killed off the unit in the first 10 minutes of the first movie I said, "Oh crap, this is going to be 'The Tom Cruise Show.'" I was suckered.
Post a Comment
<< Home