MovieChat Forums > Mission: Impossible III (2006) Discussion > EW calls MI3 the worst of the Franchise

EW calls MI3 the worst of the Franchise


Below MI2, do you agree?

http://www.ew.com/article/2015/07/31/mission-impossible-movies-best-worst


5. M:I:iii

The biggest bug with this movie is, for some people, its central feature. Always a keen observer of upcoming talent, Cruise plucked J.J. Abrams from small-screen cult glory and gave him his first shot at a megabudget feature film. So the third Mission is recognizable as a spiritual sibling to Alias: A spy thriller that treats the central agent as a kind of superhero, alternating between their Normal Life and the Spy World. Abrams loves to make things personal — he would later kill Kirk’s father and Spock’s mother in the same movie — and so the third film is the one that tries hardest to dimensionalize Ethan Hunt. He’s retired and happily engaged; he only comes back to work for a this-time-it’s-personal rescue mission. (Abrams initially pitched Alias with the question “What if Felicity were a spy?” and so it’s appropriate that, in his first movie, Felicity actually is a spy.)

The problem with this is simple: I’m not sure Ethan Hunt is really supposed to be a typical human person. Monaghan’s fine in a thankless role — her whole purpose is representing “normality” — but their chemistry lacks the sparks of Cruise/Ferguson and the gauzy-goofy melodrama of Cruise/Newton. M:I:iii hired legitimate genius Philip Seymour Hoffman as the villain, but his Owen Davian is maybe the most abstract bad guy (in a franchise that already trends toward abstract megalomanics.) This is an Abrams production through and through, which means it starts with an exciting flashforward — that ultimately leads into a deflating less-cool-than-you-think reveal.

The film knocks one scene out of the park — I’d put the Vatican City infiltration in the franchise’s top five setpieces — but Abrams was still a big screen newbie, and the early helicopter-chase sequence feels choppy. (Another Mission that’s a movie of its time: The whole thing plays a bit like a Bourne movie riff, all shaky-cams and monochrome nightscapes.) It’s servicable—and forgettable. But the film did provide us with one immortal moment: Tom Cruise doing casual small talk.

reply

He's an idiot. 2 is the worst. Doesn't even feel like a M:I movie, just a bad action movie.

reply

I've been in the process of rewatching all weekend and MI2 is not good. It has like one good part and that's the final fight I'd say. Mission Impossible 3 (when it came out) was the best one in the franchise, many believe until GProtocol, but I just watched 3 yesterday and it's damn exciting!

reply

2 was the worst. The villain was nothing.

reply

3 is hands down my favorite in the franchise. It's all about opinions, so don't take these types of lists seriously.

reply

Below MI2, do you agree?


Not even a little bit. Since MI2 is not even really a MI film. Ethan doesn't act like a spy at any point in the movie.

The new home of Welcome to Planet Bob: http://kingofbob.blogspot.ca/

reply

I wouldn't say M:I 3 is the worst but it's also not the best. What ruins that film in particular is the terrible cinematography, set design, and lighting. But this is to be expected with a J.J. Abrams film. Just look at Star Trek and Star Trek: Into Darkness. He hasn't learned much from his first experience with directing a feature film.

reply

Total bull sh!t. MI:III came out on the heels of a bunch of Tom Cruise bashing (when everyone freaked out that he jumped on Oprah's couch) and received mixed reviews at the time. I guess it's still suffering in retrospect because of that.

But IMO if someone can't see how it's better than 2, 5 and even 4 (especially 2 though!) then I have to question that person's train of thought. I feel MI:III is a spectacular action film and contains pretty much every element we want out of a Mission Impossible film (the action, suspense and mystery) plus raising the stakes by making it the most personal of the films (an actually believable romance, unlike the one in 2) and having a fantastic villain with Philip Seymour Hoffman.

Also this critics bashing of Abram's direction is laughable. This film proves how great Abrams was right from the beginning. 

Look at that turtle go bro! 

reply

I defeintly agree, the first 2 mission impssiobles are the best. first one is a genious spy thriller, 2nd was an AWSOME action movie with great stunts and general cool feel, but the last few were just stupid. I didn't even bother with the other 2 afterward, after the bad experience I had with mi3, the others seemed so unappealing.

reply

2 is awful. This revived the franchise.

reply

Yep. II sucks so hard. And it gets worse ever time I watch it.

reply

https://www.quora.com/Why-are-there-so-many-people-who-say-that-Mission-Impossible-III-is-the-worst-of-all/answer/Michael-Chrichton-1

Because of J.J. Abrams. Instead of actually making a film that has lasting quality he made one (like most of his other movies) that relies on twists, turns, thrills and macguffins without actually giving the substance to keep them compelling beyond the first viewing.

The first one directed by Brian De Palma also has some twists and turns but has made sure to implement elements that remain compelling on multiple viewings. The action and pivotal heist sequence for example is far more memorable. Even if you know the outcome once the sequence starts you are just as excited and thrilled as the first time you watch it. That is because De Palma is a real master of building up genuine tension and suspense. Abrams relies to much on plot twists and fox hunts that never lead to anything substantial. He also makes sure you never actually get the time to ponder about what is going on since it’s too fast paced. De Palma gives you a lot of visual hints. Sometimes so obvious that you wonder how you could have missed them.

Brad Bird added a lot of humour to Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol and managed to make the stunts and action even bigger and better than before. Plus it actually was more like an original episode of the series where every team member was pivotal. In III the members were all very disposable.

https://www.quora.com/Why-are-there-so-many-people-who-say-that-Mission-Impossible-III-is-the-worst-of-all/answer/Parikshit-Kothekar

reply