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

[deleted]

The worst M:I movie is the first one. Seriously. Outside of its iconic heist sequence, it is a wholly rotten film. 3 is pretty good. 4 and 5 are the best.

reply

3 is the worst for me. I truly loath it and never rewatch it. I know it's a favorite of many and it definitely got the franchise back on track, so it did some good. 2 is certainly no highlight either. I really hated that movie when it came out, but I came to appreciate it out of a sense of nostalgia for the filmmaking of the time. When I watch the MI movies, I skip 2&3. They really didn't get the act together right until 4. I genuinely hate everything JJ has ever made. His filmmaking style just bugs the shit out of me. It's like the opposite of Michael Bay where I just love everything he shoots no matter how stupid the movie is.

reply

Absolutely bullshit review. III is the best Mission Impossible. It has by far the best villain, Hoffman is chilling, it’s tense as all hell, the action is phenomenal, and it plays with you psychologically with that iconic opening scene where his wife gets shot - you’re haunted by what’s to come as you watch the events unfold.

The film is a bullet that gets fired in the first scene and doesn’t let up until the end. It’s a masterpiece of tension cinema. J.J. finds ways to make everything pop, whether it’s cool shots, gags, zippy dialogue or snappily edited sequences.

People just dump on it now bc it’s trendy to crap on J.J., but his first movie was a belter and it may well be his best.

reply

The film is a bullet that gets fired in the first scene and doesn’t let up until the end. It’s a masterpiece of tension cinema. J.J. finds ways to make everything pop, whether it’s cool shots, gags, zippy dialogue or snappily edited sequences.


I've been trying to figure out how to best describe this movie for years and you nailed what I had always wanted to say in describing this film. It really does feel like a bullet that gets fired and never stops until the credits roll!

Maggie Q is super hot in this film; Hoffman is still the most memorable villain out of the entire series (because he's grounded and realistic without being a goofy, over-the-top caricature), and the action is spot on from start to finish.

I don't even really remember Ghost Protocol much or the one after that. The problem is that the movies start to blend and fade after MI:III and it's hard to find distinction between them. I guess because MI:II sucked so bad III manages to stand out more, but because the ones that followed were so generic it's hard to remember what they were about.

reply

Well they found a formula in III which dictated the rest of the series. The tone became 80% action 20% comedy with a core of returning characters. Prior to that the M:I films were like the Alien films - wildly different visions by very different directors. In fact, the last four films will have been written and directed by Christopher McQuarrie.

I actually like all the M:I films (yes even II - Woo’s slo-mo action, Zimmer’s lush score, Thandie Newton’s face, Anthony fucking Hopkins), Cruise as producer has kept the quality high, the stunts real, and inoculated the series from woke - Cruise control, if you will.

reply

Yeh MI3 basically did what Goldfinger did in setting the tone for the rest of the series

reply

Total.

reply

Somebody on the Mission Impossible subreddit has argued that II (the one that John Woo directed from the year 2000) is actually better than III:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Mission_Impossible/comments/og68ah/comment/h4gwe3i/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

What separate the most M:I 2 from M:I 3 to me is that beside Julia and her relationship with Ethan, I have no idea what is at stake. Seymour Hoffman is great, but I don't find him strong as a villain. It's symptomatic of Abrams poor storytelling and his f*cking "mystery box". If I don't know what's the Rabbit's foot and what's so dangerous about it, how tf am I supposed to care ? The set pieces are good but as a whole this film just pains me.

M:I 2 is kinda silly, kinda over the top, but it knows it. It's just bonkers and doesn't pretend to be intellectual or more clever than it is. I rewatched it recently, and while it doesn't compare to today's expectations of action films, it works really well, goes straight to the point and has a good pacing. It's a bit of light hearted fun, and I guess people have a strict idea of what the tone of a M:I film should be because other than that, it works.

reply

This is obvious a giant joke and nobody can take it seriously.

Mission Impossible 3 is a superb movie! Mission Impossible 2 is pure garbage and it was painful to watch it!

reply