Product Description

Tom Cruise returns as Special Agent Ethan Hunt, who faces the mission of his life in "Mission: Impossible III." Director J. J. Abrams ("Lost"," "Alias") brings his unique blend of action and drama to the billion-dollar franchise.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #43184 in DVD
• Brand: PARAMOUNT HOME VIDEO
• Released on: 2006-10-30
• Rating: PG-13 (Parental Guidance Suggested)
• Aspect ratio: 1.66:1
• Formats: Color, Dolby, Widescreen, Surround Sound
• Original language: English, Spanish, French
• Subtitled in: English, Spanish
• Number of discs: 2
• Dimensions: .40 pounds
• Running time: 126 minutes

Amazon.com
At the time of its release, Mission: Impossible III's box office was plagued by the publicity backlash against couch-jumping star Tom Cruise. It's too bad, because this third installment of the spy thriller franchise deserved a better reception than it got. First-time feature director J.J. Abrams (bigwig TV director/producer of Lost, Alias, & Felicity) proves more than able-bodied in creating a Mission: Impossible that's leaner and less over-stylized than John Woo's sequel and less confusing than Brian De Palma's original. Plot is still a throwaway here (Cruise's Ethan Hunt rescues his kidnapped former trainee and works to steal a device that... well, we don't really know what it does, but it's something about mass destruction that costs $850 million), but the action sequences, particularly one where Ethan faces down a helicopter on a bridge and gets flung hard against the side of a car, are particularly impressive since Cruise, at 44, is still doing most of his own stunts and shows no hint of the weathered look that's struck his action-star peers. (Though no Mission: Impossible stunt will ever be quite as simultaneously nail-biting and funny as the first film's wire-dangling break-in of CIA headquarters.)

Mission: Impossible III boasts a pedigreed cast, particularly Oscar® winner Philip Seymour Hoffman (Capote) as baddie arms dealer Owen Davian. Hoffman plays Owen all teeth-clenched and cool, especially when threatening to kill Ethan in front of his lovely new wife (Michelle Monaghan) who has no idea of his spy life. But in his first action-film lead role, Hoffman's almost too calm and collected to really make a memorable villain, especially when the rest of the cast--Ving Rhames (the only other cast member to return for all three films), Asian film star Maggie Q, and an underused Jonathan Rhys-Meyers--are a highlight as Ethan's IMF team. Mission: Impossible is still fun popcorn spy fare, and if Cruise chooses to end the franchise here, at least he goes out on a high note. --Ellen A. Kim

Customer Reviews

Mission Accomplished
Thanks to director J.J. Abrams, "Mission: Impossible III" surpasses the missed opportunities of filmmakers Brian De Palma and John Woo by returning to the core elements of the classic TV series. In the memorable villain department, Philip Seymour Hoffman kicks it up a notch and gives IMF agent Tom Cruise a run for his money. The pace rarely lags as Abrams stages several stunt-filled setpieces while surrounding Cruise with a solid acting ensemble. Unfortunately, the film's perfunctory climax squanders a potentially exciting showdown between Cruise and Hoffman - an obvious sign of budgetary shortcuts. Despite this lapse, the third time is definitely the charm for the "Mission: Impossible" franchise.

Let's quit while we're ahead, shall we?
Yes, great talent went into this movie. You've got great actors and some interesting and innovative technology. P.S. Hoffman makes a top-shelf bad guy, right up there with my all-time favorite, Dirty Harry's Andy Robinson. The plot moves right along and a somewhat schmaltzy but satisfying ending is provided. In that sense, MI:3 lives up to its predecessors and is good entertainment.

But, I can't ignore the problems with this movie, some minor, some major:

* Minor problem. Are writers too lazy to do any good foreshadowing anymore? What is going on with this faux-noir business of showing us the climatic scene at the beginning of the movie? I noticed this in Turistas as well. I'm no fan of European cinema, but take a look at the foreshadowing done in Sexy Beast: a boulder hurtling at you and almost killing you but landing instead in your swimming pool. Now *that's* some witty, well-done foreshadowing! Giving away part of the plot SPOILER ALERT (Davian's escape and Julia's kidnapping) for a cheap head fake just doesn't cut it.

* Minor problem. We need more originality in action scenes.

> The "let's launch a missile strike on a long bridge" scene was done in True Lies. Granted, one was filmed on US1 and the other was filmed on the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, but is there really that much difference between the two? I'm also a little perplexed as to why Ethan's posse would transport prisoners across the Chesapeake Bay Bridge in the first place, since there are plenty of perfectly good airports right in D.C., military and civilian. For anyone who knows the area, they're bound to be put off by this obvious plot hole. There were continuity problems in this scene as well, with the helicopter hovering above the bridge superstructure in some shots but not in others. A nine-figure budget should eliminate those kinds of mistakes.

> The Shanghai building jump scene was done in Tomb Raider 3. It's even a rip-off to a certain extent of both Die Hard and even Green Ice, for crying out loud.

> The "attack the guy while immobilized by biting him" scene was done in The Bone Collector. Stabbing to death with a pen? Silence of the Lambs and Gross Pointe Blank.

> The "kill him then revive him" scene was done in The Abyss.

* Minor problem. Typical left-wing politics and Hollywood trash-talking. Agent Musgrave's against affirmative action. Ooooh. He *must* be evil. C.f. Derek's father in American History X.

* Major problem. The actual theft of the Rabbit's Foot - what's up with that? We're just supposed to assume Ethan broke through to the right floor, evaded guards, found the device's location, busted it out of whatever super-protected contraption it was in, and made his way out? That's inattentive, lame and just plain lousy writing. This sort of "we won't tell you how he did it but trust us, he does" attitude ruined The Hitcher, Identity and even to a certain extent Die Hard 2.

* Major problem. Once again we get the "rogue CIA chief is out to kill you"** theme. We just had that, again, with the Bourne series. Isn't there something else we could use for bad guys other than institutions dedicated to protecting us? Something like, oh, I don't know, terrorists who are part of a global fascist ideology fueled by the teaching of a seventh-century prophet? Or are we just playing it safe by once again beating up on U.S. intelligence institutions? Or is it just to increase the overseas gross? You tell me.

* Major problem. "Halliburton made me do it." A whole movie was actually made - remade - on this theme, The Manchurian Candidate. In the somewhat-coherent "I'll tell you why I did it" scene, Musgrave justifies his betrayal by appearing to say that the Rabbit's Foot will be used to frame some poor little Mohammedan country, which will be bombed, then rebuilt, presumably by Halliburton under a "no bid" contract.

Adding it up you've got great acting, the best F/X money can buy, and great gadgets on the one hand, and tired plot, reworked action scenes and careless, clichéd writing on the other. The producers of the MI series should take a lesson from the 1988 version of D.O.A., where a character tells the protagonist that of the protagonist's four books, there's the "third that's a little careless and a fourth that sort of stinks!" Let's leave the MI series at "a little careless," so we won't have to get to the one that sort of stinks.

** IMF, CIA, whatever.

Not bad, but not great
As series go, MI lacks the tension and interest of the Bourne trilogy, but it's entertaining, none the less. The plot is not as strong as the first, the twists aren't without slightly heavy-handed foreshadowing, but it's better than the second in the series, hands down. Though I love gadgets, I'd like to see them with a viable, not over-the-top 'vengeance is mine' mania. MI-III just pushes that envelope too much for me. Forgetting Cruise's recent unfortunate publicity issues, he seems to pass through each scene with the same grim mini-smile and determined stare, which made it hard to feel as if I were watching Ethan Hunt and not Tom Cruise gritting his teeth for another action sequence. And like the motorcycle pas de deux in the second installment, some of the action sequences just stepped a major stride outside of believable, and into the realm of, well, the impossible. But then, I like to see my action heroes do things that seem very, very difficult, but not out of the realm of humanly possible. Maybe that's just me. Beat them up, but don't turn them into superheroes. After all, what's fun about Superman if there's no kryptonite?