NY Times Says MISSIONS IMPOSSIBLE 3 Is Limp, Too TV-ish

By Wind(up)bird May 5, 2006 5:43 AM

Manohla Dargis of the New York Times says, "Although he slams into stationary objects with his customary zeal, the usually dependable Mr. Cruise is off his game here, sabotaged by the misguided attempt to shade his character with gray. The domestication of Ethan Hunt may have seemed like a good idea, a humanizing touch, perhaps, but it only bogs down the action. Worse, it turns a perfectly good franchise into a seriously strange vanity project..." Click on for the whole review. ?* A link to Rolling Stones' positive review has been added to balance for the flipside.

Rolling Stone dug it. ?Peter Travers' review includes such ad-friendly lines like "the thrills come mad hot and wicked sweet..." ?Here. ?Enjoy.

Read the Review at THE NEW YORK TIMES...

| comments: 3

Reader Discussions:

Post YOUR opinion too!

RE: Anti/Casual - ???????????? ????????? ? ????? ????? ????? ????   reply

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 6, 2006 4:59 AM

That reviewer can suck my freshly shaven ball sack.

Still Can't Believe it....   reply

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 14, 2006 2:03 AM

I must say, as a fan of the M:I saga, that this was a very disappointing movie. I don't know what they are trying to do, but it's just not right. First of all, they turned Ethan Hunt into a sissy!!! True, they were trying to bring back the "Team Effort" essence from the first movie as well as the series, but they definitely shouldn't have. Not after what we saw in the second film. That's like giving James Bond a pet dog and making a movie where he has to save him. I heard one slogan that said: "Get to know the human side of Ethan Hunt"... B.S.!!! They can't turn him into a full fledged super spy, and then turn him back to "There's no I in TEAM; I can't do it alone, please help me"! Maybe they should have brought back Woo for this one. I can assure you that I was more entertained with the action scenes of the second one than with Ethan Hunt's "Human Side". And what's this s..t about him retiring from the field to live a quieter life??? And him trying to start a family? I swear I wanted to throw up when I saw him at his engagement party.

Second: There are a lot of things missing in this movie. For instance: WHAT THE HELL WAS THE RABBIT'S FOOT?!?!?! Maybe that certain tone of mystery works for a series like "LOST", but that definitely doesn't work for a movie, since there's no way that you can possibly say: Oh, OK. I'll find out what it is in the next chapter or so. I can assure you that the last question they'll answer in M:I 4 (if that ever happens) is what the hell that thing was.

Another example: I don't know about you guys, but for me, one of the most exciting parts of Mission Impossible 2 was the action sequence where he tried to steal and destroy the Chimera virus from the Biocyte facility (the stunts, the music... just fantastic!). In this movie, how can they go from the acrobatic stunts with which Ethan enters the building, to: "15 minutes later..." and Ethan going out of the building with the Foot?!?!? I don't know about the rest, but if I go to the theater to see a spy flick, I wanna see a damn good action movie, not a reflective thriller with action scenes. Casting J.J. Abrams as the director was a really bad mistake. He should definitely stick to series. He did good with Alias and Lost, but he did terrible when he tried to combine elements of both to make this movie. That formula only works for TV.

What's next? Ethan Hunt, 30 years later, recruited back to the agency because only he knows a secret that could avoid WWIII? I think I'll pass...

RE: Still Can't Believe it....   reply

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 14, 2006 5:00 AM

The rabbits foot was a plot device known as a 'McGuffin' made famous by alfred Hitchcock, what it is is not important- the circumstances that arise from the different parties trying to get their hands on it is what matters. Would you have liked the film more if at one point someone had said the Rabbits foot is a nuclear bomb or chemical weapon? The point was that it was really bad.
Overall I like the movie alot, I can't really compare it to the original because the first M:I movie wasn't really an action movie but more a kind of espionage thriller. As for the sequel though, M:I-3 kicked it's ass all over the place. I'll admit I always like the last 20 or so minutes of M:I-2 with the motorbike chase etc but up until then it's just BOOOORRRR-ING, absolutely NOTHING happened. I can't understand how anyone could think that M:1-3 wasn't a huge step up.