While "Mission: Impossible II" was the highest-grossing film of 2000, the critical reception was pretty bad as the sequel completely diverted from the formula that made the original film from 1996 so beloved. The third film was created with one primary goal: put the franchise back on course. While the film itself was a financial disappointment, the reputation of the franchise was saved and greater films followed suit. While that's great for the future films, it does come with one problem, which is that the third movie is probably the weakest of the franchise to date. Ethan Hunt is planning to retire from IMF to marry his new fiancee, Julia. When he is asked to do one last mission to rescue a former student of his, the mission goes sideways and Ethan demands to bring the one responsible for the abduction, arms dealer Owen Davian, to justice, while the discovery of a mole in the organization is brought to light. While the story does have a sense of finality to it and offering a more human and emotional aspect to Ethan, the spy narrative itself just repeats the premise of the first film with an operative killed by a villain who is one step ahead of the group with a potential mole in the IMF being responsible for the event and framing Ethan for the entire thing. Aside from Ethan's new fiancee, there's not much added to the story. There is a Macguffin known as the Rabbit's Foot, but we don't even know what it does other that it's a dangerous weapon of sorts that is all part of a plan to invade the Middle East once more. The tone however does work at keeping things serious for the most part with the emotional and suspenseful sequences being very effective in how brutal or sudden it can be. There's however a decent amount of humour thrown in thanks to the characters of Luther and Benji. So, it's a step-up from the second film and its messy tone.
Tom Cruise returning as Ethan Hunt brings back what made fans enjoy from the first film, which is that he's just one man who is left with his wits, skills, and human reaction. He's not a swab agent who can look sexy or be chill throughout the film like in the second, he's now in a more tricky situation where he can feel fear, frustration, and anxiety. The late Phillip Seymour Hoffman does a fantastic performance as Davian, an emotionless, unfazed arms dealer who threatens to kill Ethan's fiancee even when he is in cuffs. Even though the character himself has a lack of motivation for his actions and feels a bit stock, Hoffman's performance makes this sociopath a scary villain for Hunt and does build up from the previous villains of the franchise. Michelle Monaghan as Julia is pretty likeable as Ethan's fiancee and even gets to partake in the action by the end and using her skills as a nurse to effect. Ving Rhames as Luther continues to inject his humour and banter with Ethan, Simon Pegg as Benji also helps add a lighthearted dose in the heavy plot as the British technician, and Laurence Fishbourne does an amazing job as Theodore Brassel, the strict and dismissive IMF director who is said to be the mole behind the agency. While these characters are great additions, the others leave a lot to be desired. Billy Crudup as John Musgrave is just a lame secondary antagonist with the obvious reveal that he is the mole, despite Crudup's decent performance. Musgrave is such a boring twist villain that he gets killed off so randomly and sudden from Julia, just because he walked into the wrong room. Keri Russell as Lindsey, the agent Ethan tries to save but dies right before it can be done, is basically a nothing character as the audience barely gets to know her even if her death is the emotional push for Ethan to continue his mission, Maggie Q as Zhen Lei, a sexy agent who is part of Ethan's new time, is just there to be the girl who serves as the eye candy that is needed in every one of these movies, and lastly there's Jonathan Rhys Meyers as Declan Gormley, another agent who makes up of Ethan's team. Aside from a slight idea that he's into Zhen, Declan has absolutely no characteristics at all. It's so bland that you would be begging for Billy the helicopter pilot from the last film as he at least had something to do and being somewhat memorable at the same time. Overall, the leads are effective as usual amongst a few side characters, but the other major supporting characters are just so bland or forgettable, which is a problem since they are involved in a large part of the movie.
J.J Abrams makes his feature film debut and, man, it's pretty obvious. I'm never a fan of Abrams's directing aside from his work in the "Star Wars" films. Despite being a visual and creative director, his trademarks are just so ugly to look at. For one, a lot of his films have this ugly digital look to them, which is supposed to make the movie look gritty or grounded. This wouldn't be a problem in "Cloverfield", but a slick spy-action film shouldn't have this look unless it's part of the "Jason Bourne" franchise. While there are some nice-looking moments such as the scenes in the Vatican and Shanghai, that's about how visually engaging the movie can be. It wouldn't be nearly as bad if the cinematography by Dan Mindel didn't muck everything up. While there's not many lens flares you come to expect from the director, the shaky hand-held movement became a staple here and the film suffers because of it. It really hurts the action sequences as we will get into later, despite a few moments of the camera actually being still or stable. The score by Micheal Giacchino is not bad by any means, but it's a huge downgrade from both Danny Elfman and Hans Zimmer in the previous films. It just sounds very stock to the spy genre compared to not just those previous films, but even to Giacchino's work in other films. Then, there's the action sequences. While not terrible when put inside a vacuum, the action here is perhaps the worst in the franchise simply due to the filmmaking and the lack of creativity. The shaky camerawork is paired up with quick editing by Mary Jo Markey and Maryann Brandon to create a disorientating combo. The scenes in Berlin and Shanghai are really generic to watch. Even though Cruise continues to do his stunts, there's nothing as jaw-dropping compared to the previous or future films aside from him running a lot in Shanghai. The attack on the bridge is a cool concept, but there's no real back-or-forth momentum as the sequence is meant to be a complete disaster for Ethan and his team with not one henchmen killed. The only action sequence that proves memorable is the final fight between Ethan and Devian. Even though the editing and camerawork is sloppy, it's such a brutal fight to watch, leading to a satisfying death from Devian. Despite Abrams continuing to produce the future films since, there's a reason why he hasn't returned to do the other films and we should be thankful for that.
"Mission: Impossible III" is both an important yet the worst entry of the franchise. While the tone is far more balanced to have a more serious and suspenseful nature while offering light doses of humour, Cruise as Hunt returns to being a more human and emotional protagonist, Hoffman does a threatening performance as Devian, Julia, Luther, Benji and Brassel are great returning and new faces, and the final fight between Hunt and Devian is one of the best hand-to-hand fight scenes in the franchise, the rest of the film just doesn't pop out. The story practically copies the beats from the first film, the fixation of the Rabbit's Foot and the motivation of the villains are just laughable, Musgrave is such a predictable and boring twist villain, Lindsey, Zhen, and Declan are the most boring allies for Ethan in any of the films, Mindel's camerawork is vomit-inducing from the amount of shaky cam involved, Giacchino's score is underwhelming compared to his work and the music from the past entries, the action sequences are unwatchable due to how unimaginative they are and the atrocious editing by Markey and Maryann, and Abrams's directorial debut showcases his terrible trademarks the industry is forced to endure. Regardless of the film's quality, it served its purpose to put the franchise on course and, thankfully, the future installments are as pure quality as they can get.
Verdict: 5/10. The worst film from the franchise based on its mediocrity. The second film may have flaws, but it had character and identity, something the third film doesn't have.
No comments:
Post a Comment