Good, but M:I III doesn't stand up to its Predecessors

Rating: 7/10 (6 May 2006)

Perhaps I'm a bit disappointed only because I've been waiting intently since 2000 for the third installment of the Mission: Impossible series, but JJ Abrams's version just doesn't seem to stand out against today's action movies as much as the first two did.
The first stood out not so much as an action movie, but a cool spy movie with a few extremely memorable scenes that will never be forgotten (Cruise on the cable, the Chunnel scene, etc.). It had its own cool vibe going on.
The second was Woo action, and boy howdy, did I love it. Sure, it wasn't the same M:I we were used to, but it worked. There were some real cool action scenes that still exist in my mind as some of my favorites (Biocyte Infiltration, Motorcycle chase, etc.). It had Woo written all over it, and was, in my opinion, the perfect model for what a brainless summer blockbuster should be.
Now comes JJ Abrams's version that seems to be a bit more formulaic. There were definitely some cool action scenes (cars being blown up on a Chesapeake Bay bridge, a helicopter chase through windmills, etc.), but they, for the most part, didn't seem to really be... distinguishable.
And the movie follows in that respect, too. At the moment, it all seemed like an exciting assault of the senses (critics say it like it's a bad thing), but later on, it's rather forgettable. And that's what makes me disappointed.
If you're just out to see a good action movie and nothing more, you should be very pleased with this. However, if you're a die-hard M:I fan like myself, you might find yourself thinking at times that this is just an action movie that has a similar cast to the other M:I films, but not an actual M:I film itself. I guess, for me, it just didn't scream "I AM MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE! I WILL FREAKING ROCK YOU!" as much as it said "Hey, I'm a good action movie, but nothing you haven't already seen." It's fun, but tragically, forgettable.