A story would have made the great action that much better

Rating: 7/10 (5 May 2006)

Although I was very young at the time, I did enjoy the original Mission: Impossible film in 1996. The special effects were great, and the whole thing was tense as hell. Yes, there were zillions of holes in the plot as I've since found out, but it was a great action thriller with enough story to hold over for the action. But when I finally got around to catching Mission: Imossible 2 in 2000 after the buzz died down a little bit, I was less than impressed. They replaced all the story with extra action, and made the very little story that was left, absolutely ridiculous.
So now, we have Mission: Impossible 3, again with Tom Cruise, but headed by Alias and Lost creator J.J. Abrams, aka ABC's Jesus. I was a little intrigued by the trailers, which said absolutely nothing about the film, and was fairly hyped going into the film. But now, I feel a touch disappointed, but a little relieved that Abrams tried to fix the mess that John Woo made, profit worthy or not.
Without ruining anything, I will say that the film starts up tense, and doesn't let up whatsoever. Action abounds at every turn, and the break neck pace keeps up the whole way through. Cruise does his actioner best, and keeps it much more serious than it should be. Ving Rhames, as with the rest of the series, makes a great supporting character for Cruise. The rest of the supporting cast including Maggie Q, John Meyers, Billy Crudup, and the very, very little used Larry Fishbourne and Shaun of the Dead's Simon Pegg do excellent as well.
But yes, there are problems.
The story is almost non-existent, and like it's predecessors, is bullet-holed and ridiculous. As Cruise and Co. go around doing their missions, you never really get a sense of why or how they manage to pull any of them off. There is like 5 minutes of story, and then 20 of action. It goes around and around like this, until all that is left is action. Yes, it's tense, and really thrilling, but there's very little story to back any of it up. No, it's nowhere near as bad as M:I 2, one of the worst yet most profitable sequels in recent years, but it still leaves a lot to be desired.
Another bad item is the lack of anything for Michelle Monaghan or Phillip Seymour Hoffman to do. These are both talented actors (Hoffman coming fresh off his Oscar win in Capote), and they're given almost nothing to do. They get very little screen time, and a lot of the screen time they do get, they either are gagged or just not talking for one reason or another. Yes, having a packed cast does take away from a lot of things, but unfortunately, it ruins the overall effect of the film. Cruise cannot carry this baby on his own. And while Rhames helps a lot, players like Monaghan and Hoffman sit in the back row, not having anything to do. When they finally do, it's to attempt and further the plot, only to get sideswiped into even more action. They try their best, but unfortunately come off as next to useless in the whole scheme of things. Given a lot more to do, they could have been fabulous. But at least we know that Hoffman will not be portraying characters things like this anymore.
As a first time director, Abrams does a valiant effort to not just make this film out to be all thrilling action, with zero substance. There are many instances in which it may feel like an episode of Alias, but then there are many where it really does compare to the excellent original attempt by Brian De Palma. But where the movie succeeds is unfortunately in its action, and not in its plot. Major story elements are completely glossed over by the action that comes before and after it, and leaves no chance for the audience to actually grab a hold of what has happened. Abrams does a great job on his shows helping this problem, but cannot do a thing here, and it is totally unfortunate.
What started out as a tense intelligently flawed blockbuster, evolved into mindless action drivel, only to become a cross between both, with more action than plot. This Cruise franchise has been plagued since the start, and Mission: Impossible 3 does not change any of that. Yes, the film is enjoyable, but is definitely one that requires very little thinking. It is superior to Woo's sequel, but does not match anything that De Palma did. A lot less action, and more character driven material would have made this film an absolute astonishment.
But if it's action at every turn that you want, than look no further.
7/10.