MI-3 is a cheap remake of James Bond

Rating: Null/10 (1 February 2007)

This is the directorial debut of J.J. Abrams, a hot TV commodity (Felicity, Alias, Lost) making his transition to the big screen. From a purely technical standpoint, Abrams does a competent job. The chase scenes and other action sequences are presented with the proper level of spectacle. The globe-trotting locations are given their due - we see plenty of Berlin, Rome, and Shanghai. But there's an intangible missing. Things explode, characters take death-defying plunges, guns fire round after round after round, helicopters move in for the kill, and none of it is all that exciting. Maybe it's because we've seen it before. Maybe it's because a TV show like 24 does this kind of thing on a weekly basis, and does it better (although not as spectacularly). And maybe it's because we're not as invested in Ethan Hunt as we need to be to care. Even Mission: Impossible III's single shocking moment turns out to be a cheat.
While watching this film, I kept thinking of a cheap James Bond rip-off. There are the gadgets, the stunts, and the world locations. Laurence Fishburne does a credible M and Simon Pegg is Q. Michelle Monaghan is pretty enough to be a Bond girl, although she's dressed up more like the girl next door. And, like the last successful of the 007 features, it doesn't gel.
What do you think about it, is MI-3 an easy remake of James Bond?