How can a film with so many explosions be so boring?

Rating: 4/10 (20 December 2006)

I bought this with anticipation that MI3 could not be as weak as MI2, but reaching for the remote to fast forward for the fifth time, I realised that this was not to be.
The film is as flat as a pancake, with no dimension to the plot, and the lead actor is the worst one on screen. I cannot buy into the blind Cruise worship, and love everything he does. It appears that there is only one dimension to his capabilities, and stretched far (for instance Minority Report) he is almost acceptable, but in this case Cruise's already thin acting is almost imperceptible. Humanising an emotionally remote individual was done brilliantly in the Bourne movies, but in MI3 this was done with a paint by numbers sequence of scenes, by an actor who is hopeless at acting with emotion. Putting him up against Philip Seymour Hoffman was a bad idea, as despite a criminally underwritten part, he shows what a great actor can do with any material.
As far as plot is concerned, I have to conclude that the writers forgot to watch any of the original MI1 or the TV series, because it simply bears no resemblance to the origins, or for that matter pays tribute. There are no 'Oh that's clever' bits, so typical of the original shows, and it's so removed I would personally rename this film 'Big Explosions Movie with Tom Cruise Running in a Funny Way' (for funny way, see Shanghai climax scene), as this is all this film is.
There are good points, however, and these are that it looks fabulous, and sounds great too (and that red dress...), but there are so many explosions where there should have been plot, that it becomes dull.
My biggest gripe? That Paramount didn't begin releasing the DVD's of the original shows until this movie had been put on DVD.