The Web    Google
Mission: Impossible III
List Price: $7.99

Our Price: $7.99

You Save:


Customer Reviews:

  • Better than Bond
    Better than some recent James Bond films, MI 3 is a shoot-for-the-moon international caper which moves well into the new millennium. This episode takes us from Berlin to the Vatican to Shanghai - ambitious indeed. Slick, youthful and fun, Tom's partners in crime - Ving Rhames, Maggie Q and Jonathan Rhys Meyers are cool and great eye candy. Philip Seymour Hoffman is a good actor, but still looks too much like a blonde teddy bear to be menacing for me. In spite of this, the movie works. Instead of suffering from sucky sequel-itis, the MI 3 creative team keeps making these films better. And that's what I appreciate about the movie. I suspect that JJ Abrams has to take a lot of credit for improving the drama and clarity of the story, which has more character and drama than the usual slam bang action flick.

    And at the end of it all, there's no denying that Tom Cruise knows what he is doing. Laugh or sneer at him, but Cruise knows how to deliver with the right team. It remains to be seen what will happen to the eternally youthful Cruise (will he end up like Arnold or Stallone?) and MI 3 could be the last of an era, I suspect....more info
  • MI 3
    Didn't realize I had ordered the widescreen version but other than that, love this movie, especially the lamborghini murcialago!...more info
  • Entertaining, even if unoriginal
    It's surprising that the last of the Mission: Impossible franchise, which on paper at least appears the weakest, is in fact the best of the bunch.

    I suppose it shouldn't be. Take the creative minds behind the terrific TV show Alias, give them a massive Hollywood budget, and let them run with it. The end result is M:I3.

    Energetically directed by JJ Abrams, the creative mind behind Alias and Felicity before that, M:I3 is by far the most human of the spy trilogy. Unfortunately, because of the tightly-shot, close-quarters style of shooting, much of the $100 million dollar budget is largely invisible. In fact, the film honestly looks like a two-hour episode of Alias, which depending on your preference is either good or bad. Either way, it serves as a testament to how well done Alias itself was.

    The actors fare better. His public persona aside, Tom Cruise gives the best performance of the trilogy. Even more impressive than Cruise, however, is Keri Russell of Felicity fame in a small, but jaw-dropping role as Ethan Hunt's protege, Lindsay Farris. Despite the brevity of her character's role in the film, Russell gives it her all and then some, making you wish the writers had given her some more to do. Ving Rhames is his usual self, Billy Crudup and Laurence Fishburne do what they can with what they're given. Sadly, Jonathan Rhys-Meyers and Maggie Q seem delegated to merely eye candy as back up IMF agents on Cruise's team, though Miss Maggie does make FANTASTIC eye candy. Philip Seymour Hoffman's villain is criminally under-written, but the actor still dominates the screen every instant he's on it. Michelle Monaghan, a talented actress in her own right, doesn't fare as well, but most of that stems from her lack of chemistry with Cruise, her on screen love interest.

    So Abrams direction is worthwhile and the actors give it their all. Less impressive is the story and script, which seems content to mostly rehash from the previous two films, particularly the second. The action pieces themselves aren't bad (the bridge battle and Berlin scenes in particular standing out in a good way); they just don't quicken the pulse like they used to. Furthermore, for the best tactical espionage gang in the game, these guys seem to spend a lot of time shouting out their real first names rather than their call signs. Just an observation.

    What the script does do well is push the story, as contrived as it is, beyond where you'd expect on several occasions. Hunt's interrogation scenes and the Berlin helicopter chase conclusion both rack up tension quickly and effectively before hitting hard. Adrenaline is not something this film lacks.

    Overall, a solid entry in action filmmaking....more info
  • Best of the three so far
    Villains are what make the different between a passable action move and a good action movie. Case in point: Quantum of Solace which had one of the lamest villains in recent memory. In the case of MI3 we have one of America's best actors who expanded his range even further with this role. Anyone who was seen him in Boogey Nights, Storytelling and Magnolia knows that this guy can act, but even in a Tom Cruise pic, he OWNS this role and practically owns the movie.

    Anyway, Phillip Seymore Hoffman is awesome and elevates this movie above the previous two that had shaky plots and/or lame direction. The direction in MI3 isn't stellar, but the production looks a lot slicker. Decent acting by all, but again, the villain makes this movie and he's a real unlikable guy who's as cool as a cucumber no matter what's going on around him....more info
  • MI3: Tom Cruise's face is amazing.
    ...or, Mission Impossible 3: The one that will try to prove Tom Cruise is still better than Jesus.

    This movie features a derivative plot, with generic spies racing each other toward obtaining a nameless unexplained super weapon. It also features (extremely prominently) Tom Cruise. And Tom Cruise. Plus, Tom Cruise running.

    I recommend the Pan-and-Scan version over the widescreen. About 75% of this movie's running time is a close-up of Tom Cruise's face. The widescreen version will distract you from his faux-intense mug, with too much scenery ("costars") off to the sides. The fullscreen version nicely features nothing but Cruise's face, filling most of the screen, most of the time.

    Without even a good gimmick (the superweapon is never explained), the only attempt at drama made by this movie is putting Cruise's wife in peril. Trouble is, she is an extremely shallow character, and Cruise has lied to her about most of who he is... so it's hard to feel very invested in her welfare or their "relationship." Phillip Seymour Hoffman (Best Actor Oscars: 1) does well, but is on the screen for about eight minutes, dwarfed by the 124 minutes that Cruise (Oscars: 0) dominates the picture.

    Cruise mostly does two things: be "intense," and run. He runs about four miles combined throughout the 7-8 scenes focused on him running. He somehow looks shorter than ever too--at one point, Lawrence Fishburne was glaring at him, and I thought he was considering actually *eating* Tom Cruise like a snack....more info
  • Ethan in love
    Great movie, but if you watch it in this blu ray format... other formats can may you forget the movie at the middle of the action...
    More heart in this and more realistic than the others.
    ...more info
  • Amazing PQ
    stellar video transfer. Its too bad HD DVD lost this war but if you happen to own an HD player, this title is well worth picking up. I have 45 titles and this is easily one of the best looking ones....more info
  • Decent action movie
    MI3 is a big-budget summer actioner, with all the pros and cons of that genre, plus its own strong and weak points. The big set pieces are here; the huge action sequences and the explosions; the Unkillable Hero and the Omnipotent Bad Guy; the exotic locations.

    Tom Cruise proves he can still act, and still retains tremendous likability on screen, regardless of his bizarre couch-jumping, postpartum mother berating, cult-supporting antics off-screen. His co-stars turn in credible to good performances as well. J.J. Abrams does an amazing job of directing; it's hard to believe he had never directed a feature film before. To pull off a huge big-budget summer blockbuster like this the first time out of the gate is impressive.

    So why just 3 stars? The problem with MI3 is ultimately the script. Implausible actions and dialogue by the characters take you out of the movie and make you scratch your head. And a movie like this, with such impossible action sequences, has to have something of a sense of humor about itself to allow you to suspend disbelief. "Charlie's Angels" is a prime example of this, where you believe that anything can happen in Angelworld and you just roll with it. MI3, on the other hand, is so deadly serious about itself that you can't suspend your disbelief about some of the stunts and action sequences. It needed to have either less over-the-top action or less leaden seriousness; the two did not work together at all.

    Nevertheless, MI3 is at least worth a rent if you generally like this sort of movie....more info
  • The fun, the adventure, the creativity, never ease up...
    In this third film of the series, Ethan Hunt has retired from the field, and is training new agents.... His sweetheart Julia (Michelle Monaghan) thinks he works for the Department of Transportation...

    When one of his pupils is kidnapped by a sadistic arms dealer Owen Davian (Philip Seymour Hoffman), Hunt decides to assemble his old team to retrieve her, putting in mortal danger his new love...

    J.J. Abrams--in his first feature film--shot "Mission: Impossible III" with a sense of timing and suspense... We're dealing with full-flash blanks, glass breaking, explosions... And we see Hunt, in a quite interesting shot, running up a wall to enter the Vatican... Also, in the bridge sequence, he runs away from a rocket hit on one of the vehicles... It's cool because the way he's running, the look on his face, before, during and after that impact could only have been done only by an actor as good as him... In China, in an old fishing village, we see him jumping off tile rooftops, with incredible grace, precision, coordination and footwork... Then, with Lindsey Farris (Keri Russell) they jump out of a building on a cable landing on a truck...

    The special effects, and visual effects are great... They all work together... The Shanghai street chase with Tom leaning out of the car at some insanely dangerous angle to shoot a gun under a truck; Also Tom, in a high-speed boat, on the Tiber River in Rome, Italy; the blowing of a nice spectacular sports car; and, of course, the helicopter chase sequence where, in pursuit, the bad-guy helicopter emerges out of a fireball...

    Also, in a fantastic shot, in Shanghai, China, when the camera comes in and then goes around Tom as he's standing on top of a Shanghai roof... The camera comes over his shoulder and look down at the ground, so we'll see Tom on the top of the Shanghai building, hundreds feet in the air, and just to show and set up the jeopardy of what he's about to accomplish...

    Well, I loved the director's work... He's so detail-oriented...The fun, the adventure, the creativity, never eased up...

    And, please, don't miss Colleen Atwood, entering the Vatican, with a head-turner red dress... ...more info
  • A Beautiful Film on Blu-ray
    The movie itself was so much better than MI:II and the blu-ray version is noticeably cleaner looking than it's DVD counterpart....more info
  • Short but Accurate
    Simply the best of the three M.I. films. It could have and should have been a hit except for the media attach on Tom Cruise shortly before the release. 4 1/2 stars, actually. Enjoy....more info
  • Mission Immature
    Did someone hire a new director since Mission Impossible number 1? If yes, then it explains the lack of unexpected plot twists that made the first such a masterful spy movie. If not, then check the man for signs of a stroke. This film is transparent from beginning to end--not good for a spy movie. You always know who the bad guys and good guys are--except in the mutual torture-chairs scene. Having said that, although it is not as good as Mission Impossible #1, it is a far sight better than M-I II....more info
  • A Good Action Film
    Mission Impossible III brings to the screen the ongoing adventures of Ethan Hunt as he battles dangerous villains.
    The former spy is called upon to retrieve a captured agent, though it might be that this time he's bitten more than he can chew...
    Tom Cruise, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Laurence Fishburne, and the rest of the cast carry out their performances very well.
    The setting, the plot, the special effects, the dialogues, and the music are all good.
    In a nutshell, it's probably not a movie you would want to add to your collection, but it will surely provide for an evening's entertainment
    ...more info
  • High-gloss popcorn entry into "MI" franchise
    "Mission Impossible III" is a definitive summer popcorn movie. It's got amazing special effects, outlandish stunts, handsome heroes and gorgeous heroines, and a plot that is as thin as tissue paper. All in all, a perfect afternoon's escape from the summer heat.

    If you are looking for a complex plot out of a Le Carre novel, you'll be disappointed in this movie, but then you knew that, didn't you? Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) tries to save the planet and his wife (Michelle Monaghan, from "Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang," a much wittier film) from the evil Owen Davian (Phillip Seymour Hoffman, cashing in on his best actor Oscar from "Truman"). Davian is some kind of evil gun runner who sells weapons of mass destruction to Bad Guys, and he and Hunt are fighting over the Rabbit's Foot, an undescribed weapon with unimaginable destructive power that also conveniently fits into a small briefcase. Alfred Hitchcock would call this the "MacGuffin."

    This "plot" is an excuse to string together some incredibly clever and outlandish "ops" for the Mission Impossible Team. From an early scene where Hunt and his team rescue a captured MI member to a kidnapping in the Vatican to some highwire escapades in Shanghai, Hunt and his gang offer visual thrills galore.

    Leave your disbelief at the door, don't try to figure out the physics or the logic, and just have a good time watching attractive people do unimaginably spectacular things. (And try to forget that Tom Cruise is, you know, insane.)...more info
  • Cruise knows Action
    Why is it that Tom Cruise is at his best when he is running from something? Minority Report, The Firm, War of the Worlds, etc. - he does a significant amount of escaping and running away from people in all these films. I guess there is just something about seeing him running for his life at full speed that make people want to come back for more. Whatever the reason, I though Mission Impossible III was a good, entertaining show.

    The key to this type of movie is expectations. You musn't expect an intricate plot, or clever dialogue. What you should go in expecting is action, and lots of gadgets and devices that help them accomplish their "impossible" mission. Since I don't watch many action movies, whenever I do, it is a fun, lively experience. I don't recommend more than one action movie every six months. Any more and you will be jaded to the genre very quickly.

    I do remember that Mission Impossible I, and maybe II as well, had lots of crazy plot twists, so much so that it was hard to figure out who were the good guys and who were the bad guys. The third installment has some of that, but it does not take nearly so many turns, and it is very easy to follow. However, if you are looking for a "mystery", you will probably be disappointed.

    One thing that did bother me was the lack of rationality on Tom Cruise's character's part. He seems to lose any perspective toward the end of the movie. While believability does have to be suspended during this type of movie, he is generally a cool, scientific, rational character, but when his girlfriend/wife is kidnapped, he loses it. Oh well, maybe that's the Power of Love.

    One side note. When they refer to "IMF" in this film, they are referring to the "Impossible Mission Force" and not the "International Monetary Fund". This became clear to me at the end, but it made me pause in the middle.

    Overall, I would recommend this movie if you haven't watched an action movie in a long time and don't really feel like anything more serious. It is a fun way to waste two hours as long as you don't set your expectations too high....more info
  • Cruise's "MI3" Far Superior to Craig's "Casino Royale"
    Give MI3 6 stars.

    I saw MI3 the same night that I saw "Casino Royale" and there is no comparison. As much as I'm tired to Tom Cruise in the scandal sheets, I must say that he still has great charisma and a phenomenal plastic surgeon. The script is witty and well-paced. The action is never as over-the-top as "Casino Royale": why would a man running away from Bond climb a crane? Where did he think he was going?

    MI3's supporting cast was far stronger than that of "Casino Royale." And Tom Cruise can easily outrun Daniel Craig.

    I sure hope that MI keeps going and that Bond retires for good....more info
  • Best MI Yet
    I have this movie in both Blu Ray and HDDVD, that is how good it is. It is truly a beauty on my 47" HDTV. It shines in every aspect. Tom cruise and Hoffman and incredible as well. A+...more info
  • love, drama & action on MI3...
    this time around with MI3, i liked it because there was a balance of drama, love & action. i also like the different locations where the movie was filmed. but what i liked best about this DVD was the commentary with Tom Cruise....more info
  • only so much you can do with fake plastic faces
    The 60's spy era action movie that came from a TV
    series. I really liked the "Man from Uncle"
    and "Get Smart". The "MI" movies haven't yet degenerated
    to a Rocky or Rambo level,
    but there are getting close to a "Get Smart"
    level that will lead to spoofs
    and lampoons. Bruce Willis and Tom Cruse are joining
    Silvester Stallone as the over remade crowd......more info
  • Needs a heart transplant!
    Hey, this Mission Impossible needs a heart transplant. Note: watch out for spoiler here! But the fact that Cruise needs to be brought back from the dead in this one says it all! No heart! Movie is missing a true heart and soul. About the only thing interesting is Philip Seymour Hoffman as the bad guy!
    ...more info
  • J.J. Abrams + Tom Cruise + Philip Seymour Hoffman = Action Movie Masterpiece
    When this film was first announced it was met with skepticism and with the constant bad press Tom Cruise had received over the months this movie was destined to fail. That was before we had the chance to see this stellar combination in action; Tom Cruise reprising his role as Ethan Hunt and Philip Seymour Hoffman taking the role as the main bad guy, arms dealer Owen Davian. These two great actors combined together with the unique and talented Directional mind of J.J. Abrams this movie shut all the skeptics up and gave us an action movie that would truly wrap up the Ethan Hunt saga.

    Tom Cruise in this movie I think really excels and this is somewhat of a film that really pushed his acting ability to which he delivered perfectly. Philip Hoffman was the true shining light of this film as he played the sick and sadistic arms dealer who was willing to go to any lengths to have Hunt destroyed, even if it meant murdering his girlfriend in the process.

    This is a great movie and I thought this was truly the right time to re-ignite an old franchise, if you haven't seen this yet and have been one of the skeptics I challenge you to hate this film....more info
  • Mission accomplished
    Finally we have a sequel that stands closer to the series. Don't get me wrong mission impossible pt 1 was good but at times it was overly complex. Not to mention MI: 2 which was an exaggerated over blown sequel. Instead here we have a balanced chemistry of a simpler plot and more realistic action.And what I liked was that everything is accomplished as a group; exactly as it was done in the TV series. Best of all JJ Abrahams creates tension from time to time with interesting close ups that are in a way similar to the TV show 24.

    The plot in this movie is much simpler than part 1 but not so simplistic as part 2. It all begins with Ethan Hunt coming back to the IMF agency; he is sent to rescue a fellow agent. Along the way we discover there is an arms dealer that is negotiating with terrorist about a potential nuclear device, possibly known as The Rabbits Foot. I don't want to ruin anymore but at least I can say that it's a worthy sequel. The only reason I didn't give this 5 stars is because even though the movie is somewhat better than the predecessors i felt that it was still a Tom Cruise vehicle, concentrating on an exaggerated ego of his. But other than that is was all good. Mission accomplished

    ...more info
  • Brilliant Picture
    Being an action king, i really enjoyed this movie and on my Toshiba 32" LCD, sony RE1200 and B&W MT - 20's this blu ray disc rocks the house. The picture is absolutely amazing. The sound is fantastic. Thumbs up to MI3 and blu-ray....more info
  • Underused allstar cast.
    It was a shame to my delicate sensibilities that Seymour H. Wasn't used more with Cruise, in what could have been excitingly impossible to eyewitness dully. The two are powerhouse actors. And I couldn't help but have a bad taste of knowing too much personal information about both Ethan Hawk and for that matter, the person playing him in real life: Cruise. Don't get me wrong, I was in no way influenced by the obvious antics by Tom, but at the same time, miss the time in cinema when agents protected their actors from too much public investigation.
    There were signs to me, when the small screen director seemed unable to produce bigscreen action. Besides the long scoops on tight sequences, which could have been spider man for all the ambiguity of the impersonal angles, There was a point when yet another impossible break and enter was required and everything seemed poised for another catwalk from the room to a supervault fiercely protected by guards, but then we wait along with the van and twiddle our fingers expecting the inevitable: Cruise with a most urgent story of his escape and of course, the goods. Or, the rabbits foot. Jeffrey Abrams does have youthfull passion for his work and it shows in his deliberatly implied ehtics, such as a reduced amount of gore, and a pychological beginning, thrusting you into an immediate thrill house, and seizing your attention onto a sizzling bomb fuse and immediately switching to a friendly espousal between new wife and husband. Cruise and Wagner productions last feature film has an open, chapter-to-be-continued feel that all Bond films end with but is rather a closer to a very established production company. Will he be teamed with his wife in impossible situations for the next? Will there be a next? Perhaps, but more that that, promise me director of the future, that whatever the story between wife and husband, assuming that you have yet another awesome combination of super actors, use them for God's sake!...more info
  • Let's quit while we're ahead, shall we?
    Yes, great talent went into this movie. You've got great actors and some interesting and innovative technology. P.S. Hoffman makes a top-shelf bad guy, right up there with my all-time favorite, Dirty Harry's Andy Robinson. The plot moves right along and a somewhat schmaltzy but satisfying ending is provided. In that sense, MI:3 lives up to its predecessors and is good entertainment.

    But, I can't ignore the problems with this movie, some minor, some major:

    * Minor problem. Are writers too lazy to do any good foreshadowing anymore? What is going on with this faux-noir business of showing us the climatic scene at the beginning of the movie? I noticed this in Turistas as well. I'm no fan of European cinema, but take a look at the foreshadowing done in Sexy Beast: a boulder hurtling at you and almost killing you but landing instead in your swimming pool. Now *that's* some witty, well-done foreshadowing! Giving away part of the plot SPOILER ALERT (Davian's escape and Julia's kidnapping) for a cheap head fake just doesn't cut it.

    * Minor problem. We need more originality in action scenes.

    > The "let's launch a missile strike on a long bridge" scene was done in True Lies. Granted, one was filmed on US1 and the other was filmed on the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, but is there really that much difference between the two? I'm also a little perplexed as to why Ethan's posse would transport prisoners across the Chesapeake Bay Bridge in the first place, since there are plenty of perfectly good airports right in D.C., military and civilian. For anyone who knows the area, they're bound to be put off by this obvious plot hole. There were continuity problems in this scene as well, with the helicopter hovering above the bridge superstructure in some shots but not in others. A nine-figure budget should eliminate those kinds of mistakes.

    > The Shanghai building jump scene was done in Tomb Raider 3. It's even a rip-off to a certain extent of both Die Hard and even Green Ice, for crying out loud.

    > The "attack the guy while immobilized by biting him" scene was done in The Bone Collector. Stabbing to death with a pen? Silence of the Lambs and Gross Pointe Blank.

    > The "kill him then revive him" scene was done in The Abyss.

    * Minor problem. Typical left-wing politics and Hollywood trash-talking. Agent Musgrave's against affirmative action. Ooooh. He *must* be evil. C.f. Derek's father in American History X.

    * Major problem. The actual theft of the Rabbit's Foot - what's up with that? We're just supposed to assume Ethan broke through to the right floor, evaded guards, found the device's location, busted it out of whatever super-protected contraption it was in, and made his way out? That's inattentive, lame and just plain lousy writing. This sort of "we won't tell you how he did it but trust us, he does" attitude ruined The Hitcher, Identity and even to a certain extent Die Hard 2.

    * Major problem. Once again we get the "rogue CIA chief is out to kill you"** theme. We just had that, again, with the Bourne series. Isn't there something else we could use for bad guys other than institutions dedicated to protecting us? Something like, oh, I don't know, terrorists who are part of a global fascist ideology fueled by the teaching of a seventh-century prophet? Or are we just playing it safe by once again beating up on U.S. intelligence institutions? Or is it just to increase the overseas gross? You tell me.

    * Major problem. "Halliburton made me do it." A whole movie was actually made - remade - on this theme, The Manchurian Candidate. In the somewhat-coherent "I'll tell you why I did it" scene, Musgrave justifies his betrayal by appearing to say that the Rabbit's Foot will be used to frame some poor little Mohammedan country, which will be bombed, then rebuilt, presumably by Halliburton under a "no bid" contract.

    Adding it up you've got great acting, the best F/X money can buy, and great gadgets on the one hand, and tired plot, reworked action scenes and careless, clich¨¦d writing on the other. The producers of the MI series should take a lesson from the 1988 version of D.O.A., where a character tells the protagonist that of the protagonist's four books, there's the "third that's a little careless and a fourth that sort of stinks!" Let's leave the MI series at "a little careless," so we won't have to get to the one that sort of stinks.

    ** IMF, CIA, whatever....more info
  • Excellent action movie - but don't think about it too much!
    Brilliant performances by Tom Cruise and Philip Seymour Hoffman plus excellent, non-cliched action sequences lift this above the average action movie. Throws credibility out the window but moves so fast you wont mind too much. Easily the best entry in the Mission Impossible franchise....more info
  • Just once . . .
    Just once I would like to see an action movie with plausible action scenes. The closest I have seen was the Mini-Cooper chase scene in The Bourne Identity. It seems like too many of these movies try to outdo the last in their action scenes. It used to be heros with guns that have never-ending supplies of bullets and never having to reload. Rambo shooting thousands of rounds from an M-60 without barrel overheating problems is minor compared to stunts that defy physics, like Ethan swinging like Tarzan from the top of a Chinese skyscraper . . . that one was just a bit outside comprehension.

    I just wish these action films would portray bad guys like bad guys really are in the early 21st century. They aren't rogue CIA agents or multinational corporation gorilla-suited hitmen. Try Islamic terrorists. Maybe MI:4 could be Ethan Hawke and his team fighting the evil plans of the new Ayatollah that wants to unleash untold horror by having a new kind of savage chemical weapon turn the inhabitants of New York, London and Paris into mutant zombies. Like Shawn of the Dead meets True Lies. That one is far more plausible than State Department employees killing the good guys, especially since reality is that all the State Department does is just embolden our enemies.

    Anyway, Cruise is good as the MI guy. Just as good as Peter Graves in the old series, and MI:3 is actually better than the first 2. Still, it has a lot of things that seem to be rip-offs from other action movies, and too many things that are not plausible. But the best part of the MI series is still there . . . ripping off your face to show you are not who you are!...more info