Change Your Image
murrayspeer
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
The Predator (2018)
A waste of bandwidth
I watched 16 minutes of this thing and I can already tell it's the worst Predator-related movie yet. (Which is saying a lot - AVP was painful to sit through, but at least I sat through it.)
It's nothing but muscular wish-fulfillment and clumsy stereotypes without any actual depth or intention. Don't waste your time.
Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
Fun little story; lacks vision
I feel like this movie tried to avoid the "mistakes" of the last three Terminator films, which had grand visions that audiences either didn't like or didn't 'get', by not having any vision at all.
The result is an amusing story, a well-made film, and an overall disappointment.
Mackenzie Davis does a very good job as the protector sent from the future. Linda Hamilton tries to return to the role of Sarah (just like Jamie Lee Curtis returning to Halloween or Carrie Fisher returning to Star Wars), but her character's story is not as compelling as the filmmakers seem to think.
All of these films struggle with the same question: what do we do with John Connor? This character sits in the middle of the franchise like a black hole, with massive gravity but casting no light. So far, four attempts to solve this problem have all seemed to fall flat.
Personally, I was excited to see the franchise get carried on from either of the last two visionary starting points: Salvation, or Genisys. That didn't happen, but this film - lacking vision, taking few risks, and updating the story without advancing it - is not the solution.
6/10
Interstellar (2014)
Imaginative, beautiful, and possibly frustrating.
"Interstellar" is a Christopher Nolan movie, which means it stretches the imagination and asks more questions than it answers. If you're okay with that, you'll like it. If you find that frustrating, this will be no different. But it's wonderfully acted, beautifully produced, and excellently written. 9/10
Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018)
Good fun, but some problems
Not bad overall, but several things I didn't like about it.
- It felt more like a set-up for future movies than a story of its own.
- I think Alden was miscast as Solo - I wasn't confident when it was announced but I was willing to give him a chance. He's a fine leading man but his physicality and performance didn't say Solo to me.
- There was no real tension or suspense to the story, and the various double-crossings got tiresome because nothing was really at stake. The point where narrative depth was supposed to emerge falls flat because we're told about it instead of shown.
- Finally, there's a troubling ambiguity to the outcome of the big card game at the end because of what Lando has gone through, that isn't acknowledged at all.
GIVEN ALL THAT: I enjoyed it and it's well filmed and well acted. 8/10
A Simple Favor (2018)
Enjoyable but a bit too 'simple'
I would have liked it more if there had been more darkness in the background of the Stephanie character - I kept waiting for a big reveal about her that never came. I might have split the story up by interspersing it with a film of one of her vlog posts showing her expertise at planning, precision, and timing. I also would have had more details about the various plots that the three main characters were hatching with each other toward the end, to build intrigue. Overall I enjoyed it. Kendrick was excellent as expected, and the humorous moments were great. 7/10
Fantastic Four (2015)
Insulting and Disappointing
The first half of this movie, while not outstanding, is a satisfying and well-made Fantastic Four story.
The second half is where it goes very, very wrong. It departs entirely from the spirit of the Fantastic Four source material and the storytelling also takes a huge dip.
So, overall not the worst big budget release I've seen, but still very disappointing and an insult to Fantastic Four purists.
4/10
Captain Marvel (2019)
Really excellent, but could be more visionary and more like '90s sci-fi
The mid-90s in sci-fi and superhero movies were almost universally moody, slow-paced, and under lit. (Think Batman Forever, Independence Day, The Shadow, Stargate, The Crow, Strange Days, Species, Highlander III, etc.) I don't think Captain Marvel needed to copy that atmosphere entirely, but I sure would have liked more opportunities to feel like I was in a 90s movie. For example, if the action had taken place in the dark until Carol embraces her power which coincides with the first full sunrise of the movie, which could be teased as she moves toward that acceptance, it would have had much deeper significance. Overall it lacked the visionary feeling of the best recent Marvel Studios films. All of that being said, I really enjoyed it and I'm looking forward to watching it again. 9/10
Lucy (2014)
Deep, deftly-made, and morally bankrupt
After spending 24 hours reflecting on "Lucy":
I've seen some movies in which monsters become heroes, and some in which heroes become monsters. I've seen many movies with characters that are both heroic and monstrous.
I think "Lucy" is the only movie I've seen in which we're asked to accept a monster as a hero even though she is consistently monstrous and never once heroic.
The only theme I can find in this movie is that, in the fight to survive, might makes right and the lives of less gifted or less powerful people are disposable. The monster becomes immortal at the end of the story, which is ambiguous at best - on the one hand she is no longer rampaging through the city streets endangering public safety, but at the same time she has never shown any ethical concern whatsoever for anyone's well-being but her own.
We are told to likewise pursue individual immortality, apparently with utter disregard for the needs and integrity of others. Immortality in this case is defined entirely in terms of biological and intellectual information - moral and emotional information is completely neglected. In this light, the ambiguity of the ending is terrifying. This could be a very successful monster movie if writer/director Luc Besson had given any indication at all that he was aware of the terrifying moral and ethical implications of his story. Unfortunately he seems to think Lucy is far from being a monster, but is in fact an ideal woman: smart, beautiful, powerful, and devoid of empathy or righteousness.
6/10 for its depth and deftness of storytelling
Lawless (2012)
Falls far short of its potential
I'm extremely ambivalent about this movie. On the one hand Tom Hardy, Jessica Chastain, and Gary Oldman make any movie worth seeing. At the same time, they are underutilized in this movie in favour of Shia Laboeuf, Guy Pearce, and Mia Wasikowska. Laboeuf and Pearce are fine actors, but can't hold a candle to their supporting cast, while Wasikowska is one of the most over-rated movie stars working.
On the one hand, the movie has a tremendous dichotomy of peacefulness and violence, family and crime, profit and principle - not unlike last year's "Drive". At the same time, it doesn't emphasize the dichotomy, instead allowing the disparate elements to blend into a confusing mish-mash of imagery. For example, the Guy Pearce character is supposed to be a study in opposites - dandified, prissy, and controlled in his public persona, while perverted and utterly psychotic in his moments of release. But Pearce's performance allows the violence and perversion to show through at all times, which ruins the impact of his "unexpected" violent outbursts.
On the one hand, the movie has a compelling story about a remarkable family in a remarkable setting. At the same time, it gives us no reason to care about the characters or their struggles beyond "Hey, this is Shia Laboeuf - I'm the protagonist." Sorry, I need more reason to invest in a character than that.
Overall, the movie needed better writing (in the plot structure and establishing character, mostly, not the dialogue), better directing, and more careful casting.
I give it a 5/10 to symbolize my ambivalence, with +1 for Hardy and Chastain. 6/10
The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008)
Improved effects; Diminished message. Watch DTESS '51 instead.
So, I went to this movie expecting to be discontented with it. This expectation was based on the reviews I had heard. With such low expectations going in, I found I was pleasantly surprised. That said, I'm sure that if I had gone in hoping for greatness I would have been soundly disappointed.
The 1951 movie of the same name is a classic, and rightly so. It was a cheesy sci-fi flick that nobody believed would be a success, but it tapped into the zeitgeist with imagery and thematic content that still resonates today. An indestructible robot that exists only to keep the peace; a fatherless child who teaches an intergalactic messenger about humanity; a physicist who speaks of the potential of culture and science; a man from beyond who is killed out of fear and ignorance and who, resurrected, delivers a way forward for all humankind. The original film emerged from the context of the nuclear cold war, which at the time was in its earliest stages. The message brought from beyond was: Destroy yourselves if you wish, but we will not tolerate you bringing your violence to the galaxy.
(Beware spoilers beyond this point.)
The remake, featuring Keanu Reeves in the role he was born to play (an alien who moves stiffly and speaks woodenly), translates the "intergalactic messenger" motif into our context, replacing the nuclear threat with the environmental one. But in the remake, Klaatu is not a messenger but a judge - and it is here that it fails to capture the ominous tone of the original. Instead of delivering an ultimatum, Klaatu's job is to decide for or against the survival of the human race. And instead of protecting the peace, GORT (the aforementioned robot) has the job of annihilating all humanity - thus allowing the biosphere of Earth a chance to start over without our destructive influence.
The result of these thematic shifts is a condescending preachiness. The message is good - share the globe, protect the biosphere, conserve the planet, be peaceful and constructive - but the tone has an "or else" implied that leaves a sour taste. Let's not forget that in 1951 we were left with three options: destroy ourselves, live peacefully, or be destroyed. In 2008 that has been reduced to two: do what's right or cease to exist. And that is substantially less satisfying as a message.
On the positive side, the acting is good. Reeves basically does what he always does, but with this character it actually works well. Jennifer Connelly, Kathy Bates, John Cleese, Jon Hamm, Jaden Smith, and Kyle Chandler all hold up their ends. The reactionary violence of the government and military is generally well-played, and the troubled relationship between the young boy (Smith) and his step-mother (Connelly) is a nice sub-plot that provides Klaatu with a window into human psychology. The climactic destruction wreaked by GORT is also new and impressive, as he transforms himself into nano-disassemblers that begin destroying the works of humankind.
Finally, I found the ending disappointing. The human population in general is left without any closure - they have faced a crisis and had it averted, but they have not been provided with an interpretation of it. This unresolved ambiguity - fashionable these days - was unsatisfying in the way it was done in this film. Much more effective would have been a brief message from Klaatu, providing a way forward and a reminder that the intergalactic civilizations will be watching. Thus, the unresolved ambiguity becomes whether people will reform their ways or not. As it is, the possibility remains that humanity will not even understand what has happened to them and therefore have no vision for change.
Overall, the remake didn't add much to the original except some improved effects. If you want to have a good time at the movies, you could do worse than DTESS '08. If you want to see a great, important, influential movie, you should probably stick with DTESS '51.
6/10
The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift (2006)
Stylistically excellent; Otherwise atrocious
I watched this 2006 movie in 2009, in advance of the fourth installment coming out. I found it extremely poor and I want to let you know why.
1. It's not a "The Fast and the Furious" movie. The first two installments established the franchise as involving illegal streetracing, organized crime, and undercover law enforcement. This movie is about a high school outsider who proves himself, finds his place, and gets the girl (a plot in which streetracing is a trope and organized crime is incidental). There's nothing wrong with that kind of movie, except the title in this case. (It's like The Karate Kid but with cars. The Car-ate Kid.)
In fact, it's more of a sequel to director Justin Lin's 2002 film "Better Luck Tomorrow", since it at least has a character in common with that movie (Sung Kang as "Han"). Might as well have called it "Better Luck Tomorrow, White Boy."
2. Lucas Black is a terrible actor. Who decided to turn this guy into a lead performer? I thought his 'Bama accent, wooden expressions, and awkward approximations of feeling were laughable when he was a child star on "American Gothic". As an adult with ten years of experience, he should have made some progress. Alas, he has not. When your lead is inaccessible and unlikeable, your movie tends to suffer.
3. The cinematography and style are excellent and groundbreaking. The story is cliché and clumsy. The 3/10 score I gave it is ALL for the former.
4. Ooh, he wins the big race using an American car with Japanese guts. Do I smell symbolism? Yes I do, and it smells awful.
G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (2009)
The first half is bad but tolerable; then it gets ludicrous
There was a point about one third of the way through this movie where I found myself thinking it might not be so bad after all. Yes, the dialogue and the "acting" were atrocious. Yes, there seemed to be no actual global awareness in the script. (Cancer has apparently been cured; this is considered so insignificant next to the military applications of the technology that it becomes a throw-away line.) But the plot itself was shaping up to be reasonably strong.
The movie centers on Marine Special Ops officer "Duke" and his pal "Ripcord". There's never any indication whether these are nicknames or real names, and apparently no one cares. But that's fine. Their unit has responsibility for delivering some new experimental weapons from the developer's manufacturing site to a NATO base. They are ambushed by a third party, commanded by an exotic leather-clad beauty called "The Baroness", who seems to have a history with Duke. The marines are rescued by GI JOE, a top secret international commando unit into which they are quickly inducted.
(Spoilers)
Let's leave aside for a second the two force-fed and under-nourished romantic storylines, and the "acting" of "actors" Channing Tatum and Marlon Wayans. The plot so far is interesting, possibly even compelling. Who does Baroness represent? What is the connection between her and Duke? How is her organization related to JOE? Is a massively over-equipped and trigger-happy group of self-obsessed hotshots really a good use of funds? Compelling stuff, if written properly.
Unfortunately, it was not. The answers to these questions are either simplistic and trite, or nonexistent. The first of them was answered before it arose, turning a plot "twist" into a plot "plunk".
But still, if not compelling it was at least interesting. After all, so far we haven't been asked to swallow any preposterous notions. A single development - nanites - allowed for all of the brilliant technologies in the story. Until, that is, they extract a dead man's memories - in visual format - by sticking two knitting needles into his skull.
At that point, the film shifts gear into ludicrous speed.
For instance, the JOES are attempting to prevent the destruction of the Eiffel Tower and the resulting deaths of hundreds of civilians. So they carve a path of destruction through the middle of Paris, causing the deaths of untold dozens of civilians. Okay, you could say that in the balance it would have worked out. But they don't even request the evacuation of the tower. It just doesn't occur to them as they are rampaging through the city streets, delighting in their own skill and power, to simply phone it in. So when the tower is destroyed, the hundreds of civilians still die. But at least all of the JOES are okay.
Then they're arrested by French police, and the President of the USA has to make a phone call to get them released. So, we're asked to believe that of the 38 countries that support the GI JOE unit, France is NOT one of them? Is this some BS American dig at France that I'm not equipped to understand? Or just sheer idiocy?
Nevertheless, I would be willing to overlook that gaping plot hole. But the hits just keep on coming. Ripcord flies from Moscow to Washington in about six minutes. He says he's flying Mach 6. Mach 6 is approximately 4600 mph. The distance between the two cities is about 4900 miles. In other words, it would take a little over an hour to make that flight. Not six minutes.
Then, the commander of the JOES, General "Hawk", leaves their secret Egyptian base with the entire squadron to attack their enemy who is hiding under the polar ice cap. They arrive minutes later in a submarine. Yes, you heard right. They travelled from Egypt to the North Pole in a matter of minutes. In a submarine.
And the icing on the cake, from the "Is our children learning?" category: the enemy blows up the ice cap while making an escape, and the JOES have to hurry to get out from under the sinking ice before it crushes them. Yes. You heard right. The sinking ice. Why does this ice sink, you ask? Well... um... isn't that what ice does? Like, when you put it in your drink it si-... um...
But boy were there a lot of characters to make action figures out of! And sexy shots of the Baroness and the token woman on the JOE team, "Scarlet"! And a greater variety of vehicles than you could produce in a single toy line! And explosions! Lots of explosions.
Just not enough to cover the absolute failure of "acting", plot, and storytelling. 4/10
Still, at least it was better than Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.
Sucker Punch (2011)
Spicy, Cheesy, and Ultimately Unsubstantial
Zack Snyder's previous films were like triple-decker sandwiches. The top layer of the sandwich is awesome cinematic coolness - like a spicy, memorable pickle. The middle layer is a disappointment. Over-moist lettuce and processed cheese that stick to the roof of the mouth and almost ruin the whole experience. But the base layer makes up for it: a deep, rich meatiness that you want to savour again and again, despite the drawbacks that go along with it.
It turns out that this deeply satisfying foundation had nothing to do with Zack Snyder at all, but belonged completely to his source material. Snyder's latest film takes the exciting pickle and the disappointing cheese and turns them both up to eleven. But with no source material (the film is Snyder's brainchild alone) the base layer is bland and unsubstantial.
4/10
The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Enjoyable; Good Cast; Falls Short on Theme
Antoine Fuqua wanted to make a western, which is fine. He wanted to make the kind of western he enjoyed as a child, which is fine. And he wanted to re-adapt The Seven Samurai into a new western, which is fine.
The problem is that the cinematic world has moved on since the 1970s and the issues that westerns need to engage are different now. If he wanted to make a great, enduring, important western, he'd need to understand the themes that more recent great westerns have engaged with that made them great: movies like Unforgiven, 3:10 to Yuma, Appaloosa, The Hateful Eight, The Revenant, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, and Django Unchained.
With the cast and budget he had, Fuqua had a chance to put this film in league with those classics. As it is, though, without that depth of theme (or at least of relevant, contemporary theme) this movie will instead be remembered alongside Tombstone, The Mask of Zorro, and Quigley Down Under as fun, action-filled stories that don't actually contribute very much to the ongoing deconstruction of heroism, violence, family, liberty, and race that the aforementioned films have furthered so well.
The cast deserve great kudos, including Denzel Washington, Chris Pratt, Ethan Hawke, Peter Sarsgaard, and the ever-underrated Vincent D'Onofrio. It's unfortunate that the film doesn't do more with the diversity of its cast. There are female, Asian, Latino, and First Nations characters who aren't given any real depth at all. It even has the slightest hint of a male-male love relationship that could have been a powerful motivator for the two characters in question, who instead are given very little motivation for anything. Unfortunately, the non-black minority characters in the story are relegated to the background the way black characters once were.
The performances, cinematography, and action sequences make this worth seeing, but it's not anywhere near as good or as important as it could have been. 8/10
Jesus Christ Superstar Live in Concert (2018)
Some high points
It's worth seeing, but it won't replace the other movie versions. Bareilles in particular is superb. John Legend as Jesus has a good voice but his characterization is undercooked.
Highlights include the interpretation of The Temple, some lovely moments in the performance of Judas, and the orchestral performance.
I suspect it would be more satisfying without the commercial breaks.
If you're a fan, or you're planning to watch multiple versions, this is not a waste of time by any means. If you're only going to watch one movie of this opera, you're better off with the 1973 or 2000 versions.
30 Days of Night (2007)
A well-made vampire movie, though it lacks depth
Whoever it was that said this was a zombie movie is insane. The characters even use the word "vampire" at one point. It's a freakin' vampire movie. That's why they're so fast and strong. Also, Eastern European, and with sharp teeth. Like, oh, I don't know... VAMPIRES!
Josh Hartnett does a really good job with his role, and the cinematography is really well done. There isn't a lot of depth of theme here - the closest the movie comes to any sort of self-reflection is a series of quips by the leader of the vampire clan that express some of their religious worldview - for example, "What can be broken, must be broken." The film suffers a bit from the fact that it is adapted from a serial comic book. Specifically, the story jumps ahead days at a time without any establishing of what has and hasn't happened in the interim.
The creative cinematography makes this a fun "monster-gore" movie, and the original premise makes it worth seeing. It's generally well-acted as well.
Ghost Rider (2007)
Another mediocre Marvel movie...
Everything about this movie was mediocre - by which I don't mean it was bad, but it certainly wasn't good.
Let's say, it didn't fulfill my hopes, but it didn't disappoint my expectations.
At times slipping into sophomoric melodrama, at other times tripping over metaphysical speeches that neither actors nor director seemed properly prepared for - surprising because the director is also the screenwriter.
The "creature effects" for Ghost Rider go over the top - a CG visage combined with a heavily processed voice mean that there is nothing accessibly human about the character. A more 'natural' voice would have upped the pathos and the audience involvement.
The thematic material is pretty light - the best theme I could come up with is that Blaze realizes that in order to live his life he must come to terms with the "monstrous" aspect of himself and embrace it. But more could have been done to connect this self-image of "monster" with the character's rhetoric about second-chances.
In other words, he saw himself as a monster even before he ever transformed into a flaming skeleton. Is this what we are supposed to gather from the film? It's only there piece-meal, if at all.
And I have some issues with casting. Eva Mendes is a true beauty, but she's ten years younger than Nicolas Cage - and their characters are meant to have been teenage sweethearts at 17. How does that work? And while in the late 90's I would have said Wes Bentley was an up-and-coming great, his performance in this movie leaves a lot to be desired.
In the pantheon of recent Marvel movies, Ghost Rider for me ranks somewhere above Daredevil and Punisher, and somewhere below Hulk and Elektra. In a word, mediocre.
Nacho Libre (2006)
Good clean fun (well, mostly clean)
What I really appreciate about Mike White's screenplays is that he obviously - like the young writer played by Colin Hanks in White's movie "Orange County" - loves his characters. White's talented mix of subtle, ironic humour and laugh-out-loud ridiculousness combines with Jared Hess' simple and smooth storytelling to create one of the most entertaining movies I've seen in a long time.
Add to this the comic timing and physical performance of Jack Black (who I realize is not everyone's cup of tea) and a movie that would simply have been entertaining becomes near-brilliant.
The dialogue in this movie is simple, the characters are simple, and the plot is simple. It is the careful, loving, comic storytelling of White, Black, and Hess that makes it outstanding. And if subtlety and irony are not your thing, there are a few fart jokes and fat-woman jokes thrown in to tide you over.
One refreshing aspect of this movie, in contrast to the recent big-hype "Frat Pack" films of people like Ben Stiller, the Wilsons, Will Ferrell, and Vince Vaughn, is that the protagonists are genuinely decent people who the viewer can actually care about.
On a bit of a supplemental note, I'm also a fan of professional wrestling (mostly American style, but there has been more and more lucha libre influence in recent years) and I can say the wrestling action in this movie is top-notch. The wrestling is used respectfully as a tool for the storytelling, but the respect shines through nonetheless. There are a couple of "camera trick" and wire-flying moments and a couple of editing and/or logistical mistakes (for example, a collar-and-elbow tie-up is converted directly into a vertical suplex without a shot of them changing the hold) but overall the wrestling action is clean, crisp, and a fair representation of what you would see in a luchador ring, keeping in mind that this is a movie that is telling a story, not primarily trying to accurately portray the in-ring world of lucha libre.
Meet Joe Black (1998)
A Beautiful And Melodious 'Romance' Movie
I remember that when this movie came out, a lot of people were disappointed with it. The chief problem I heard was that it was long. Well, it is long, running exactly three hours to the end of the credits. But I find that the length allowed me to achieve some 'distance' from the events that began the story, so that when the ending arrived, it wasn't so fresh - in other words we as viewers have been taken on a journey.
And what a journey! We are treated to a warm and insightful examination of what it means to love. The love of a father for his daughters, and between the characters of Susan (the always-stunning Claire Forlani) and Joe (the equally gorgeous Brad Pitt), are the main focus of the story, but we are also treated to a very special moment as Jeffrey Tambor's character (a corporate "loser" with an ill-fitting suit and unfortunate facial hair) shares the joy of his relationship with his neurotic wife (the wonderful Marcia Gay Harden). There are also hints of fraternal, platonic love among Joe, his ersatz guide (Anthony Hopkins), and his son-in-law, Tambor.
This is not an immature or simple love, either. The film deals tenderly with questions of responsibility and power, self-giving and fidelity. I am a huge fan of stories in which a person simply and confidently "is who they are" and forces others to react, think, and make decisions. There are several moments in this movie when Joe follows Lewis Carroll's great advice, "When in doubt, don't just do something. Stand there." There is an entire conversation with Susan in which he says nothing, but it is not one-sided, because she is forced to think about what she's saying. (Another example of a film where someone forces others to react and grow, simply by being himself, is "Life As A House.")
One of the problems with the initial release of this film may have been the theatrical trailer, which portrays a fun, humorous, and 'jaunty' Rom-Com with a slight metaphysical twist. People who went expecting to see that kind of movie would certainly be disappointed. The metaphysical content is more than slight (Joe is the personification of Death), and the movie never becomes fun or jaunty. What it is, is touching, intelligent, and utterly romantic in the best sense of the word.
On the negative side, it is difficult to identify with the lifestyle of the characters (Hopkins is an unimaginably wealthy media mogul) and I found the sheer opulence and excessiveness of their surroundings to be distracting at times. However, it does make for great eye-candy on the screen, and the actors are more than able to bring their characters to life; none of them are dilettante, and Hopkins brings an elegance and self-awareness to the "rich man" stereotype.
And speaking of stereotypes, the only antagonist in the film (Jake Weber as Hopkins' corporate right-hand and Susan's would-be love-interest) ends up a two-dimensional and utterly unsympathetic character who is incapable of the kind of love displayed by the people around him. It's a disappointing caricature in a movie filled with deeply explored archetypal characters. The filmmakers had an opportunity to demonstrate that all people have subtle, nuanced personalities, but there is none of that with Weber's role. On the other hand, Weber does a fine job with what he was given, and it is an interesting example of how an immature or self-interested person will attempt to sabotage the well-being of others rather than allow them to change and grow.
This is an unusual movie that has not developed a cult following, which means it is probably destined to be overlooked by both the mainstream and the fringe movie fan, which is unfortunate. If it had been better marketed (the trailer is a criminal misrepresentation of the movie) it might have a higher profile today. At any rate, if you are a fan of careful, thoughtful, and emotionally mature storytelling, I fully recommend this movie to your perusal. I hope you enjoy it as much as I have.
9/10
Mission: Impossible III (2006)
A Depressingly Ordinary Action Film
If you liked "The Bourne Supremacy," then... go watch it again instead of seeing this movie.
MI:3 tries to have intrigue, espionage, action, suspense, and a touching romantic subplot, but it falls short on all levels. There is no 'mystery' to the mystery - only vagueness and obscurity that fails to engage the imagination. The action is unoriginal and confusing, and the "Ethan's love interest" plot line is more of a hindrance than an enhancement. The 'twist' ending fell flat as no suspense had been built and I didn't really care about the characters or their mission. The eventual (and obligatory) scene in which the bad guy explains "why" is simplistic and lacks any sense of high drama.
Paramount has managed to take one of the most incredible high-concept television series of all time and in the course of three films turn it into a mediocre franchise that bears only a passing (and mostly musical) resemblance to the source material.
On the plus side, Hoffman is brilliant as always, and the people in this movie are certainly pretty (Maggie Q wearing an evening gown that qualifies as "half-a-dress" is definitely a highlight). It's not that it's a BAD movie, but there's nothing great or worthwhile about it. 5/10