Mission: Impossible III

User Score
8.0

Generally favorable reviews- based on 471 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 30 out of 471

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream On
Stream On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

User Reviews

  1. Feb 9, 2013
    3
    A movie of utter garbage. Every scene was either taken from a better movie or too stupid to have ever have been in any other movie. Just a bunch of rerun nonsense.
  2. SusanS.
    Jul 24, 2006
    3
    A 66?! This movie was reviewed better than Pirates 2? I guess that's why they released it at the beginning of the summer. Seriously, friends, maybe I'm blinded by Tom Cruise being crazy and all, but I purposely saw this in the dollar theater, expecting a cliche ridden, over-the-top, stupidly action-packed shooting-fest, and I definitely got my dollar's worth. But A 66?! This movie was reviewed better than Pirates 2? I guess that's why they released it at the beginning of the summer. Seriously, friends, maybe I'm blinded by Tom Cruise being crazy and all, but I purposely saw this in the dollar theater, expecting a cliche ridden, over-the-top, stupidly action-packed shooting-fest, and I definitely got my dollar's worth. But that's about it. Really, I do think I'm blinded by Cruise's newly insane-status, but I wasn't the only one who laughed in the theater when Billy Crudup's character asked him if he slept with his "little sister" (that Felicity chick, very under-used). Unfortunately, this movie seems to have been the movie-with-which-good-actors-pay-their-bills. Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Lawrence Fishburne, Billy Crudup, Jonathon Rhys-Myers...it's sad. Really. And I was half-way looking forward to seeing Hoffman playing the villian, like really being evil and enjoying it. But, alas, there is mostly him beating up Tom Cruise and very little conspiring with his minions. And the worst part? [***SPOILERS***] What did we all love about the first MI? It was corny and cheesy and no one tried to make it anything else--the plot twist was simple, the lines were drawn, and the hardest thing to follow in the movie was the heliocopter chase. In this one, however, they wanted to add Substance. So there's a cheesy, completely unnecessary scene between two supporting characters, and followed shortly by a completely nonsensical reveal of the "Real Villain." And the cheesiest of all cheesy endings that doesn't deserve to be tacked on to an otherwise decent action trilogy. Why am I complaining so much? Because I can, and because I want to bring the median score of the audience reviews down. Please. Please come down. This movie is worth a good laugh in the dollar theater, but nothing else. Expand
  3. Walker
    May 10, 2006
    2
    Not Enough Hoffman. Too much drama that no one really cares about. A honest to god end of a franchise.
  4. Bill
    May 5, 2006
    3
    The special effects were good but the overall movie was Busch League at best. Very predictable.
  5. Tally
    May 6, 2006
    3
    Even J.J. couldn't put Tommy together again.
  6. DaleC.
    May 7, 2006
    0
    No. Bad, regardless of the amount of apologizing these other idiots are making for it. I had twelve bucks and now it's gone. Thanks, Tom.
  7. DanielC.
    May 8, 2006
    1
    The first mission impossible I can handle, the second one was okay. The thing that had it going for it was that it had that interesting mission's intersting stories. Reminicent of the recent borne series, the plot was sucessful in engagin the audience. Unfortunately, this one, I can't. The story is hiding somewhere, Cruise is his p*** annoying self (Please, get over yourself, The first mission impossible I can handle, the second one was okay. The thing that had it going for it was that it had that interesting mission's intersting stories. Reminicent of the recent borne series, the plot was sucessful in engagin the audience. Unfortunately, this one, I can't. The story is hiding somewhere, Cruise is his p*** annoying self (Please, get over yourself, thw whole world would love it if that hapenned) and quite frankly, the missions are boring. Who cares about tthe missions if all you see is explosions? If I wanted to see that, I wuoldn't have gone to the movies. The other parts of the cast are non-existent and I on'y know about you, but watching this, I wondered where the $140,000,000 went. The guy who made alieas and lost is at the helm, which explains alot. When you have a diretor who makes crap TV shows makes a movie, he is likely to make a crap one. Go see Cache instead, far better movie. I'm starting to worry about Hollywood. If this is what the come up with after hundreeds of millions and a star-studded cast, it's not looking good. Expand
  8. KimK.
    May 8, 2006
    2
    Very loud and very, very dumb. Perhaps it's my fault: I've been watching episodes of the old "Mission Impossible," and I've become spoiled. See, the old MI offered, well, missions. Capers. Hell, it offered PLOTS. It let us get to know its villains in order that we could understand what fabulously dangerous people they were. It did not air the private lives of its heroes Very loud and very, very dumb. Perhaps it's my fault: I've been watching episodes of the old "Mission Impossible," and I've become spoiled. See, the old MI offered, well, missions. Capers. Hell, it offered PLOTS. It let us get to know its villains in order that we could understand what fabulously dangerous people they were. It did not air the private lives of its heroes like so many wincingly embarrassing pairs of Underoos. Its female characters had brains growing between their pretty ears, and they knew how to use those brains. What this miserable, incomprehensible blob of a movie has is NOISE and BLUR. And TOM CRUISE, E-MO-TING. Two stars for the obligatory-- but glorious-- forty seconds in which Phillip Seymour Hoffman pounds the living snot out of Tom Cruise. The rest-- most especially the sickly, sticky-sweet tripe between Ethan Hunt and His Woman-- is trash. I understand now why they delayed getting "Mission: Impossible Season One" out on DVD; it would have made Mr. Cruise's latest ego exercise look even stupider than it already is. They even manage to butcher the theme music. Miserable. Expand
  9. Dominic
    May 9, 2006
    2
    Tiresome, this show is so out of date. the first scene was more than enough tom cruise. i didn't expect to like his perfromance but everything else was either painful the romance scenes or unoriginal. jj abrams completely mishandled the film. it was bond like a very bad timothy dalton bond movie.
  10. jamesm.
    Nov 30, 2006
    0
    The absurd physics remove all entertaining apects of this film. they can manage to fit a retina scanner, short film, and self destruct device in a small camera, but they can't manage to make a AED device that doesn't take over 60 seconds to charge. as well, Tom Cruise has become to old this kind of part, as proven by probably the weakest show of action acting i've seen in The absurd physics remove all entertaining apects of this film. they can manage to fit a retina scanner, short film, and self destruct device in a small camera, but they can't manage to make a AED device that doesn't take over 60 seconds to charge. as well, Tom Cruise has become to old this kind of part, as proven by probably the weakest show of action acting i've seen in my life. he never took a risk in his acting. overall a horrible movie. Expand
  11. TOMW.
    May 11, 2006
    0
    THE FILM FAILD IMPOSSIBLE MISSION II!
  12. GaborA.
    May 11, 2006
    3
    Every scene was either taken from a better movie or too stupid to have ever have been in any other movie. There was one 20 minute strech of classic Mission Impossible awesomeness in this movie engulfed and outweighed by utter ridiculousness.
  13. WillieG.
    May 22, 2006
    1
    Yawns, I was bored to death. I'm puzzled as to whether I saw the same film as others who found this flick exciting. No biggie, to each his own, but I was looking at my watch a LOT during this one. I should have seen Over the Hedge, it looks like an adrenaline rush compared to MI3.
  14. MeeepMeep
    May 7, 2006
    0
    Ehhh... Big budget action movies are tired, overdone, headache inducing crapfests these days. This movie fails, which is too bad, because JJ Abrams has so much talent.
  15. davidt.
    May 11, 2006
    3
    All the same story. First they steal some gadget that doesn't exist, so that just to trick Ethan to steal the real one witht he help of a bad guy inside the agency who appears to be the good guy. Man very predictible. atleast they showed how they did all these on the first movie, they somewhat showed it on the second one but fille d the rest with nonsense action and drama. now all All the same story. First they steal some gadget that doesn't exist, so that just to trick Ethan to steal the real one witht he help of a bad guy inside the agency who appears to be the good guy. Man very predictible. atleast they showed how they did all these on the first movie, they somewhat showed it on the second one but fille d the rest with nonsense action and drama. now all you got is the mi name but no mission impossibble. you don't even get to see how they did it this time, just some nonsense action fest mized with romance and drama crap. Expand
  16. Jan 23, 2012
    2
    Mission Impossible 3 might just be worse than its sloppy predecessor if only because it is unimaginative and so incredibly simplistic. It does have some great action sequences (A daring prison transport break on an unstable bridge) but it lets them down with some equally dull and uneventful action sequences (the opening warehouse raid). However the main segment of the film that is the mostMission Impossible 3 might just be worse than its sloppy predecessor if only because it is unimaginative and so incredibly simplistic. It does have some great action sequences (A daring prison transport break on an unstable bridge) but it lets them down with some equally dull and uneventful action sequences (the opening warehouse raid). However the main segment of the film that is the most disappointing is the heist in the Vatican which under the direction of one of the previous MI directors Brian De Palma and John Woo could have been electric and adventurous is unfortunately slow, basic and downright boring, thanks to JJ Abrams playing it safe with the entire film playing like a really bad yet expensive episode of Alias (created by Abrams). Every now and then there is some semblance of flair but its quickly discarded in favour of more mundane camera work. Even the music in the film leaves much to be desired despite the fact its by an Oscar winning composer (Michael Giacchino). In fact it's a film that suffers in every possible way because of Abrams, with the look of the film and the actors being fine. It's the direction, writing and general feel of the film that seriously lack. The writing by Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci and JJ Abrams is hammy with key scenes being clunky, bordering on embarrassing. The film is just wrong. Finally someone should tell Mr Abrams that even if you have the money to film a stylish slow motion gun toss it doesn't mean you should, its just unnecessary and unbelievably stupid. Expand
Metascore
66

Generally favorable reviews - based on 42 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 31 out of 42
  2. Negative: 0 out of 42
  1. Tampa Bay Times
    Reviewed by: Steve Persall
    Aug 2, 2015
    75
    The IMF workings are still complex, but without Brian DePalma's artistic indulgences (Part 1) and John Woo's poetic distractions (Part 2). Abrams cuts to the chase whenever the option arises, and the results don't leave much time to question logic or motive. [4 May 2006, p.6W]
  2. Reviewed by: Nick Schager
    Aug 2, 2015
    63
    Shallow to its core and as propulsive as a runaway locomotive, it's the most blatantly summer movie-ish of the Mission Impossibles. And also, surprisingly, the most viscerally entertaining.
  3. New Orleans Times-Picayune
    Reviewed by: Michael H. Kleinschrodt
    Aug 2, 2015
    60
    Cruise and Hoffman, who previously worked together on "Magnolia," are quite good in M:I:III. Cruise has a couple of powerfully emotional moments (neither involving Oprah Winfrey's couch or a silent birth), and Hoffman is a treat in an uncharacteristic tough-guy role. [5 May 2006, p.24]