User Score
7.4

Generally favorable reviews- based on 307 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 29 out of 307
Watch 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
  1. Feb 9, 2014
    7
    A month ago, I would've wrote "Mission Impossible III isn't the best movie by itself, but a down-to-earth, no-bs performance by Phillip Seymour Hoffman really elevated the movie to a new level." Now (February 9th, 2014), I write the same thing. The late actor's performance in this movie was one of his best, probably about 4th to Doubt, The Master, and Capote. His talents will be missed.
  2. 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.
  3. Dec 26, 2011
    6
    J.J Abrams sorta made "Mission Impossible 3" with a ominous fuse of Brian De Palma's story and John Woo's action. The result? Manageable.
  4. Jun 20, 2013
    8
    It was good to see this series get back on track after a sub par sequel. J.J. Abrams brings a sense of style and story telling that gives this series back its kick. Plus it's always good to add Phillip Seymour Hoffman.
  5. Aug 28, 2014
    7
    This movie reminded me most about the first part of M:i series - though it was still hurried and sometimes a little unclear in its turn of events. The well contructed story suffered from that.

    An enjoyable watch, sure, but still I would have hoped a little slower beat. Action is good, but not when there's too much at once and the viewers are left slightly confused of what is really going on.
  6. Jan 22, 2012
    4
    Mission: Impossible III is always competent, and is considerably better than M:I-2 but lacks the excitement and consistency of the first film. The action is generally well handled, but ranges from jaw-dropping set-pieces (the scene where the IMF team frantically try to bring down a lethal military drone on a rapidly disintegrating bridge), to the ridiculous (Ethan Hunt BASE jumping fromMission: Impossible III is always competent, and is considerably better than M:I-2 but lacks the excitement and consistency of the first film. The action is generally well handled, but ranges from jaw-dropping set-pieces (the scene where the IMF team frantically try to bring down a lethal military drone on a rapidly disintegrating bridge), to the ridiculous (Ethan Hunt BASE jumping from halfway down a Shanghai skyscraper) to the uncreative and dull (the opening hostage rescue in a guarded warehouse). Concerning the actors, Tom Cruise still does what he needs to do, Ving Rhames is as entertaining as ever, and Philip Seymour Hoffman's makes a terrifically scary villain, but the vast majority of the rest of the cast tend to drift listlessly through the film. Michelle Monaghan, despite being a key addition to the cast in theory (she does play Ethan Hunt's fiancee after all) feels more like a spare wheel, an unwelcome bit of emotional baggage that slows the pace of the story, Billy Crudup and Laurence Fishburne's characters are woefully underdeveloped, Maggie Q plays the same character she plays in every film, and Keri Russell and Eddie Marsan don't get enough screen time to make any impact whatsoever. The film always looks good, and J. J. Abrams gets ample opportunity to flex his directorial muscles on the big screen for the first time, but the main disappointment of M:I--3 is the story. It's flimsy, unable to adequately support the plethora of action sequences let alone allow for any sort of character development. Thankfully, the silly hyper-real facemasks don't play as key a role to the plot this time round, and it's kind of cool that we get to see how they're made, plus the filmmakers finally acknowledge the need for contact lenses and voice--changing software for an IMF agent to convincingly imitate their target (though it still doesn't explain how Cruise can believably pose as any other man considering his diminutive stature). Mission: Impossible III looks good and has a few stand-out sequences and a great performance from Philip Seymour Hoffman to offer us, but the lazy story and the addition of an ill-defined romantic subplot detracts from the viewing experience as a whole, and some of the actors simply don't look like they're really trying. J.J. Abram's film directorial debut is solidly O.K., but nothing more. Expand
  7. 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
  8. Nov 13, 2013
    5
    Mission Impossible III was a step in the right direction.
    After a very disappointing sequel to the spy series, MI3 recaptures some of the magic with a more "down to earth" Tom Cruise and a much more realistic basis.
  9. Jun 7, 2013
    7
    Having given up his high-risk assignments in favour of training new agents and the opportunity to settle down with his fiance Ethan Hunt (Cruise) finds himself back in the field when his young protege goes missing.

    As with most big budget blockbusters Mission Impossible 3 is full of plot holes and convenient happenings. Thanks to some well directed action sequences and good performances
    Having given up his high-risk assignments in favour of training new agents and the opportunity to settle down with his fiance Ethan Hunt (Cruise) finds himself back in the field when his young protege goes missing.

    As with most big budget blockbusters Mission Impossible 3 is full of plot holes and convenient happenings. Thanks to some well directed action sequences and good performances from most of the cast however it is certainly an entertaining enough watch and provides what you would expect from the genre, nothing more, nothing less.
    Expand
  10. Dec 24, 2011
    7
    Mission Impossible III delivers good drama than action. Not so much pumping action scenes. But it works for thrilling summer movie. J.J. Abrams is good.
  11. Jan 29, 2015
    10
    Eu subestimei Tom Cruise,ele é um bom ator,e dar uma excelente performance como Ethan Hunt nesse incrível Missão Impossível 3,Philip Seymour Hoffman dar uma boa performance como vilão mas creio que ele é um pouco Superestimado,Michelle Monaghan é excelente,Ving Rhames,Maggie Q,Simon Pegg,Jonathan Rhys Meyers,Keri Russell e Laurence Fishburne também estão excelentes,Com excelentes cenas deEu subestimei Tom Cruise,ele é um bom ator,e dar uma excelente performance como Ethan Hunt nesse incrível Missão Impossível 3,Philip Seymour Hoffman dar uma boa performance como vilão mas creio que ele é um pouco Superestimado,Michelle Monaghan é excelente,Ving Rhames,Maggie Q,Simon Pegg,Jonathan Rhys Meyers,Keri Russell e Laurence Fishburne também estão excelentes,Com excelentes cenas de ação e muito suspense. Expand
  12. Feb 29, 2012
    9
    The tension and the antagonists are frenetic and make the mission continuous among an impossible level. Though, it is tied with Mission: Impossible II.
  13. Sep 23, 2011
    8
    That's what a call action, and good one. it's a low 8, but for the type of movie I was very impressed, I watched the first one, didn't like it that much, but this one i enjoyed. J.J. Abrams had to came to make this collection better off course. Tom Cruise was freaking fantastic in the movie, like he was jumping, shooting, killing, hell that **** was awesome.
  14. Aug 6, 2012
    7
    One of the best action adventure movies I have ever watched despite a good chill and thrill by the great director of J.J. Abrams. I also liked the great cast and of course a chilling plot.
  15. Dec 24, 2011
    10
    I give this movie 100% ratings because its the best action thriller till now of tom cruise. The movie just takes you in a cruise full of action and mind bending thriller which no one has seen yet. It really keeps your interest in whats next. This one is one of the best action thriller movie till now.
  16. Dec 31, 2011
    10
    best film out of the 4.(GREAT VILLIAN,Mr.Hoffman) It has the intelligence of the first (the second best film after Fargo in 1996), and the action is almost as good as ghost protocol, the 2nd mission impossible is the weakest, (it is enjoyable even with all the flaws tho). Anyways I rink the films 1.Mi 3(10) 2.Mi 1(10) 3.Mi 4(9.5) 4. Mi2(7) Ghost Protocol is The Best Action film in yearsbest film out of the 4.(GREAT VILLIAN,Mr.Hoffman) It has the intelligence of the first (the second best film after Fargo in 1996), and the action is almost as good as ghost protocol, the 2nd mission impossible is the weakest, (it is enjoyable even with all the flaws tho). Anyways I rink the films 1.Mi 3(10) 2.Mi 1(10) 3.Mi 4(9.5) 4. Mi2(7) Ghost Protocol is The Best Action film in years but it's story is pretty mediocre,even though the actual dialogue is clever and the pacing and cinematography is amazing for an action film) Overall Mi 3 is the best of the series because it executes everything! But M.I. 4 Has the best Action and is the Funniest, Mi 1 Has the best direction(I LOVED the feeling of paranoia and experimental cinematography) and Mi2 is fairly enjoyable even with flaws....Great Action Series Expand
  17. May 25, 2011
    8
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The third "Mission: Impossible" film starring Tom Cruise as IMF Agent Ethan Hunt. This time directed by "Lost" creator J.J. Abrams.

    Ethan Hunt is now training IMF agents and ready to settle down and marry the woman he loves, Julia (Michelle Monaghan). That is until one of the new agents he trained, Lindsay Ferris (Keri Russell) is captured by weapons dealer Owen Davian (Philip Seymour Hoffman) in Berlin. Hunt is called back into active duty to save her, but after the mission fails, he decides to track down and capture Davian in Rome without authorization, with the help of his IMF team (Ving Rhames, Johnathan Rhys-Meyers and Maggie Q.). After Davian escapes with the help of someone inside IMF, he kidnaps Julia and threatens to kill her unless Hunt gets him a secret unknown weapon called "the rabbits foot" from a secure building in Shanghai, China. Now, Hunt must race against time to save Julia, and stop Davian from getting his hands on "the rabbits foot".

    The plot is a little predictable, and the one theme that stays constant throughout all three films is that the IMF has a lot of traitors within its organization, but in my opinion this is the best of the "Mission: Impossible" movies. Director J.J. Abrams gives the film a very gritty feel, and you can see the influences of "Lost" in his style, as well with Michael Giacchino's music score. Philip Seymour Hoffman is a great villain, and I loved the way he met his end (face meet bumper)!
    Expand
  18. Jan 11, 2012
    5
    This is the less Mission Impossible thta I like, I don´t know why but it makes me sleep like in the middle of it and the action is not as good as the second film. And the bad guy, didn´t look like a bad guy to me. I was dissapointed with this.
  19. Tonydannie
    May 5, 2006
    7
    Hey folks! Well I just got back from a lonely midnight show of Tom Cruise's MI:3. I got to say, I am a bit Dissapointed. Not That I was not Entertained. The First 3 Quarters Of the Movie Is what you would expect from a Mission Impossible Flick. [***SPOILERS***] Lots of Action, Haging On wires, Wearing the Villains Face as a mask. Tom Cruise Grinning Like an Idiot every 20 seconds.(I Hey folks! Well I just got back from a lonely midnight show of Tom Cruise's MI:3. I got to say, I am a bit Dissapointed. Not That I was not Entertained. The First 3 Quarters Of the Movie Is what you would expect from a Mission Impossible Flick. [***SPOILERS***] Lots of Action, Haging On wires, Wearing the Villains Face as a mask. Tom Cruise Grinning Like an Idiot every 20 seconds.(I kidd) I was Hooked. The Bridge sequence was amazing. It is The last act where It lost me. The Villain's Demise was not what I was expecting it to be. It was a Tad weak. Don't get me wrong Seymore Hoffman was deliciously evil Through out the movie And to me a character that evil deserves a better kill off then what he got. There was no BIG finale!! Looking back at the First 2 movies(Second being my Favorite) They Got it right. The London terminus sequence on the first and the Bike Chase on the second. This one lacked that punch. And I am sorry. It was WEAK. And I do not think that Ethan Hunt should settle down. And though the action was top notch i would really love for this so called "new" directors to stop shaking the damn camera everytime there is action in the frame. i want to enjoy it. not get nosious. All in all it was entertaining, but it was not cinematic enough. it felt like i was watching a tv show. Hmmm...I wonder why? JJ Abrahams Needs to get rescued of that Damn deserted Island. Expand
  20. DerrickA.
    May 6, 2006
    4
    Great action and that's about it. The bad guy seemed like a pushover. Very confusing plot line. And I didn't get the answer to what was the "rabbit's foot".
  21. Jake
    May 6, 2006
    8
    Only the ending sucked....you know if you've seen it. Other than that, just one crazy action scene after another. Way better than the 2nd one (it sucked! come on people! the car wreck scene was so GAY!).
  22. ConradS.
    May 7, 2006
    7
    Its quite entertaining, but there's nothing I haven't seen before.
  23. VerbalK.
    May 7, 2006
    8
    A great combination of the the first two movies' strengths. It felt like an extended version of the original television series. Great. If this is any indication of the summer to come, we are in good shape. JJ Abrams Trek venture is now highly anticipated for me. The bridge scene is riveting. Kong and the T-rexes riveting. Give Tom Cruise his props, not one of the three MIs has been a A great combination of the the first two movies' strengths. It felt like an extended version of the original television series. Great. If this is any indication of the summer to come, we are in good shape. JJ Abrams Trek venture is now highly anticipated for me. The bridge scene is riveting. Kong and the T-rexes riveting. Give Tom Cruise his props, not one of the three MIs has been a bomb. I feel justified in stating that these films are the closest equivalent to 007 we have. Moms, grandpops, and teenies likes MI. Fanboys stick to Bourne's mole-hunt upon mole-hunt contrived euro-sedan chase sequences. Don't get it twisted, I like those films, choppy editing and all, its just that they has strayed SO far from the brilliant source material. Which brings me full circle. IMF in Peter Graves' day was always about the hacker, the strongman, and the make-up artist. The fact that dude is crazy in real life adds to the believability that Ethan Hunt would do the insane base-jumping stunts in each movie. Oprah's coach was just conditioning. Props to VIC ARMSTRONG the second unit director AND stunt coordinator. He Indy being drug behind the nazi benz cargo truck in Raiders. Cruise and Abrams have managed to interject the Tom's personal life(engagement/googley eyes) into a blockbuster and it took NADA away from the characterization, plot, or tone of the film. Jason Strahams and Karl Urbans take note. This is how to do it. He didn't have me at hello... But MI:3 had me at the lip reading, the execution scene, and moonwalking up and down the Vatican walls. Let see Robert Langdon do that! Expand
  24. ChazG.
    May 9, 2006
    6
    It was entertaining... The story was ok... The ending was predictable... Another action movie.
  25. Mike
    Dec 20, 2006
    6
    Very watchable to the end. Overall alot better then I expected it to be.
  26. MichaelG.
    May 11, 2006
    4
    This was an empthy action/drama movie but definately not a mission impossibble sequel, other than using the franchise name to sell. Plot is very predictible, and the details that make mi1 which was then somewhat gone on mi2 were completely gone on mi3. never mind the fact that Tom Cruise's bocome a really irritating actor.
  27. Wilson
    May 10, 2006
    5
    This movie isn't worth the price of admission. You could get the same thrills and sappy drama from any Alias episode (especially the first two seasons). Cruise is boring, the plot predictable. Worst of all is the fact that they forgot to include even one of the elements that made the first MI movie so great!
  28. RyneD.
    May 10, 2006
    10
    This film was incredible!!!! Everyone of the cast members is amazing! (Especially Tom and MICHELLE) J.J Well Done!!!!!!!!!!
  29. 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.
  30. ChadS.
    May 12, 2006
    8
    Tom Cruise isn't a chameleon like Billy Bob Thornton, in which a superior acting ability can make an audience forget his controversial personal life. Ethan Hunt is, indeed, Tom Cruise, here in action star-mode, as opposed to his "I'm a serious actor"-mode, in which he says things like "You complete me," and "Respect the cock." When he wears shades(he's crying, yes, but it Tom Cruise isn't a chameleon like Billy Bob Thornton, in which a superior acting ability can make an audience forget his controversial personal life. Ethan Hunt is, indeed, Tom Cruise, here in action star-mode, as opposed to his "I'm a serious actor"-mode, in which he says things like "You complete me," and "Respect the cock." When he wears shades(he's crying, yes, but it also could be construed as aloofness towards his Catholic surroundings) at a funeral where crosses are present, we're aware of his religious beliefs. An explosive device(read: potentially, a psychotropic drug) seems to kid his war against psychiatry. He also tells a colleague that his love is "real". What surprised me about "MI3" is that the official narrative is more fun than the subtext. It's a lot of fun. Keri Russell gives the early scenes a kick in a great casting-against-type performance. Expand
  31. DanaM.
    May 13, 2006
    6
    Enjoyable but not necessarily a good movie. Lots of action but really no story to support it. Predictable.
  32. josak
    May 15, 2006
    8
    I think people giving this movie a bad rating are just picky bastards to tell you the truth. You know -- those people, who have to be critical just to be, because they can't sit down and just enjoy a movie for what it is. And anyone ragging on this movie because of Tom Cruise needs to get a life. Who's worse - a scientologist, or a guy who pays more attention to somebody elses I think people giving this movie a bad rating are just picky bastards to tell you the truth. You know -- those people, who have to be critical just to be, because they can't sit down and just enjoy a movie for what it is. And anyone ragging on this movie because of Tom Cruise needs to get a life. Who's worse - a scientologist, or a guy who pays more attention to somebody elses life than his own? Anyway, this is a straight up, pumped up action movie; but it has brains, and lotso drama. It's crazy, I was pretty blown away actually. My only quibble is that the dialogue could have been better in a few scenes. Other than that, I was pleasantly surprised. No, it's probably not better than MI:1 -- and anything is better than MI:2. Regardless, go see this movie. Expand
  33. stasz.
    May 10, 2006
    9
    By far one of the best action movies. Watch and Chill, don't expect oscar elements. Nothing but great entertainment value.
  34. BrandonA.
    May 29, 2006
    5
    It was predictable, the story was simple. To sum it up the action saved the movie of getting a 1.
  35. Christopher
    May 5, 2006
    8
    Wasn't bad. Better than I expected. It should have been called The Alias Movie. Better than the second, but nowhere near as good as the original.
  36. AlexeyA.
    May 5, 2006
    10
    Probably the best action movie ever.
  37. A.Martinez
    May 5, 2006
    10
    Over the top? Yes, that's why it's so good. Some one also told them to keep the backstabbing plots simple and the action coming. The first movie, way too complicated. Second, better. Third, the best, I think. It kicks butt, and Philip Seymour Hoffman as the bad guy? Very cool.
  38. ZapistoF.
    May 5, 2006
    10
    Woah....I mean WOOAAHH...that's a freaking action movie. J.J. Abrams just reinvented how to make one. I was not a fan of his work with Alias, and I found the pilot of Lost to be ok. So, I didn't have all that high of expectations going in, but man....scene after scene after scene of "edge of your seat"/penetrating/visionary action. Tom Cruise is at his best here, as is the Woah....I mean WOOAAHH...that's a freaking action movie. J.J. Abrams just reinvented how to make one. I was not a fan of his work with Alias, and I found the pilot of Lost to be ok. So, I didn't have all that high of expectations going in, but man....scene after scene after scene of "edge of your seat"/penetrating/visionary action. Tom Cruise is at his best here, as is the entire cast. The accompanying score is phenomenal. Shout it from the rafters. J.J. ABRAMS is a freaking genius and Tom is a genius for getting him to do this movie!!!!! Expand
  39. DanGerman
    May 5, 2006
    9
    Excellent action, great pace, top performances.
  40. Bill
    May 5, 2006
    3
    The special effects were good but the overall movie was Busch League at best. Very predictable.
  41. Tally
    May 6, 2006
    3
    Even J.J. couldn't put Tommy together again.
  42. LuisR.
    May 6, 2006
    9
    I simply loved it! pure action and thrill during all the film, enjoyable and great!
  43. MarcD.
    May 6, 2006
    8
    I had a hell of a lot of fun with this movie. In fact, there was not a stretch longer than about 2 minutes in the film in which I wasn't grabing my face, pulling my hair, or kicking the seat in front of me because of all the crazy/original sh*t going on on the screen. I came into this movie having somewhat liked the first two and not totally excited to see how Tom probably acts with I had a hell of a lot of fun with this movie. In fact, there was not a stretch longer than about 2 minutes in the film in which I wasn't grabing my face, pulling my hair, or kicking the seat in front of me because of all the crazy/original sh*t going on on the screen. I came into this movie having somewhat liked the first two and not totally excited to see how Tom probably acts with Katie, but if you're like me, you'll drop that 'tude as soon as the first action sequence kicks into gear. I like "Alias" a lot, and this movie seemed like Alias on Steroids. Yes, the cream AND the clear. The storyline wasn't as convoluted as the first one was. Don't want to spoil any plot points. I'll just say that it was worth the $$ to make this thing, so just go see it. Expand
  44. ManfredP.
    May 6, 2006
    9
    Let's get one thing straight, right off the bat: this is not the incredible gem of a movie that was DePalma's 'Mission: Impossible', but it is also significantly...and I mean, significantly...better than John Woo's abysmal attempt at trying to mix oil and water (namely, his own style and the 'M:I' movie franchise) that the world must regretfully refer to Let's get one thing straight, right off the bat: this is not the incredible gem of a movie that was DePalma's 'Mission: Impossible', but it is also significantly...and I mean, significantly...better than John Woo's abysmal attempt at trying to mix oil and water (namely, his own style and the 'M:I' movie franchise) that the world must regretfully refer to as 'Mission: Impossible II'. Within ten seconds of the Paramount logo disappearing into the ether, you are hooked. Utterly hooked. The trademark pre-title sequence is intense and masterfully constructed, and is arguably the best piece of film in the entire movie. And what a place to put it. The plot itself lacks any real complexity, but what it lacks in overt intelligence it more than makes up for in how completely engaging and entertaining it actually is. The emotional beats are right on cue - although this can be called into question slightly in the closing minutes of the movie - and the action scenes are visceral, real and are actually incredibly scary for a PG-13 movie. There are plenty of thoroughly satisfying teamwork sequences that are highly satisfying to watch on a number of levels, and the film thrills, amuses and shocks for its entire duration. Not much can top a showdown between an IMF mentor and student on the top of a speeding bullet train, but Abrams does a damn good job at pitching the stakes of the finalé on a suitably 'impossible' level to mentioned respectfully after Hunt's suicidal Channel Tunnel dash in the first movie. In terms of acting: Cruise is at his superstar best, Hoffman is deliciously evil and wonderful as the entirely uncompassionate bad guy, Rhames is more implemented than ever before and exuding his usual sense of cool, and Simon Pegg delivers some very welcome humour to the movie. There are nods to previous Mission: Impossible movies, including the famed wire-drop from the first film when Hunt and company decide to...get this...infiltrate the Vatican (a scene that is accompanied by a charmingly amusing performance of Cruise going all Italian), and even a small homage to 'Top Gun'. Yes, this is a Tom Cruise film. But - as this movie goes to show - that's no bad thing by any stretch of the imagination. This thing is gripping, enthralling, and surprisingly taught for a movie that clocks in at just over two hours in length. For now, at least, the first movie remains unchallenged as the masterpiece of the franchise. It is the ultimate 'M:I' experience and is crafted with the mastery one would expect from a filmaker like DePalma; Abrams is still a novice by comparison. But, rest assured, 'Mission: Impossible III' is one mission you'll be more than happy to accept as a kick-ass Summer blockbuster that is thoroughly satisfying on every level. Expand
  45. D.N.
    May 6, 2006
    9
    The best of the series. It's everything you want it to be.
  46. 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.
  47. BarbW.
    May 7, 2006
    9
    This is a pure action/thriller movie with lots of 'edge of your seat' thrills. Tom Cruise shows that he still has that movie star 'magic', something that so few actors possess. That's a pretty amazing feat, considering the constant bullying and harassment he receives from the press. Go see this movie, if only to see a true movie star at his best! (The non-stop This is a pure action/thriller movie with lots of 'edge of your seat' thrills. Tom Cruise shows that he still has that movie star 'magic', something that so few actors possess. That's a pretty amazing feat, considering the constant bullying and harassment he receives from the press. Go see this movie, if only to see a true movie star at his best! (The non-stop action and excitement doesn't hurt either). Expand
  48. JaredC
    May 7, 2006
    10
    Explosions, stunts, and espionage....what more could you want?
  49. Fairis
    May 8, 2006
    8
    Well-made movie. Edge of seat stuff with great pacing, nice action sequences + a few laughs here and there. Just let down by the ending which was low-key (maybe i was expecting John Woo's MI:II ending which indeed was spectacular). And i thought Hoffman's Davian was one-dimensional.. i mean, yeah, i'm convinced that he's mean and stuff but not much characterization Well-made movie. Edge of seat stuff with great pacing, nice action sequences + a few laughs here and there. Just let down by the ending which was low-key (maybe i was expecting John Woo's MI:II ending which indeed was spectacular). And i thought Hoffman's Davian was one-dimensional.. i mean, yeah, i'm convinced that he's mean and stuff but not much characterization took place.. what made the guy he was, what's he motivation that kind of stuff, y'know. But hey, it's a pop-corn movie so didn't expect that anyways.. Expand
  50. SusanM.
    May 8, 2006
    9
    Yes, yes, YES! This movie has everything that belongs in a good action movie, and nothing that doesn't. Go see it!
  51. 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
  52. Mase
    May 8, 2006
    5
    Were people really clamoring for a 3 mission impossible?? Well the series is getting very stale despite a new director. Abrahms just recyling he better tv shows. Actually all three diffrent mission directors all had better work than the mission movies. Which may be why they are all watchable an not necessarily "bad" movies just totally forgetable.
  53. 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
  54. 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.
  55. [Anonymous]
    May 9, 2006
    8
    This movie was pretty good there wasn't a lot of plot but it was very intense and I thought it was a pretty fun movie.
  56. Scarecrow
    Jun 11, 2006
    6
    Not the best mission impossible movie for sure.The first movie was the best.It has some good moments and some lame moments.Sometimes it tries to be more serious and sometimes more action oriented.Its like a combination of the two previous movies and unfortunately it doesnt mix. The script is dissapionting and the action isnt very spectacular.The ending sucks and the overall experience Not the best mission impossible movie for sure.The first movie was the best.It has some good moments and some lame moments.Sometimes it tries to be more serious and sometimes more action oriented.Its like a combination of the two previous movies and unfortunately it doesnt mix. The script is dissapionting and the action isnt very spectacular.The ending sucks and the overall experience isnt as you expeced from a movie like Mission Impossible.The first movie was serious the second was more action focused and this one seems kinda lost in between. Expand
  57. EfeB.
    Jun 12, 2006
    10
    tom cruise must be the best actor who ever lived because he takes the impossible and makes it possible.
  58. MikeS.
    Jun 19, 2006
    10
    Great ending employer of Tom criuse realizes he was set up and gives him the accommodation he deserves.
  59. CraigA.
    Jun 2, 2006
    8
    Hugely entertaining - even if it has the world's most predictable plot twist. Oooo, I wonder who the REAL mole is?
  60. MatthewR.
    Jun 3, 2006
    9
    90% Yes predictable, girl gets kidnapped guy comes to rescue her, yep dont we all know by now. There are some "seen before moments" but there are some places that will keep you asking what happens next. Plus any funnies in the the film are well placed. "You've got to be kidding me". Nope I am not, it's not a classic and unless you have something you need to do you should go watch it.
  61. ConorS.
    Jun 26, 2007
    7
    The real show-stealer here is Philip Seymour Hoffman, who brings a serious brutality and rage to the part of the villain in this third installment. He does just what any good villain should do: he makes us hate him and want to see him dead. The plot also works nicely enough, and the rest of the cast do their jobs well.
  62. halb
    Nov 11, 2006
    5
    Corny and cliche'-riddled, but with exhilirating action scenes. A 2-hr episode of 'Alias' on speed. Good supporting cast, but who can watch Tom Cruise any more without thinking of him jumping on Oprah's couch or spouting his criminally irrational Scientology philsophy... ? And the plot twist is as contrived as they come. There are better movies to rent, for sure.
  63. 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
  64. TOMW.
    May 11, 2006
    0
    THE FILM FAILD IMPOSSIBLE MISSION II!
  65. 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.
  66. BarryR.
    May 10, 2006
    6
  67. Nat
    May 15, 2006
    4
    This movie was ok. Not the worst movie I've seen but definately not one of the best. If you've got nothing better to do, this movie will entertain you.
  68. JimB.
    May 15, 2006
    9
    I'm confused; I see people calling this movie "enjoyable" and "entertaining" , yet "not nessarily a good movie." What kind lunacy is this? This is just your stereotypical critic: a guy who nit-picks just because he can. What happened to a movie being judged on it's entertainment value? Kind of common sense, right? I tend to use that a alot, I'm just non-intellectual like I'm confused; I see people calling this movie "enjoyable" and "entertaining" , yet "not nessarily a good movie." What kind lunacy is this? This is just your stereotypical critic: a guy who nit-picks just because he can. What happened to a movie being judged on it's entertainment value? Kind of common sense, right? I tend to use that a alot, I'm just non-intellectual like that. I mean... makes sense to me, a movie entertains me... it probably deserves a higher score. These are the same guys, who rate snorefests a 10 because of great acting and dialogue. That's all well and good, and it certainly helps a movie, but if it's still not that entertaining, is that "nesessarily a good movie?" I'll let you ponder that question. Meanwhile, go see this movie. Expand
  69. JasonP.
    May 16, 2006
    4
    Not terrible (despite some AWFUL moments - wait for the "cat prayer" bit and you'll know what I mean). Cruise's woman had almost no personality but the action wasn't bad and the "Felicity" girl was cute. Having said that, you're probably better off watching "Alias" 'cuz swap out Cruise with Garner and this could've been a typical (i.e. not great) "Alias" Not terrible (despite some AWFUL moments - wait for the "cat prayer" bit and you'll know what I mean). Cruise's woman had almost no personality but the action wasn't bad and the "Felicity" girl was cute. Having said that, you're probably better off watching "Alias" 'cuz swap out Cruise with Garner and this could've been a typical (i.e. not great) "Alias" episode, albeit a two-hour one. Expand
  70. IanI.
    May 19, 2006
    7
    Dispite the fact that the first two movies recieved a cumulative metascore of 60 and this one recieved a 66 this is not the better movie. MI3 is better than MI2 by far but not nearly as good as MI. It was an adiquitly entertaining film that does nothing more than what you would expect (perhaps a little less) and leaves you compleatly undazzeled. [***SPOILERS***] movie would be better if Dispite the fact that the first two movies recieved a cumulative metascore of 60 and this one recieved a 66 this is not the better movie. MI3 is better than MI2 by far but not nearly as good as MI. It was an adiquitly entertaining film that does nothing more than what you would expect (perhaps a little less) and leaves you compleatly undazzeled. [***SPOILERS***] movie would be better if they left out the first scene revealing that cruise would be captured by the bad guy at the end therefor reaveling that no matter what he did durring the movie you knew for a fact that the bad guy would not die untill that scene was compleate and so in all the scenes there was no suspense, you also already knew he would not get to his wife in time and she would be eventualy captured just like hoffman claimed he would do. Dumb Move. It added nothing to the movie and detracted everything. Expand
  71. RobertB.
    May 22, 2006
    9
    Perfect summer action fair, Entertaining.
  72. Mitch
    May 20, 2006
    8
    First of all, it's a Mission Impossible movie. If you go to see that, you won't be disappointed. I liked this movie a lot more than the previous two. Actually, this movie felt a lot more "Mission Impossible" than any of the previous films. More teamwork, more choreographed espionage. It was a really fun, adventure flick. See it in a good theatre. The sound was really well done.
  73. 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.
  74. BenB.
    May 29, 2006
    8
    cracking action movie with enough stunts, break-ins, and action to make up for all its faults, which include a rather lame love story and a HORRIBLE burglary sequence. that said, anyone who doesn't have fun with this movie doesn't like movies. This is highly entertaining and watchable no matter who you are.
  75. MathieuL.
    May 29, 2006
    7
    The best of the three! Solid action sequences and the most poignant scenes of emotion of any Mission movie. Tom Cruise is astonishing, but Philip Seymour Hoffman should have got much more screen time. Overall, a great action drama and a nice summer blockbuster.
  76. WillE.
    May 5, 2006
    9
    This movie surpassed my expectations. it is saved by it's supporting cast: Hoffman is perfect as the ultimate bad guy, Keri Russel gives a suprisingly intense performance, simon pegg provides the great comic relief. JJ Abram's direction is spot-on. there really isnt much that misses, except some "yeah right" moments. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!
  77. GodComplex
    May 5, 2006
    5
    Borring. Mundane.
  78. TehanuA.
    May 6, 2006
    10
    The absolute best movie of the year! I thought that this movie was one of the best ones that they have made. The suspense and action kept me from taking a bathroom break! This movie is worth the 7 bucks to get in, and more!
  79. DD
    May 6, 2006
    8
    I thought it was great. i went in expecting nothing more than an action flick with tech-savvy scenes, a standard plot and random twist at the end, and that's what they gave. don't read into it too much, just enjoy. it's the perfect platform to cruise to exist in his continued psychotic weirdness.
  80. Syzgy
    May 7, 2006
    6
    Story moves fast so the crowd does not have much time to dwell on the crazy plot. so many contrivances, wonderfully kinetic editing, and slick dialogue keeps this puppy motoring along with nary a hitch. this 'human dimension' people have been remarking upon is wafer thin, notable only because the usual gadgetry and globe trotting would have been old and lonely third time around.
  81. TH
    May 7, 2006
    6
    Great action sequences; fun movie as long as you don't think too hard about the plot lines.
  82. 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.
  83. TommyCruze
    May 7, 2006
    10
    I am absolutely speechless. I loved this movie. It deserved a 100000000. If you love action (actually if you love anything) this is the perfect movie. Everything was perfect and this movie was a a lot better than the first two. Please go see this movie. You do not know what you are missing out on if you miss this movie. Tom Cruise..... perfect. Bravo. Bravo. Bravo.
  84. MarkG.
    May 8, 2006
    5
    Ok for a pop-corn munch. But ho-hum factor grows exponentially scene by Ka-boom scene, as the movie delivers way more than is necessary by way of non-stop stunts and explosions. And you have the nagging suspicion they there is a big hole in the plot, which seems non-sensical and circular in an almost Back to the Future way. [***SPOILERS***] To wit. At first, they are chasing the villian Ok for a pop-corn munch. But ho-hum factor grows exponentially scene by Ka-boom scene, as the movie delivers way more than is necessary by way of non-stop stunts and explosions. And you have the nagging suspicion they there is a big hole in the plot, which seems non-sensical and circular in an almost Back to the Future way. [***SPOILERS***] To wit. At first, they are chasing the villian because he is going to sell an unspecified super weapon to the bad guys. Only problem is, he, the villian, never had the super weapon to begin with. Nor do we have an idea how he would have acquired it except for the fact that Cruise captures him, the villian, and he gets pissed off. So the villian kidnaps Cruise's wife and forces Cruise to steal the superweason and deliver it to the villain to prevent the murder of the wife. The villian kidnapped her as revenge for Cruise's capture and near jettison of the villian from a jet at 10,000 feet. Cruise captured and was interrogating the villian about the superweapon which the villian was going to sell but actually didn't have to begin with. Nor do we have any idea how he intended to steal it except he got pissed off at Cruise. So he forces Cruise to steal the superweapon to prevent the wife from being killed so the villian can. Expand
  85. SarahL.
    May 8, 2006
    9
    Great action movie. Cruise is a great hero and Hoffman is the best vilain.
  86. ScottN.
    May 8, 2006
    9
    MI3 displays an impressive breadth of nuanced direction, subtle acting and an engaging romantic interest with the requisite spectacular effects and stunts. This film rivets you to your seat as stupendous action sequences alternate with intrigue and suspense as the plot cascades to Europe, Asia - even the Vatican - under the relentless threat of the dreaded
  87. basss
    May 9, 2006
    9
    The movie was awsome and intense with some thrills thrown in.
  88. Dani
    Jun 22, 2006
    9
    Definitely action-packed with some romance thrown in.
  89. JasonM.
    Jun 4, 2006
    8
    exactly what I was looking for in an action movie. Congrats JJ.
  90. JaredB.
    Jan 12, 2007
    10
    This is, in my opinion, the best "Mission Impossible" film yet. Tom Cruise gives the character of Ethan Hunt a level of depth that I didn't find in the other two movies. I also enjoyed Ving Rhames as Arthur Stickell, Hunt's right-hand man. Philip Seymour Hoffman was a better bad guy than anyone in the last two films. My advice: If you haven't seen this, rent or buy it as This is, in my opinion, the best "Mission Impossible" film yet. Tom Cruise gives the character of Ethan Hunt a level of depth that I didn't find in the other two movies. I also enjoyed Ving Rhames as Arthur Stickell, Hunt's right-hand man. Philip Seymour Hoffman was a better bad guy than anyone in the last two films. My advice: If you haven't seen this, rent or buy it as soon as possible. Expand
  91. BillyB.
    Dec 6, 2006
    10
    Not only is this movie just as good as the first two, but I would even say it was my favorite. With new concepts and a good story line, I thought this movie was excellent!
  92. Seamus
    May 11, 2006
    8
    Definitely better than MI:2 which was perhaps the worst movie ever made; on par with the first one in my opinion.
  93. 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
  94. MovieS.
    May 12, 2006
    8
    A return to solid, gratifing action movie making.
  95. J.Gunten
    May 14, 2006
    9
    MI-3 is a near-prefect blend of romance, devotion, emotion, high action, intelligent plotting, surprisingly innovative solutions to problems, and enough flash-bang to turn up the adrenalin. I was happily surprised by the more-intelligent-than-most handling of the threat, Rabbit's Foot. And no one in the theatre missed the unparalleled *intensity* that Cruise brings to this role.
  96. Erk
    May 19, 2006
    5
    Often when Hollywood makes a sequel, they feel it's necessary to have *MORE ACTION*, the only problem is that it usually results in *LESS PLOT*. Mission Impossible -- the franchise -- is about circumstances conspiring to create a situation that can only be resoved by brilliant planning, guts, and perfect execution. The setup is "there is no way that can be done ... it Impossible!" Often when Hollywood makes a sequel, they feel it's necessary to have *MORE ACTION*, the only problem is that it usually results in *LESS PLOT*. Mission Impossible -- the franchise -- is about circumstances conspiring to create a situation that can only be resoved by brilliant planning, guts, and perfect execution. The setup is "there is no way that can be done ... it Impossible!" And then when they do it in a daring and clever way, you are amazed. They didn't spend enough (any?) time on the setup, and so the payoff isn't really there. Expand
  97. LouisB.
    May 19, 2006
    10
    M.I.-3 is fast paced and very exciting.The special effects are incredible. Hoffman makes a great villain.A great summer movie, good escapism.
  98. KenG.
    Jun 15, 2006
    6
    There is plenty of well-done action, and spectular stunt-work. But I would have happily exchanged some of that spectular stuntwork for a less cliche-driven script. (as well as a script that wasn't as lazy). I'm guessing about half of Hoffman's scenes ended up on the cutting room floor. It's a shame. He could have been a good villain if movie had given him a chance. There is plenty of well-done action, and spectular stunt-work. But I would have happily exchanged some of that spectular stuntwork for a less cliche-driven script. (as well as a script that wasn't as lazy). I'm guessing about half of Hoffman's scenes ended up on the cutting room floor. It's a shame. He could have been a good villain if movie had given him a chance. There also seems to be a number of other missing scenes. Expand
  99. Angie
    Jun 25, 2006
    9
    I absolutely LOVE this movie! Tom Cruise is at his best running full-throttle down the streets of Beijing... People need to forget about Tom Cruise's politics and simply enjoy this movie... It's called ENTERTAINMENT.
  100. 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
Metascore
66

Generally favorable reviews - based on 38 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 28 out of 38
  2. Negative: 0 out of 38
  1. Reviewed by: Ian Nathan
    60
    An inspired middle-hour pumped by some solid action gives you an idea how good the franchise could be, but we now live in a post-Bourne, recalibrated-Bond universe, where Ethan Hunt looks a bit lost.
  2. In his feature debut, "Lost" creator J.J. Abrams, who got the job on the basis of "Alias," takes the driver's seat with both feet on the accelerator.
  3. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    70
    For all its far-fetched formulations, this new entry maintains more of a dramatic throughline and has the bonus of a villain played with unsparing meanness by Philip Seymour Hoffman.