Before I begin, let me make the disclaimer that I am, in fact, aware that Tom Cruise has been a little off his rocker this past year. Katie Holmes, couch-bounding, Scientology preaching—whatever the media candy Cruise has provided us recently—Tom Cruise has been fearless regarding his public image. I don’t think that’s so bad either. I’d rather he be honest about who he is than not. The important thing for us, as moviegoers and consumers is to have the ability to compartmentalize all of that and just enjoy the movie. I know that I’m not going to enjoy a movie as much if I’m hung up on the actor’s tabloid trail or political rants. I just want to watch the movie and have a good time. So, if you have trouble compartmentalizing Tom Cruise from Ethan Hunt (his character in MI3), then you probably won’t enjoy this movie nearly as much as you should.

With all of that in mind, I have to say that I loved this movie. To give you a bit of reference on my taste in Mission Impossible flicks, I have to say that the first installment is still probably my favorite and the second falling well below my expectations. MI3, in my opinion, rescues what could have been a dying franchise. Why? It’s all about style and direction. The original MI was not only action-packed, but it was smart, brainy, and enigmatic. You were constantly wondering who to trust, and who not to trust. There were great twists in the plot and a smart script to boot. Plus the “missions” were amazing and kept you on the edge of your seat. It was and is a truly great action film.

So what went wrong in MI2? In my opinion, it was director John Woo, former “kung foo” genre director, who was behind the scenes on some rather forgettable films here in the States, such as Broken Arrow and Face/Off. He brought a completely different (and inferior) style to the franchise. He tried to make the movie too sexy, with dramatic slow-motion sequences, intense music, and cheezy “staring” sequences between Hunt and the villain. It had some good action, but most of it was ruined by slow-mo and supernatural acrobatics.

So, finally, what about MI3? What’s the difference from the last two. Easy answer—-J. J. Abrams. Who’s J. J. Abrams? He’s the guy with the midas touch in Hollywood right now, due to the greatness and commercial success of his brainchild hit shows Alias and Lost (and don’t forget Felicity!). Abrams just has a great vibe to his work and it definitely worked with Mission Impossible. This film doesn’t quite regain the brainy-ness of the original, but he thankfully nixed the sexyness of the second film.

This is truly a great action film. The action scenes are absolutely amazing. They are undoubtedly unrealistic in nature, but they are done so well, you really believe everything you are seeing. Special effects and CGI are superb and not too obvious, making the action that much more fun to watch. The best example of the great CGI work in the movie is the scene where Cruise’s character puts on a latex mask of the villain (a staple of the MI films).

Another distinction I observed regarding the difference between this film and the original was the fact that the original film focused a great deal on the “missions” themselves and the strategy invloved in executing them. I really enjoyed that about the original. This film tended to treat the strategy and execution of each mission somewhat lightly, which I believe was intentional. I think the filmmakers’ wanted to communicate that these guys are so good, they can do this stuff without even trying very hard. There’s even a scene where Cruise’s character and a partner are busy clearing a building of hostiles, but at the same time, they’re discussion Cruise’s character’s personal life casually. I appreciated this treatment in the film, but I still favor the style of the original film.

I can’t stress again the greatness of the action in this movie. It’s some of the best action I’ve seen in some time. And I also have to be honest and say that part of the reason the action is so great is Tom Cruise. I think if it had been any other actor, those scenes (and the whole movie franchise) wouldn’t have worked nearly as well. As crazy as he might be in real life, he’s still a box office superstar, in my opinion. There’s really no way to explain it without me sounding like I have a man-crush on him, but Tom Cruise is really in his element in this film, and he should really stick with this kind of work for as long as he can.

After watching the film, I was surprised to read that many film critics not only thought that MI3 wasn’t up to par, but also thought MI2 was by far the best of the three. I couldn’t disagree more. I wasn’t so surprised to see that MI3’s opening weekend was a little weak ($48mil) compared to the previous films. The media is obviously blaming Cruise for the modest numbers, due to his public image antics. I probably agree with this theory, but it’s proven that some controversy can really boost box office numbers. I think the real blame should be directed towards the media for really “Cruising out” this past year. It seemed like they have been bombarding the public with Tom Cruise obsession almost every day. I think the low numbers this weekend were more a result of over-Cruisation in the media, not neccessarily Cruise himself, though he certainly didn’t help. I think it’s also important to note that this film was released 6 years after the previous. That has to hurt the film’s prospects.

Overall, I think this movie is a great action flick, definitely “buyable” when it comes to DVD, and I give it 4 stars (out of 5). Had the movie been more brainy, enigmatic, and strategic, then it would have certainly recieved the yet-to-be-awarded-on-this-blog 5 star rating.