WINNER OF THE BRONZE CRACKPIPE FOR 2006
Mission Impossible 3
*½
Tom. my man. Can you handle the truth, son? "Star-power" is not a substitute for acting ability. I hope that's crystal enough for you cause I got more little things you should know about. When you're staring thoughtfully off to some mark on the set, it comes across like the glazed look of meth addict watching all the pretty colors. I can't fault you for continuing to trot the same old out there though. Hell, if someone paid me 10 million + I'd star in the stupidest piece of retreaded crap they threw in my lap too. ... As for the flick? It was loud. That had to be one of the loudest movies I've ever heard. Ouch. But that aside let us examine the many problems here. First, bad storytelling. I guess they thought they had to setup Hoffman as the heavy off the bat when they cut and pasted the next to last scene of the movie at the start, but it really added an anticlimactic feel to a pretty predictable plot as the majority of the movie catches up to that opening segment. Second, the viewer has no idea what this device Hoffman is after is. It's never used, it's never discussed except for a wildly speculative moment by a minor character, and it's never deployed in the story as a threat. That's like a monster movie without the monster, Tom. Third, Hoffman was good, (screen time? maybe 25 minutes btw.) but it's a total mystery why he sticks around after acquiring the device to have you kick his ass. Too, his motivations in general are highly suspect. He seems more concerned about his briefcase than the device for some reason. In fact he blackmails Tom's character to give the case back, (wily stolen by Tom and crew earlier in the flick) so Tom goes and steals the device itself. Hmmm? That didn't make a lick of sense to me. ... So, this is a pretty awful movie in short. Good explosions and beautiful women do make the movie watchable, but it's nothing cable TV doesn't offer any given night. ... Yawn.
|
