In any story, whether in a book, in a play, in a film or even a TV series, it is difficult to believe a character’s motives unless the character is developed in such a way that his way of thinking becomes clear to the reader/viewer. Except for Hunt, no other character was developed. Musgrave, for instance. A rich kid whose father played golf with the President. What was his motivation for selling weapons to other countries? Was there an implication that his family would profit from war and rebuilding? Was the connection to the President a suggestion that he was part of the whole thing? Or was Musgrave doing it on his own, having his own little power trip to show he was above his colleagues in the intelligence business?
Ethan Hunt was the only character whose motives were explored. The whole film was triggered by his two motives–the desire to avenge the death of Lindsey and the desire to rescue Julia. Both were personal to Ethan. Two rogue missions to pursue his personal agenda. He killed, maimed and destroyed because he was angry about Lindsey’s death and because he was scared that Julia would be killed.
In a deeper sense, both of Ethan’s motives were spawned by his own guilt. It was he who trained Lindsey and declared her fit to take on dangerous assignments. Then she was caught, tortured and killed. It was also he who brought Julia into the web of lies, intrigues and danger. Had he been honest with Julia about what he did for a living, she could have had the choice to walk out on him much earlier and her kidnapping would never have happened.
So, was it a good film? Well, if you enjoy visual delights and story, or the lack thereof, is negligible, it would be an enjoyable film to watch. But if you want to match the action with a cohesive story, you might be disappointed. My husband fell asleep somewhere between America and China.
[tags]MI+3, mission+impossible, film, Tom+Cruise, entertainment, movies[/tags]
Pages: 1 2
For me MI-3 is the best. Konti lang ang over acting specially on the stunts. I've watched it twice. The story- better than the previous two.
My 2 cents.
Finally, a good review about MI3.
I was suppose to write my own but since you've already done a better job I'm quite happy.
Anyways, I think sacrificing the story for all the bangs and action was a bit intentional considering that it is a Tom Cruise movie plus the film mirrors and anchors much on what is going on Tom Cruise's real life, like his engagment to Kat and how the whole world has subscribed to the TomKat lovestory.
True that MI2 was the most superior among the three films, a just tribute to a great director that is John Woo.
I think Philip Seymour Hoffman, for all his limited time onscreen, did a better job of bringing his charcter to life. Then again maybe it's because I'm not really a fan of Tom Cruise
I'm just hoping that "The Da Vinci Code" was not executed in the same way–sacrificing the story for action.
It's a superb movie, been up in the charts for two weeks now surpassing Poseidon which is expected to bump MI3 to a lower notch. Although the story is vague, the action is really cool not to mention the stunts and gagdets they utilized to gather information and how to maneuver their operation.
spoiler alert next time please.