MI 3: Where did the story go?

by Connie Veneracion on May 15, 2006



Go to page 1 2 »»

No question about it–the action was superb. MI 3 was pure action from start to finish.

Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) finally caught the wedding bug. At his engagement party, he received a new assignment (in one of those this-will-destruct-in-5-seconds gadgets) to rescue a female agent who got caught by an arms dealer named Owen Davian (Philip Seymour Hoffman). Hunt accepted the mission. He rescued Lindsey (Keri Russell), his protege, but she died in his arms. Her death prompted him to launch a rogue mission to steal whatever it was that Davian had for sale, and kidnap Davian, during a Vatican party. The “merchandise” was stolen and the kidnapping was successful but Davian was rescued. Armed with the knowledge of his name, Davian had Hunt’s girlfriend, Julia, kidnapped and held her hostage to blackmail Hunt into stealing “The Rabbit’s Foot” and to deliver it to him. Hunt’s own people detained him but his immediate boss Musgrave (Billy Crudup) helped him escape and gave him information as to how to get “The Rabbit’s Foot”. He even organized a team for Hunt.

The second half of the film took place in Shanghai where “The Rabbit’s Foot” was. To cut to the chase, so to speak, Hunt managed to steal “The Rabbit’s Foot” and set about to exchange it for Julia. But “The Rabbit’s Foot” could not be opened. In a video sent before she was caught, Lindsey was supposed to have told Hunt something that would open “The Rabbit’s Foot”.

This was where the story unexpectedly turned from the usual. Davian, it turned out, was only a pawn in a bigger game. He was controlled by Musgrave. He was a middleman who sold all kinds of weapons to whoever was interested and could afford them. Any buyer who thereafter used Davian’s goods would be deemed a danger to the democratic world. His country would be fair game–the U.S. would wage war, profit from the war, rebuild and profit from the infrastructure. Of course, it’s a jibe on how America profits from war–in Iraq and elsewhere. But this part of the film was lost in the maze of high speed chases and death defying stunts. I wonder how many others made sense of those few lines of dialogue explaining what the real import of “The Rabbit’s Foot” was vis a vis its miniscule role in a much bigger agenda. And that was where MI 3 failed. It sacrificed the story and the characters for the action. While it is still basically an action thriller, was it too much to ask that the story be more substantiated?

If you’ve seen MI 2, you would understand what I’m trying to say. Of the three Mission Impossible films that starred Tom Cruise, MI 2 (directed by John Woo) is, by far, the most superior. The action was there yet every scene, and every character, made sense.

Bookmark this page:

  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • Furl
  • Kirtsy
  • MySpace
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • YahooMyWeb
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Fark
  • Ma.gnolia
  • Reddit
  • Spurl
  • StumbleUpon
  • TwitThis
  • SphereIt
Go to page 1 2 »»

In the archive

{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }

1

Trosp 05.16.06 at 1:43 am

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.

2

jhay 05.16.06 at 8:01 am

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.

3

wabbitga 05.16.06 at 11:29 am

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 :)

4

Sassy Lawyer 05.16.06 at 2:18 pm

I’m just hoping that “The Da Vinci Code” was not executed in the same way–sacrificing the story for action.

5

Bong D 05.16.06 at 11:01 pm

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.

6

domokun 05.17.06 at 9:20 am

spoiler alert next time please.

Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>