Jack Reacher: Never Go Back (2016) - Theatrical Review

Director: Edward Zwick

Cast: Tom Cruise, Cobie Smulders, Robert Knepper, Danika Yarosh

Country: United States

Rating: PG-13

Run Time: 118 min

Note: This review was originally written for a different website that shall go unnamed. However, the editor of the website refused to post my review because they disagreed with my opinion, stating that they would not post a review of mine unless they agreed with me. In honor of the freedom of speech and truthful journalism, I chose to post it here on my own blog. 

Movie star Tom Cruise has typically only partaken within one long standing franchise of his, the fantastic Mission: Impossible series. However, it’s nice to see him spread his legs and take a stab at another one by expanding 2012’s Jack Reacher into his latest franchise. It’s been a long standing opinion of mine, as well as many other action fans, that Christopher McQuarrie's Jack Reacher is a hugely underrated and masterfully crafted action thriller that deserved more attention and box office than it scored. It was far from a failure, but not nearly as successful as it could and should have been. 

Fast forward four years, and now we have the franchise’s first sequel, Jack Reacher: Never Go Back, directed by Edward Zwick, who previously collaborated with Cruise on 2003’s The Last Samurai. While the original film will continue to be lauded and praised by action fans alike, Never Go Back is unlikely to gain anyone’s admiration, as it is nothing more than a mediocre, but mildly watchable, studio actioner that fails to conjure up the same sense of craftsmanship imbued within the first film.

Jack Reacher: Never Turn Your Back

Never Go Back finds Jack Reacher (Tom Cruise) helping military police solve crimes as he works his way across the country. When Reacher decides to visit Susan Turner (Cobie Smulders), the military officer he has been helping solve cases, he stumbles upon a conspiracy in which she is framed for a crime that she did not commit. Matters are further complicated when Reacher discovers that he may also have a daughter that he never knew about.

Never Go Back is significantly weaker than its predecessor, almost to the point where it more closely resembles the DTV equivalent of a Jack Reacher film, although it does feature the budget and name value of a cinematic release. Whereas the first film was a throwback to the stylistic sensibilities of the gritty and patient action films of the 1970s, the sequel is more representative of post 2000s actioners with its dull exposition, needless plotting, and incomprehensible action sequences that reinforce its bland stature. All of this can be blamed upon the script and direction by Zwick, who fails to reach the heights that McQuarrie reached within the first film. It’s a shame that Zwick failed so hard, as he has built a respectable career upon dramatic and epic pieces of entertainment like Glory, The Last Samurai, and Blood Diamond. While Never Go Back is one of his smaller scaled films to date, it’s a hugely disappointing effort when held up to both its previous installment and all of Zwick’s other features.

Besides being an overly plotted film in which every single character only talks about the plight at hand, Never Go Back is barely a reintroduction or honorable representation of its titular character. After a small opening scene, that plays out far weaker than Zwick must have intended it to be, we are immediately thrust into the plot of the film with little time to get to know Reacher again. He is simply used as a vessel to carry us along a plot that we don’t care about while also providing us with some brutal beat downs and savage shootouts that don’t thrill us nearly as well as they could. While I have not read every single one of Lee Child’s ‘Jack Reacher’ novels, even I can tell that Never Go Back is a poor representation of the character. This film could have been about any action character, as there is very little to it that is distinctly ‘Jack Reacher’ about it. When you compare the charismatic, witty, and bad ass hero established in the first film, to this cold, morose, but still bad ass character from the second film, you’ll see a strong difference that reflects Zwick’s mishandling of the character and Cruise’s laziness as a performer and producer.

Mardi Gras Reacher

Speaking of Cruise, this might just be one of his weakest performances to date. He’s clearly going with the motions here, appearing bored and emotionally stagnant throughout, hardly demonstrating the charisma and energy of the movie star that he can be. Cruise joins the ranks of Liam Neeson as a superior movie star who has settled for less with straight forward action affair. While it’s great to see talented actors like Cruise tackle more straight forward action affair like this, as he has been doing for many years now, his disinterest in the genre, or specifically this project, is apparent. In all honesty, he has my permission to leave action behind and return to the more dramatic and comedic affair that made him a star.

On the action side of things, Never Go Back is a letdown, although not a complete failure. Whereas Jack Reacher featured crisp and inspired car chases, shootouts, and fist fights that benefited from their smooth cinematography and punchy sound design, the sequel is leaps and bounds weaker. It’s clear that Zwick doesn’t understand how to shoot a fight scene, let alone craft a fight scene within a plot that we care about, the way that McQuarrie does. The fights within Never Go Back are shot, edited, and scored to appear exciting, but simply aren’t so. They’re decent, thanks to some memorable moments such as a bloody take down within an airplane restroom and a kill upon a roof top. But overall, they suffer from weak coverage that reveals the production’s inability to produce visibly comprehensible action. I am glad to say that the shootouts fare better, although there are even less of those than the physical brawls. All in all, the action is far from insulting or cringe worthy, but Cruise and this franchise know and deserve better, and this is hardly their best.

On a final note, Never Go Back doesn’t feature a stellar supporting cast like the first, as it only has Cruise going for it, and even he is a let-down. The first film featured an absolutely fantastic supporting cast of major Hollywood players that made it more than just a Cruise super-show. Besides Cruise, who was at his best in the first, it also featured Rosamund Pike, Richard Jenkins, Jai Courtney, Robert Duvall, David Oyelowo, and Werner Herzog of all people. That cast alone raised it above the ranks of its similar B-movie ilk to A-movie heaven. 

However, Never Go Back’s DTV/B-movie stature is reinforced by its weak supporting cast who barely leave an impression. Smulders, who most will recognize from her turn as Agent Maria Hill in The Avengers movies, is stern and dull the entire run time. Other notable players include Robert Knepper, previously seen in this year’s Hard Target 2, as a corrupt general, although he is unfortunately denied much screen time. Patrick Heusinger acts as the film’s despicable right hand man, simply named “The Hunter,” but can’t hold a candle to Courtney’s time in the first, as he aims for a more over the top and insane performance that clashes with the rest of the film’s tone. However, it is Danika Yarosh, who plays Samantha, Reacher’s potential daughter, who gives the weakest performance of the bunch. If anything, Never Go Back is a reminder of the old days when Cruise was the main draw for most of his films.

Stuff like this doesn't matter if there isn't a feasible story to latch it onto.

In conclusion, Never Go Back, which should never be seen again, is a lackluster sequel that fails to reach the heights of the first, or even come out a commendable action effort. The first film, as well as many other of Cruise’s ventures, are far more memorable, and feature plenty of unforgettable and iconic scenes. Unfortunately, Never Go Back is as forgetful as they come. It’s nothing more than a bland studio actioner with decent action, a woeful plot, and Cruise doing his tough guy thing. If anything, the film will forever be damned to repeats on TNT, where it might as well have premiered due to its artistic pedigree. Fans of the first film, the long running book series, and competently made old fashioned action thrillers will probably come out severely disappointed. 

What was originally one of my more anticipated action films of the year is unfortunately nothing more than an average studio actioner that might be bad enough to prevent a third entry from ever happening. That being said, and if box office numbers prove to be good, a third entry from a better filmmaker and a more dedicated Cruise would be enough to make up for the mishap of this lackluster second entry in the series. Here’s to next time, Cruise. I look forward to when you fully return to the screen charismatic and determined.

Rating: 4.5/10 - Decent action is not enough to save this dull and morose sequel to one of the decade's finest action thrillers.

Reviews In This Series:
Jack Reacher: Never Go Back (Edward Zwick, 2016)

Collateral (2004)

Director: Michael Mann

Cast: Tom Cruise, Jamie Foxx, Mark Ruffalo, Jada Pinkett Smith, Javier Bardem

Country: United States

Rating: R

Run Time: 116 minutes

Even though Michael Mann has directed dramas, horror, and historical epics, the Mann (see what I did there) is most well known for his crime dramas. Films like Thief, Manhunter, Heat, Collateral, Miami Vice, Public Enemies, and Blackhat define Mann, flaws and all. Mann is a filmmaker who humanizes cops and criminals and gets at what makes them do the things that they do. He is one of the few filmmakers who makes criminals redeemable despite their heinous crimes. 

While some may say that Thief, Manhunter, and Heat are Mann's best films, I believe that Collateral is Mann's best feature film to date because it has a perfect balance of immersive character work, bad ass action, and thrilling storytelling. Everything comes together to create one of the best neo-noir action pictures of the last decade. It's unfortunate that Mann's career post-Collateral has somewhat tanked. Bland contemporary Mann films like Miami Vice and Blackhat pale in comparison to Mann's early work.

The Transporter meets The Assassin.

Collateral was a very important film for Mann's career. It was the first film that Mann shot extensive amounts of high definition footage. Mann's post-Collateral films are defined by their high definition photography. Therefore, Collateral was where Mann's high definition obsession began. Collateral was and still is Mann's biggest financial success to date, grossing an impressive $217 million off of a $64 million budget for an R-Rated film. The film also marks the jumping off point for Mann's longest streak of crime pictures to date, a whopping four in a row over the course of 11 years. At this point, Mann should just stick to crime dramas, as that is what he typically does best. However, I hope that Mann can remember what made Collateral so great and apply that to his contemporary works.

Collateral opens at an airport as a nameless man (Jason Statham in an odd cameo) passes off a briefcase to Vincent (Tom Cruise), an assassin in town for some work. We than meet Max (Jamie Fox in an Academy Award nominated role), our reluctant hero and cab driver from Los Angeles. After Max drops off a passenger named Annie (Jada Pinkett Smith), Vincent gets into Max's cab and asks him to drive to a guy's apartment. After Vincent gets out of the cab, he asks Max to wait outside for him. However, things turn sour as a dead body lands on top of Max's cab and freaks him out. It is here where Max realizes that Vincent killed the man. When Max tries to run, Vincent pulls a gun and makes Max get back into the taxi. Max now has to drive Vincent to his next four targets for the night or be killed himself. You can bet that there is some "collateral" damage throughout the night.

Even though I am not a fan of plot driven films, Collateral has an absolutely awesome one. One can't help but place themselves in Max's shoes as they watch him court an assassin around town with no other option but death. Collateral's greatest success is that it is entirely character driven despite its simplistic and sleek plot. I would argue that Collateral has both the finest screenplay and characters of any Mann film to date.

Two different men bond over the craziest cab drive of all time.

The film's dual performances by Tom Cruise and Jamie Foxx are first rate. These are truly two of the best performances of each actor's careers. I would go so far as to say this is Jamie Foxx's best performance next to his starring turns in Ray and Django Unchained. Foxx is absolutely incredible as a quiet but hesitant cab driver who dreams of owning a limousine company one day. However, he never acts on anything in his life and learns to change when he meets Vincent, an assassin for hire who pesters Max about his reluctance and accidentally motivates Max to change. Max's gradual transformation from timid bystander to active hero is incredibly believable thanks to Foxx's Oscar nominated performance, Stuart Beattie's incredible screenplay, and Mann's pitch perfect direction. Even the little details, like how Max forgets to flip the safety off of a gun the first time he fires it hammer home Foxx's owernship of the character.

On the other side of the coin is Cruise's turn as Vincent, a cold and calculated assassin with a sense of honor, righteousness, and respect. Vincent is Tom Cruise at truly his most bad ass and villainous. He kicks ass, racks up an impressive body count, and shows off his redeemable side all in one film. What makes Vincent such a great character is how Mann balances him as both a murderous villain and a likable person. Much like the lead criminal characters in Mann joints like Thief and Heat, Vincent is redeemable to an extent despite the fact that he murders people for a living. Vincent is more like a twisted conscious who sits above Max's shoulder, taking advantage of him throughout the night but also lecturing him as they go. Even though Vincent forces Max to drive him around and help him kill people, he takes the time to defend Max from his rude taxi boss over an intercom and lectures him to buy his sick mother flowers because she carried him in her womb for nine months. Little characteristics like these make Vincent a complex and likable villain who doesn't turn pure evil until the end of the film when he becomes sort of an unstoppable slasher villain.

Supporting turns by Jada Pinkett Smith as a kind taxi customer and Mark Ruffalo as a hardboiled cop help add to the film's authentic Los Angeles vibe. Even though both Smith and Ruffalo have a handful of scenes to work with, their characters are essential in furthering Max's arc. I don't want to spoil their fates, but all I can say is that Mann and screenwriter Beattie use two supposed throwaway characters as essential audience attention grabbers towards the end of the film. As I stated before, there is an odd cameo by Jason Statham of all people as a bag man. Statham had already co-starred in both Snatch and The Italian Job and frontlined The Transporter by 2004, so his cameo is truly perplexing. The most truly perplexing cameo of the entire film is a one scene inclusion of the great Javier Bardem (No Country for Old Men, Skyfall) as Felix, Max's mobster boss. Upon rewatching the film for my review, I was completely taken aback by Bardem's appearance, as I had not remembered him being in the film at all.

Trademark Michael Mann precision shooting.

Collateral is a nail biter of a neo-noir actioner with some incredibly bad ass action sequences and truly tense moments that will have you on the edge of your seat. The infamous "Yo homie, that my briefcase," scene in which Tom Cruise guns down two thugs in 1.39 seconds makes the entire film worth watching solely for its inclusion. Michael Mann films are notable for their precision shooting and incredibly realistic gun play. Mann is infamous for taking his actors to shooting ranges and having them rehearse their action scenes with live ammunition. That way, each actor knows the action sequence by heart and looks like they truly know what they are doing when they fire a gun. You can't get more realistic than that. 

The Club Fever sequence marks the action climax of the film in which every character converges on one location for an action packed shootout that showcases Tom Cruise at the top of his precision shooting game. Watching Cruise fall to the ground, roll, grab a gun, fire it while laying down, and than quickly make his way up from one knee, to both of his feet while still firing is breathtaking. For all of the Cruise haters out there, all I can say to them is that Cruise is one of the hardest working actors today because he immerses himself into his work simply for our entertainment. Collateral is a good action film to show to picky cinematic viewers who complain about the lack of realism in an action film whenever a character fires a gun 30 times before reloading or jumps through air and miraculously connects their bullets with a target. Collateral is about as realistic as an action film can get and that is all thanks to Mann's attention to detail and Cruise's devotion to the art of action.

Max Mann's up.

Collateral is a near perfect action thriller. The character work by Foxx and Cruise is unforgettable. By the time you reach the film's inevitable final confrontation between the two characters, you truly feel saddened at the outcome. Seeing Foxx and Cruise sit apart from each other, guns in hand, on a subway train makes for one of the best endings to any Michael Mann film to date (don't worry, I didn't spoil anything for you about the finale). Collateral is the Michael Mann film to beat. Heat may have the more epic storyline and better action, Thief may have the greater score, and Manhunter may be the most influential police procedural film to date, but Collateral trumps them all in my opinion. I'll take a tense and realistic trump through Los Angeles set over the course of one night in which Jamie Foxx and Tom Cruise have deep conversations with one another any day over the likes of Heat or Manhunter. I highly recommend Collateral to all action fans and consider it to be a defining film of the digital generation of filmmaking. It defines the Los Angeles noir film for the modern age.

Rating: 9/10 - Superb action, stellar character work, and great L.A. photography make Collateral one of the best action films (and films in general) of the early 2000s.

Mission-Impossible-a-Thon, Part 4 - Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (2011)

Director: Brad Bird

Cast: Tom Cruise, Simon Pegg, Jeremy Renner, Paula Patton, Michael Nyqvist

Country: United States

Rating: PG-13

Run Time: 132 minutes

One of my favorite things about the Mission: Impossible franchise is that there is typically four to six years in between each entry. Therefore, each installment feels well earned and never rushed. Each film always feels essential to the times and gives Cruise another chance to play the ever lovable Ethan Hunt. That's another thing I love about this franchise; Cruise doesn't rely upon it for his career. He does all types of films in between each Mission entry. When Cruise does return to a Mission film though, it feels like we are meeting up with an old friend who has a new bag of tricks to show us. And in Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol, that bag of tricks includes a car chase in a sand storm, a fight inside of a futuristic parking garage, and Tom Cruise climbing the tallest building on the planet. 

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol is currently the highest grossing entry in the franchise. It is also the most critically hailed entry as well, with numerous critics praising the film's humor, pace, and unbearable tension. Interestingly enough, the film was directed by first time live action director Brad Bird, well known for masterful animated features like The Iron Giant, The Incredibles, and Ratatouille. It's interesting watching Ghost Protocol because it's not often that animated filmmakers make live action films. Therefore, it's harder to spot the filmatisms that reflect Bird's works the way that De Palma, Woo, and Abrams left their mark all over their respective franchise entries. Still, Bird's Mission is an exciting entry in the series and one that serves as a throwback to the De Palma days in which Ethan engaged in various heists instead of shootouts. If Bird had tossed in a few bad ass gun fights into the mix, than Ghost Protocol would probably be my favorite entry in the series. 

Cruise runs for his life from Mother Russia's Kremlin.

Ghost Protocol's plot is arguably the most complex of the franchise yet. In this entry, we meet Ethan as he breaks out of a Russian prison with help from fellow agents Benji (Simon Pegg now expanded to a significant supporting role) and Jane (newcomer Paula Patton). Ethan and his team than make their way to the Kremlin in Russia and infiltrate the building in order to obtain files identifying a man known as "Cobalt." However, the mission ends in disaster when "Cobalt" bombs the Kremlin and makes the IMF appear responsible in an attempt at sparking a nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia. As a result, The United States Government enacts Ghost Protocol; this disavows the entire IMF until they can prove themselves innocent of the attack. It is than up to Ethan, Benji, Jane, and additional newcomer Brandt (Jeremy Renner, The Bourne Legacy) to stop Cobalt from nuking the U.S. and to clear their names. As usual with the franchise, a mere four agents go up against impossible odds and come out on top. However, Ghost Protocol squeezes in an essential sub-plot concerning Ethan's wife Julia that pays off in a big way and for the first time establishes actual continuity between franchise entries.

Ghost Protocol is a very tense and exciting globe trotting spy thriller that takes us from Russia to Mumbai. The film is packed with memorable characters, varied settings, and stunning set pieces that remind the viewer why Mission: Impossible is such a great blockbuster franchise. Even though Ethan and his team travel the globe in the film, all of the set pieces and character moments are small scaled in nature. No matter how large a battle Man of Steel or The Avengers ends on, none of those films can compete with the compact tension on display in Ghost Protocol's technologically advanced parking garage fight and the now infamous Burj climbing sequence.

Unfortunately, Ghost Protocol is more of a team driven film focused on gadgets and plot than an action film starring Tom Cruise. Cruse is still the lead, but the lead of a team given equal screen time and substantial backstories. This is both a negative and a positive. It is a positive in that each team member feels like an actual character instead of an archetypal computer hacker or fist fighter. Whereas previous IMF agents were typically bland characters, Ghost Protocol's teammates are fully fleshed out characters with miniature story arcs of their own.

Just running down the world's tallest building. No big deal.

However, this team driven nature of the film is a negative in that the focus is taken off of Ethan. I love the team driven nature of the film, I really do. But, I prefer my Ethan Hunt when he is the star running around and fighting people a-la M:i:I, M:i:II, and M:i:III. Ghost Protocol is great stuff, but it lacks the gritty, personal, and grounded bad-ass nature that made parts of M:i:II good and all of M:i:III great. The only time that Ghost Protocol encroaches upon gritty and bad-ass action is in the final action sequence. As Ethan chases Cobalt around a technologically advanced parking garage, the two beat the crap out of one another and leap from one moving platform to another. It makes for an incredibly tense sequence filled with moments that will make you gasp and hold your breath. Even though all of the film's other set pieces are solid, none of them give me that bad-ass thrill that the motorcycle chase from M:i:II or the bridge attack from M:i:III gave me.

That select personal opinion being said, Ghost Protocol is still great entertainment as far as team driven films go. All of the set pieces are a lot of fun and blockbuster filmmaking at its finest. Ghost Protocol might have the most variety in its set pieces than any other entry in the franchise. In one film, we see Ethan escape from prison, break into the Kremlin, escape a sunken car, climb up and down the side of the world's tallest building, fight a group of henchies inside of said building, chase Cobalt in a sand storm, and than fight Cobalt once and for all inside of a parking garage. Talk about bang for your buck. Most fans remember the Burj sequence as the almighty show stopper of both the film and the entire franchise. I have to admit, the Burj sequence is incredible stuff bolstered by both its practicality (no green screens here) and sheer insanity (Ethan runs down a freaking building).

As I stated before, the supporting teammates are one of the film's strongest points. Benji is upgraded to a larger supporting role from his small three scene appearance in M:i:III. Pegg is one of the best comedic voices in cinema today. Therefore, I am happy to see Shaun of the Dead himself become a staple of the franchise. Jeremy Renner and Paula Patton are fantastic additions as well. Unfortunately, franchise regulars Ving Rhames and Michelle Monaghan are reduced to small cameos in the film's final scene. While it sucks to go through an entire Mission film without our hacker friend Luther or Ethan's newly established wife, their single scene inclusion is well spent.

Renner and Patton take aim at Cruise in one of the film's tensest scenes.

Now that I think of it, Ghost Protocol lacks both a helping heaping of bad ass action and a bad ass villain. Phillip Seymour Hoffman's villainous performance from M:i:III was one for the books. He owned that film with every second he had on screen. Unfortunately, Ghost Protocol's villain is barely memorable or visible. Cobalt, portrayed by Michael Nyqvist (also of John Wick villainy), has very few scenes to establish a menacing presence or leave a lasting impact on the viewer. It's clear that Bird wanted the villain to be kept in the shadows as much as possible. The character pops up for the first time out of nowhere in the middle of the Kremlin mission and doesn't truly reappear until the very end of the film. There's nothing wrong with Nyqvist's performance, it's just that his character has no character, plain and simple. It's also a bummer to watch a Mission film where the lead villain has a single henchman and no cronies to back him up. I love a good Mission film where the villain has number of cronies for Ethan to shoot up or take on. It also makes a villain seem more prominent when they have a group of men working for them. Therefore, Ghost Protocol's villain leaves much to be desired. I guess we should be thankful that Nyqvist isn't as bad as Dougray Scott in M:i:II.

It seems that after three entries, Paramount is done with numbering their Mission films. We live in a day and age where studios seem ashamed at numbering their franchise entries. It's rare that a franchise entry includes any number above three next to its title. The only contemporary franchise I can think of that wears its numbers proudly on its sleeve is the Fast and Furious franchise, currently at entry number seven. However, most contemporary franchise entries (Captain America: The Winter Soldier, X-Men: Days of Future Past) incorporate a sub-title next to the main title in order to avoid sequel fatigue. I'm sad to say it but Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol is the first entry in its series to ditch the roman numerals. I have always found roman numerals to be a classy way to number your franchise entries anyways. And with the recently titled Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation set for release in July 2015, it seems the numerals are out for good.

I am also sad to report that Ethan's alternating hair length ends here. While each entry has alternated Ethan's hair length, the recently revealed fifth entry shows Ethan with a long head of hair. I was really hoping that Cruise would have a short head of hair a-la Jack Reacher to go with his second McQuarrie team up. Oh well, let's hope the film is good despite Tom Cruise's hair cut.

This parking garage sequence is infinitely re-watchable. It's that great.

After the one-two-punch of Mission: Impossible III and Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol, I cannot wait for what Christopher McQuarrie's Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation has in store for us. The Mission: Impossible franchise is currently on a role and I could not be happier about it. Ghost Protocol is a great entry that any one can enjoy. For the first time in the series, you don't have to be a Tom Cruise fan to find enjoyment in this globe trotting thriller. If you don't connect with Cruise, you'll be sure to connect with one of the likable teammates or tense heists scattered throughout the film. This is still a solid entry in the series that any action fan should enjoy despite the lack of grounded/personal action or a truly menacing villain. I'll be back to celebrate the Ethan Hunt saga in July with...Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation! Until then, I recommend revisiting all four of the Mission: Impossible installments in order to get caught up on the series.

Rating: 9/10 - Although I prefer Ethan Hunt and his fellow antagonist to be more deadly and bad ass, this is a truly fantastic spy thriller that sets the bar high for future franchise entries.

Franchise:
Mission: Impossible (1996, dir. Brian De Palma)
Mission: Impossible II (2000, dir. John Woo)
Mission: Impossible III (2006, dir. J.J. Abrams)
Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (2011, dir. Brad Bird)
Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation (2015, dir. Christopher McQuarrie)

Mission-Impossible-a-Thon, Part 3 - Mission: Impossible III (2006)

Director: J.J. Abrams

Cast: Tom Cruise, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Keri Russell, Ving Rhames, Billy Crudup

Country: United States

Rating: PG-13

Run Time: 125 minutes

Now is the perfect time to revisit J.J. Abrams' Mission: Impossible III because there is both a new J.J. Abrams film (something called Star Wars: The Force Awakens) and a new Mission: Impossible film coming out in the same year. All of the lense flare and exciting action that Abrams has become known for started right here with the third installment of Mission: Impossible. Abrams has quickly become one of the most well known names in Hollywood for his many producing credits on projects like Cloverfield and Lost and his dual Star Trek films. For those who are curious, I absolutely love his Star Trek reboot from 2009 and consider it to be one of the best reboots ever made and one of the great contemporary science fiction films. The sequel, not so much, but that's besides the point. Therefore, let us see where the origins of Abrams' Hollywood takeover began with Mission: Impossible III!

Even though M:i:II was a huge commercial success, Paramount could not have churned out a worse entry for the franchise. M:i:II is a dumb as nails action film that took all of the spy and heist tactics out of what started as a spy franchise. Therefore, maybe it was for the best that Paramount took a six year hiatus with the series and took their time with the next sequel. What they delivered was M:i:III, Abrams' directorial debut and a darn good entry in the series. M:i:III combined the memorable spy tactics from the first entry and the shoot 'em up action from the second entry in order to deliver a crowd pleasing action blockbuster that provided something for everyone. M:i:III is quite possibly one of the best representations of a Hollywood blockbuster. The film moves at a swift pace, delivers several exciting action scenes, gives the audience a little romance to swoon over, tosses a few laughs in for good measure, provides us with a chilling villain to hate, maybe has a twist or two, and never takes any risks for good or for bad. If aliens ever came to our planet and asked what a Hollywood blockbuster was, I would show them M:i:III.

The distinctive Abrams style started here.

M:i:III starts with the best opening scene in the entire series. Seriously, it'll be tough to ever top the greatness found in the first four minutes. Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) awakes chained to a chair with his new wife Julia (Michelle Monaghan) tied up in front of him. Owen Damian (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) stands in front of Ethan with a gun to his wife's head. He repeatedly asks Ethan to tell him the location of the "rabbit's foot" or else he will shoot his wife by the count of 10. What follows is a nail biting and tense opener that shows Tom Cruise in one of his most vulnerable moments. And than...bang!

We than flash back to the past to figure out how Ethan got into this mess. Ethan is no longer on active field duty because he is now married. However, when IMF contacts Ethan and tells him that an agent he once trained has been captured, he decides to go back into active field duty in order to save her. Even though Ethan finds himself reunited with his old friend Luther (Ving Rhames), he quickly learns that active field duty and a wife don't mix well. What follows is two hours of action, suspense, and villainy as Ethan goes up against the cold hearted Owen Damian, his most formidable foe yet.

One of M:i:III's strongest elements is its believable relationship between Ethan and Julia. While the first installment lacked any romance, M:i:II based its entire plot around the sexual tension between Ethan and Thandie Newton's Naya. However, the romance was so forced and heavy handed that no viewer believed the two's love for one other. Therefore, Abrams wisely scrapped the Naya character from the franchise altogether and gave Ethan a believable wife that humanizes him. This relationship dynamic also helps audiences connect with the film better. I could easily see my girlfriend, someone who doesn't care for action films, connecting with this film because of this. Abrams and fellow screenwriters Robert Orci and Alex Kurtzman did a great job showing what happens to Ethan when he tries to hide his job from his wife. Therefore, Ethan finds himself more vulnerable than ever before in this installment because his desire for an everyday relationship puts both his job and wife in jeopardy. If Ethan was an unstoppable action hero in M:i:II, than he is a relatable and human action hero here.

Is it too early for Phillip Seymour Hoffman jokes?

M:i:III features not only a better love interest, but also a far superior villain. Dougray Scott's villainous performance from M:i:II was so bad that he bordered on self parody. Therefore, Abrams went in the exact opposite direction with his Mission villain by directing the great Phillip Seymour Hoffman to play the villain as straight and cold as possible. Hoffman's Damian is a cruel villain who makes a big impact with surprisingly little screen time. It's a shame to see Damian only survive one Mission installment, because he truly makes for Ethan's greatest foe yet. The supporting cast is leaps and bounds better than M:i:II's as well. Rhames does great work as always as Luther, his respective franchise character. We are also introduced to yet another head of IMF, this time played by Laurence Fishburne (The Matrix). I don't know what is up with IMF and their leaders, but they consistently change from picture to picture. We also get good turns by Maqqie Q (Live Free or Die Hard), Johnathan Rhys Myers (From Paris With Love), Keri Russell (Dawn of the Planet of the Apes), Billy Crudup (Watchmen), and the always amazing Simon Pegg (Hot Fuzz).

As I stated previously, M:i:III's action scenes are nowhere near as excellent as the ones in M:i:II. One of my biggest issues with Abrams' eye for action is that he allows the camera to shake far too often. In most of the film's action scenes, the shot repeatedly shakes and is far too often a close up than a medium shot. This close up shakey cam style renders some of the action incomprehensible and deprives the film of the gracefulness that Woo showcased so brilliantly. Say what you want about M:i:II, but Woo directed the hell out of that film's action sequences. On the bright side though, M:i:III does contain a few solid and comprehensible set pieces. The best set piece in the film is the bridge attack that occurs exactly in the middle of the film's runtime. This scene is made all the better because it is set atop a bridge over water, thereby rendering escape impossible for our characters. Also, you just have to love the shot in which a missile blows up a car behind Tom Cruise and tosses him through the air into a car next to him. Great stuff.

M:i:III is yet another film that proves why Tom Cruise is the king of on screen running. I don't know what it is, but few actors can run as well as Cruise does. Cruise is so tense and believable while in a jog that I would love to watch a film where Cruise plays a marathon runner for goodness sakes. M:i:I and M:i:II also contain great Tom Cruise running moments. However, M:i:III takes the running cake as it is filled to the brim with sprinting sequences in which Cruise runs his heart out. I also have to mention that M:i:III marks a trend of the franchise in which Tom Cruise's hair length alternates with each film. His hair is short in the first film, long in the second, short in the third, and long in the fourth. I hope that Christopher McQuarrie and Cruise keep this tradition running with M:i:V because I prefer Cruise's hair short and not long, it makes him look younger. Plus it's just fun to spot an alternating trend in a franchise and see it play out over 20 years of movies.

M:i:III, the revival of the series.

M:i:II nearly killed the franchise despite its massive box office intake, plain and simple. It was a dumb and stupid actioner that took all of the character out of Ethan Hunt and provided us with next to no genuine suspense. However, Abrams found a way to bring the series back to its glory by fusing the best elements of both M:i:I and M:i:II together into one cohesive entry. Mission: Impossible III is a darn good summer blockbuster that takes no major risks and commits no major offenses. Even though I complained about the film's shaky cam issues, the rest of the film's strengths out weigh these mere moments of queasy cam syndrome. Interestingly enough, this entry is the lowest grossing of the franchise. It's crazy to think that more people saw John Woo's dove fest than this superior thriller. However, it was M:i:III that set the franchise back on its feet and on the path towards Ghost Protocol greatness. My hat goes off to Abrams and friends for making a darn good action film that holds up even a decade later.

Rating: 8/10 - A fast paced and entertaining summer blockbuster that fuses the best elements of both M:i:I and M:i:II.

Franchise:
Mission: Impossible (1996, dir. Brian De Palma)
Mission: Impossible II (2000, dir. John Woo)
Mission: Impossible III (2006, dir. J.J. Abrams)
Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (2011, dir. Brad Bird)
Mission: Impossible V (2015, dir. Christopher McQuarrie)