(Review originally written at 7 July 2007) This always looked like a good movie but I was afraid it would a difficult one and one that would be not always easy to follow. A typical movie that would also be full of itself and would try and look smarter and extra complicated than really necessary. I'll admit that in the beginning it also looked that way, when it kept jumping back and forth between past and present time. It made it hard to always understand what was going on and who all those characters were. But about halve an hour through the movie it got better and more understandable to follow, since it also becomes slowly obvious that the leaps in time were put in for story purposes and in the end were also actually essential for the movie. The movie is still an hard one to follow at certain points, which is mostly due to the many characters and names appearing in the movie. It gets all the more complicated when it seems that not all characters are who they say they are. The movie is especially difficult if you don't know at forehand what it is about. It doesn't become obvious in the movie until late that it's about the founding of the CIA. The movie its story didn't seemed to be the most interesting or intriguing (At first I was like; Oh no! Not another movie about the cold war!) one to follow but the movie makes some interesting and great choices, that always keep the movie intriguing, mysterious and in parts even tense. Thank the writer and director for that! It seems to me that the movie was deliberately kept small. They could had easily overblown things, especially with this sort of cast but every character and role in the movie is as big as needed and the movie does not have the usually typical thriller elements or other action spy-movie elements, though the movie in essence of course still is a spy-movie. The fact that the movie wasn't made as big was probably also a reason why this movie was a pleasant one to watch. The cast is great. Robert De Niro obviously had no difficulties with getting some big names to appear in his movie. Some even settle with appearing in some small roles. I'm talking about people such as Michael Gambon, John Turturro, William Hurt, Billy Crudup, Alec Baldwin (it's funny, the older he gets, the better his acting) and even Angelina Jolie, who is the second billing actor of the movie its role is kept small. It's really not the sort of role she usually plays. Also De Niro himself makes an appearance in the movie as does his good friend Joe Pesci, with his first role in 8 years. The main character is not always an easy one. It's a very quiet man, who also doesn't really seem to known how to express his feelings and therefor not the most appealing character, though definitely not the least interesting one of the movie. It's the reason why this probably isn't one of Matt Damon's most memorable roles but it of course doesn't mean that he didn't do a great job. What probably surprised me most about the movie was how well balanced it was. It isn't just a 'drama' it isn't just a 'thriller', it's a mix of several genre styles that all work out great together. Especially the relationship elements of the movie worked out well. Normally it's just put in the movie for commercial reasons and to appeal more to a certain group of audience. But in this case it was a real enrichment for the movie and its story. The movie also definitely has style. Visually the movie is good looking with the good cinematography from Robert Richardson and the nice looking sets and costumes that help to set up the right atmosphere for the movie, that's also consistent with the time period the movie is set in. Of course there still are some lesser things about the movie but especially for a 'non-director' like Robert De Niro is, it's a really great and well made movie. 8/10 Watch trailer
(Review originally written at 2 November 2006) People complained about "Mission: Impossible II" how incredibly simple the story was (and of course I agree on that) but in my opinion the story of "Mission: Impossible III" is even simpler and weaker. "Mission: Impossible III" doesn't even tell its story by its actors, or script but rather with the one big action sequences after the other. All style but no substance. I'm probably the only person on the planet who fully understood an enjoyed "Mission:Impossible" and I also enjoyed watching "Mission:Impossible II", mainly thanks to its wonderful directed action. I expected a lot from "Mission: Impossible III", especially when it started to receive positive and even raving reviews in the media. In the end the movie didn't deliver. The action is great but the build up of it all and the story- and storytelling is too lacking to make this an enjoyable must-see action spectacle. This movie really is basically the one big action sequences after the other. The movie doesn't allow us to catch our breath for a moment and before you fully can process what happened you're already in the middle of the next big fast action sequence. I'm sure this was all perfectly good and impressive to see on the big screen but on the small screen it's not good enough to compensate for the movie its story and other flawed elements. It's too paced and too lacking in development or depth. The movie jumps from the one sequence and location to the other. We're in Germany and before we know it in America then China and back again, etcetera. It also sort of makes you wonder why the movie had to be set at locations spread all over the world. It doesn't really add anything to the movie its story or atmosphere. It rather seems like a waste of money and it also doesn't always make the movie flow well. In the movie the story really plays no part in the movie. The movie is lacking proper development and the few story-elements that are present in the movie are far from well executed. When watching this movie it becomes that director J.J. Abrams only has experience with work for TV. He tells this movie as a TV series episode, meaning that everything happens quick without giving it ever much depth or time to think. Basically everything that happens in this movie and in the story is build up in 5 minutes and ended in that same 5 minutes again. This unfortunately also is the case in the disappointing finale. This is the sort of build up used for television series but for movies it just doesn't work well. I'm afraid that J.J. Abrams will always keep directing movies like that and as long as this remains the case, I'll probably not become a fan of him. I'm no Tom Cruise hater, on the contrary. In my opinion he is the biggest and best action hero star of the moment. What other actor makes such great action movies and delivers an Oscar worthy performance as well? He plays the role of Ethan Hunt for the third time in this movie and in this one he is the most emotional and humane on, since he is attacked on his personal feelings. This also was already the case in "Mission: Impossible" but in this movie even more. It does provide the movie with some depth but this isn't always handled well. It makes some of the sequences feel out of place and in contrast with the rest of the movie. Philip Seymour Hoffman plays an excellent villain role mainly because well, he is such a great actor. He absolutely steals the show in most of the sequences that he is in. His character is however lacking a proper background and motivations, which makes his character feel flat and far from interesting. The rest of the movie seems pretty weirdly cast with roles for Billy Crudup, Simon Pegg and Jonathan Rhys Meyers, not the mostly likely actors to appear in a big action movie (same goes for Philip Seymour Hoffman by the way) but they all fit their roles well and are an enrichment for the movie. Laurence Fishburne is also quite good in his role. Ving Rhames reprises his role of Luther Stickell for the third time and this time is most definitely the least interesting one. Of course the big and well made action sequences are reasons why this movie is still better than your average action-flick. The big budget for the movie is obvious and spend on lots of big explosions, gun fights and chase sequences. The action movie lovers will not complain. The special effects are also good but nothing Oscar worthy. They certainly don't look like 'an $150,000,000-movie' worthy. The camera-work was good. I was quite fond of the shaky cam effects and they made the action sequences look even more spectacular. The musical score from new upcoming composer Michael Giacchino was also truly great. With this movie he proofs that he can handle big movies as well and just as good as the can handle popular games and television work. Hopefully he'll get the chance to do more projects like this one in the near future. An Oscar before 2010 for him? Conclusion; If this was a TV-series episode it would had been one of the best ever but as a movie it simple falls short, mostly of some of the basic things. 6/10 Watch trailer
