Making a good film sequel is a tricky task. The very reasons that demand a sequel are part of its downfall. The original is usually a good movie, or popular at the very least. Expectations are thus built in, and while succeeding at the box office often isn't difficult, creating a quality movie is an entirely different challenge. If a movie exceeds expectations (Batman Begins), then the reviews often rave more than they might have otherwise. Similarly, if a movie fails to deliver (content_117741751940, Godfather III), opinions will be harsher than the film merits. Occasionally a movie will precisely intersect with the expectations (at least mine), resulting in a satisfying experience that doesn't stir the viewer aggressively one way or the other. Enter Mission: Impossible III.

Following 1996's very good Mission: Impossible and 2000's so-so sequel, M:I-3 takes place not long following, as Tom Cruise's agent Ethan Hunt is trying to settle down in his relationship with Julia (Michelle Monaghan). Of course an international crisis arises, and he is therefore forced to balance his personal life with the immediate demands of his secret superspy life.

That's where first-time movie director J.J. Abrams comes in. As creator of television's Alias and Lost, his specialty is exploring the personal and psychological sides of people placed in extreme situations, an aspect that needed to be injected into this franchise. The original touched on it a little, but was so plot-driven that character was scarcely necessary. M:I-2 tried to add a personal touch, but in a largely ineffective manner more referenced than shown. Blatantly adding a layer of humanity in this third edition proves to be a key choice if for no other reason than to differentiate it from its predecessor.

That is because the M:I-3 itself is fairly straightforward, with a plot complex in a less gimmicky way than M:I-2 but not as labyrinthine as M:I. In fact the lack of uniqueness is the movie's biggest weakness. Little of the movie is poorly done, but the wow factor is also largely absent. With the exception of one good cringe-inducing moment, nothing will induce a significant reaction from the viewer. This can be attributed to the inherent nature of both the franchise and the genre. It's a Mission: Impossible movie, so you know you're getting outrageous stunts, daring covert operations, and plenty of action; and you more or less know who's living and dying. You don't know the precise route the movie is going to take, you know the starting point, the destination, and a few pit stops in between. Like a superhero film, suspension of disbelief is required, but there is no ethereal mythos present in good superhero movies, which limits the emotional power here.

All of that that isn't entirely a bad thing. There's a comfort in seeing familiar characters in a mostly predictable action flick, as long as the movie is decently made, which this is. Abrams does not take noticeable chances, but more importantly he does not make noticeable mistakes. He does not overwhelm the story with his style, something that John Woo struggled with in M:I-2. Abrams' trademark hand-held camera shots, which looked like they might be obtrusive in the trailers, work well with the kinetic energy of the picture. Once M:I-3 kicks things in gear, it doesn't stop, and still wraps things up in timely fashion. Abrams wisely kept the movie compact at just over two hours, in part by opting not to explain key MacGuffins and omitting scenes that would have been redundant, leaving the movie fresh enough to please until the end.

Mission: Impossible III is cinematic fast food. You choose a restaurant like Wendy's because you like something there (mmm...spicy chicken) and you know what you're getting. When finished, you aren't blown away by the quality, but neither are you left wanting for something better. Same thing here. Given the path that this franchise has traveled, you won't walk out raving about M:I-3, but neither will you be disappointed. While that leaves the viewer in a strange emotional limbo, it's also reassuring that decent summer blockbusters can still be produced in an era with far too many big budget disasters like Catwoman. Go see it. Have a good time. Enjoy the ride. 7 of 10, which may be a point high just because it's the start of the summer season.


**SPOILER ALERT**

P.S. Who else liked the Lost similarities? Running along with the camera? CPR anyone? When it initially didn't work, I was thinking Jack needed to be there to pound on the chest cavity. Voila. It worked again.


Recommended:
Yes