Full of boring slow motion and silly 'artistic' touches and daft music.

To each their own. I also really disliked it the first time I saw it, but considerably liked it more with each subsequent viewing. As it stands, I would rate the series as follows
3,5,2,4,1

Woo's style is one of two things that keep this film watchable.

And Woo didn't get 'his way" on this film, it was heavily screwed with by the studio and editor Stuart Baird.

I don't care about your quotation marks, artistic should be nowhere near this film.

Book: http://geeksteronmovies.blogspot.com/p/the-geekster-guide.html
Votes: 3,505

It is an awesome movie an action packed thriller with direction from renowned film maker John woo. You don't know what you on about.

http://whatculture.com/film-tv/10-most-boring-blockbusters-of-all-time?page=4

At 126 minutes, this is the longest of the first 3 Mission Impossible adventures, but the director is John Woo, so it must be crammed with outrageous gunfights and death defying mayhem, right?

Well, no.

Instead of Woo’s usual stylized action sequences, there’s one blah chase sequence at the end of the film, but that’s pretty much it in terms of excitement. The rest of the film is taken up with an uninteresting “story” (inspired by Hitchcock’s Notorious) about Tom Cruise attempting to woo Thandie Newton away from Dougray Scott, one of those heh-heh-heh villains with a diabolical masterplan involving a virus.

It’s a sign of how boring the film is that prior to its release, Paramount decided to give it an 11th hour re-edit to jazz up the narrative. For a princely $750,000, expert editor Stuart Baird (Superman, Lethal Weapon) was brought in to cut the film down to around 2 hours, but his efforts appeared to be in vain. “After a while,” claimed critic Leonard Maltin, “it’s simply boring.”