Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol
Directed by:
Brad BirdCinematography:
Robert ElswitComposer:
Michael GiacchinoCast:
Tom Cruise, Paula Patton, Simon Pegg, Jeremy Renner, Michael Nyqvist, Vladimir Mashkov, Samuli Edelmann, Ivan Shvedoff, Anil Kapoor, Léa Seydoux, Josh Holloway (more)VOD (1)
Plots(1)
The IMF is shut down when it’s implicated in a global terrorist bombing plot. Ghost Protocol is initiated and Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) and his rogue new team must go undercover to clear their organization’s name. No help, no contact, off the grid. You have never seen a mission grittier and more intense than this. (official distributor synopsis)
Videos (43)
Reviews (13)
After an excellent part 3, Ghost Protocol falls a little short, but what it loses in violence and fatefulness, it gains in humor, elegance and a greater team spirit. The layering between action and story is most similar to part one, but this one lacks suspense and fear for the hero (the entire threat of nuclear war just doesn’t come across at all threateningly). The only exception is the middle part in Dubai which delivers the requisite genre entertainment to the letter, innovates and drives deep. Technical gadgets (although still faulty) play a much greater role than before and are (along with Pegg) the source of the best jokes. Jerry Renner with his snappy lines is also excellent, in a very different role than we are used to. And just a shame that Josh Holloway didn’t get much of a chance to warm up in this movie.
()
The concern that Bird, who undoubtedly has a liking for technology, would bury the franchise that Abrams jump-started under a pile of modern gadgets was unfounded. High-tech gadgets are the last thing that the participants in this experiential journey to the roots of the franchise can rely on, though they encourage the film’s most inspiring contemplation on the relationship between the copy and the original, between virtual action and its real consequences (the manifold duplication of reality – one sequence even involves the creation of a situation that is just coming together – smacks of a Baudrillard-esque simulacrum; the scene of controlling Brandt with a hovercraft works with an extreme form of computer simulation, when the life of a person depends on technology). ___ Inoperable technology and lack of time force the agents to come up with alternative solutions on the fly, which slightly undermines the otherwise unshakable certainty that everything will turn out well and no one important will come to harm. During Hunt’s perilous feat of skyscraper-climbing – a more adrenaline-fueled version of Harold Lloyd’s brilliant Safety Last! – my hair seriously stood on end a few times despite the cartoonish exaggeration when the protagonists laugh at the fact that if something goes wrong, in the worst case they will die. Animated films and classic slapstick can be “sensed” in most of the action scenes with animate objects (the gloves), brilliant gradations (jumping on the train) and geometric use of space (the climax with parallel use of multiple directions of movement). Even without the stereoscopic effect, the steep ascent followed by a descent induces nausea similar to that experienced on a roller-coaster ride. ___ Before Pixar started making action movies, the perfect balance of suspense and humour was the domain of Bond films, but after the reboot with Daniel Craig, the Bond franchise became more serious and cleared the field of expensive, bombastic entertainment for others. Mission: Impossible doesn’t have a comparably charismatic protagonist in Cruise, but the screenwriters do an excellent job with exaggeration within the bounds of tolerability and artful creation of BIG action-packed situations. Bird helps to patch the bigger holes in the logic (could they really not have waited for the Dubai deal to take place and then follow the people involved?) by directing the action scenes and the screenplay with self-referential moments (“light the fuse”, the recording doesn’t self-destruct, “Mission accomplished”). ___ Because of their status as undesirables, the protagonists lack a firm background. As a band of outcasts (as opposed to the individual renegades that are currently in fashion), they have to be constantly on the move and deal with their private matters while they’re on the run. It would benefit the film if they didn’t address those matters and thus disrupt the professional prioritisation of global interests over the characters’ own personal interests. Also, because of the flashbacks, which slow the film’s pace, the narrative is not the most cohesive. It doesn't keep us in constant suspense as to what’s coming in the next minute and it comes close to being another manifestation of the syndrome that afflicts so many contemporary animated films, in which the piling up of attractions replaces a more well-thought-out narrative structure. It also lacks a more loathsome villain (Nyqvist isn’t bad, but he isn’t given appropriate space) and a more impactful climax (just an airbag commercial followed by a theatrical “fizzling out”), but it’s still the fastest-paced action film made in Hollywood this year. 80%
()
(less)
(more)
Mission Impossible is and always has been a great series of great action shots. I’ve always been more interested in them than the story itself, which was never exactly perfect but it managed to captivate my interest. In this instalment, I was more interested in the huge list of interesting actors. Cool Tom Cruise is a classic, but Simon Pegg also amused me a lot. On the other hand, it is a pity that Michael Nyqvist did not have a more remarkable part and that you can’t even tell that some scenes were shot in the Czech Republic. The important thing is that the director of animated movies was able to make one of the best action films that I have seen in the last few years. And I think that when I give it a go again, I might increase my rating to five stars, because some scenes here were really at the level of an action orgasm and I couldn’t get enough of them. Tom Cruise is really a champ, considering what I heard about how well he treated ordinary people on the set in Mladá Boleslav, and especially the fact that he shot all the action scenes himself. I bow down before him.
()
I had a little problem reviewing Ghost Protocol. The fact is that I didn't enjoy the film at all from the beginning and it was clearly heading toward parts of the film world that mean nothing to me. On the other hand, if I were to be objective, the film was better than some of the previous installments in the series, so I should go back to the older ones and reassess them. As others have said, it's a parade of beautiful people (women, men), and beautiful things (high-tech toys, perfectly fitting suits from expensive fashion houses). It could be meant as a compliment, but I don't feel that way about it. I would also add that it has very unobtrusive but effective product placement. What is visually attractive about Ghost Protocol, meaning the set design, effects, and non-stop action, doesn't impress me. The high-tech gadgets rather annoy me and overall, I would describe the direction the series took as a worse aspect of Bond's legacy. At least Bond has style and in the newest films, they even try to add some psychological depth and character development, whereas here the characters are as flat as a sheet of paper. What fails the most in my eyes (and it's paradoxical) is the humor, because, unlike the previous installments, the film doesn't take itself seriously and becomes an action comedy. However, the comedic aspect doesn't paradoxically affect me, I simply can't laugh at the exaggeration. Maybe it's because the action, story, and characters are taken to such absurdity that even parody has nowhere to go. Perhaps this is the first film where Simon Pegg, no matter how hard he tries, simply doesn't entertain me at all. Overall impression: 25%.
()
It is true that the MI franchise is one of the few where each episode has a completely different directorial style. The first was the most spy-driven ride, the second had an action-packed poetic feel (which many did not appreciate), the third focused on physicality and kinetic action, it is interesting to see which direction the next episode will take. Or in other words, it was a great challenge for Brad Bird to figure out how he actually wants to play this game. The fourth episode bears the closest resemblance to the third, but I’m not convinced that it reaches its quality. Cruise is insane, his stunts are over the top. The action is perfectly shot, especially the adrenaline-filled finale in Dubai and the car chase scene (both briefly shown in the trailer). There’s plenty of physicality as well, but unlike the third film, it’s more focused on details and moments. I didn’t feel immersed in the whole film, and that is a bit disappointing, but, Abrams is Abrams. The emphasis here is on the team (excellent cast and chemistry) and that is good. Facing the world alone for the fourth time would not be the same. The cameos are okay (Sawyer from Lost and Ving Rhames at the end really hit the mark). It's a ride, probably the fastest action film of the year, with Tom at his finest. Perhaps a bit too mainstream (BMW, iPhone), but that's something you have to take into account in today's marketing era. I would go to the cinema again. It's not as “real” as the previous episode, but it stands up well. Ethan Hunt on this wave – that's totally fine. PS: The sequence in Dubai is possibly the most captivating stunt scene ever.
()
