Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol

Topic started by Alex on Dec. 16, 2011. Last post by StriderNo9 1 year, 1 month ago.
Post by Alex (325 posts) See mini bio
Moderator

Four different directors have taken the Mission: Impossible franchise for a spin, and at least three of those films couldn't be more divergent from one another. For my money, Brian De Palma's first film is still the best of all of them, combining tremendous action sequences with the kind of gadget-heavy, utterly mind-bending espionage of the greatest spy films. John Woo's second film eschewed the cleverness in favor of more aggressively over-the-top action (and doves--lots and lots of doves), while J.J. Abrams' third movie attempted to add emotional heft to the actions of characters who, up to that point in the series, had seemed largely devoid of anything resembling real emotion.

Now, 15 years after the first film's debut, director Brad Bird has finally brought everything full-circle. Working from a script penned by Josh Appelbaum and Andre Nemic, Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol revisits the combination of plot-twisting intrigue and kinetic action that made the first film so very good. It's a return to form for a franchise that's been out of form for the vast bulk of its existence, and a potent reminder that spy fiction doesn't necessarily have to steep itself in brooding sullenness to still be relevant in the modern age. Take that, James Bond?

It's an especially impressive feat given that this is Bird's first live action film. Bird, whose work in the animated world on films like The Iron Giant, The Incredibles, and Ratatouille all but assures him a place among the animation medium's best directors, is now suddenly tasked with making live actors bend to his will. That there is no awkwardness, no hesitation anywhere to be found in his direction is kind of amazing. He takes these characters--only some of which are holdovers from the previous films--and simply makes them his own. He stages action sequences as ludicrous and blisteringly-paced as anything seen in movies to date, and does so with such care and attention to detail that you'd think he'd been making action movies for decades. This may very well be the birth of our next great action director.

But before any of those insane setpiece stunts come to bear: a plot. When the film opens, series stalwart Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise, back in long-hair mode) is trapped in a Russian prison, yet seems none-too-worried about it. He is broken out in a rather fantastic sequence involving Mission: Impossible III holdover Simon Pegg, new agent Paula Patton, and a fairly creative use of Dean Martin's "Ain't That a Kick in the Head." Many a Russian prisoner and prison guard are beaten half to death--Cruise barely musses his hair.

Several things happen in between that scene and the part I'll describe next, but they're too fun to spoil. I'll simply skip ahead and divulge that at a certain point, it becomes clear that the Impossible Mission Force has been framed for a bombing of the Kremlin it did not commit. It was the work of a psychotic nuclear terrorist (Michael Nyqvist) who, like most good psychotic nuclear terrorists, simply wants to start a war between America and Russia. Perhaps China is a more believable foe these days, but hey, I'm always down for a good Cold War throwback.

All of this is explained to Ethan by the Secretary of the IMF, who is played all-too-briefly by Tom Wilkinson, and his associate, a mysterious analyst named Brandt (Jeremy Renner). He tells them that the IMF is disavowed, that Ethan is essentially a man without a country, and now his mission is to clear their name by catching the real villain in the act. He'll have to do this with no assistance from the agency. He, and his team, are on their own.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm often happier when things go horribly wrong like this in spy films. One of the key staples of this genre is that spy agencies are essentially all-knowing problem solvers, with technology and access that transcends any conceivable problem that may arise. Part of what made the first Mission: Impossible so exciting was this very scenario, with Ethan Hunt on the run, framed for a crime he did not commit. This forced him into uncomfortable situations that do not always provide him the exact right tool for the job. He and his team were often flying semi-blind, by the seat of their pants. The same holds true here, though Bird's take on the material is a good bit more frantic than anything the first film brought to the table.

Bird relishes in stacking the odds against the team. Every single mission scenario goes wrong, then wronger, then somehow even wronger, until reaching a breaking point where the crackerjack timing required to succeed is beyond ridiculous. But that's what we want out of these films. no? We want Ethan Hunt to get into increasingly insane situations that any lesser man would just throw his hands up at and walk away from. We certainly don't come for the rich, textured characterization of Ethan Hunt. After all, the character is basically just Tom Cruise playing himself, except with James Bond's more tactical elements slathered on. He sure does look good running away from an explosion, though. Here he does it twice, even!

Because of those impossible stakes, the tension goes from merely rough to laughably crazy. Bird frames every hit, every fall, every crash as if it were the most atrociously painful thing to ever befall a man, and seemingly revels in making these characters out to be simultaneously superhuman and totally vulnerable.

And like any good spy vehicle, the locales and sets are exotic and breathtaking. An elongated sequence atop Dubai's Burj Khalifa, the tallest building in the world, is exhilarating. A late-game battle atop an automated carpark in Mumbai is one of the best final fight scenes in an action movie I've seen in ages. These sequences benefit greatly from the IMAX format, in which the film is currently exclusively playing (it goes into regular theaters next week). IMAX is something often promoted but rarely beneficial to a film's action. Here, it's something close to vital.

Sure, there are nitpicks to be had with Ghost Protocol. A subplot involving a Russian investigator hunting Ethan is mostly forgettable, and comes back around in less-than-exciting fashion. Renner, who is being positioned as the heir to Cruise's spy throne, has some fun scenes, but isn't given an awful lot to do to establish himself, beyond a couple of ennui-laden monologues. And that aforementioned psycho terrorist, the one who wants to blow up the world? He's practically a MacGuffin. His motives are barely laid out, and his character is more notable for his inexplicable ability to go toe-to-toe with Cruise in a fistfight, despite his paunchy, unassuming physical structure. He must be hiding a lot of muscle underneath those jowls.

But those quibbles do little to undermine a legitimately thrilling, altogether terrific spy thriller, the likes of which the genre hasn't seen since, well, the first Mission: Impossible. After numerous attempts to revitalize this series with various directors all having their own take on what a Mission: Impossible movie should look like, it turns out it took an outsider director taking things back to the start to finally bring some energy back to this series. I now look forward to whatever Mission: Impossible's producers plan to do next, though whatever it is, I hope Brad Bird is somehow involved.

Post by NewfieBullet (128 posts) See mini bio

Always thought this looked really good. Can't wait to see it. Great review Alex!

Post by Mr_skeleton (953 posts) See mini bio

I was supposed to see this yesterday but my friends changed their minds at the last moment, so we saw Jack and Jill...

But I'm glad that this movie turned out to be good, hopefully I will get to see it soon.

Post by MisterMouse (477 posts) See mini bio

Man this is great news... more interest to see this now!

Post by MiniPato (171 posts) See mini bio

@Mr_skeleton:

Don't you hate it when your friends want to see shit movies? I wanted to see Drive buy my friends insisted on seeing Dreamhouse cause they wanted to see a scary movie.

Anyways,I expected 4 stars at most, but glad to see it's really good. Definitely plan on seeing it.

Post by Kovski (87 posts) See mini bio
5/5? Really? I'm super surprised, because there is absolutely not anything telling in the trailers that this would be anything other than run of the mill action flick that the past movies been. So this being the spy thriller it promises to be makes me super excited.
Post by FelixCulpa (29 posts) See mini bio

Huh, well this was surprising. I'm slightly excited to see this now.

Post by MrMazz (1,548 posts) See mini bio

wow 5 shit I was expecting a solid 3-3.5 but now even if I don't get the Bane prologue imma see this

Post by DJGhostmare (15 posts) See mini bio

Saw it last night: IMAX, midnight showing. Everything Alex says is straight on point. The Burk Khalifa set piece is incredible on the huge screen, and I cringed at every hit that was taken. Not only were they shot in a manner that always looked painful (and real, except for the part where Tom Cruise never gets bruised even when slamming his head against metal from a ten foot drop), but they sounded excruciating as well. BEST ACTION FILM THIS YEAR, HANDS DOWN!!! Brad Bird is awesome. Also, Tom Cruise looks fucking old and gruff.

Post by Nadafinga (55 posts) See mini bio

Kinda surprised that Alex is so down on MI:3...JJ Abrams' take on this franchise is my favorite of the three, and most of the people I've talked to thought it was great too.

But good to hear this movie is good, I'll definitely be seeing it.

Post by Zaccheus (142 posts) See mini bio

Well damn. MI4 with five stars. That's... unexpected.

Post by ThatFrood (321 posts) See mini bio

what

Post by Peacemaker (57 posts) See mini bio

My local theater didn't get this movie in. Instead they opted for Alvin and the Chipmunks. Great move on their part.

Post by billygoat117 (39 posts) See mini bio

@Mr_skeleton: Sounds like you need some new friends.

Seriously, though, I can't wait to see this. When does it go wide, Wednesday?

Post by SpencerBoltz (39 posts) See mini bio

I disagree, I don't think it is that good. I liked it but, I personally think the movie suffers from its narrative structure which causes the film overall to drag just a little bit. This, combined with the movies length, makes it not as fun to watch as it ought to be. Which means I wasn't blown away by this movie. I do, however, think it is almost a perfect December movie.

Post by Castiel (86 posts) See mini bio

That's what happens when you hire the man that directed The Iron Giant and The incredibles.

Post by Mushir (1,149 posts) See mini bio

I want to see this now. I can't believe I doubted Brad Bird.

Post by Icon (544 posts) See mini bio

Excellent review. Thanks for writing this. I can't wait to see this Mission, but sadly I won't be able to catch it on IMAX. I thoroughly love these movies though, so I'll take it in any form I can. :]

Post by WickedCobra03 (58 posts) See mini bio

I was probably going to see it eventually...even if it was just a DVD rental, but now I may go see it at the theatre!

Post by Cybexx (79 posts) See mini bio

Glad to see all my worrying was for naught. I'm going out of my way to see this on IMAX this weekend.

92 votes, 4.0 avg.
General Information Edit
Name Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol
US Release Dec. 16, 2011
UK Release Dec. 21, 2011
AUS Release Dec. 13, 2011
Runtime 0
Language(s)
Add a new language
Genre(s)
Add a new genre
Theme(s)
Add a new theme
Rating PG-13
Alias(es) Mission: Impossible IV
MI4
Top Rated Lists
Favourite Films a list of 99 items by Icon
Movies watched 2011 a list of 116 items by Christina
Movies That I've Seen in 2011 a list of 119 items by Vincemaster
  • In today's dollars
    Domestic $209,250,715
    Foreign +483,656,168
  • = total worldwide gross $692,906,883
  • - a reported budget of $145,000,000
  • = a 377.9% net profit of $547,906,883
Top Editors
Mandatory Network

Submissions can take several hours to be approved.

Save ChangesCancel