Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol

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. (16/12/2011)

Everything I could ask for from an action movie. Well-written dialogues, detailed scenes that wait calmly for half an hour before engaging some of the indicated elements, a polished visual, and a soundtrack that reflects the subtle irony and exaggeration of the whole spectacle. Two hours of dynamism, invention and infiltration, each with more ideas than any previous MI as a whole. Finally, it doesn't take itself too seriously and it bets on only one big currency - spy entertainment. The best MI and overall one of the best and most unique blockbusters of recent years. Thumbs up for Brad Bird - he sees action differently. Where others would bet on monumetality and quantity, the director plays with the perfect execution of de facto relatively tight scenes, the spectacularity of which does not lie in the number of explosions, but rather in the intelligent use of scale and utilization of the environment. Bird just sees better. (09/05/2013)

Mission: Accomplished. I struggled for some time with Brad Bird's take on the Mission: Impossible franchise, but his qualities are especially fitting in the faithful repetition of the saga. The pace is occasionally almost frenetic, balanced by a surprising cadence in the lines, an excellent segment in Dubai, and a playfully espionage mood, cleverly combined with J.J. Abrams' established trends. Fans of various similar series can also enjoy it, because Ethan resembles Jack Bauer in the gloomy moments and James Bond in the final battle. And it is precisely this cross-section of genres and moods that ultimately elevates Ghost Protocol to the position of a strong player. (16/12/2011)

In the last third, Ghost Protocol loses not only its breath, but everything else that made what came before so great – the comedic and intelligent sense of detachment, the likable cohesion of the IMF team composed of Cruise, Patton, Renner and Pegg, the way the screenplay inventively plays with clichés, the imaginative hi-tech secret-agent gadgets, the eye-candy action and the suspense. Dubai should have been the last setting, not the central one. And the main bad guy, played by the charismatic Michael Nyqvist should have been given more room to work. Ghost Protocol is enjoyable in its details, but as a whole, it’s only the third best film of the franchise after the first one and M:I III. (12/12/2011)

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%. (27/10/2013)