Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol

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)

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)

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. (26/12/2011)

The most compelling evidence for why we should adore Abrams. This Scientology production tinsel may have inherited most of its predecessor's hallmarks, such as adrenaline-pumping action and plenty of teasing of past films, but it neglected to add at least a drop of itself to it. Neither the BMW prototype nor the protagonist's breasts stay in your head longer than the legendary opening countdown lasts; there’s zero work with the villain, the plot isn’t very catchy, and the premature climax of everything that was already done in Dubai is Bird's sole responsibility. (21/12/2011)

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)