Mania Review: Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol - Mania.com



Mania Grade: A-

39 Comments | Add

 

Rate & Share:

 

Related Links:

 

Info:

  • Starring: Tom Cruise, Simon Pegg, Jeremy Renner, Paula Patton, Michael Nyqvist and Tom Wilkinson
  • Written by: Josh Applebaum and AndrĂ© Nemec
  • Directed by: Brad Bird
  • Studio: Paramount Pictures
  • Rating: PG-13
  • Run Time: 133 minutes
  • Series:

Mania Review: Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol

Choose to accept it.

By Rob Vaux     December 15, 2011

 Dear 3D. IMAX is officially eating your lunch. Please stop pretending you’re still relevant; it’s getting embarrassing.

The visual triumph of Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol is best appreciated on an IMAX screen if you can swing it. Taking serious cues from The Dark Knight, it treats us to swooping vistas of Moscow, Dubai and similar far-flung ports of call, as well as the ultra-super-secret-spy-type awesomeness that takes place within them. That it does so without the use of 3D further demonstrates how utterly useless the technique has become, and how little it contributes to the experience of watching a movie. Ghost Protocol blows our socks off at every turn, and it didn’t need any image-destroying glasses to do it.

Of course, a lot of old fashioned filmmaking goes into that equation as well. Good or bad, the Mission Impossible films have never settled for hack directors, and the choice here pays off in spades. Brad Bird – the animation genius who won Oscars for Ratatouille and The Incredibles, and whose departure from The Simpsons delivered a blow from which that once-great series never recovered – proves equally adept with his first live-action production as he does with ink and paint. Mission Impossible doesn’t demand much from a subtext standpoint, but the action and mayhem need careful choreography, and after four films, we need a good reason to pay attention. Bird’s storytelling skills translate exceptionally well in all of those categories, creating the best Mission Impossible film to date.

The specifics are engaging, but only enough to get the job done. Once again, we return to IMF operative Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise), busted out of a Russian prison for a top secret assignment in the Kremlin. It’s a set up, of course. The building is destroyed in a fiery explosion – part of a plot to steal nuclear missile codes – and Hunt gets the blame. Cut off from any support network, he and his small team need to track down the culprit and stop him before he launches a nuclear war.

It’s pretty McGuffin-esque, though Bird gives it just enough complexity to keep us focused in the right direction. He also makes sure that the characters at the heart of it feel like actual people instead of video game avatars. Hunt apparently lost his wife a few years back, and may not have his head entirely in the game. Then there’s Brandt (Jeremy Renner), the analyst thrown in with him who definitely has secrets of his own to share. They’re joined by Simon Pegg’s redoubtable comic relief and Paula Patton’s agreeably gorgeous ass kicker, forming a resolutely engaging quartet to carry us along.

Naturally, the escapades are the real purpose of the exercise here, and with the basic narrative elements secured, Bird has license to cut loose. He understands the intricacies of each of his terrific set pieces – throwing in unexpected challenges and last-minute twists when appropriate – and expertly mines every drop of tension out of it until we’re wrung out like a dish towel on the theater floor. IMAX enhances the best moments; the ads are pushing Cruise’s free climb up the Khalifa Tower in Dubai, but we don’t feel the white-knuckle drop until it fills our vision with 25 vertical yards of “Don’t fucking look down!” Similar sequences involving sandstorms, underwater escapes, and a fight in a multi-story carport achieve equally impressive results, aided by the fact that we never quite know where it’s all going next.

A far more mundane conceit works even greater wonders. Cut off as he is from outside help, Hunt has to rely on whatever equipment is handy… and while Ghost Protocol is rife with the cool gadgets, very few of them work the way they should. Not only does this create exquisite new avenues of suspense (those magic gloves give out at a really inopportune time), but it thrusts the burden of each challenge back to the characters: forcing them to think their way out of the box instead of relying on the latest cool doodad. Star power adds quite a punch as well – all four of the leads are great to watch – and while Ghost Protocol overstays its welcome ever so slightly, the craftsmanship and technical polish have seen few peers this year.

The only real flaw in the film comes from its more overtly commercial elements; to put it bluntly, the BMW porn doesn’t even bother to conceal itself. But it speaks volumes that we can’t find anything more substantive to nit-pick, and the crackerjack entertainment value on display buries such quibbles so deeply that they may never find their way out again. Ghost Protocol offers nothing more than popcorn fun, but it does so extraordinary verve and technical prowess: far more than most part fours can ever aspire to. Bird has the chops to do whatever he wishes behind the camera. His efforts here prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt, and even better: serve notice that this fifteen-year-old franchise – with more downs than ups in the balance – is a long way from done. 

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

Showing items 1 - 10 of 39
1 2 3 4 >  >>  
JacenBlade 12/15/2011 7:46:33 PM

I was hoping for a good review of this film.  I had planned to see it anyway as my personal feeling is that the M.I. films have actually gotten progressively BETTER as they have been made.  A feat accomplished only by the Lord of the Rings  and  Harry Potter movies. (IMHO).  Based on what you had to say Rob, I will definately see this movie sooner than later and on IMAX to boot.  I am lucky enough to have a 70mm IMAX theater locally so I get the added bonus of TDKR preview.  These Mission Impossible films have been a great fit for Cruise and I hope they continue to make them.

RaithManan 12/15/2011 11:52:51 PM

While the first film was modestly ok, took a surprisingly disappointing step backwards with the second installment by John Woo, then the much under-appreciated 2 leaps forwards of the third film by J.J. Abrams, this latest entry appears to be even better, mainly because of Brad Bird and I like his way of directing.

Getting mostly positive reviews this looks to be Cruise's best film in years and I plan on seeing it along with Sherlock Holmes

And just for the record and off the topic, I personally would like to see Bird get a shot at tackling Batman when we all know that another one will be in the works once The Dark Knight Rises goes by or better yet let him be a good choice to improve upon Green Lantern

DaForce1 12/16/2011 12:33:10 AM

 I saw it Wednesday night, and I found it to be dull and pretty much a 90's Bond movie except without a notable villain. When the chases go on so long that they actually become boring, you know there's a problem. Also, if an hour of your two hour and thirteen minute movie is taken up by people chasing each other on foot, again, you might have a problem. 

Renner was the best actor of the group. Pegg was pretty much just playing himself with a few lines from his other movies dropped in for a bit of elbow nudging your seatmate in the theater. And the female lead was completely upstaged by the female villain lead. Hell, the male villain was even upstaged by the female villain, but in his defense, he was even upstaged by the actors portraying waiters in the background. 

If you're a fan of the MI series, see it in a matinee. If you're just going to see the very kick ass Dark Knight Rises prologue (which puts the action in the entire MI4 movie to shame in just 6 min.), I would say bargain matinee. Otherwise, save your money and wait a couple of months for the redbox rental.

DaForce1 12/16/2011 12:39:19 AM

 One more thing, that whole plot point about Hunt losing his wife was handled so poorly in the dialog that I actually thought Renner was talking about the villain's wife through most of the movie until it was cleared up a little better later on. I thought that was an interesting motivation for the villain, until it turned out he was just another mustache-twirling fiend. 

irockdiesel 12/16/2011 3:44:23 AM

I saw the movie in a wanna be IMAX theatre.   It was what I expected.  I liked this one better than the third and the second one will always be my favorite IMHO.  The movie, to me, seemed to have moved from one area to the next.  There were a few good action sequences and, overall, it was good.  I would have given in a strong B , but I can't argue with the A- either.  All in all, I can't complain even though I didn't see the six minute beginning to The Dark Knight Rises. However, I did get a chance to see the second trailer for TDKR which, I must say, was awesome.  Now I really can't wait to see it.

wish 12/16/2011 5:35:21 AM

The review was great, the rant against 3D, not so great.  C'mon Rob, you're a professional and ranting on "new tech" really dates you......in a bad way.  I've seen 3D so good that I've left the theatre thinking I never want to watch anything other than 3D ever again!  And I've seen distracting and blurry shit that makes every muscle in the back of your skull tighten with anger.  It's for some and not for others but it's winning, so pretty tacky on your part to first point out that this film is imediatly better because it's not 3D.  For that "Paul Walker" of  a comment I give your review a D.

I'm so flucken excited to see this, the reviews are coming in huge!!  This is good for everyone involved but most of all for Cruise, who is in desperate need of a big hit to get him rolling again because I for one love it when that guy is making good films!  That's not to say he hasn't been, anyone who hasn't seen Valkyrie is missing one of the most important films about WWII.  A side of the story we never hear, but just as important.

 

flinshadytoo 12/16/2011 5:44:55 AM

 I'll wait for the dvd although when I told my wife that there would be a 6 minute Dark knight rises prologue she was ready to drag me to London to see it, but I reckon it's a little silly to pay £30 for a six minute movie.

Wiseguy 12/16/2011 5:51:45 AM

Checked it out last night and I loved it. Action galore, definitely my fave of the series but outside of 2 I loved them all. The I-Max is awesome so I'll second Rob on that, if you can make it to one, do, at least if it's a true I-Max.  Might see it again since the ol' lady couldn't make it last night and she loves Tom Cruise

I think 3D is more relevant than I-Max, at least the real I-Max. It's a little something called market share and theater chains aren't ready to tear down their buildings to build real I-Max screens which is why so many are going to the digital versions which are mostly a cheat. I always go to the real mccoy, the new ones are ok but they're not much better than most digital screens. But the best experience by far is real I-Max 3D

The TDKR prologue was ok but epic it is not. Though I admit I really liked the last shot. Bane is underwhelming but I expected that in Nolan's universe. It might've been cool if he used the LOTR tricks to make him appear bigger

 

jedibanner 12/16/2011 5:59:44 AM

daforce...spoilers alert would've been nice....

I loved the rant about 3D because it's soooooooooooo true...wish...live with it, many people aren't fans of the technologies and Rob ain't the first critic to ''rant'' about it and hopefully, more will continue to fight against something that is being pushed for nothing.

for that whining comment I give you a review of F wish....lol....aren't I a stinker.

But seriously, let's face it, 3D isn't cathing up and it's a good thing. Sure it's nice from time to time but to try it all the time for nothing other then ''it's good for the industry and everyone is doing it''....guess what, IT AIN'T WORKING!!!

I can't wait to see this movie, and after this review, now I'm more pump to see it in all it's 2D glory!!!

karas1 12/16/2011 6:16:12 AM

Looking forward to seeing the movie.  Seems like there will be lots of action and Cruise is easy on the eyes.  His reputation seems to have pretty much recovered from his little nervous breakdown a few years ago when he was jumping up and down on couches and bashing women with post partum depression in the press.

I've seen a number of films in 3D, usually when 2D isn't available or the 3D showing is the most convienient timewise.  Some of the fx are fun but I don't feel it adds too much to the viewing experience.  Of all the 3D films I've see the only one where I remember the 3D afterwards is Avatar which was stunning.  Other movies, while I remember seeing them in 3D and putting up with the uncomfortable glasses, I don't remember the 3D fx adding more enjoyment to the film.  I remember the plot, the acting, the animation, the music but not the 3D.  Unless you have a REALLY special movie the extra cost isn't worth it IMHO.

Will 3D stand the test of time or will it turn out to be a fad which goes away?  The theaters have invested lots of money in the 3D equipment and they can charge more money for the showing if it's in 3D.  And the 3D does add something to the movie you can't get in your living room if you like that sort of thing.  But when all's said and done it's a gimick, it doesn't change the essential nature of movies like, say, the addition of sound or color or the invention of motion capture did.

I don't think it's going away any time soon but I don't think it's important and Rob has as much right to dislike it as anybody else does and as it impacts his moview viewing experience he has the right as a reviewer to tell us that.

1 2 3 4 >  >>  

ADD A COMMENT

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Please click here to login.

POPULAR TOPICS