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 (4)
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)
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.
()
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.
()
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%.
()
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)
Ads