Topic: "Mission Impossible-Ghost Protocol" Review by Landporpus [No Spoilers]

Once in a while a sequel to a successful film or film franchise comes along and completely ruins the enjoyment of that franchise to such a degree that you can never watch that films predecessors again without feeling a bit of that fun was lost. With that in mind, I'm am so happy to say that Mission Impossible 4 is NOT one of those sequels.

This is one of those films that had so much potential to up and fail, and yet all the concerns many people had for MI4 actually worked perfectly, and occasionally worked towards the films benefit. I'm gonna take a guess here and say that, I think the big red flag problems people saw going into MI4, had come from Indiana Jones 4 falling flat on it's face. Let's do a quick comparison…

You got 2 franchises that both hadn't been touched in a while.
2 good actors, but both look like they are past their action movie years.
2 fairly heavy, animation and CGI backgrounded directors (especially Bird) who could become overly reliant on Visual Effects.
And both had that possible trouble of too many people saying "well it's a _____  movie, so we got to put that _____ in there because that made those other films good.

Unfortunately our worst fears where indeed realized in Indy 4, but luckily the same can not be said for MI4. Tom doesn't come off too old for action. The CGI is kept to a minimum, and I never really felt like I was just watching a rehash of previous Mission Impossible films.

I think the best thing this movie has going for it, are it's action and suspense sequences. I know Brad Bird created the sequences himself, which is really grate since his types of peril situation's perfectly blend something simple with something epic and fantastic. A guy hanging by adhesive gloves 50 stories up a building is ironically way more suspenseful then a huge chase scene though the dense jungles of the Amazon where people are fencing with each other and swing with monkey's on vines though the tree tops.

While the action stuff is really the spotlight of any Mission Impossible film, I find it's the little character stuff that carries the rest of the film, and thankfully there is a lot of fun character interactions throughout MI4. I don't want to spoil anything if you haven't seen it, but there is some particularly good witty humor with Simon Pegg and Jeremy Renner's characters.

I guess the only real deficiency this film has, comes from the antagonist. While Tom Cruise doesn't come across as to old, (for the most part) Michael Nyqvist does not look fit to be doing what he's doing. The amount of beating this guy takes and lives through is a bit far fetched for a guy who looks as old as he does.

Yes MI4 is not the perfect movie, but I would say it's at least a perfect movie, in that it does everything it suppose to do, which all we can really hope for in a time where movies like Battleship exist. 

I highly recommend it!

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: "Mission Impossible-Ghost Protocol" Review by Landporpus [No Spoilers]

Tom Cruise is almost 50, and he's still doing action movies. Crazy motherfucker. I pretty much agree with this review, by the way.

"The Doctor is Submarining through our brains." --Teague

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: "Mission Impossible-Ghost Protocol" Review by Landporpus [No Spoilers]

I thought it was irritating and full of bad decisions but I'd have to write a big wall of text to get through all of that.

Last edited by Lamer (2012-07-07 17:30:05)

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: "Mission Impossible-Ghost Protocol" Review by Landporpus [No Spoilers]

Lamer wrote:

I thought it was irritating and full of bad desicions but I'd have to write a big wall of text to get through all of that.

Then I guess it's a good thing you're on the reviews forum.

tongue

ZangrethorDigital.ca

Re: "Mission Impossible-Ghost Protocol" Review by Landporpus [No Spoilers]

BigDamnArtist wrote:
Lamer wrote:

I thought it was irritating and full of bad desicions but I'd have to write a big wall of text to get through all of that.

Then I guess it's a good thing you're on the reviews forum.

tongue

I'm considering it tongue

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: "Mission Impossible-Ghost Protocol" Review by Landporpus [No Spoilers]

Good review, I enjoyed the film but the third is still my personal favourite. smile

Last edited by Jimmy B (2012-07-07 17:58:15)

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: "Mission Impossible-Ghost Protocol" Review by Landporpus [No Spoilers]

I liked the first one the most, it's the most grounded and has a pretty genuine spy-like plot that revolves around a list of agents.

I enjoyed the experience of watching MI4, but have trouble reallly remembering much of it now. It's a film comprising set pieces and the story that links them together is at times weak or tenuous; worst, the antagonist is virtually nonexistent. Who is he? What does he want? And there's this whole part where he's disguised as someone else and it's not really clear why other than so it can have that weak twist moment.

Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it we go nowhere. - Carl Sagan

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: "Mission Impossible-Ghost Protocol" Review by Landporpus [No Spoilers]

Ya I tend to agree, the first one is still by far the best because it has such a serious, gritty tone to it.

I think Mission Impossible 4 is successful at the more playful "Incredibles-type" approach to a spy movie, but I also think it makes the movie feel way more throwaway. I mean at parts it almost plays like a comedic parody of a spy movie. I think 2-4 really could use a lot more of a feeling of paranoia and danger to them.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: "Mission Impossible-Ghost Protocol" Review by Landporpus [No Spoilers]

I think the opening scene of the third film is pretty gritty. And, indeed, the scene that extends it later on in he film.

I haven't seen the first film in years but I do enjoy it. The second one is shite, though, despite the fact I like John Woo films, usually.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: "Mission Impossible-Ghost Protocol" Review by Landporpus [No Spoilers]

I really enjoyed the 3rd one, but oddly enough I thought that movie had no 3rd act. Hunts in the deepest of trouble, and then he get's the guy, and thats. Maybe it was just me, but I felt there wall a whole final beat missing in 3.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: "Mission Impossible-Ghost Protocol" Review by Landporpus [No Spoilers]

The franchise has some great action sequences, but not in the climaxes. They blow their load too early. MI2's opening on the freestyle cliff climb is jaw-dropping, but then the movie is lame after that. MI4's Burj Khalifa scene is also awesome (because they really shot there), but the movie's actual climax in the carpark was dull.

Out of the four movies, you could probably stitch together one movie's worth of awesomeness.

btw, MI2 is the only non-Australian movie I can think of to be set in Australia (although someone on these forums came up with an old obscure one.... Hitchcock's Under Capricorn from 1949.
Australia doesn't exist in the James Bond universe, or Bourne or any other tentpole franchise that thrives on travelling to exotic locales.

I agree with you - the villain, Michael Nyqvist, is as indestructible as Loki in the Avengers. His car is totalled... it crashes hard and rolls. And he just brushes himself off and keeps running. Tom Cruise needed to Hulk Smash him to have any effect.

Last edited by avatar (2012-08-01 09:55:22)

not long to go now...

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: "Mission Impossible-Ghost Protocol" Review by Landporpus [No Spoilers]

Jimmy B wrote:

The second one is shite, though, despite the fact I like John Woo films, usually.

I doubt even John Woo likes MI2

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: "Mission Impossible-Ghost Protocol" Review by Landporpus [No Spoilers]

MI2 is what scared me away from watching the third one for years. Finally did, though, a year or so ago. I don't remember any details, but I remember it being heaps better than the Woo-trainwreck.

Also, 4 was pretty good. I'd still not go as far as calling it an MI-film, basing my MI-film-data on the first one. It didn't have plot twists and paranoia, the two things that really made the original so great.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: "Mission Impossible-Ghost Protocol" Review by Landporpus [No Spoilers]

On the subject of blowing their load too early, that's one of the reasons the original Mission Impossible is the best of the series. The whole movie has a great sense of escalation, from the lower key opening mission that goes bad, to the awesome CIA break-in in the middle, and climaxes with the train set-piece which is awesome and the best sequence out of any of the movies.

The 3rd movie peaks at the middle bridge scene and sucks after that. The 4th movie peaks at the Burj Khalifa, and ends weak.

I actually think MI-2 ends pretty strong (I'm in the rare camp that prefers 2 to 3) with some nice shootouts and a great motorcycle chase, but unfortunately there's literally over an hour of complete nothingness and boredom in the middle of that movie.

Last edited by bullet3 (2012-09-23 18:44:29)

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: "Mission Impossible-Ghost Protocol" Review by Landporpus [No Spoilers]

Yes, and there's the fact that Ethan Hunt is suddenly a goddamn superhero.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: "Mission Impossible-Ghost Protocol" Review by Landporpus [No Spoilers]

vidina wrote:

Yes, and there's the fact that Ethan Hunt is suddenly a goddamn superhero.

...and suddenly every piece of eqipment that IMF has to offer malfunctions.
...and Paula Patton is as convincing in her role as a super-spy as Vader would be as a L'Oreal face cream model
...and the villain is undeveloped and retarded (which is ironic considering that he's supposed to be a genius)
...and Jeremy Renner apparently has amnesia during the first part of the movie because he acts like a scared analyst only to tun into an uberninja in a span of a second.
...and every potentially intense moment is sacrificed for some sort of a cheap gag

Last edited by Lamer (2012-09-27 18:31:24)

Thumbs up Thumbs down