Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol

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%. (10/27/2013)

Mission Impossible is and always has been a great series of great action shots. I’ve always been more interested in them than the story itself, which was never exactly perfect but it managed to captivate my interest. In this instalment, I was more interested in the huge list of interesting actors. Cool Tom Cruise is a classic, but Simon Pegg also amused me a lot. On the other hand, it is a pity that Michael Nyqvist did not have a more remarkable part and that you can’t even tell that some scenes were shot in the Czech Republic. The important thing is that the director of animated movies was able to make one of the best action films that I have seen in the last few years. And I think that when I give it a go again, I might increase my rating to five stars, because some scenes here were really at the level of an action orgasm and I couldn’t get enough of them. Tom Cruise is really a champ, considering what I heard about how well he treated ordinary people on the set in Mladá Boleslav, and especially the fact that he shot all the action scenes himself. I bow down before him. (01/09/2013)

How peculiar that a director who had previously worked in the field of animation brought a necessary breath of fresh air to the action genre, which had become dependent on the post-Bourne chaos cinema style. Bird’s Pixar movies abound with astonishing action sequences built on the clarity of the scene, long shots and the interconnection of the action with the setting and its elements. Bird brings the same qualities to Ghost Protocol. Replacing animation with live action enhances the strengths of the medium, thus bringing back the attraction of physical action. At a time when blockbusters are rather cartoonish CGI mess with the deepfaked faces of live actors, Bird had Tom Cruise climb the façade of the world’s tallest building. Similarly, the brilliantly designed and always spatially uncluttered chase through a sandstorm is an expressive counterpoint to the cluttered mess of scenes composed of tremendously brief shaky-cam shots that have inundated big-budget action productions in recent years. In comparison with the dark, tense and sophisticated nature of the competition, particularly movies based on comic books, Ghost Protocol also offers a big, longed-for dose of exaggeration and light-heartedness. In addition to that, Bird manages to combine all of the aforementioned elements into brilliant sequences abounding with inventiveness, charming humour, physical action, playful interactions between the actors and a surreal upgrade of the technological gadgets. If what remained of the third Mission: Impossible in the audience’s memory was the playing with expectations and building of suspense with no action sequences, the fourth instalment does not rely on its twists and turns, as its action passages (not only the Burj Dubai and the robotic parking lot, but also the sequences in the prison and the corridor in the Kremlin) rank among the absolute best of the genre. (08/27/2015)

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. (12/22/2011)