Cannes Film Festival 2013

Review: Tom Cruise leads the best team yet in sensational 'Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol'

Brad Bird nails it in his live-action debut

  • Critic's Rating A-
  • Readers' Rating A
<p>This may be one of the few moments in the entire film where Tom Cruise is not onscreen for 'Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol,' as Paula Patton, Simon Pegg, and Jeremy Renner plan the IMF team's next move</p>

This may be one of the few moments in the entire film where Tom Cruise is not onscreen for 'Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol,' as Paula Patton, Simon Pegg, and Jeremy Renner plan the IMF team's next move

Credit: Paramount Pictures

Are you a fan of Mission: Impossible?

Sign up to get the latest updates instantly.

The "Mission: Impossible" franchise is a strange one.

For one thing, I think people often misuse the word "franchise."  Just because they make a few sequels to a movie, that doesn't automatically qualify that thing as a franchise.  I think of that more as a description of a film property (or book property or game property… whatever sort of IP you want to substitute) that features a basic idea or premise that can be endlessly refigured to fit new casts, new creative teams, and new storytelling styles, with little real regard for continuity.  "Mission: Impossible," from the moment it first aired as a television show, has offered up a near-perfect franchise engine, a premise so simple, so feather-light, that you can do anything with it, and as long as you strike those same few notes, it's recognizably "Mission: Impossible."

Over the weekend, I rewatched the first three "Mission: Impossible" films on Blu-ray.  I've always been fond of the first one, and looking at it now, it's one of those early CGI-era movies that reaches for some groundbreaking stuff in how action is staged and shot that doesn't totally work on a technical level, but that deserves respect for pushing the envelope as much as it did.  More than that, though, it's a fun piece of pop culture subversion that was designed to acknowledge the old school, then annihilate the old school, then introduce Tom Cruise as the new school.  Brian De Palma made each set piece feel like he was having fun, and it was big and complex and sleek and absolutely proved that it would work on the big screen.

The second film is so bad that it feels like someone who was very angry at John Woo decided to make a MAD-magazine-style parody of John Woo films and then release it with his name attached as director.  Awful.

The third film was the first that really tried to give a continuity and a weight to Ethan Hunt as the center of the film series.  The first two films are "Mission: Impossible" adventures that happen to star Ethan Hunt.  The third film was all about Ethan's desire to live a normal life, to leave fieldwork behind, to marry Julia (Michelle Monahan), and to finally just wear one face, his own.  There was a real sense of team in the last film, and I liked the chemistry that existed between Ving Rhames, Jonathan Rhys-Meyers and Maggie Q.  And, speaking of Q, the third film introduced Benji Dunn, played by Simon Pegg, who played a comic spin on Q, very much the same role that existed on "Alias."  I knew as soon as I saw Pegg's two moments that he was going to get bumped up for more if they ever did a sequel.  That third film is not about a global threat or terrorist, but instead about karma screwing Ethan Hunt around when he tries to put his bloodstained past behind him, and it worked for one film to focus in at Ethan instead of out at a big spy movie story.

This time out, the threat is full-blown nuclear war, worldwide, so I think it's safe to say the stakes are a little higher here.

I think "Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol" is the most consistently entertaining, most laser-focused entry in the series so far, and while I would argue that it is very much a sequel to the third film and not just a disconnected piece of a flexible franchise, it is also a great rollicking self-contained spy movie adventure on a grand scale, and it's preposterous fun.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised.  Remember that scene in "The Incredibles" where they're sneaking onto Syndrome's island and taking out henchmen and dealing with the high-tech security?  That sequence was like watching the Fantastic Four stepping into a '60s-era James Bond film, and it was apparent that Bird has a real love of the genre and a working knowledge of how to pay perfect tribute to it.  Even so, this is his first live-action film, and he's stepping into someone else's thing, working for Tom Cruise and JJ Abrams, so I was nervous that I wouldn't see much of his personality or style in the end result.   Instead, this is a pretty clear expression of Bird's voice, and there is an energy to it that feels like a whole new lease on life for the series.

Want More...

Mission: Impossible?
  • Tom-cruise-in-mission-impossible-iii_thumbnail
    Check out everything there is including photos, reviews, videos.
You may be aware that Bird shot some of the film using the IMAX cameras, and one of the reasons I would encourage you to see the film in that format is because of the very sly way Bird uses the transition from the full IMAX frame to a more traditional widescreen frame, blowing it out to the full size for almost all of his major establishing shots moving over the vistas of cities around the world.  Here, we start in Budapest, and the way the film pushes in on a rooftop in the city while in constant motion, the full IMAX frame opened to the top and the bottom, it's almost like you can fall into the frame.  Right away, we're introduced to a new character in the IMF world, Trevor Hanaway (Josh Holloway), and following a short shocking action sequence with him, we cut to a prison escape that's been engineered by Benji Dunn (Pegg, returning with, as I hoped, a much larger part) and Jane Carter (Paula Patton), and it's not until about halfway into the sequence that you realize who it is that they're breaking out of the prison.  Of course, it's Ethan Hunt, and from the moment he turns around to reveal himself to the camera, this is one of the most engaged performances from Cruise in a while.  He's got the Movie Star turned up to ten here, and it's a lot of fun to watch.  Say what you will about Cruise and his off-screen persona, but none of that matters to me when I'm in a theater.  He is still able to push all of that aside and give one of these performances that takes full advantage of the iconic power of Being Tom Cruise.

By the time the opening sequence ends with Tom Cruise saying the line, "Light the fuse," with Michael Giacchino's riff on the beloved original theme, there is such a controlled and confident sense of cool that you know you're in good hands.  Brad really knows his spy movie vocabulary, and he pulls off what none of the films have so far:  he tells a good spy/action story on a narrative level, and each set piece not only works to escalate the film from one to the next, but they also work as little mini-movies in their own right, which is something he excels at.

The story here all hinges on why they broke Cruise out of prison and why he was in there in the first place.  They need him for a new mission, and that new mission sets off a chain of events that may literally end Western civilization, with only Hunt, Dunn, Carter, and an IMF analyst named Brandt (Jeremy Renner) to stop the plans of Russian nuclear specialist Kurt Hendricks (Michael Nyqvist).  It's a very direct narrative, one scene propelled into the next by this constant need to catch up with these bad guys, and I like that it's as simple as it is.  It allows Bird to focus on building those action scenes and just enjoying the characters, and as a result, it's a pretty great piece of high-energy entertainment.

Everything in Dubai is great.  Just amazing.  It is one long sequence that incorporates two of the biggest IMAX sequences and some really remarkable stunt work.  But I think the Kremlin break-in is great as well.  I think the entire extended climax in Mumbai is great.  I think the team dynamics are great.  Simon Pegg deserved the promotion in this movie, and he makes the most of it.  If Jeremy Renner's being groomed for stardom in the last year or so, this is the movie where it really begins.  He's great.  I know I keep using that word, but I think the film really delivers in a way that is almost surprising.  It's a wildly enthusiastic film, a movie that works because it is in love with the original series and the potential that is inherent to "put a team together and save the world" scenario.

Paula Patton is a badass.  Who knew?  I've seen her in various films and she's always struck me as very attractive but underused.  Here, she is very effective because you buy the physical side of her in the action scenes.  She is credible, and that's important.  Cruise does so much of his work in these movies in physical terms that he needs people around him who are equally physical, and Patton lives up to the challenge.

Robert Elswit's photography is crazy-sleek, and Paul Hirsch has a sure and steady hand as an editor.  If you enjoy this movie, you've got to credit them with a big part of why.  Bird really does have an amazing support system on this film, and it feels like he worked hard to justify having guys like that on the payroll.  If you're going to hire Robert Elswit, you have to give him something worth shooting, and Bird's got a really dynamic sense of composition and motion.

Mainly, though, it's just nice to see the Bad Robot voice collide with Brad Bird's voice and result in something that embodies the best of both.  There's no doubt that this is a sequel to the last film, and it seems like the real goal of the film is to build a team that can last more than one movie.  It's nice to see the way these characters reveal themselves and build connections, and Cruise seems more than happy to make room for Renner and Patton and Pegg.  He's entertained by them, and they all make real contributions to the film.  It's so easy when you've got a star as big as Cruise for that person to overwhelm the movie, but Bird never lets that happen.  I was surprised and pleased by the way they bring back even the idea of Julia, Cruise's wife-to-be in the last movie.  I also really like the way it feels like the main point of the film is to let Brad Bird beat the holy hell out of Tom Cruise in scene after scene, heaping the abuse on him.  It is not a film of great depth, and it doesn't have the same rich subtext as movies like "The Iron Giant," "The Incredibles," or "Ratatouille," but it's not trying to be any of those movies.  Bird's proven here that he can orchestrate mayhem with grace and style, and that he can absolutely adapt his voice to someone else's creation, and while that might not make this one of the very best films of the year, it does make it a significant one, because I get the feeling Bird's still just warming up.

And if you're curious about the "Dark Knight Rises" prologue that will be attached to this in its large-format IMAX bookings, you may want to check back here on Friday morning for more about that.  Hint, hint.

Short answer?  This is one mission you absolutely should choose to accept when it opens in IMAX on December 16, then everywhere else on December 21.

Comments

  • Option 1

    Comment instantly as a guest Guest
  • Option 2

    Connect
  • Option 3

    Login or create a HitFix account Login Signup
  • Default-avatar

    dan

    Hey, watch the spoilers about Hunt's wife!

    Good review though. I am stoked!

    December 7, 2011 at 4:40PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Phlogo_talkback_profile

    Playhouse

    Being a fan of the third film - and a bit lesser but still strong fan of the first film - I'm thoroughly excited to see that they've grown from the dynamic of that last film to inform this one. My appetite was well whetted by another film in the franchise and by Bird as director. This review has me excited that it all seems to pay off.

    December 7, 2011 at 4:44PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Crow3711

    Not reading a word, but so glad to hear its great. So psyched for this!

    December 7, 2011 at 4:50PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Kyle

    Nice. I'm excited about this one. Any plot twists upon plot twists like the first flick?

    December 7, 2011 at 4:55PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    DougMac

    Is Josh Holloway still in this? It seemed like this was going to be his first big post-LOST part and he hasnt been mentioned at all in any of the promotional stuff.

    December 7, 2011 at 5:24PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      DougMac nevermind, I read it as Josh Hartnett in the review, but I see it right now

      December 7, 2011 at 5:24PM EST
  • Jej_thulsadoom_talkback_profile

    evan

    Huh. I'm very gratified to read that you believe the product here was worthwhile, and it sounds like everything anyone should want out of a MISSION:IMPOSSIBLE movie. Yet, "it doesn't have the same rich subtext as movies like "The Iron Giant," "The Incredibles," or "Ratatouille...Bird's proven here that he can orchestrate mayhem with grace and style, and that he can absolutely adapt his voice to someone else's creation" But, why is that a prerequisite for an artist like Brad Bird to move into live-action moviemaking in the first place? Let's face it, he's out of place amongst the filmmakers Cruise went to for the other entries in this series (I didn't say 'franchise' Drew, just for you), as out of place as this project is amongst Bird's other works; why would Bird choose to accept a MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE sequel for his maiden effort at live-action storytelling, instead of something he designed himself? I just don't get it.

    December 7, 2011 at 5:30PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Freakazoid_talkback_profile

      mmcb105 I think it was the chance to play with the spy genre on a giant budget. Regardless of how awesome Bird is, he was unproven when it came to live-action, so nobody was going to give him this kindof budget and resources to make something totally original (It sucks, but thats just the way the film world works these days)

      Also, as Drew said, he obviously has a real love for the spy genre as evidenced in The Incredibles. This was probably the quickest way he could get to the largest possible canvas to paint the badass spy movie he had in his head.

      December 7, 2011 at 6:12PM EST
  • Tattoo_talkback_profile

    Hatfield

    Is there any explanation as to the fates of the team from the previous film?

    December 7, 2011 at 6:13PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Jeff_avatar_2_talkback_profile

    Mulderism

    The Prague mission in the beginning of MI:1 seemed the closest to the original concept. There was a large team involved and after they were killed Hunt needed to round up a few more people to finish the job.

    And that was the main problem with MI:2. It was basically just Hunt plus a few extra agents to fly him around, get him coffee, etc. Also the tired, cliche, rouge agent story line. I understand the problems people have with MI:2 but for me it was at least watchable and the action sequences could be followed.

    I basically forgot MI:3. I've only seen it once and I seem to remember not being that impressed. I also thought JJA was out of his league in terms of filming a coherent action scene.

    So I was a bit worried about this new instalment. Once more it features a director with no background in action scene filming. Plus from the trailers it seems like we are being treated to yet another rouge agent/mole storyline. I haven't read too much about the movie because I want to go in somewhat fresh.

    I think the original idea for MI movies was to bring in different directors for each one with a different vision. They have done that but since MI:3 they have not brought in directors who I consider right for the job. I'll have to see this one and see if Bird succeeded.

    December 7, 2011 at 8:13PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    DefRef

    M:I2 is a GREAT movie for one simple reason: John Woo ran so long over schedule that Dougray Scott was forced to drop out of a little comic book movie where he was going to play the state animal of Michigan. The comic book movie was forced to hire some unknown Broadway musical actor from Australia as Scott's replacement. Tough breaks all around.

    December 7, 2011 at 9:12PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Jay_sherman_talkback_profile

      ParanoidAndroid I agree with you on this. The MI series still went on despite the turd of MI 2 and X-Men gained a far superior actor.

      December 8, 2011 at 1:08AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    anti-fanboy

    Exactly what the trailer promised, then, because Bird seemed to be firing on extra cylinders just going by those brief few minutes. Fucking awesome. We have a new QUALITY big league action director.

    December 7, 2011 at 9:28PM EST Reply to Comment
  • A_monty_talkback_profile

    Monty Jack

    Can't wait to see this, although I'll defend M:I-2 to my dying breath.

    December 7, 2011 at 11:25PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Telephone Tough Guy

    Good review. Very excited to see this one, since I really enjoyed III. I'm still surprised how underrated that movie appears to be.

    December 7, 2011 at 11:43PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Matt Carter

    "And if you're curious about the "Dark Knight Rises" ... you may want to check back here on Friday morning for more about that. Hint, hint."

    So does that mean you saw it???? huh?, huh? didja?, didja?, didja?????

    December 8, 2011 at 2:10AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Murph Select members of the press get to see it Thursday night with an intro by Chris Nolan. I'm guessing Drew is one of the lucky ones seeing it then.

      December 8, 2011 at 2:32AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Pete

    GIVE US THE REVIEW!!!! OF THE DARK KNIGHT RISES PROLOGUE!!!!! I AM READY!!! GIVE_IT_TO_ME!!!!!

    December 8, 2011 at 3:11AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Pete

    I NEED THIS REVIEW!!! DARK KNIGHT RISES PROLOGUE!!! GIVE IT TO ME!!!!!

    December 8, 2011 at 3:12AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Fortunesfool

    After the controlled cinema of DePalma and Woo, the Abrams one was a barely legible shaky-cam mess. I tried to watch it again on Tv but gave up halfway through the unintentionally funny helicopter chase (just fly above the pylons you morons). Fingers crossed Brad Bird shows a bit more craftsmanship with this one.

    December 8, 2011 at 5:00AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Freakazoid_talkback_profile

      mmcb105 How can you claim that M:I3 was so ridiculous and in the same breath say that M:I2 was "controlled?" M:I3 may not be a great movie, but Woo's entry was by far messier and more incoherent.

      Besides, I think the idea behind the helicopter chase was that Ethan and his crew were trying to lose the people chasing them. It would be kind of hard to lose a helicopter in open air.

      December 8, 2011 at 10:50AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Mike

    Good to see this movie is everything I hope it would be. I have the exact same opinion about M:I 1-3 as you do (except I might loath M:I2 even more than you do), so I trust we'll agree on this one as well.

    December 8, 2011 at 4:19PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Shawn

    Sooo no corrupt IMF Agent looking for a McGuffin? Yes!!

    December 8, 2011 at 5:43PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Walter Bishop

    Never before has a review made me this excited about a movie! Definitely gonna see it. Just wish it had Maggie Q too. That Nikita is Badass

    December 10, 2011 at 11:29AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Sarah

    Can Tom Cruise go away now? How about ow? Now? All of us won't go... not if you gave it to us. We just don't like him anymore IN ANYTHING.

    December 10, 2011 at 9:38PM EST Reply to Comment

Get Instant Alerts on Motion/Captured

Latest Posts
More Posts
Recent Activity on Facebook
Most Popular on Facebook
Top Stories From Around the Web