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. (2011-12-12)

Mission: Accomplished. I fought with Bird's perspective for some time, but his qualities are especially highlighted in the tightly repeated saga. The pace is occasionally almost frenetic, balanced by the surprising cadence of lines, an excellent passage in Dubai, and a playfully espionage mood, cleverly combined with Abrams' established trends. Fans of various neighboring series can also enjoy it, because in gloomy moments, Ethan resembles Jack Bauer, and in the final battle, he is like James Bond. And it is precisely this cross-section of genres and moods that ultimately elevates Ghost Protocol to the position of a strong player. (2011-12-16)

It is true that the MI franchise is one of the few where each episode has a completely different directorial style. The first was the most spy-driven ride, the second had an action-packed poetic feel (which many did not appreciate), the third focused on physicality and kinetic action, it is interesting to see which direction the next episode will take. Or in other words, it was a great challenge for Brad Bird to figure out how he actually wants to play this game. The fourth episode bears the closest resemblance to the third, but I’m not convinced that it reaches its quality. Cruise is insane, his stunts are over the top. The action is perfectly shot, especially the adrenaline-filled finale in Dubai and the car chase scene (both briefly shown in the trailer). There’s plenty of physicality as well, but unlike the third film, it’s more focused on details and moments. I didn’t feel immersed in the whole film, and that is a bit disappointing, but, Abrams is Abrams. The emphasis here is on the team (excellent cast and chemistry) and that is good. Facing the world alone for the fourth time would not be the same. The cameos are okay (Sawyer from Lost and Ving Rhames at the end really hit the mark). It's a ride, probably the fastest action film of the year, with Tom at his finest. Perhaps a bit too mainstream (BMW, iPhone), but that's something you have to take into account in today's marketing era. I would go to the cinema again. It's not as “real” as the previous episode, but it stands up well. Ethan Hunt on this wave – that's totally fine. PS: The sequence in Dubai is possibly the most captivating stunt scene ever. (2011-12-26)

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%. (2013-10-27)

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. (2013-05-09)