Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol

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. (22/12/2011)

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. (27/08/2015)

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. (16/12/2011)

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)

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. (16/12/2011)