22 April, 2012

Mission Impossible : Ghost Protocol



It's less complex than the first film. Now, I know complexity is not always a requirement for action films, nevertheless after the first installment I do expect a certain level of suspense and tension in this franchise.

It's action is not at par with Mission Impossible 2. Let's face it people, Brad Bird might have made some pretty amazing animations, but when it comes to action, John Woo is considered a legend and thus the action in the second installment of the franchise is simply outstanding.

It lacks a villain that can stand at parity with the hero of the film, Tom Cruise, something that we saw and appreciated in the third installment of the franchise with Philip Seymour Hoffman. True, Philip Seymour was so good in the movie that he pretty much overshadowed Tom Cruise and maybe, just maybe, that's why we have a villain who despite have plans of world domination is pretty lackluster and simply not as effective.

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol is a pretty average fair for a movie. It has some great locations, although I don't believe most of the scenes of India were actually shot in India. The story is pretty slim with no real emotion, characterization, or even suspense and mystery.

I have to confess and say that the inclusion of Anil Kapoor in the cast was something I was really happy about and I was looking forward to his performance. What I saw was the complete opposite of what I wanted to see. His rather small cameo was how to put this gently...stupid! I can see the charm for any Indian actor to be part of the western film industry, and especially in a franchise like this, but at the cost of a role that brings nothing to the movie, or the character, or to the actors popularity beats the purpose altogether.

On the plus side, the action in the film is quite good. It might not be the best, nevertheless the action scenes set in Dubai was truly exhilarating and at some places even reminiscent of the rock climbing opening scene from Mission Impossible II.

The supporting cast of the film, which comprised of Simon Pegg and Paula Patton, is just that, a support for Tom Cruise. The only exception being Jeremy Renner who seems to be able to shine in any role he is given off late.

After the somewhat surprisingly good Mission Impossible III, Ghost Protocol comes as a disappointment. Its lack of a strong story and specifically strong characters makes it probably the worst film of the franchise so far. What the producers need to desperately do now is give the franchise a makeover that does not necessarily mean replacing Tom Cruise, but one which will hopefully take the story into a little bit darker territory.

Rating 2/5 Stars  

8 comments:

  1. I actually liked this better than the third film because you could actually see what was happening in the action sequences, unlike the shakycam-ridden third installment. I also liked the reveal at the end.

    You are correct about the "India" scenes; they were also shot in Dubai. I also agree with you that Kapoor's role could have been played by anybody and didn't have anything in it specifically for him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you on the shaky cam part. I find that annoying as well. And yes, the action in this one was a wee bit better, but in totality the third installment still wins. Thanks

      Delete
  2. Refreshing to see a different voice about this movie. I absolutely loved it though and actually rewatched it last week. I agree that the story could have been better, but it offers non stop set pieces which all were very enjoyable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You know, even though I didn't like it that much I still will own it on DVD. It's an action film and sometimes films like this are just real fun.

      Delete
  3. I didn't saw this film but my friend did and I guess from what she said, it is good to watched with your family, friends and what-not. I think you're right the film should be more "darker". That's the problem with some franchise. The stories don't mature.

    A Hollywood film shoots some scenes here in the Philippines for the Bourne series. We're pretty excited about it. Regards of what it turns out, I know people here will be proud that we get our places shown to the world, a chance we rarely get.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that the stories at times do not mature with time. The thing about Mission Impossible was that the first movie was rather complex and I think a lot of people came out saying they didn't get it. Also after that I believe Tom Cruise became a producer in the remainder of the films, so the movies became more about him. Anyhow, I do hope they do something a bit more different next time.

      As for Bourne, they did a lot of filming in India as well. I'm happy that more and more people from the west are visiting South East Asia for filming. It's always nice to see local places and actors in western films.

      Delete
  4. In terms of the franchise, I would put this on ahead of the second and on par with the first (to me, the third film was the best in the franchise). I agree that I thought the supporting cast was lackluster at best except for Renner (he's a fantastic actor and worthy actor to carry on the franchise if they choose to do that). I didn't really have an issue with the story and I thought the action scenes were actually intricate and interesting. I do think it suffered from a lack of cast chemistry though and a strong villain.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the comment Shala. I agree with you on Renner. He seems to be doing great in all his roles. Also the lack of cast chemistry point is bang on. Cheers!

      Delete