In Mission: Impossible, it's a job...one that happens to include gadgets!

Rating: 8/10 (23 May 2012)

I'm not a fan of Tom Cruise, still he's a consummate professional, a decent actor and knows his abilities well. He plays to these as Ethan Hunt. A negative of the movie is after the team has completed their objective. It felt like a start of a thing instead of an end of a thing. I guess though that's the pointsuck you in for another movie.
Jeremy Renner as ex-agent William Brandt stood out for me. I really enjoyed the subtle play of his character. He really took his role in a fluffy action movie seriously and went the distance in his performance. I did feel like his arc ended with an abrupt thump of his character hitting cement but if you conveniently ignore that, he's great. The best thing about Renner, though, is that he has a really great presence but it's not so aggressive that it fights with the others in the cast.
I feel like Simon Pegg as agent Benji Dunn added a nice comic relief, especially with the e-screen scene where he really shined. Toward the end of the movie I think the writers phoned in his part leaving him rather limp. This isn't his fault by any means, rather it's laziness on the part of character development. Paula Patton as agent Jane Carter was a great feminine element. While she didn't wow me, I didn't hate her either. So many females in action movies are fluffy so much so I was just relieved she actually had plenty of meaty moments. I appreciated her moment to shine near the end of the movie when she needed to seduce Brij Nath.
Léa Seydoux as Sabine Moreau was a good call but rather underutilized and under wowing. Still I did enjoy the scene where they made the trade and the papers copied into the briefcase. Michael Nyqvist as Kurt Hendricks was a no go to me. His most memorable scene was the sand storm scene where he kept out thinking Hunt and in the end gets away. He wasn't really even needed in that final scenewe could have just watched Cruise falling off cars. While the villains didn't wow me they were at least smart (on paper) and driven. Nothing new really, but since when has any evil been branded as fresh?
I was seriously surprised how into the gadgets I got. They really made the movie. With Agent Hunt there was this sense of reality about the gadgets, like they might actually exist or at least almost exist. The connection between story and use of said gadget was very fluid and in the moment. Adding to this sense of realism is the fact the gadgets frequently failed, only working long enough that the agents could improvise. If pressed I'd say my favorite gadget are those gloves as they were part of the best stunts in the movie. The tension from the "blue is glue, red is dead" element really kept the forward momentum up. For me the most breathtaking creation of a gadget though is the e-screen that holograms an empty hallway. So creative and yet so simple, this is gadgets done right.
The best scenes had multiple characters, as the best a movie can offer is seeing one character playing off another. I actually liked the sandstorm scene, it was rather unrealistic with it's lack of sand but the idea of it, of pursuing the villain into whatever circumstance you have to in order to get the job done, was a good one. While the plot worked, it didn't blow me awayjust because something works doesn't mean it's beautiful. Ghost Protocol got the job done, cool and proficient.
This is because Brad Bird played to his strengths. Coming from his animation background he understands that each shot has importance, a message and must be connected to the shots on either side. He doesn't worry about creating a huge blockbuster moment but an action sequence that works within the framework of the story. The series of scenes where Cruise is hanging from the tallest building in the world is a perfect example. These scenes are actually rather minor to the actual plot but because of how he composed the shots they became central to the entire story. I believe it's this skill with making unimportant plot matter for both plot's sake and character sake that saves this movie. (It mitigates the lack of motivation present in the characters, both hero and villain.) It does quite a job blowing an action junkie's mind too.
I do wish there was more of a puzzle aspect to the modern Mission: Impossible series. (This is more a writer's purview so I can see why it's lacking here.) There is more to life than the special effects stunt. Nowadays a professional's expertise is played down for the 'everything man' in our modern heroes. On the MI TV show there was a participation from the audience to put together where the different experts fit into the larger plan. (And hence a need for a team rather than a lone agent.) There are no longer any "ahhhh, I get it" moments where you are rewarded for taking on the larger cast of characters and the lack of explanation in the setup. We want nothing so complicated as thinking involved in our action flicks and so rely heavily on looking good instead. There is nothing wrong with being hot, but do you really want to spend your life with your brain off to compensate?
There is much to admire in Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol and so much improvement from previous installments. While I long for an action movie with a brain I'll settle for a well thought out brainless version. In the end it doesn't matter, we know how an action driven story like this will play outsince when has the modern action hero not saved the world?
To read more of my review: http://yaykisspurr.wordpress.com/