"A" for the action sequences and the visual effects, and "C" for the thin, improbable story lacking a spy thriller flavor

Rating: 6/10 (10 January 2012)

People often say that somewhere very deep in their cold hearts even the hardest cynics believe or at least want to believe in miracles and happy endings.
I am not a cynic, and I actually believe in miracles, but there is one particular miracle that even I find extremely improbable – a fourth sequel in a Hollywood movie franchise being a great film.
While the history of Hollywood does contain some rare occurrences of great sequels ("The Godfather: Part II", "Terminator 2: Judgment Day", or "Shrek 2" ), and great reboots (Christopher Nolan's visionary "Batman Begins"), the vast majority of the sequels are notoriously worse than the original works, with the fourth sequels almost exclusively fluctuating somewhere between the "mediocre" and the "complete junk" levels.
The first "Mission: Impossible",tastefully directed by Brian De Palma, was a true masterpiece of a spy thriller, with a strong, believable story full of intrigue and suspense, good acting, and, of course, with the famous "Mission: Impossible" theme composed by Argentine musician Lalo Schifrin.
Unfortunately, the sequels went straight downhill, quite sharply and quite steeply. After having suffered through a painful experience of watching the barely entertaining popcorn flicks "Mission: Impossible II" and "Mission: Impossible III" I did not expect much of "Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol". Deep inside, however, I still cherished that childish dream, that naïve hope that some altruistic visionary director would become interested in reviving the seemingly hopeless (in terms of the art, not the box office) "Mission: Impossible" franchise.
Then events made an unexpected and an exciting turn: the rave critic and public reviews of "Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol" started appearing in the mass media. Even Roger Ebert called the movie "a terrific thriller with action sequences that function as a kind of action poetry"
I was almost convinced that a true miracle had happened and Brad Bird, previously known only by the full-length Oscar-winning animations "The Incredibles" and "Ratatouille" had grown to be a new Brian De Palma.
As a result, I went to see "Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol" with high expectations and was disappointed, mainly because of the very thin, improbable plot lacking a true "spy thriller" flavor, suspense, and tension, especially in the second part of the movie. "Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol" turned out to be better than "Mission: Impossible II" or "Mission: Impossible III" but not as good as "Casino Royale" from the competing James Bond franchise.
The premature climax of the film marked by the several outstanding action sequences and the full of tension exchange scene in a Dubai hotel happened long before "Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol" actually ended. What followed the culmination was a forced, unimaginative attempt to arrive to a standard happy ending while not completely losing the dangerously quickly disappearing remains of the coherency and the common sense.
The absence of a solid plot foundation made even the most extraordinary action sequences and the most advanced visual effects much less engaging, suspenseful, and thrilling that they were meant to be.
The heavy focus on the action and adventure elements failed to mask the multiple holes and inconsistencies in the predictable, but hard to believe story. In addition, the movie wasted the precious screen time on the long unnecessary comic scene with the amorous shady Indian telecommunications entrepreneur while leaving the key character – the mysterious villain – sadly underdeveloped.
The acting was not particularly bad, but not memorable either. The only noteworthy exception (besides the nice cameo appearance of Tom Wilkinson) was Michael Nyqvist, previously known for his strong performance in the Swedish version of the "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo". In "Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol", Michael Nyqvist quite stylishly and convincingly played the primary antagonist code- named "Cobalt".
Taking into account everything said above, it is not particularly surprising that the aftertaste of the movie is bad and that instead of the fond memories, all we are left with are the questions without answers
Attention: Spoilers below!
Were the authors of the movie unaware of the existence of the American nuclear defense shield that would stop any missile long before it could approach San Francisco? Or, did they decide to sacrifice the believability in order to have a cool scene with a missile self destructing just a split second before it was supposed to blow the city up? We will probably never know, but the result was a very silly movie piece, much more suitable for something like "Voltron: Defender of the Universe" than for a respectable spy thriller.
We will probably never know how the Russian nuclear strategist, a typical armchair scientist, could possibly become a formidable foe for supposedly the best IMF agent Ethan Hunt in his prime. How the grey- headed pre-retiree from a scientific community could be on equal footing in running, auto racing, and even fighting with a much younger, well- trained special agent? Not to mention that the omnipotent strategist with no military background was somehow also able to destroy the Kremlin, steal the nuclear device, and make IMF (the spy agency) a scapegoat for all of that.
However, let us not be too harsh on the director. After all, "Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol" was his first live action film and we know that mistakes will naturally happen when we try doing something new.
In my opinion, the main takeaway for Brad Bird should be the following: all the cheesy, fairy tale-like, hard to believe stories that work fine in "The Incredibles", "Ratatouille", "Voltron: Defender of the Universe" and other animations, do not go as well with the more serious, live action spy thrillers.
knowyourmovie.blogspot.com