Skip to main content

M:I Month: Mission: Impossible -Ghost Protocol (2011)


Inevitably it was going to come to nukes. This whole franchise is based off a Cold War-era TV series about spies, nuclear weapons had to factor in eventually. And it also just happens to fit the aesthetic interests of the new director brought on to helm Mission: Impossible -Ghost Protocol, Brad Bird -an avid fan of Cold War subjects and iconography, as exemplified in his two most popular movies The Iron Giant and The Incredibles.
The fourth Mission: Impossible film was his live-action movie debut, after back-to-back Pixar classics, and if you pay attention you can certainly find the clues to his animation background in several of his choices here. Although maybe the most beneficial, which feels to directly owe something to The Incredibles in particular, is the expansion of the cast around Tom Cruise as major players in the action. This is the first Mission: Impossible movie to genuinely be about a spy team, with Ethan Hunt at the centre, rather than simply a Tom Cruise vehicle with the cast around him fairly arbitrary. It speaks to shifting times, this was 2011 now. It needed to expand its’ scope of characters, and adapt its’ scope of action for a new decades’ Hollywood climate that doesn’t value genre the way it once did. Ghost Protocol, despite being a direct follow-up to Mission: Impossible III, with notable strains of continuity, is essentially a soft reboot of the series. And one that I think is very successful.
Abandoning completely any hints of the retirement ambitions of Ethan Hunt in the previous installment, the film opens with him being rescued from a Russian prison where he has been interred for an undisclosed span of time, his wife apparently deceased. At the same time, a set of dangerous nuclear codes have been stolen off of another IMF agent for a buyer called Cobalt (Michael Nyqvist). A mission to investigate him at the Kremlin turns awry when a bomb goes off, destroying much of the building, creating a diplomatic catastrophe, and resulting in the dissolution of the IMF. Hunt is armed with simply a small team: handler Jane Carter (Paula Patton), tech strategist Benji Dunn (Simon Pegg in a major upgrade of his character in M:I:III), and analyst William Brandt (Jeremy Renner), to go after Cobalt and stop his provocation of a nuclear war.
Centralizing the crew and cutting them off from their resources is a great way to freshen up this series and increase the mission stakes. It also makes for a more organic way to establish this new dynamic. Over the course of the movie they form a strong unit and balance each other out in interesting ways. Carter is in trauma getting over the loss of an agent she was close to (possibly romantically involved), while Brandt has that degree of mystery hanging over him that Renner plays very well; and Benji might even be the secret sauce, Pegg providing the films’ sense of comic relief and relatability -while also turning on that genuine cool he developed on Hot Fuzz. Cruise of course maintains his daring charisma, but he seems humbled too -more than in any previous film, wearing the loss of his wife and the weight of the mission quite earnestly.
The machinations of the figures around them maybe aren’t so interesting -Nyqvist’s villain is the only element not a step-up from the last movie- but they provide for plot threads that serve both the story and the action requirements. Vladimir Mashkov’s Russian agent tailing Hunt for the Kremlin bombing is an interesting recurring element -even if he might just be a little superfluous; while characters like Ilia Volok’s friendly arms dealer and especially Léa Seydoux’s catalyst assassin are just a treat to watch (Seydoux gets an awesome fight scene with Patton midway through). All are juggled well by Bird, whose understanding of the importance of visual story beats doesn’t hamper his handling of the more direct tension, drama and humour that the movie engages in.
But of course he was hired for those visual storytelling skills, transferred from his animation background. And Bird takes to them with incredible confidence and aptitude, whether it’s the chaos of the exploding Kremlin, or Hunt pursuing Cobalt through a sandstorm (both of which require some classic Tom Cruise running). The big set-piece of the movie however is the Burj Khalifa, almost certainly chosen before a script was even written -because what better way to up the ante than to have Cruise scaling the tallest building in the world. When he is actually out there precariously on the side of the tower more than a hundred stories up it is genuinely thrilling -one of the first times this series has truly impressed me with an action sequence. There is value in the tangibility of it -the knowledge that Cruise (though supported) was actually out there climbing and falling and at one point leaping into an open window, it makes a difference. Really gives an authentic weight to the franchise title in a way it hadn’t before.
The climax isn’t quite as well structured, for as drastic as the stakes become, but it certainly carries its’ own series of cool sequences. That’s another thing that Bird seems well suited for, he lends a stylishness to several scenes that actually brings a little bit of glamour back into the spy genre. It probably could have done without Carter seducing an Indian media mogul (Anil Kapoor) though, which even the movie itself seems to realize is reductive. But the last scenes do work to fulfil character arcs, particularly concerning Hunt and Brandt, and ultimately find a way around the fridging of Hunt’s wife that still effectively excises her from the series. And the post-mission briefing even brings back Luther, absent for whatever reason from this adventure.
The movie ends with Hunt thanking his team and saying he couldn’t have done it without them; it provides him with a resolution for the lingering threads of the last movie and seemingly sets up the next one as well. This shift that Ghost Protocol brought about was necessary, with a strong enough story and creative focus to earn that stature that Mission: Impossible now enjoys as more than just an action-spy series based on an old TV show. Going on fifteen years, it in no way feels like a relic.
Next week we’ll see how its’ fortunes continue under the last new director this series would bring on, Christopher McQuarrie, in Mission: Impossible –Rogue Nation.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
1 comment
Read more

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...
Post a Comment
Read more