ads

Slider[Style1]

Style2






The way I have always looked at it; the Mission: Impossible movie-series is the American answer to the popular James Bond franchise. That means that it's also featuring plenty of gadgets, exotic or far off locations and a typical spy-thriller plot but only all done bigger, though not necessarily better as well.

You can't exactly call the series the most consistent. Every movie so far has been quite different in style and tone. I thought that this movie did a pretty good job at combining all of the best elements out of the first three movies, into this one. It has the sort of spy and thriller elements of the first movie, the action of the second one and the more realistic approach of the third movie.

Then why isn't it the best movie out of the series you might wonder. Because it's still suffering from the same problems as the previous two movies did; It has a far too simplistic story in it. Yes, I wasn't that big on "Mission: Impossible III", while the rest of the world seemed to absolutely love it at the time and lots of people called it one of the best action movies ever made. But as things turned out later, more and more people start to see and realize "Mission: Impossible III" wasn't all that perfect at all and most already seem to have already forgotten about that movie now days. Why is that relevant for this movie? Because I think "Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol" will suffer the same fate. People are praising it and all loving it now because it's all good and spectacular looking on the big screen but I just don't think this is a movie that remains fun and good to watch, over and over again, or in couple of years from now, when multiple other similar genre movies will have been made. The movie, as it is, just doesn't have enough to offer for that.

I said that the story was simple but what I perhaps meant more was that it was totally secondary for the movie, it seemed. The story itself was actually quite hard to follow because you simply often have no idea what is going and the movie forces you to take a lot of things for granted. You'll just have to accept Ethan has to climb up a building, they have to disguise themselves at times and people HAVE to jump down an air vent to get the job done. Why was this all needed for the movie? No reason, other than making this a spectacular movie to watch.

And yes, this is simply a good and spectacular movie to watch. Director Brad Bird obviously has a talent for action, big and small. Yes, the movie is featuring plenty of explosions and other CGI action sequences but it's being just as great and spectacular with its little moments, such as all of its hand to hand combats. In that regard this simply is a great popcorn flick and a movie to enjoy.

What could had definitely improved the movie was a better villain. Seriously, there hardly is any focus on any villain at all. After having seen this movie, I still have no idea who was supposed to be the main villain. A good, more visible and present villain would had possibly improved the story as well but it appears that the movie deliberately tried to put all of its emphasis on Ethan Hunt and his team members. And they do have some good chemistry together and are all a joy to watch in their own way. Lets hope that will all be back for more Mission: Impossible movies. Fore if there is one thing that this movie made apparent, it is that there is still plenty of potential- and a bright future for the series, with Tom Cruise, Jeremy Renner, Simon Pegg and Paula Patton all involved.

It appears to me that you can really enjoy this movie for what it is, when you choose to do so but when you look more beneath its surface, it's a far from perfect movie.

7/10

Watch trailer

About Frank Veenstra

Watches movies...writes about them...and that's it for now.
«
Next
Newer Post
»
Previous
Older Post

No comments:

Post a Comment


Top