M.I. Ghost Protocol ! felt like going to watch again!

I watched the first MI movie. Wow I've been talking shit haven't I. Great movie. The script is smart, and while it isn't action heavy like the other movies, the setpieces it does have are very cool. Love the opening credits as well, something the new movie was rather bad at. Surprising how much taste in movie changes in just a few years. It isn't even outdated as I had remembered (apart from a very few, small scenes).

So... I may have to place the first movie at the top of the series, but I better watch II and III first lest I start calling myself an idiot again.

I watched this yesterday and it was fun movie, nice one to pass time. What I did like in this movie is the apparent level of improvisation shown. No doubt the previous ones had it too but to me, all of them seems carefully calculated while in this one, in the words of Vincent (Tom Cruise, Collateral), "Now we gotta make the best of it, improvise, adapt to the environment, Darwin, shit happens, I Ching, whatever man, we gotta roll with it."

This theme alone made the movie enjoyable for me. Not the tech because you know you're in for it. Not the scenery because you'd seen it in the trailer.

However, in my listing, the original mission impossible is at the top, followed by both the 3rd and the 4th because both has it's unique auro to it. MI2? What's that?

On the side note, the one thing I noticed in the very beginning of this movie is the man is old. Tom Cruise is old. Sigh... He still look great in Knight and Day but in this one, he's just old... Also, when he wore the hood, it reminds me of him in Minority Report where he jogs in the middle of the night, finding the drug dealer.

Good movie.

This post has been edited by tylerson81: Dec 26 2011, 05:52 PM

nice movie. great visuals. more humour which wasnt a trademark of MI movies, some good some unneeded. trailers seem all so serious and epic. movie turned it more funny than serious. stupid review i know. everyones already said what i had in mind and then some more.

I got mad watching the show. They failed to use MASKSSSSSSSSSSS

anil kapoor is a suprise though

---

Added on December 27, 2011, 11:45 am.... and atleast when can see how inside of burj khalifa looks like ..

This post has been edited by mkaz: Dec 27 2011, 11:45 AM

I loved the movie. Best of the series, and best action movie of the year without a doubt.

I think what you guys need to realize is how intentionally different it is from the rest of the series - because every movie in the series has been different from each other.

1st - twisty, convoluted mystery
2nd - operatic Hong Kong-style action and romance
3rd - gritty and intensely personal

And this one? Is just plain fun. Not an out-and-out action comedy, but more light-hearted than every other so far. The plot is a rollercoaster from start to finish, and it just doesn't bother to delve into the characters or get too emotional. It doesn't intend to.

I think a lot of people's criticisms against it stem from the fact that they just don't understand what it's intending - that they want the movie to be something it's not.

I disagree. There were a lot of shortcuts in the plot. In the 3rd movie we're made to understand that he got married and left this life behind, and then suddenly he's separated from his wife to protect her and conveniently able to undertake missions again. And need I mention the criminal underuse of veteran actor Anil Kapoor's talents and Simon Pegg's wit (the jokes were meh at best)? If the movie intends to be one you're not supposed to take seriously, then it succeeds. I personally had different expectations but I guess that must be just me.

Explained quite adequately in the end.

Why criminal overuse? Kapoor's sole purpose was comic relief and he fulfilled it just fine. Also, I thought Simon Pegg's jokes were pretty funny, and so did the rest of the cinema audience with me. Seems like you were unlucky enough to be in an unresponsive crowd.

Exactly what I meant.

While I agree with a lot of what you said, was the new movie that much different from the third? Sure, the third had more intense pacing and tone (big chunk due to Hoffman), but it was also a whole damn lot of fun. This one was lighter, brisker, and not that different. The first three movies were all very different, of course.

I just feel that III accomplished almost everything that was good and fun here whilst also being more thrilling overall.

This post has been edited by QuickFire: Dec 27 2011, 07:57 PM

Tone is exactly what differentiates this one from the others. Third one had Ethan Hunt watching the love of his life get murdered before his eyes. That's J.J. Abrams' trademark, combining action and suspense with personal emotional stakes. MI4 had nothing so serious, and was even a bit light-hearted. It had Hunt yelling "Mission... accomplished!!!" And there was definitely something almost-comedic about how one thing after another goes wrong with their plans. They couldn't even use their masks this time, because their mask-making machine broke down for no reason.

I liked III just fine. But for sheer action craftsmanship, MI4 is better.

I agree.

Whether or not it was explained doesn't change the fact that it was a shortcut meant to retcon the ending of III so Cruise can pull more sequels out of the MI hat. The fact that Kapoor was only used as comic relief was a criminal underuse for me. He's a veteran actor, very capable of pulling off an even meatier role rather than the 2-bit 5 minute part he was given. Simon Pegg's jokes are typically deeper and more cynical with double meaning as he showed in Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead. Granted he probably didn't write his lines here but it was more slapstick, situational humour; not the humour I was used to watching him deliver.

III was certainly very intense, together with the 1st, definitely my pick of the lot

The mask making thing kinda highlighted another minor issue for me though. A world famous assassin, looking to sell codes to a nuclear device for a hefty amount of money (or diamonds), did not bother to look up what the person she was selling to looked like? And vice versa?

In other words, you would prefer that Ethan Hunt retire happily and there'll be no more Mission: Impossible movies? Then why are you watching this one?

Too bad. I thought Chow Yun-Fat was criminally underused in Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. But the fact is, Kapoor's role is just that. If you want to give him a meatier role - maybe make him the main villain, or something - you are thinking about the script that you want to write, not the movie you're watching.

Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead are movies that Pegg himself wrote (along with Edgar Wright). This is not one of them. Pegg has acted in plenty movies he did not write himself, and he has no problem doing so.

Not a problem to me. Lots of people are not comfortable with putting up public profiles of themselves with their pictures on the internet, why would an assassin and a terrorist do so?

Again, it seems like your problem with the movie is that you have too many unfair expectations of it.

I watched it because I wanted to. Well, now that you mention it, it wouldn't be wrong for him to retire. I saw MI3 as a good point to induct a new lead into the role. And I agree with you, Chow Yun Fat was underused in Pirates 3, another movie I had my problems with. The role Kapoor was given could've easily been pulled off by a lesser star. By the looks of it, it seems he was only included to give the team a reason to go to Mumbai and to appeal to Hindi movie fans. Simon Pegg was pretty good in Star Trek in my opinion. A movie he didn't write himself yet delivered some pretty good humour as and when it was needed. You're talking about regular people. I'm talking about an assassin and terrorist who have much more resources than the regular internet. It just doesn't make sense that they would leave so much to chance. And yeah, a Russian nuclear terrorist? James Bond called, they want their 1960s scripts back.

Let's just agree to disagree. You obviously think a light hearted sequel is good. I think it's good for a Saturday night viewing, not for a franchise.

No matter what you think of the movie, you have to admit Ethan Hunt lost all his cred when he put on his... Apple earbuds.



This post has been edited by QuickFire: Dec 28 2011, 02:02 PM

^ lol.

Anyways, there's a surprisingly large amount of debate regarding this action movie.

Personally, I treat it as a rollercoaster ride. Ride it. Enjoy it. Bye bye.

And that is exactly what this movie is like. A roller coaster.

Try to analyse more deeply into this and you'll come out sorely disappointed.

It's a typical, formulaic, JJ Abrams movie. I don't know if any of you have noticed this by now, but almost all JJ Abrams shows are similar in nature. His tv series. His movies. All style, all action. No substance. Even the storyline is contrived. The scenes, dialogue, characters, etc are all just there to function as plot devices to move the story forward. Nothing more.

Which is why I find it amusing when people say he is a genius, storyteller, brilliant movies, yada yada. That's all nonsense.

Yes. He is very good at generating suspense, no matter how contrived (remember the seduction + floating magnet scene? Contrived story telling at its worst.) Yes. He is very good at appealling to modern pop cultures and sensibilities (How he rebooted the nerdy Star Trek in a witty and modern way.) He also likes to make an effort to surprise the viewer (Tom Cruise knocking his head while jumping into the hotel room window) and sometimes likes to cram 101 details a minute into every minute of a movie (Lost, anyone?).

This more or less sums up a majority of his work. And I sometimes like his movies for that. But make no mistake. His is not Oscar material. He can make excellent rollercoaster rides of a movie. That's it.

As for comparisons with the previous MI series, I really hated the first 2. MI is supposed to be about the TEAM. Not Tom, bloody, Cruise. I haven't watched the 3rd movie so can't really comment about that.

This post has been edited by +Newbie+: Dec 28 2011, 03:18 PM

I don't think that Jeremy renner guy can fill Tom cruise shoes. To me he kinda looks like a apek. Should have cast Chris pine.

They both can't match him for sheer star power though.

yup...i totally agree!!
because MI movie is actually adaptation from TV series!!
http://www.tv.com/shows/mission-impossible/