Friday, February 15, 2013

"Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol"



Don’t be afraid to have high expectations for the latest film in the “Mission Impossible” franchise: it will deliver.

It’s easy to have lowered expectations for “Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol”, being fourth in the series. The title itself lowers expectations, implying that the filmmakers would rather not admit that it is the fourth film. Considering the inherent implications that come along with sequels in general, much less a third sequel, not to mention all the baggage of each movie that has come before.

Sequels are traditionally looked down upon, but for good reason. The preponderance of film sequels and film franchises provides ample evidence of films which are lazy, thinly-veiled formulaic copies of the original. Even sequels which are viewed as potentially superior to their predecessors are still seen as lacking because they would not be what they are without the original having set the groundwork.  However, this does not preclude them from being original, entertaining, or quality films. Numerous, albeit few, sequels have gone on to be more widely known or more highly regarded than the original, such as “Godfather Part 2”, “The Empire Strikes Back” or “Evil Dead 2”.

However, the majority of sequels tend to xerox their predecessors using one of two directions: be bigger or be more personal. This rule tends to become exasperated as more sequels are added to a given franchise. Each additional sequel which follows this formula usually turns out the way xeroxed copies turn out when their original is itself a copy. By the time a franchise reaches 5, 6, 7 films, the latest sequel ends up a copy of a copy of a copy of a . . .

However, this cliche tends to be relegated to horror movies.  The most successful and longest running franchise in film history has just celebrated the DVD / Blu-ray release of its 23rd film, namely “Skyfall”, along with the 50th anniversary of the first film in the series, “Dr. No”.  The “James Bond” franchise has been able to do what no other franchise has done. Outside of the horror genre, only a few film franchises have made it past 5 films, and none have made it past 10. Time and again, “Bond” films have attempted to reinvent the nature of the franchise, the stories, the era in which they are set, and even the character himself, many times with mixed results, but many times to critical acclaim.

Spy movies lend themselves to originality in sequels in a way that horror movies cannot.  Horror movie franchises (“Friday the 13th”, “Halloween”, “Nightmare on Elm Street”) tend to trap themselves in a paradox: the same villainous monster which gained the franchise its popularity and infamy grips the franchise in the rules of the character, throttling creative ingenuity within the franchise, limiting subsequent sequels to extravagant gimmicks dressed up as original (“Halloween: Resurrection”, “Jason X”).  However, spy films have no such limitations.  The capabilities of the villains of spy films are only limited by the creativity of the filmmakers.  The only consistency necessary in spy films are the hero.

The “Bond” films, of course, feature one of the most recognizable heroes in film.  In the 60’s, a number of films attempted to imitate the “Bond” success with similar characters, like Derek Flint, but the result inadvertently lampooned “Bond” instead of following in suit.  The difficulty, of course, in replicating the “Bond” has been in creating a so-called ‘superspy’ character which is distinguishable from “Bond” and yet not ridiculous enough to be seen as a parody. Where the “Mission Impossible” franchise succeeds is in sidestepping this mistake altogether, and, instead of trying to create a superspy who can do anything, providing a team of specialists whose particular skills and personalities complement each other.

Filmmaker Brad Bird has expertly brought together a team of interesting and vulnerable characters, a rarity for the genre, but a staple for Bird. As his live action debut, this Pixar alum, who was previously responsible for "The Iron Giant" and "The Incredibles", makes the transition smartly, building stunts and effects which are both extravagant and believable, strengthening the story with rich detail.

The cast all bring solid and expansive performances as well. Paula Patton (“Deja Vu”) flexes her action movie muscles, but still manages to fully portray the depth of her character. Jeremy Renner (“Avengers”, “Bourne Legacy”), while bringing the action we’ve all come to expect from him, delivers a performance which is (unexpectedly) both maudlin and funny. Even Simon Pegg shows more than just the funny man. While he tends to be the main source of comedy in the film, he is definitely not the only source, but he also brings more than that, with moments of seriousness not yet seen from him.

This is also the (arguably) the funniest of the four. While Simon Pegg and Jeremy Renner bring a lot of the comedy to the film, both in playing off of each other as well as on their own, the movie also does plenty to lampoon itself, spy movies, and action movies in general, particularly when it comes to the gadgets. Gadgets are a staple of the spy movie genre, particularly the “Bond” films, where 007 is issued a set of gadgets at the beginning of the film, each with a fairly explicit purpose and use, and each of which he just so happens to find a need for within that movie. This feature is also lampooned thoroughly in the tv series “Get Smart” where, far from being useful, the gadgets have earned such a reputation for not working, that both the characters and the audience expect it.  But in “Ghost Protocol”, the gadgets are expected to work, and only fail at the moment that would be most inconvenient, and raise the stakes of the story. This not only makes for some great comedy, but a stronger story as well.

However, the films still have a few flaws. Tom Cruise is still Tom Cruise; with a performance that pales in comparison to numerous others from his career, particularly that from the previous film.  This is also the fourth film which uses the same plot device; namely that Tom Cruise’s character Ethan Hunt is set-up to look like he’s betrayed the agency, and has to function outside the agency, with a team who has limited resources.  He’s been through this four times now; while he seems to be able to handle it just fine, that only makes it less interesting for us.

But, in general, it’s still a fun ride and a good movie

Also, fun thing, watch for the variations of the phrase “your mission, should you choose to accept it” and for appearances of the number 4.

No comments:

Post a Comment