Regie:
Brad BirdCamera:
Robert ElswitMuziek:
Michael GiacchinoActeurs:
Tom Cruise, Paula Patton, Simon Pegg, Jeremy Renner, Michael Nyqvist, Vladimir Mashkov, Samuli Edelmann, Ivan Shvedoff, Anil Kapoor, Léa Seydoux (meer)Streaming (3)
Samenvattingen(1)
De organisatie Impossible Mission Force (IMF) wordt ervan verdacht betrokken te zijn bij een internationaal terroristisch complot en op non-actief gezet. Ethan Hunt komt in het geheim samen met zijn nieuwe team om de naam van IMF te zuiveren. Tijdens deze ondergrondse missie treedt het zogenaamde Ghost Protocol in werking, waarbij hulp en contact met de buitenwereld onmogelijk zijn... (Universal Pictures International Netherlands)
(meer)Video's (43)
Recensie (13)
In the last third, Ghost Protocol loses not only its breath, but everything else that made what came before so great – the comedic and intelligent sense of detachment, the likable cohesion of the IMF team composed of Cruise, Patton, Renner and Pegg, the way the screenplay inventively plays with clichés, the imaginative hi-tech secret-agent gadgets, the eye-candy action and the suspense. Dubai should have been the last setting, not the central one. And the main bad guy, played by the charismatic Michael Nyqvist should have been given more room to work. Ghost Protocol is enjoyable in its details, but as a whole, it’s only the third best film of the franchise after the first one and M:I III.
()
Mission Impossible is and always has been a great series of great action shots. I’ve always been more interested in them than the story itself, which was never exactly perfect but it managed to captivate my interest. In this instalment, I was more interested in the huge list of interesting actors. Cool Tom Cruise is a classic, but Simon Pegg also amused me a lot. On the other hand, it is a pity that Michael Nyqvist did not have a more remarkable part and that you can’t even tell that some scenes were shot in the Czech Republic. The important thing is that the director of animated movies was able to make one of the best action films that I have seen in the last few years. And I think that when I give it a go again, I might increase my rating to five stars, because some scenes here were really at the level of an action orgasm and I couldn’t get enough of them. Tom Cruise is really a champ, considering what I heard about how well he treated ordinary people on the set in Mladá Boleslav, and especially the fact that he shot all the action scenes himself. I bow down before him.
()
The most compelling evidence for why we should adore Abrams. This Scientology production tinsel may have inherited most of its predecessor's hallmarks, such as adrenaline-pumping action and plenty of teasing of past films, but it neglected to add at least a drop of itself to it. Neither the BMW prototype nor the protagonist's breasts stay in your head longer than the legendary opening countdown lasts; there’s zero work with the villain, the plot isn’t very catchy, and the premature climax of everything that was already done in Dubai is Bird's sole responsibility.
()
The concern that Bird, who undoubtedly has a liking for technology, would bury the franchise that Abrams jump-started under a pile of modern gadgets was unfounded. High-tech gadgets are the last thing that the participants in this experiential journey to the roots of the franchise can rely on, though they encourage the film’s most inspiring contemplation on the relationship between the copy and the original, between virtual action and its real consequences (the manifold duplication of reality – one sequence even involves the creation of a situation that is just coming together – smacks of a Baudrillard-esque simulacrum; the scene of controlling Brandt with a hovercraft works with an extreme form of computer simulation, when the life of a person depends on technology). ___ Inoperable technology and lack of time force the agents to come up with alternative solutions on the fly, which slightly undermines the otherwise unshakable certainty that everything will turn out well and no one important will come to harm. During Hunt’s perilous feat of skyscraper-climbing – a more adrenaline-fueled version of Harold Lloyd’s brilliant Safety Last! – my hair seriously stood on end a few times despite the cartoonish exaggeration when the protagonists laugh at the fact that if something goes wrong, in the worst case they will die. Animated films and classic slapstick can be “sensed” in most of the action scenes with animate objects (the gloves), brilliant gradations (jumping on the train) and geometric use of space (the climax with parallel use of multiple directions of movement). Even without the stereoscopic effect, the steep ascent followed by a descent induces nausea similar to that experienced on a roller-coaster ride. ___ Before Pixar started making action movies, the perfect balance of suspense and humour was the domain of Bond films, but after the reboot with Daniel Craig, the Bond franchise became more serious and cleared the field of expensive, bombastic entertainment for others. Mission: Impossible doesn’t have a comparably charismatic protagonist in Cruise, but the screenwriters do an excellent job with exaggeration within the bounds of tolerability and artful creation of BIG action-packed situations. Bird helps to patch the bigger holes in the logic (could they really not have waited for the Dubai deal to take place and then follow the people involved?) by directing the action scenes and the screenplay with self-referential moments (“light the fuse”, the recording doesn’t self-destruct, “Mission accomplished”). ___ Because of their status as undesirables, the protagonists lack a firm background. As a band of outcasts (as opposed to the individual renegades that are currently in fashion), they have to be constantly on the move and deal with their private matters while they’re on the run. It would benefit the film if they didn’t address those matters and thus disrupt the professional prioritisation of global interests over the characters’ own personal interests. Also, because of the flashbacks, which slow the film’s pace, the narrative is not the most cohesive. It doesn't keep us in constant suspense as to what’s coming in the next minute and it comes close to being another manifestation of the syndrome that afflicts so many contemporary animated films, in which the piling up of attractions replaces a more well-thought-out narrative structure. It also lacks a more loathsome villain (Nyqvist isn’t bad, but he isn’t given appropriate space) and a more impactful climax (just an airbag commercial followed by a theatrical “fizzling out”), but it’s still the fastest-paced action film made in Hollywood this year. 80%
()
(minder)
(meer)
Everything I could ask for from an action movie. Well-written dialogues, detailed scenes that wait calmly for half an hour before engaging some of the indicated elements, a polished visual, and a soundtrack that reflects the subtle irony and exaggeration of the whole spectacle. Two hours of dynamism, invention and infiltration, each with more ideas than any previous MI as a whole. Finally, it doesn't take itself too seriously and it bets on only one big currency - spy entertainment. The best MI and overall one of the best and most unique blockbusters of recent years. Thumbs up for Brad Bird - he sees action differently. Where others would bet on monumetality and quantity, the director plays with the perfect execution of de facto relatively tight scenes, the spectacularity of which does not lie in the number of explosions, but rather in the intelligent use of scale and utilization of the environment. Bird just sees better.
()
Reclame