Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol

Like most fathers and sons, my dad and I have some rituals, some activities that we do just by ourselves. I'm an only child, so there's no one to share in these rituals, just the two of us. Though there are always some variations, those rituals can be boiled down baseball and the movies. My dad's been a New York Mets fan since he was born, and so am I. (Fun fact: we're also fans of the Buffalo Bills and Buffalo Sabres. We only like teams destined to break our hearts!) I've always been more of a film buff than my dad, though it's probably more honest to say that I've always been more of a film buff than anyone else in my family, close or extended.

Sure, there are some movies that my dad will not see, with me or anyone else. If it's a horror movie, or even a movie that is thought of as horror (prime example: 1979's Alien), he won't see it. And there are some movies, mostly romantic comedies, I've gone to out of obligation, because he wanted to see them while I wanted to run away from them as fast as I could. There are just some movies we see with each other to spend time together. But every once in a while, a movie hits the sweet spot of what we both like: action. One of my dad's favorite movies, one that's become one of mine, is Die Hard. (Calm down, reader, I know you're shocked.) The first movie is the best, but this is pure action fun. It's not too testosterone-y, it's not too incoherent, it's not too violent. It's just right. Some other movies that hit the sweet spot include The Fugitive and the good movie in the Mission: Impossible franchise.

(It's worth noting, mind you, that the latter films are based on television shows. Remember how, back in the 1990s, it seemed like every other movie was inspired by a TV show? Good times.)

I remember seeing the first Mission: Impossible movie back in May of 1996, and loving it. Siskel and Ebert reviewed it and complained that it was convoluted, that the story made no sense. They were intelligent critics, sure, and the Brian de Palma-helmed actioner isn't exactly 100% plausible, but who cares? This movie had Tom Cruise suspended by a wire in complete silence. It had Tom Cruise blowing up an aquarium/restaurant. It had Tom Cruise fighting a helicopter on a train. WHO CARES? I loved it in ways that I didn't love a lot of modern action movies. The Michael Bay-ification of action movies didn't turn me off the genre, but I wasn't enthralled by the jump cuts, incoherent filmmaking, and shoddy storytelling. My dad and I loved the first film; the less said about the second movie, the better. It was overlong, turgid, and a rip-off of a far better classic. John Woo was another director who might've seemed appropriate for the franchise, but brought a baffling level of Woo-iness to the proceedings.

When J.J. Abrams revived the franchise in 2006, my dad and I were there. Though the movie's best scene is its opening (I do like the bridge battle at the midway point, however), we both enjoyed Mission: Impossible III, not just as a continuation of the franchise but as a fun action movie. Because it's a ritual, because we enjoy action movies, and because we like the first and third movies in the franchise, it made perfect sense that we wound up at our local IMAX theater last night to watch an early screening of Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol.

(At this point, let me cover two questions you likely have, reader. Question One: "Wha? Huh? This isn't a Disney movie! Why are you talking about a movie that's not from the Mouse House? WHY?" Answer: Calm down. You'll find out soon enough, but you really shouldn't get so stressed out about something so minor. Maybe lie down for a minute? Question Two: "Hey, I've heard that, if you see the new Mission: Impossible in certain IMAX theaters, you get to see the opening six minutes for The Dark Knight Rises. Did you see that opening? How was it?" Answer: Yes, I saw the new Mission: Impossible in a real IMAX theater, not a fake on, but sadly, I did not see the prologue to The Dark Knight Rises. However, the audience at our IMAX theater was told by a manager and the event emcee that a) they had seen it and b) it was so awesome, you guys! I mention that because, way to make me hate you, fellas.)

I was intrigued by Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol for a number of reasons. I still liked the series enough that I was excited, but having J.J. Abrams involved as a producer, as opposed to a director didn't concern me. I've liked each of his movies to different degrees, but his Star Trek is the best film he's done by a long shot. I don't know that each Mission: Impossible movie needs to have fresh blood behind the camera--nor that, despite what the press materials say, that was ever the plan--but Abrams has grown as a director elsewhere. It's who Abrams got to direct that really got me excited: Brad Bird. Yes, friends, we've finally gotten to the Disney connection! Brad Bird, the visionary behind The Incredibles and Ratatouille, is the director of Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol, and much of the film's press has regarded whether an animation director could cut it in the world of live-action. The answer is an emphatic, triumphant, and resounding yes.

Mind you, the very idea that jumping from one filmic medium to another would be immensely challenging has been dispelled in many ways over the last few years. Just this year, Gore Verbinski directed the animated movie Rango; he acknowledged that the challenges were immensurate and far worse than he expected. Yes, both types of filmmaking present lots of problems, some different than others, but the idea that you can't direct both kinds, or at least try, is ridiculous. Brad Bird's sturdy, assured, and propulsive direction of Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol proves that, while not everyone can do it, some people have the gift. The film's plot is typically nutty--Ethan Hunt and his IMF team are disavowed after they're blamed for a bombing at the Kremlin and have to stop the man who really is behind the crime--but when you have such tightly paced and impressive action setpieces and sequences, who the hell cares?

Oh, and what setpieces. As I watched the scenes set in Dubai, beginning with Ethan dangling for his life on the outside of the Burj Khalifa, the tallest building in the world and ending with him in the middle of a sandstorm, I felt the same visceral thrill that I got from the sequence in the middle of The Dark Knight that features a truck flipping upside down at the end of a turbulent car chase. Part of why the sequence in M:I-GP works so well is due to Bird's shrewd choice to film key parts of the movie with 65MM cameras so it could be presented in IMAX.

Now, if you've been following the podcast, you know that I am a purist when it comes to format. I ask myself a simple question: how did the filmmaker make this movie? Sure, it's available in 3D, but was it shot in 3D? Sure, I could see Happy Feet Two--which, by the way, is not only in 3D, but in IMAX--but was it meant to be seen in 3D and IMAX, or 2D? Movies that are shot in IMAX are even rarer than those movies filmed in 3D; it's important, then, that people filming with IMAX technology know how to use it right. The most well-known modern filmmaker who employs IMAX cameras with his films is Christopher Nolan, but with M:I-GP, Brad Bird is planting his flag in the sand, or maybe he's just warning Nolan: "I can do a movie with IMAX, too, buddy boy." From what I've read in the press kit, only 27 of the film's 133 minutes was shot in IMAX, but those 27 minutes are glorious. Hell, the whole damn movie is glorious, but the IMAX sequences are jaw-dropping and vertiginous. When Ethan Hunt is hanging by one hand on the 139th floor of the Burj Khalifa, with the camera tilted down so we know exactly how far it is to the ground, it's all a person can do to not grip their armrests and pray to God they don't fall with him.

Roger Ebert, in reviews of classic action films like Aliens defined a subgenre, called the Bruised Forearm Movie, wherein a wife or girlfriend is so gripped with suspense that she grabs her husband's or boyfriend's (or girlfriend's) arm to the point where it bruises. I wouldn't say this is on the level of Aliens in terms of overall quality, but in the Dubai sequences as well as a few other choice moments, I was gripping my armrest tight enough that, had it been a forearm, I'd have bruised it. Accomplishing that level of suspense is all the more impressive because this new Mission: Impossible film isn't chock full of plot-based surprises. It will, I imagine, surprise no one to hear that Ethan Hunt does not fall to his death on that building, but knowing that Tom Cruise was actually climbing up the Burj Khalifa (again, according to the press kit, and although someone could've lied, I don't know what the point would be) makes that scene even more intense.

From the opening prison break-out, set to the tune of Dean Martin's "Ain't That A Kick in the Head?"--to a climactic fight on a rotating parking garage, M:I-GP, with Bird as a cool and confident director and Cruise as his typically self-possessed, uber-intense self, never lets up and shouldn't. I've seen a few criticisms about a key monologue delivered by Jeremy Renner halfway through the film, but I had no problems with it. Even in the most relentless of action movies, there has to be some downtime. Since the monologue answers--or begins to answer--many plot-related questions, it's necessary. With Renner as the one to speak the dialogue (by Josh Applebaum and Andre Nemec; if Bird had a hand in the script, it's uncredited), it's compelling.

Renner, as an IMF analyst with a checkered past, acquits himself admirably here, as do Paula Patton and Simon Pegg, as the other agents alongside Ethan. Pegg returns from the previous outing as comic relief, and...I mean, listen, he's Simon Pegg being his usually geeky yet charming self. What else do you want? Patton gets to be brooding and mournful while kicking ass, taking names, and looking beautiful doing it. The villain, played by Michael Nyqvist, is nothing too special or terribly frightening, but the Mission: Impossible films have been, more or less, about each director trying to top his predecessor. De Palma set the standard with the bravura CIA break-in sequence and the climactic chase in the Chunnel; neither John Woo nor J.J. Abrams were able to top that. With Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol, Brad Bird not only tops Woo and Abrams, but he just might prove himself to be the franchise's best director. Here's the only question Brad Bird needs to ask himself after this movie becomes a smashing success: what does he want? Because Hollywood is going to be bending over backwards to make it happen. He's made a newly minted gem here, one of the most purely entertaining movies of the year; on a more personal note, he made a movie my dad and I could bond over. What more can you ask for in entertainment?