284 replies to this topic

[hcmv007]

Saw it this morning & loved it! This one felt more like the TV show with the team working together-Simon Pegg had great one liners, Jeremy Renner's character becomes likeable & Paula Patton gets in the best chick fight ever. Really enjoyed the pacing & I guess I need to check out MI-3 now! If they do make an MI-5 I will definitely give it a shot.

[Loomis]

This film is certainly not without flaws, but on the whole I enjoyed it tremendously. Count me among those for whom the first half is rather stronger than the second, but boy oh boy what a first half!

Didn't see GHOST PROTOCOL in IMAX, unfortunately, but would love to.

[Captain Tightpants]

Count me among those for whom the first half is rather stronger than the second, but boy oh boy what a first half!

And all of it is for nothing with the weak climax. It's as if the writers ran out of ideas halfway into the script.

[Mr Teddy Bear]

Was lucky enough to see it on the IMAX screen and it didn't fail to deliver. Not sure how they will go bigger for the next one.

[Captain Tightpants]

The best spy-actioner in years, Bond23 still has its work cut out. the folks at EON must be distressed Cruise latest outing can easily match the last two 007 outings and actually improve on them.

I don't think they'd be too bothered, considering that the story is basically THE SPY WHO LOVED ME.

[Captain Tightpants]

I mean the film. The basic plot (and it's not a very imaginitive one at that) is the same: the villain wants to start a nuclear war in order to re-start civilisation. The major point of difference between TSWLM and GHOST PROTOCOL is that America actually has a reason for bombing Russia in TSWLM - the Cold War. The biggest plot hole in GHOST PROTOCOL is that America had no reason to bomb the Kremlin in the first place, and that if the Russians had taken two minutes to stop and assess the situation, they would have concluded that it was a terror attack, and not an unprovoked act of war.

[TCK]

Watched it. Not so delighted. The third one remains the best. Action scenes are amazing, though.

[The Shark]

Watched it. Not so delighted. The third one remains the best.

Why? From what I remember, it was pretty awful. Epileptic action scenes, soap melodrama, lame script, and it felt like a feature length episode of ALIAS.

AfrikaansAlbanianArabicArmenianAzerbaijaniBasqueBelarusianBulgarianCatalanChinese (Simplified)Chinese (Traditional)CroatianCzechDanishDetect languageDutchEnglishEstonianFilipinoFinnishFrenchGalicianGeorgianGermanGreekHaitian CreoleHebrewHindiHungarianIcelandicIndonesianIrialianJapaneseKoreanLatinLatvianLithuanianMacedonianMalayMalteseNorwegianPersianPolishPortugueseRomanianRussianSerbianSlovakSlovenianSpanishSwahiliSwedishThaiTurkishUkrainianUrduVietnameseWelshYiddish⇄AfrikaansAlbanianArabicArmenianAzerbaijaniBasqueBelarusianBulgarianCatalanChinese (Simplified)Chinese (Traditional)CroatianCzechDanishDutchEnglishEstonianFilipinoFinnishFrenchGalicianGeorgianGermanGreekHaitian CreoleHebrewHindiHungarianIcelandicIndonesianIrialianJapaneseKoreanLatinLatvianLithuanianMacedonianMalayMalteseNorwegianPersianPolishPortugueseRomanianRussianSerbianSlovakSlovenianSpanishSwahiliSwedishThaiTurkishUkrainianUrduVietnameseWelshYiddish

Detect language » Hungarian

[Captain Tightpants]

Even though there was "evidence", there was still no motive for the attack. America had no reason to destroy the Kremlin.

While Stromberg wanted to destroy civilisation, this baddie from MIwanted that the nuclear strike would change the ideas about nuclear weapons and change the ideas of the countries having them.

No, neither of them wanted that.

Karl Stromberg wanted to destroy life on earth so that a new civilisation could begin under the sea.

Michael Nyqvist's character (I can't even remember his name) wanted to destroy life on earth in the name of human evolution because he believed the strong would survive and the weak would die.

[Safari Suit]

This was a pleasant surprise for me; I know the buzz was excellent, but then it was much the same for the mediocre third film (which it seemed to resemble from the trailers), and I didn't really get why everyone was so sold on Brad Bird on the basis of a couple of nice cartoons. This is the best of the sequels by some distance; nowhere near as vapid as the second, and nowhere near as bland as the third. I agree it could have perhaps done with tightening up a little in the second half, and Pegg is pretty annoying at times, but all the big set-pieces are outstanding and it kept me interested throughout. Jeremy Renner is an excellent addition, as you would expect. I do have a particular attachment to the style of the first film, but I can understand why people would prefer Ghost Protocol

[Loomis]

Count me among those for whom the first half is rather stronger than the second, but boy oh boy what a first half!

And all of it is for nothing with the weak climax. It's as if the writers ran out of ideas halfway into the script.

No, all of it is not for nothing, because the good bits of GHOST PROTOCOL are very, very good indeed and well worth the price of admission.

I'm thinking particularly of the first half hour or so (all the scenes in Russia are virtually flawless - superbly suspenseful and witty stuff), the climbing of the Burj Khalifa (albeit that this terrific, edge-of-seat action scene would have been even more terrific and edge-of-seat without being drowned in Michael Giacchino's score, or indeed any music at all - it was, if you ask me, a major error not to have this part of the film play out in total silence save for the sound effects of Cruise climbing) and the car chase in the sandstorm.

My gripes about the overbearing and redundant score aside, these parts of the film are done so exceptionally well and are so very entertaining that if the rest of GHOST PROTOCOL matched up to the same standard we'd be talking a total classic of the blockbuster franchise genre.

GHOST PROTOCOL is a mixed bag, and, yes, it runs out of steam, but I won't write off any film that, for all its flaws, offers at least forty minutes or so of brilliance.

[Captain Tightpants]

I'm not denying that the film has its strong points. I agree that the Russia scenes are particularly strong, and I think that they could have made a good film in their own right. And the action scenes in Dubai were indeed impressive, though story-wise, I felt as if I had already seen it; I kept expecting Timothy Hutton to show up. But everything is let down by a weak overall plot. I can only imagine that the writers hit upon the idea of the entire IMF being disavowed, and then felt that this would only happen in the most extreme of circumstances. And that's a fair enough setup. A nuclear war is fairly extreme, and I could but that. But then it feels like they ran out of ideas. Michael Nyqvist's character was one of the weakest I have ever seen, and the whole film collapses based on the premise that he is out to destroy the world. Like I said, America had no reason to bomb the Kremlin, and if the Russians had taken two minutes to investigate, they would have realised as much.

[Napoleon Solo]

Yes, there actually appeared to be some beyond using Lalo Schifrin's theme music. Specific episodes The Falcon and The Bunker appear to have been referenced (in the form of much spiffier gadgets) and there was even a passing reference to "the Syndicate," which in the original show was a nom de plume for the Mafia (something quite common on other '60s shows). More generally, the new movie stressed the notion of teamwork, something that had received the short shrift in previous M:I movies.

[Matt_13]

My read on the plot was the following: A team of Americans are caught bombing the Kremlin. While the government can't be fully blamed for the incident, the fact that US nationals were responsible for such an attack would no doubt raise tensions between the two nations. Nyquist's character launches a nuke at Seattle, seemingly a Russian retaliation for the initial "undeclared act of war," and then boom, nuclear holocaust. Pretty clear.

[Captain Tightpants]

Well, yes, that was the intention, and the film makes that pretty clear. However, despite the evidence of an American presence at the Kremlin when it was bombed, there was no motive for the attack. America had absolutely no reason to bomb a government building like that. If the Russians had taken two minutes to investigate, they could have easily come to the conclusion that Chechen separatists were responsible.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Actually... why the hell did they kill the IMF Secretary a day after he'd gotten some peace award from Putin? That'd be seen as something of an act of war, no?

[Captain Tightpants]

Ethan Hunt was the target. Sidirov may not have been aware that the secretary was in the car.

But yes, it is a bit of a plot hole. No doubt one that was unintentional; the secretary was the only person outside the car that knew of Hunt's off-the-books mission. His death maent that what little support unt had been offered was now gone.

[Captain Tightpants]

There's a whole thread on GHOST PROTOCOL here.

[Loomis]

Well, yes, that was the intention, and the film makes that pretty clear. However, despite the evidence of an American presence at the Kremlin when it was bombed, there was no motive for the attack. America had absolutely no reason to bomb a government building like that. If the Russians had taken two minutes to investigate, they could have easily come to the conclusion that Chechen separatists were responsible.

Sure, but how is this different to, say, TOMORROW NEVER DIES? If the British government paused to think for just two seconds, they'd surely realise that China would have had no motive to attack the Devonshire. And the idea that Britain would be prepared to go straight (or almost straight) to all-out war with China (and over a relatively minor skirmish the ins and outs of which were still unclear) is utterly prepoosterous.

I mean, you're absolutely right in what you say, but films like GHOST PROTOCOL and TND are only supposed to be escapist entertainments. They're not meant to be in any way realistic. Watching them, my test question is not: "Is this a convincing picture of international relations?", but: "Is this a rollercoaster ride of action and entertainment that does what it says on the tin?"

[Jim]

Just seen it and thought it was rather super. Evidently given any thought it will doubtless collapse, but have better things to do with my time than to chivvy a film for unnecessarinesses. Good fun on a godawful day.

[volante]

Watched Ghost Protocol the other night and have come away with mixed feelings.
I wanted it to be gritty and dark; but what I got was light hearted with lots of tongue in cheek funny lines.
The action was fantastic; contrived but fantastic.
All in all I enjoyed what it gave me; as I said I wanted something else, but I loved what I got.

[SecretAgentFan]

Well, yes, that was the intention, and the film makes that pretty clear. However, despite the evidence of an American presence at the Kremlin when it was bombed, there was no motive for the attack. America had absolutely no reason to bomb a government building like that. If the Russians had taken two minutes to investigate, they could have easily come to the conclusion that Chechen separatists were responsible.

... and as we all know, governments always keep a cool head and investigate thoroughly before blaming anyone or starting wars...

[Matt_13]

Well, yes, that was the intention, and the film makes that pretty clear. However, despite the evidence of an American presence at the Kremlin when it was bombed, there was no motive for the attack. America had absolutely no reason to bomb a government building like that. If the Russians had taken two minutes to investigate, they could have easily come to the conclusion that Chechen separatists were responsible.

... and as we all know, governments always keep a cool head and investigate thoroughly before blaming anyone or starting wars...

Right?

You're thinking too much, Captain. I mean really, who in their right mind would attempt to win back lost funds in a poker game? Same concept applies here.

[tdalton]

Sure, but how is this different to, say, TOMORROW NEVER DIES? If the British government paused to think for just two seconds, they'd surely realise that China would have had no motive to attack the Devonshire. And the idea that Britain would be prepared to go straight (or almost straight) to all-out war with China (and over a relatively minor skirmish the ins and outs of which were still unclear) is utterly prepoosterous.

I think that you could say that about a large majority of the films that make up the action genre. Very few films, unless they are going for outright gritty realism like the Bourne films attempt to do, stand up to too much scrutiny or application of logic (and even then, I'm sure flaws could be found in those films as well).

I mean really, who in their right mind would attempt to win back lost funds in a poker game? Same concept applies here.

Very much agreed. Also, what government would send an agent to play in said poker game to try to bankrupt the terrorist and force him into sanctuary, especially when there's a significant chance the agent could end up committing government funds to a terrorist? It would have been much easier to simply commit the action of rendition on Le Chiffre and forcibly bring him back to the UK, or wherever else they might want to take him.

Edited by tdalton, 30 December 2011 - 06:16 PM.

[Captain Tightpants]

Sure, but how is this different to, say, TOMORROW NEVER DIES? If the British government paused to think for just two seconds, they'd surely realise that China would have had no motive to attack the Devonshire. And the idea that Britain would be prepared to go straight (or almost straight) to all-out war with China (and over a relatively minor skirmish the ins and outs of which were still unclear) is utterly prepoosterous.

When did I ever say TND was more plausible?

I just think that with the premise behind it - the IMF being disavowed - and the content of the Russia scenes (and, to a lesser extent, Dubai; they felt a bit like I was watching an episode of "Leverage"), the film needed a strong story to back it up. It deserved on. And GHOST PROTOCOL has nothing of the sort.

[Loomis]

When did I ever say TND was more plausible?

You didn't. And I don't know what you think of TOMORROW NEVER DIES, but there are, I presume, several Bond films that you enjoy very much, and, given that every single Bond film is highly implausible, indeed ludicrous, the point I was trying to make is that you're slamming GHOST PROTOCOL for things you give a pass to if they happen in Bond films.

Or, to put it rather less wordily: GHOST PROTOCOL is surely no more implausible than yer average Bond flick, no?

I just think that with the premise behind it - the IMF being disavowed - and the content of the Russia scenes (and, to a lesser extent, Dubai; they felt a bit like I was watching an episode of "Leverage"), the film needed a strong story to back it up. It deserved on. And GHOST PROTOCOL has nothing of the sort.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending GHOST PROTOCOL's story. It's dreadful. All the MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE films have lousy stories (needless to say, so do nearly all the Bond films). Where you and I part ways, I suppose, is that I could overlook GHOST PROTOCOL's shoddy script (and generally poor dialogue, with the characters constantly talking the plot and Cruise, Paula Patton, Simon Pegg and Jeremy Renner constantly finishing each other's sentences as they share the burden of exposition for the audience - I think it was William Goldman who once aptly referred to this sort of thing as "Huey, Dewey and Louie dialogue") because I found it a very entertaining film, on the whole. I didn't expect the story to be good. I mean, if I had my druthers it would be good, of course, but I still found GHOST PROTOCOL a great fun rollercoaster ride of a popcorn blockbuster, with charismatic leads, terrific scenes of suspense and action, and witty direction. It was pretty much exactly the film I wanted it to be.

[sharpshooter]

I saw Ghost Protocol last week. The gadgets were cool (the holographic projection screen, levitating body suit, remote controlled balloon camera, etc) the action was fun and I liked the sense of humour. For example the battery operated glove Ethan throws off sticking onto the building, and Ethan trying to do the eye scan whilst trying to catch up to the train and dodging objects. There's other instances but those stick out at the moment. I liked seeing the opening light the fuse incorporated into the story. The plot is weak but at least it provided an excuse for above decent entertainment. I'd like to see another flick with the same team.

[Captain Tightpants]

I liked the projector screen. I thought it was very cool and very Bondian - maybe the kind of thing Roger Moore would have used. But I thought the levitating body suit was ridiculous. Not just because it was a levitating body suit, but because the server room that controlled the entire telecom network was located in a narrow and cramped cave thirty feet above a walkway, and so could only really be accessed by the entrance Renner used. What happened if the server went down? Would the technicians need to be levitated into position, too? So in the end, it was a bit like DIE ANOTHER DAY: it probably sounded very cool when the writers first thought of it, but it was just junk science at its worst in the film.

A better way of doing it would have had Renner accessing the server room through the ventilation shaft, but only because the IMF team did not have time to go through the main door (because doing so would likely alert Michael Nyqvist to their plan). Rather than being levitated into position, Renner would have to drop down the shaft and then swing into server room - but the catch would be that team did not realised that the distance he had to drop would be greater than the diameter of the shaft, so he would have to somehow control his descent until the point where he started the swing into the server room, or else be chopped up by the fan. Kind of like the drop scene in MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE 2 where Ethan had to time his jump to allow him to slip through the mechanical vents. I think this would have been a far better way of doing things because then the geography of the scene would make sense.

[Matt_13]

I liked the projector screen. I thought it was very cool and very Bondian - maybe the kind of thing Roger Moore would have used. But I thought the levitating body suit was ridiculous. Not just because it was a levitating body suit, but because the server room that controlled the entire telecom network was located in a narrow and cramped cave thirty feet above a walkway, and so could only really be accessed by the entrance Renner used. What happened if the server went down? Would the technicians need to be levitated into position, too? So in the end, it was a bit like DIE ANOTHER DAY: it probably sounded very cool when the writers first thought of it, but it was just junk science at its worst in the film.

The junk science in DUD failed on screen because the filmmakers kept a straight face for the entire production. Ghost Protocol revels in the absurd and accepts the fact that what it's throwing at you is ridiculous. The entire story is told with tongue firmly in cheek, and that's why it works. That being said, you care enough about the characters because they are so likeable so the tension is real and palpable, despite the other worldly scenario. I guess I just don't understand how you didn't like it Captain. It's totally cool that you didn't, but it boggles the mind a bit.

[Captain Tightpants]

How am I not being clear about this? I didn't like GHOST PROTOCOL because despite the excellent production values, cast and crew, the entire thing is let down is let down by a flimsy, unimaginitive, poorly-written, cliched, underwhelming, uninteresting and poorly-executed story, which suffered even more from a villain with no screen presence whatsoever. It was basically THE SPY WHO LOVED ME all over again, and even that was not a particularly good story when it was done thirty years ago.

To coin a cliche, it has the full six-pack - it just lacks the plastic thing to bind it all together. The over-arching story of wanting to start a nuclear war to usher in the next step of human evolution is one of the weakest I have ever seen; even bad films like TRANSFORMERS 3 at least have a decent premise to them. GHOST PROTOCOL does not. It's a re-hash of a tired script, and whoever thought it was a good idea should be taken into a dark room and be beaten. And the real tragedy of it all is that the cast and the crew had such promise, and deserved more. GHOST PROTOCOL is like going to a five-star restaurant, only to be served prison gruel.