284 replies to this topic

[Safari Suit]

You would concede though, that you are far more concerned with plot logistics, internal logic and realism than the vast, vast majority of people who would ever want to see a fourth Mission:Impossible film, would you not? I'll grant you that it's pretty unlikely that Russia would buy into the idea of an American attack so decidedly in the current climate, but I also think it's even less likely that there are a group of four special agents so skilled (and lucky!) that they could single handedly save parts or all of the world by climbing up a building with magnetic gloves, and that is the premise I'm buying into when I buy a ticket to see the film.

This is not to say I don't agree with some of your criticisms; certainly, the villain is a complete non-entity.

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.

Hmm, I think it's a tad disingenuous to claim DAD takes itself more seriously than Ghost Protocol. Despite DAD's fairly serious opening, I'd say it was quite the opposite.

[Chief of SIS]

Saw it for a second time yesterday with the buds and was thoroughly entertained again. However, I found it far superior in IMAX. Apple product placement drove me insane. Why would you use a tiny snake cam attached to a massive iPad? Why, oh why?! I think a lot of these programs you might have trouble finding in the app store. And BMW? In the last scene every car is a BMW. Basically every. single. one. It made me worried that such product placement could run rampant in Skyfall. Anyone else bothered by it?

[hcmv007]

No. I expect to see product placement in the big budget films. Is it great? Not really, but I would hope they could make a better prop (like with the iPad as pointed out). Art imitates life.

[Captain Tightpants]

You would concede though, that you are far more concerned with plot logistics, internal logic and realism than the vast, vast majority of people

Maybe, but I believe that at the heart of good storytelling is a good story. And GHOST PROTOCOL simply doesn't have this. The story is the framing device, the starting point for everything that happens (even if the details of the story are only revealed gradually).

To draw an analogy, the story is the canvas; the events of the film are the painting. The problem with GHOST PROTOCOL is that it isn't painted on canvas at all - it's painted on hessian.

[Harmsway]

If you value story above all, then yes, GHOST PROTOCOL disappoints.

But I don't think the "story is the canvas, the events of the film are the painting" actually bears out. Story ain't everything, and when it comes to film, a great image is worth infinitely more than a watertight, logically-told narrative. GHOST PROTOCOL makes up for any narrative failings through the colorfulness and exuberance of its set pieces and the charm of its performers.

[Captain Tightpants]

Really?

Because I see it thr other way around. The colorfulness and exuberance of its set pieces and the charm of its performers are seriously let down by the failure of the story.

[The Shark]

That ain't my idea of cinema, I'm afraid. It's visual medium, not a verbal one.

[Loomis]

Well, Captain, it just depends on how you choose to look at these things. Harmsway's is the glass-half-full perspective, while yours is the glass-half-empty one.

Honestly, though, could any of us have really expected a great story from MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE 4? You've seen the other films in the franchise, I take it?

[The Shark]

You're talking to the guy who ranted about how a shot in OHMSS had snow on the lens.

[Captain Tightpants]

No, I ranted about how it had grime on the lens. And this was in spite of everyone raving about how great an editor Peter Hunt was - OHMSS was filled with amateur mistakes that violate the basic rules of film-making. Like that jump-cut in the middle of a setence when one of the red shirts is talking. Or the confusing angle when the skiier falls off the cliff and you have no idea what you're even supposed to be looking at until he hits the ground. And yet, a dirty camera lens, which for me was the crowning moment of ridicule, because it is the only time I have ever seen a film where an editor and/or director have make such a foolish mistake..

[sharpshooter]

GHOST PROTOCOL makes up for any narrative failings through the colorfulness and exuberance of its set pieces and the charm of its performers.

Agreed.

[The Shark]

No, I ranted about how it had grime on the lens. And this was in spite of everyone raving about how great an editor Peter Hunt was - OHMSS was filled with amateur mistakes that violate the basic rules of film-making. Like that jump-cut in the middle of a setence when one of the red shirts is talking. Or the confusing angle when the skiier falls off the cliff and you have no idea what you're even supposed to be looking at until he hits the ground. And yet, a dirty camera lens, which for me was the crowning moment of ridicule, because it is the only time I have ever seen a film where an editor and/or director have make such a foolish mistake..

Ever thought that it might have been intentional?

[Captain Tightpants]

Oh, sure. Every time I want to take a photograph of a snowy landscape, I always make sure the lens is covered in grime.

Even if that was intentional - and I have no idea why it might be - it still doesn't excuse all the other stupid mistakes throughout the film. How on earth does a disorienting jump-cut in mid-sentence make the viewing experience better?

[The Shark]

Not better, but jump cuts and grit on the lens can help create atmosphere. Ever seen Á BOU DE SOUFFLE?

[Captain Tightpants]

Not better, but jump cuts and grit on the lens can help create atmosphere.

I could perhaps understand this if Hunt did it regularly. But there is only one mid-sentence jump-cut (the redshirt warning Blofeld that Bond and Draco are on the way), and only one shot with a dirty lens. The only atmosphere they created was one of disconnection - I was reminded that I was watching a film as an audience member, rather than participating in the film, and it always takes me a moment to re-engage with the film.

[The Shark]

Not better, but jump cuts and grit on the lens can help create atmosphere.

I could perhaps understand this if Hunt did it regularly.

Maybe not during dialogue scenes, Hunt regularly uses the technique for action and suspense, along with grit and snow on the lens (remember the bobsled fight?).

[Captain Tightpants]

If it was just to create action and suspense - personally, I think he failed dismally - why did Hunt use it for dialogue scenes?

OHMSS is just a very poor film because Lazenby wasn't a very good actor and Hunt wasn't a very good director.

[The Shark]

.... Hunt wasn't a very good director.

A few mistakes (?) aside, the consistent quality of his direction in OHMSS says otherwise. Stop zoning in on a few minor details and focus on the big picture.

[Loomis]

Good advice. I wish there were many more films in which the biggest problem was a bit of dirt on the lens in one shot.

[Captain Tightpants]

Stop zoning in on a few minor details and focus on the big picture.

I can't see the big picture because there is grime on the lens.

[Vauxhall]

Well, despite the obvious plot weaknesses, I thought it was a rip-roaring, healthy-sized dollop of big screen goodness. Great fun, decent locations, likeable performances and some of the best action sequences I've seen for years. All in all, very enjoyable.

[The Shark]

Stop zoning in on a few minor details and focus on the big picture.

I can't see the big picture because there is grime on the lens.

In ONE shot!

[volante]

Well, despite the obvious plot weaknesses, I thought it was a rip-roaring, healthy-sized dollop of big screen goodness. Great fun, decent locations, likeable performances and some of the best action sequences I've seen for years. All in all, very enjoyable.

I couldn't have put it better myself.
I would like to add a big respect for Mr. Cruise's guts in running around that building.
I'm looking forward to standing up there myself this weekend.

[Vauxhall]

I would like to add a big respect for Mr. Cruise's guts in running around that building.
I'm looking forward to standing up there myself this weekend.

Make sure you advance book if you haven't already. I was in Dubai last month, and was fairly surprised to find the waiting list was six days to go up the Burj Khalifa. I'd anticipated two or three days, but that really caught me off guard!

[The Dove]

Saw Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol today...a bit weak on storyline, hence it's not a Bond film, but a TERRIFIC action movie! Have to say this is probably the best MI flick of all four.. I was a bit disappointed that Ving Rhames only had a small cameo at the end...but It was nice seeing Andreas Wisnewski reprise his "hoodie" guy role from the first Mission film! Great fun...a nice hours d'euvre to Skyfall.

[SecretAgentFan]

GHOST PROTOCOL makes up for any narrative failings through the colorfulness and exuberance of its set pieces and the charm of its performers.

Agreed.

Absolutely. I simply loved this flick. And I probably did not have as much fun watching an action film since... well... MOONRAKER?

Gee, I´m still so happy about this movie experience. Have to see it again. And again. Just wonderfully done, Mr. Bird!

[SecretAgentFan]

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.

I really cannot understand why you did not enjoy this film at all and - even worse - found all it poorly executed when it was IMO brilliantly executed and top notch all around, with a truly despicable and realistic villain. But let´s agree to absolutely, completely and utterly disagree.

[Safari Suit]

Surely though you've been in a situation where the big new blockbuster that even the critics love™ is something that seems weak and even shoddy to you? I remember my friend and I watching Spider-Man 2 and being alternately bored and actively irritated by the whole thing, so I was astonished when I got home to read online that the rest of the world thought it was something of a masterpiece. A couple of years later, while the praise wasn't exactly universal I was astonished how many people gave Transformers a pass on very little basis. And while it had its moments I was also somewhat baffled by the level of enthusiasm Star Trek generated. So while I don't agree with the Captain on this occassion, I know where he's coming from.

[Captain Tightpants]

In ONE shot!

There is one shot in THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH where Bond dives the Q-Boat under the water. However, the shot lingers on the turgid waters just after he submerges and does the tie-straightening gag - but it's really difficult to tell what is actually going on because there is no geography to it. There is nothing in the shot to give us any clues as to what we're supposed to be looking at. Ignoring the other problems with the film for the moment, this is a case of who one poor shot can harm the film. What should be an exciting chase sequence is thrown off-balance by this bizarre shot of frothing water.

I really cannot understand why you did not enjoy this film at all and - even worse - found all it poorly executed when it was IMO brilliantly executed and top notch all around, with a truly despicable and realistic villain. But let´s agree to absolutely, completely and utterly disagree.

It's simple as to why I did not like it. I did not like it because it was so well-executed. That might sound like a weird thing to say, but all of the raw talent that went into the production and was processed into such a fine film only highlighted the shortcomings of the script. It was like going to a five-star restaurant and being served week-old prison gruel. Sure, you're in a five-star restaurant - but you're eating week-old prison gruel.

And I didn't find Michael Nyqvist to be a particularly despicable or realistic villain. He had virtually no screen presence, and apart from the Exposition News report where he explained his theory and the usual "bring the satellite online" filler, I cannot recall a single line of dialogue. In fact, I was struggling to understand how a Swedish man with an American-sounding name (according to Wikipedia, it's "Kurt Hendricks") could have been the Soviet Union's premier nuclear strategist.

[Simon]

I am afraid it all left me a little non-plussed.

Characters and situations came and went all too quickly. I couldn't follow the plot, didn't sense any motivations. Didn't know who was being fought for what reasons. Really had no idea what was going on, as beautiful as it all undoutedly looked.

Perhaps it needs a second viewing... Or some operatic crib notes.

Really don't think Bond / Skyfall has any reason to be concerned.