When I was kid I liked watching
Mission: Impossible.
I have no idea who the characters are and I don’t remember much about the
people in the series but I believed the hype. This was when GMA still featured
foreign shows in the primetime lineup which pretty late 80’s if I remember it
correctly (I think it aired every Wednesdays alongside Jake and the Fatman and 21
Jumpstreet but I could be wrong).
I am admittedly a Tom Cruise mark. I think the mark of a
good actor is that he brings instant starpower whenever he’s involved. Remember
his Les Grossman bit in Tropic Thunder or when he played Austin Powers in Austin Powers? I love A Few Good Men, Cocktail, Born on the
Fourth of July, Jerry Maguire, Valkyrie, Rain Man, Risky Business, and the first
Mission: Impossible trilogy. There are a lot of Cruise films that escape me
as of this moment but I’m not here to review his filmography.
Cruise returns to the big
screen as Ethan Hunt in the fourth instalment of the Mission: Impossible series.
Simon Pegg, an actor I completely
adore, returns as Benji Dunn. Pegg
had a small part in the third instalment of the series – getting it after doing
the insanely awesome Shaun of the Dead
movie. Jeremy Renner, the guy who
played Hawkeye in the Thor and the upcoming Avengers movie and Paula Patton – the girl who acted in Precious and in the upcoming sequel of Who Framed Roger Rabbit complete the good guys in this version.
*** SPOILER ALERT ***
What I Liked:
First of all, the overall feel
of the flick is old school. The opening sequence and credits paved the way for
that build up. That lighting up the fuse to execute destruction sequence will
be a wonderful peg for the graphic stuffs I want to make. This Mission:
Impossible instalment isn’t like the second that relied on heavy rap metal
music and John Woo’s action-ness or
the third part where it had a lot of cheesy moments (Keri Russell fan here). The movie concentrated on the action and I
liked how the action scenes weren’t all gory and was done intelligently. I
liked how they combined a lot of things which made this reboot cool like the
part where Renner’s character mimicked the old ceiling hanging scene.
I think Renner’s character is a
prelude of bigger things to come. Cruise is set to turn 50 in 2012 and I doubt
if the Ethan Hunt character will do
a lot of circling and leaping in the next instalments. Yes... I believe there
will be other instalments because of the end parts that I don’t have the
audacity to spoil.
The action scenes do not
disappoint. The scenes ranged from basic to cool but the level of intensity did
not wane. Cruise brought out the thrill when he scaled that big Dubai building as
well as the sandstorm battle he had with the main antagonist. Even the prison
escape scene and that battle where they messed up a lot of cool cars brought
the flick’s swagger to full throttle.
Tom Cruise was like a superhero
in the film but it didn’t hurt the integrity of his character. It did help that
William Brandt (Renner) and Jane Carter (Patton) are flawed and
Benji Dunn is a complete goofball. Simon Pegg is awesome in this flick. His
jokes weren’t forced and they his timing was spot on. My love for this film is
affected by his presence and in some ways I’ll also give credit to that horny playboy
Indian guy.
And what’s a spy film without
the gadgets? The gadgets here are flawed and I really enjoyed Ethan’s struggle
on the Burj Khalifa. The most
awesome gadget he displayed though was the illusion projector he used during
the Kremlin heist. It was funny how
Cruise and Pegg exchanged their awesomeness in that scene. And yeah, I did
notice the Minority Report ode Tom
Cruise had at the end of the flick. It felt cheesy in some ways but hey, Cruise
had a connection with it right?
Finally, the film managed to
mesh the old M:I movies from the current version which brings me the notion
that there will be another trilogy in the near future.
What I Hated:
I just hate one stupid American
action movie cliché scriptwriters and producers make. This is not just for the
M:I flicks but for action movies in general. I don’t think it’s that bad but
with the popularity of the James Bond and the Bourne flicks, I think it’s
cheesy to have the characters journey from country to country. It’s like I am
watching the male version of Eat Pray
Love. It’s like the producers just want to tour using the film production
as scapegoats. I really it when terrorists jump from country to country. Can’t
these bad guys just stick to two countries max?
So basically that’s my problem.
It’s mindlessly feeble right?
The Verdict:
Mission: Impossible Ghost
Protocol is a very entertaining movie. Tom Cruise brought his best in this
movie and the cast also delivered.
This film is watchable in 2D,
3D, or whatever format is available for a more awesome viewing.
Game over.









Missed
ReplyDeleteand messed. That's my review of your review.
Here's
what you missed: the best scene in the movie. Let me point it out to you. It's
that part where Luther Stickell sticks it to Ethan Hunt, or the part where
Tom Cruise gets fingered by Ving Rhames.
Here's what
you messed: basic grammar rules. This is the proper way to write '80s: an ( ‘ )
apostrophe (to stand in for the omission of “19”) before the number “80”
and a lowercase “s” after (to denote plurality, since we are talking of a whole
decade.).
The linking
verb is an essential part of a sentence. You need an “is” in your “…which IS
pretty ‘80s…” convoluted sentence. When I read the entire sentence – “This was
when GMA still featured foreign shows in the primetime lineup which pretty late
80’s if I remember it correctly (I think it aired every Wednesdays alongside
Jake and the Fatman and 21 Jumpstreet but I could be wrong).” – I felt as if I
was trying to find my way through a sandstorm in Dubai’s desert.
And when I
came across “every Wednesdays”, I felt like I was falling from the Burj
Khalifa. “Every” denotes singularity, that’s why we say “everyday”. We learn
something new EVERYDAYS, right?I won't go through the rest of the messed up article. That would be Mission: Impossible!
hey to each his own right.
ReplyDeleteby the way, i could be wrong but there's something wrong with your browser. either that or the "enter" button of your keyboard failed you.
I was wondering what happened when I "copy-pasted" my comment from MS Word. The enter button on my keyboard works perfectly well. But how's your Globe connection? Crawling like a snail again? Or are you using company resources again for your personal blog?
ReplyDeleteStill, you missed it. Tom got fingered! And it's not Tom Green but Tom Cruise. He got fingered by a big black guy, who was a big black gay in the movie "Chuck and Larry", singing "I'm Every Woman", butt-naked. That's Ving Rhames for you!
"To each his own"? That's your retort? To each his own grammar? If that's the case, then it's "game over" for decent writing. Game over.
hayup ka ikaw pala yan! hehe! advance rizal day! nandito si giorj tapos si jenny last last week. pag ikaw umuwi dito ng kumi-k pop at may kulay sa buhok...
ReplyDelete"Pardon me all over the place!' - Robert Mitchum, Cape Fear
ReplyDeleteYou were watching Ghost Protocol when you were a kid? Did you time travel? Or did you mean, you were watching Mission: Impossible, the TV series? Man, your lead sentence is misleading!
I think there's something wrong with what you think. You said, "I think the mark of a good actor is that he brings instant starpower (sic) whenever he's involved (sic)." I think the mark of a good actor is good acting. On the other hand, I think star power is the mark of a true celebrity.
You also say, "I am admittedly a Tom Cruise mark." What exactly do you mean? Mark is not synonymous to fan. Mark is a homo name, I mean homonym, of Darrel. Get the drift? Ergo, you have a man-crush on Tom Cruise, who got fingered by Ving Rhames. Gay over!