This is a film that I didn’t love, but also, I didn’t hate. It is a very entertaining, exciting movie, but has a number of downfalls mainly stemming from the rehashing of old ideas and characters while doing nothing to make them fresh or new. For a franchise that was just rebooted with the last movie, this seems like filmmakers with a dry well of ideas when they should be going warp speed ahead into bold, new directions.
When the crew of the Enterprise is called back home, they find an unstoppable force of terror from within their own organization has brought the fear of war and destruction to the Federation. With a personal score to settle and sanctioned by the resilient Admiral Marcus (Peter Weller), Captain Kirk (Chris Pine) leads a manhunt to a war-zone world to capture a one man weapon of mass destruction known as John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch). As our heroes are propelled into an epic chess game of life and death, love will be challenged, friendships will be torn apart, and sacrifices must be made for the only family Kirk has left: his crew.
Now, I did not like the 2009 reboot movie. I thought it was shoddily written with a lot of plot holes, big holes in logic, a weak villain with narrow-minded motivations, a style over substance approach, and a tone that did more to poke fun at these classic characters than show serious, due respect to them. If the marketing campaign for this film wasn’t so good, I likely would not have been ensnared into seeing it. However, despite my best resolve, I was compelled to check out spoilers after a spoiler-free review hinted strongly enough at a certain aspect of this film that I was not agreeable to in rumors. There will be a spoiler section later to address that, but simply said, if I went into this film clean, without spoilers, I’m sure I would have at least been angry with the movie. Instead, having foreknowledge of many pertinent aspects of the film allowed me to enjoy it more, and go into it with an open mind instead of a resistant one. I was willing to let the movie change my mind, and to an extent, it did in how well the general plot is written. However, there are several problems with story, characters, and concepts that I will address shortly.
On the upside of things, firstly, Star Trek Into Darkness has some stellar and exciting action sequences. While the physical action with chase scenes and fights is not very traditional Trek, it is still very enjoyable stuff done with remarkable talent evident in all aspects. It is a little hard to accept Spock running around in an action centric role during the climax since that’s always been Kirk’s role, but Quinto is at least more than capable of the task. I did especially like the encounter with the Klingons where Harrison unleashes a one man barrage. We see only one unmasked Klingon, but he does resemble the forehead ridged versions with a slightly different sleekness. The starship battles are few, but feature excellent visual effects and rousing, perilous action. The whole sequence with the Enterprise spiraling out of control, and Kirk and Scotty are running through the corridors as the gravity is spinning them all around is also fantastic. J.J. Abrams, beyond anything else, knows how to create an exciting, action-filled movie aimed to entertain.
Now, the hardest part of assessing Chris Pine’s portrayal of James Kirk is that his version has so many changes to his back story that he’s ultimately not Shatner’s Kirk. You don’t get that wit, cunning, and confidence that defined Shatner’s performance early on. Instead, we have a young, brash, impulsive Kirk who does let his emotions get the better of him. I do like that the film addresses one thing I didn’t like about the first movie. Fresh from Starfleet Academy, off of one successful mission saving Earth, Kirk is given the Captain’s chair without having earned it through years of exemplary service and hard earned experience. At one point here, his command is taken away from him due to his lack of respect for the Captain’s chair and Starfleet regulations. He had the Enterprise given to him without having earned it, and now, he’s sort of put into the position where he has to make tough decisions and earn his command. He has to challenge authority instead of dismissing it, and I think this element is handled rather well. On the whole, I think Pine is a good actor, but I don’t think the writing and development of Kirk has yet to match his strengths. His fiery emotions don’t resonate as strongly as Cumberbatch’s chilling, menacing presence. Once again, Kirk does feel a little weak to me in this Abrams universe. It’s that essential element of maturity and confidence of Kirk that’s missing which always made him interesting, and I hope that’s where these filmmakers are pushing him towards. His arc in this film seems to suggest that, but I do feel it doesn’t get the forefront time it deserved to be properly poignant.
Zachary Quinto is given a rather meaty chunk of material in developing his Spock. There’s a good weight of emotional insight we are given into him as he explores the ideas and fears of death. Quinto reflects that depth immensely well, and the building of the Kirk-Spock relationship towards something more familiar is excellent in my view. However, I do feel the whole Uhura relationship is still unappealing to me. I’m glad they gave her more to do than operating the communications station, but I don’t see any major potential for that relationship. In general, all of the regular crew members are given a stronger role here. Sulu is given a taste of command, which I really loved as a subtle hint at him becoming Captain of the Excelsior in the original continuity. Even Chekov, who I’m still unsold on the portrayal of, is given the run of engineering having to keep the ship intact in the absence of Mr. Scott.
This time out, I feel Simon Pegg did a far more faithful and solid Montgomery Scott. In nearly every instance, he felt genuine from James Doohan’s original series portrayal. He had more dramatic weight to carry, and had a bit of a subplot of his own to deal with. He has justifiable conflicts with Kirk’s mission, and smartly weaves his way back into the thick of the plot by the third act. I was far more satisfied with everything Pegg did here which still had moments of humor, but felt respectable overall. With this character, it thrived from smart writing and a really good acting job by Pegg.
And continuing to prove my insistence that he’s one of the most solid and reliable actors around today, Karl Urban beautifully channels DeForest Kelly as Dr. McCoy. He feels so authentic to the character while still feeling natural and passionate in his own right. As with Kelley, Urban gets some of the best lines in the movie to the point where I’d love to just see a Dr. McCoy movie. I really, wholeheartedly believe that Karl Urban is just on the verge of a major career breakthrough. I’ve yet to see him do anything less than excellence in every role he’s taken on. Urban just needs that one high profile leading role, and I cannot wait for that day. He is the perfect successor to Leonard “Bones” McCoy.
Even Peter Weller does an excellent job as Admiral Marcus, who sanctions Kirk’s mission to take out Harrison, but the plot methodically reveals a lot of subversive dealings in Starfleet. There’s even a great Deep Space Nine reference in regards to that. What Weller delivers when those revelations occur is damn good, and fills a very solid part in this plot. Also, Alice Eve does a nice job as Carol Marcus, the Admiral’s daughter, and strikes a small spark of chemistry with Chris Pine. However, it doesn’t amount to much at all. Also, I was rather confused as to why Carol Marcus now has a British accent when her Wrath of Khan counterpart did not, and nor does her father. It was a distracting arbitrary choice that doesn’t really enhance the character in anyway. It’s just peculiar.
Now, what really compelled me the most leading up to this film was indeed Benedict Cumberbatch’s performance. That chilling deep voice with his intimidating, foreboding presence is so captivating. His villainous character is intriguing with an air of mystique. He has his secrets to keep and strategically reveal as his own agendas and plots unfold. He’s written very intelligently, and we even get moments of emotional depth and pain in one scene. His John Harrison character is certainly more than what he seems to be at first, and has many surprises in store for the crew of the Enterprise and Starfleet. I really think, on a performance level, he’s one of the best villains this franchise has ever had. He’s certainly the best movie villain since General Chang in Star Trek VI. Cumberbatch is clearly an immensely talented actor, and he really owns this movie with a complex and rich portrayal. However, there is a very important aspect of this character that I have to take issue with that can only be done in the spoiler section of this review. Many loyal Star Trek fans may indeed find this to be intensely objectionable.
However, before we get to that, the problems of this movie are that it feels like a modern day remake of a vastly superior film. How it rehashes old ideas that come off as second rate carbon copies that do more to remind you of how they were done better thirty or forty-five years ago are exactly reminiscent of creatively devoid remakes from unoriginal filmmakers. Star Trek Into Darkness attempts to have original ideas such as Kirk dealing with failure and humility, but they are rapidly overshadowed by the plots involving Harrison and Admiral Marcus. This theme with Chris Pine’s Kirk is never given enough time to flourish and take a solid foothold in the film when put in opposition to all of these retreaded characters, dialogues, and concepts. These were likely intended as homages, but they come off as lazy, unoriginal writing. The screenwriters couldn’t put together a wholly original screenplay with unique concepts, or at least, utilize smart enough writing to take solid ownership of what it does with these revisited elements. Considering the majority critical opinions of them, I’m not sure what most should expect from the co-writers of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen and the screenwriter of Cowboys & Aliens and Prometheus. Frankly, I thought the purpose of rebooting the franchise with an altered timeline was to take these classic characters into bold, new directions with fresh ideas. Instead, they just do the same old thing only not done remotely as well. They are free and open to do whatever they choose, and they choose to do next to nothing new at all. This makes it seem like they’ve already hit a dry well of ideas, and that doesn’t bode well for the future of this franchise.
Now we come to the SPOILER paragraphs. So, if you don’t want to get a full disclosure of plot turns and revelations, please, jump beyond the next two paragraphs to remain free of such knowledge. You have been given fair warning to avert your eyes. Your temptation is your own, and I know the temptation of spoilers is indeed intense. So, here we go.
What has been rumored over the last several months that I ultimately took issue with is this. The villain of this film, portrayed by Benedict Cumberbatch, is actually revealed to be Khan Noonien Singh. Now, the screenwriters integrate him well into the story, weaving all the motivations around him very soundly, and the explanation of his presence absolutely makes sense. It all ties into the themes of war and Admiral Marcus’ motivations in regards to that by having Khan help Starfleet develop new weapons of war including the Dreadnaught class warship that nearly kills the Enterprise and her crew. However, we have already had our definitive Khan story with Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, and the original series episode Space Seed is still a stellar piece of work. I don’t discount the possibility that another great Khan story could be made, but this one falls behind both of those previous outings. Furthermore, making Cumberbatch be Khan actually diminishes the quality and potential of what Cumberbatch does here. Instead of being viewed as a strong, amazing performance of a brand new, fresh villain, he is going to be eternally compared back to Ricardo Montalban, which is a gross disservice to Cumberbatch. Also, the fact is that his performance bares no resemblance to the Khan we knew. Khan was a man of passion and regal self-image. He viewed himself as a Prince bringing order to humanity. This new Khan comes off like an ice cold, menacing shark of a murderer, a man almost devoid of passion. The original Khan was a conqueror, a ruler and leader of men. This Khan is more of the terrorist persuasion acting alone, and really succumbing to the will of others to strike out from underneath their oppression. Straight up, Khan would never bow to another person’s will, no matter the level of force that opposed him. In Space Seed, Khan frees his people almost single-handedly, and takes over the Enterprise nearly killing the entire crew in the process. I could never see Khan acting the way he does in this film. He was never a lone wolf seeking to terrorize. He was a proud, cultured man seeking power and stature. Surely, he wasn’t hesitant to bloody his hands, but him becoming a terrorist against Starfleet doesn’t fit for Khan. He wanted more to be respected than simply feared. He was also a man quick to exercise his superiority over others, especially Kirk. The story works, and the motivation is sound, but the personality is simply not Khan. Not to mention, Cumberbatch bares no physical resemblance to Khan with his Caucasian complexion and English accent. I cannot see the character that Montalban originated in Space Seed fitting into the context, personality, and methods of the Khan we see in this film, regardless of how differently events unfolded in this new future timeline. Everything that Khan was before his resuscitation from cryo-sleep remains the same as it was in the original continuity, and so, he wakes up as the same man in this continuity as in Space Seed. Thus, I don’t feel there’s enough leeway to allow for Khan’s personality and methods to change so drastically.
Also, the film quotes lines verbatim from The Wrath of Khan, and in the climax, there is a reversal on Spock’s death scene where it is Kirk who rushes into the radiation chamber to restart the engines to save the ship and her crew. It becomes distracting when Pine and Quinto speak practically the same dialogue that Shatner and Nimoy did back in 1982 only with the roles reversed. The scene is well acted, but you lose every bit of emotional investment and poignancy of the scene because it is such a blatant carbon copy with no fresh life of its own. Again, you can’t help but remember how brilliant and powerful it was in The Wrath of Khan when you see this lazy, plagiarist writing realized on screen. And of course, in poor, unearned fashion, the scene is punctuated with Zachary Quinto’s Spock yelling the infamous line of “KHAN!!!” to very weak effect. It was done perfectly once, but since then, any other use has always been done in comedic context. Here, it feels borderline lame because it’s not an original idea for a genuine reaction. Ultimately, Kirk is revived because Khan’s blood now has some entirely unexplained regenerative properties. It is setup twice in the film, but it could still be a contentious issue for many. And literally, it is never explained at all. It’s just there as a plot convenience, and factors into nothing purposeful enough but to bring Kirk back from death.
Veering towards the technical side of the film, the cinematography of Dan Mindel is very, very good. He really knows how to use that wide frame to give you a strong cinematic visual with the use of great color schemes, and the action sequences are competently done. There might be a couple shots that I wasn’t all that keen about due to the more rugged camera work during the space battles or the like, but they were fleeting. The lens flares are toned down a hell of a lot from the previous movie, possibly due to the intended post-conversion 3D effect. From a few sources, they say the post-conversion is very good. And the score by Michael Giacchino is also quite good, but I really would’ve liked to have heard that Alexander Courage theme before the last minute of the film. Just a hint of it somewhere would have gone a long way.
Overall, I did feel like the story here was a little less than what it could have been despite being well conceived and executed. It felt like a setup of ideas and scenarios for another film, which would likely deal with a Federation-Klingon war. It’s setting up this climate of inevitable war from the Klingons encroaching through space and perceived heightening tensions. Everything is built on that fear of war, and while it is a very good idea which builds upon the events of the previous movie, it didn’t feel like an idea that was used to boost the strength and foundation of this film. It all felt like the setup for something larger, and in doing so, it partly dismisses this story as a stepping stone. If the focus was on this story, and doing everything possible with it, including injecting original ideas and dialogue into it fully, this would be a stronger movie.
In short, I think Star Trek Into Darkness will please general audiences, but the loyal Trek fan might have more than a few negative things to say about it. My apprehension about J.J. Abrams helming the next Star Wars movie is evident here in that he does favor style over substance, and even what substance he has is fairly minimal and not well conceived. Maybe working with a new screenwriter will resolve these issues, but the last thing that franchise needs, as well as Star Trek, is more creatively disjointed outings that favor flashy visuals over a good, solid story. Neither franchise will have vibrant, flourishing futures based on work like this. Again, I did enjoy this movie, especially more than the 2009 film, but I was a long way from loving it. I was really hoping for fresh, new ideas and an original villain that could stand on his own, but unfortunately, I really didn’t get either. I do recommend seeing it if you are not apprehensive about some contentious issues with revisited characters and ideas from far superior Trek stories.
The Mission: Impossible movie franchise always seems to find a way to outdo itself. Generally, I believe they’ve become progressively better films with each sequel, which is not the norm. In the least, they always happen to trump the big action sequences of the previous film. I absolutely LOVED the third film through and through. I felt it was great! Still, now that we’re at a fourth movie, have the filmmakers been able to keep up this strenuous challenge and succeed? Well, I surely couldn’t make a full judgment until the very end of the film as there are a few reassuring tags there. I do have some reservations about this film, but that’s not to say it wasn’t entirely enjoyable and entertaining.
A nuclear extremist known as Cobalt (Michael Nyqvist) seeks to obtain launch codes for Russian nuclear missiles. He intends to ignite a nuclear war to eliminate the weak from humanity to force the next stage of human evolution. An IMF operation, ran by Agent Jane Carter (Paula Patton), to intercept those codes goes awry when assassin Sabine Moreau (Léa Seydoux) promptly kills an IMF Agent and steals them for Cobalt. In response to this, the IMF sends Agent Carter and Benji Dunn (Simon Pegg) to extract Agent Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) out of a Russian prison so that he can head up the mission to infiltrate the Moscow Kremlin, and locate files which identify Cobalt. However, everything goes wrong when someone hijacks the team’s communications signal to alert security to their presence, and then, detonates a bomb destroying the Kremlin. The IMF team is blamed for the bombing as an act of terrorism. The U.S. President initiates “Ghost Protocol” which disavows the entire IMF, but the IMF Secretary (Tom Wilkinson) gives Hunt an unsanctioned mission to bring down Cobalt along with his team without the aid of back-up. Incidentally added to Ethan’s team is William Brandt (Jeremy Renner), Mr. Secretary’s Chief Analyst who has some personal secrets he must struggle with, and exceptional skills which attract Ethan to question just who Brandt really is. Ethan Hunt’s team must learn to work together beyond their personal vendettas and internal conflicts to avert nuclear disaster.
Really, my only major scrutiny with this movie is the untapped potential of Jeremy Renner and his character of Brandt. Renner plays his role exceptionally well hitting all the beats, both obvious and subtle, and he definitely is leading role material. He surely handles the action requirements with amazing precision and physical sharpness. My problem is that Brandt seems like a very interesting character to explore that could’ve been used as a more critical element in the story. More of the plot could have been hung on him in either an internal or external fashion. I believe a lot of talk leading up to this film was that Renner would be put into a position where he could possibly take over as the lead if Tom Cruise chose to step down from the franchise. While that was in the back of my mind, it was Renner and the character or Brandt himself that drive this feeling in me. There appears to be so much more to develop out of Brandt, and make him a more prominent player in the story. However, that’s not the agenda here. We get some general mystery about him, and a few moments for Renner to shine. Still, at the end of the movie, despite obtaining some absolution, he’s still just another member of the team. It’s not a situation of the filmmakers leaving you wanting more because they don’t give you enough of him in the forefront to whet your appetite. It’s unutilized potential of the right actor in the right role. Renner is very capable and quite impressive with everything he presents in this film. I just wish he was given a chance to standout more instead of exclusively being part of the supporting cast. Maybe there’s a chance he’ll reappear in a future sequel, but the IMF team mostly changes with every movie. Still, I have to hope for a better expectation.
That leads me to a small issue. Ving Rhames’ Luther Stickell is not part of this team. However, he does have a brief appearance in the film’s final scene which is a nice coda to the adventure, but his rapport with Cruise is rather missed. It’s always been a highlight of franchise, but in a way, I understand why he was not part of the team. Part of the story is about a team that’s untested with one another having to find cohesion when they have no back-up and no resources to smooth out their mission. Putting Ethan and Luther back together would work against that idea and dynamic. So, I am glad there’s a story driven purpose to his general absence. Thankfully, Rhames’ single scene is quite funny, and it’s nice that they threw us that bone.
Beyond all that is pristine cinematic action gold. Like I said, each film finds a way to outdo the action set pieces of the last one. It’s not just the size of the building they break into, but the tension and various story elements that surround those sequences which enhance them further. Early in the film, Ethan has to scale the world’s tallest building in Dubai to break into a computer server room, and the electronic suction gloves start malfunctioning, forcing Ethan to slowly abandon the tech for human ability. It doesn’t even end there as nothing goes along perfectly, and he has to keep improvising when the time comes for an escape. Ghost Protocol piles on more and more elements to make the peril higher and the tension tighter. Plus, what I like about this franchise is that action sequences don’t end where they would in other films. Here, Ethan Hunt finds a way to keep it going. An on foot chase sequence gets a sandstorm thrown into the mix, and then, it turns into a car chase in a sandstorm. Mission: Impossible really lives up to its name by pushing the limits of what is possible by forcing its characters to do the extraordinary.
How the team works these operations is also very inventive. The team has to do what I call a “double fake-out” when trying to intercept the nuclear launch codes between the assassin and the buyer. They have to divide and conquer by impersonating both sides. I won’t spoil anything, but I found it to be a very original idea that further re-enforces that this has never been a lazy franchise. They don’t go the route of any other action film. They get smart, and work out far more satisfying scenarios which increase the entertainment value and story quality. There’s plenty of time for the action pay-off later as a cleverly woven plot is something I will always give great credit for. The plot is well crafted and nicely paced making the action scenes work for the story twists, and allowing the characters’ personalities to drive the action.
I am indeed a Tom Cruise fan. Risky Business, Top Gun, The Color of Money, Interview With The Vampire, & Collateral are all highlights that I thoroughly enjoy. Why people are surprised when a Tom Cruise movie is actually good is beyond me. He has gotten a lot flack for his personal life craziness, but as a professional, he brings it every time. He is absolutely one of the best actors of his generation, and he has a very solid professional business sense. He makes great films year after year, decade after decade. They are blockbuster hits, and modern cinematic gems. Plus, you can see he pushes himself to the max with these action scenes by performing many of his own stunts. He indeed did the scaling of the Burj Khalifa Tower himself entirely. With that precarious height, I thought it would’ve been a green screen effect like when Batman jumped off that Hong Kong skyscraper in The Dark Knight. Not at all. Plus, the man can RUN like I’ve never seen anyone do. When he is running on screen, you believe he is running for dear life with unwavering determination. Cruise is clearly in incredible shape, and he doesn’t allow himself to slack off in any aspect. As Ethan Hunt, he keeps bringing more layers to the character, and maintains an emotional continuity that creates a linking thread between every film. The screenwriters never forgot to touch upon what Ethan has been through and resolve that for Cruise and the fans. While this entry doesn’t have the deep personal and emotional motivations for Ethan as the previous sequel, Cruise still leads the film with his usual diverse qualities handling all the dramatic, charming, physically intense, and humorous moments with perfect balance.
Now, I surely want to spotlight Josh Holloway’s amazing sequence at the film’s start. I would definitely love to see a whole film with that amazing, action capable character. That’s no knock on Ethan Hunt, but seeing what Josh Holloway he does as Agent Hanaway in such a brief appearance really set an amazing tone for the rest of the film. It was a very exciting and dynamic way to introduce the character.
In comparison with M:I-3, I can only say that this film lacks a strong antagonist. Philip Seymour Hoffman was such a blockbuster villain as Owen Davian in the previous installment, and would be a hard act to follow. This time through, the villain of Hendricks is not given much presence in the story. It’s more focused on the nuclear threat, and the IMF team trying to absolve themselves of their alleged crimes. That’s not a bad thing at all, and maybe it’s better to change up that dynamic on occasion. Still, on the villainous front, Léa Seydoux is quite exceptional as the assassin Sabine Moreau. She has a dangerous presence, and backs that up well in her fight scenes. Plus, she has a very cool sexiness to her. Clearly, she’s physically attractive, but as Moreau, she creates en engaging quality with her coldly confident attitude. She is a top level professional, and has many subtle things going on that create a fully dimensional character with a definite personality and skill set.
And speaking of good women of action, Paula Patton eventually proves to be very solid. Her character of Jane Carter starts off as a slightly shaky agent due to the awry events at the film’s start. However, as the film progresses, she comes more into her own, and reasserts control of her wits and confidence. First, she shows how action capable she is, but later, is able to mix that field savvy with a very strong sexiness. I’m not saying that such a character requires a sexy edge, but as a man, I happen to notice these things quite prominently. Simply put, it is a compliment for Ms. Patton and the character she portrays here.
I also want to give very pleasing praise to Anil Kapoor in his suave and charismatic, yet playfully entertaining role as Indian multimedia mogul Brij Nath. He works opposite Paula in the scene where her assertive sexiness takes form, and the two play off one another so well. As Nath, Kapoor really takes a relatively minor character, and makes him really standout. Such an actor was necessary to keep the audience hooked into this part of the story, and it was done with exceptional success. Nath was a highly enjoyable character that added some extra flavor of fun late in the film.
Of course, speaking of fun performances, right from start, Simon Pegg brings his rich comedic ability to the movie reprising his role of Benjamin Dunn. At one point, I was afraid they would exploit it too much, but it eventually settles down into a situation-relevant personality trait which never hijacks the film’s tone.
Generally, I have nothing bad to say about the cinematography, but I also don’t have anything exceptional to say about it. I always remember some shots from the previous films of large dramatic scope. Something that allows you to take in the magnitude of a location or beat before a dramatic action sequence. The locations are very well represented from Moscow to Mumbai with some very nice aerial shots. Everything is well shot, and the action sequences are very competently staged, shot, and edited together. There’s just nothing that sticks out with the visuals this time out, but that’s merely a point made in context with the franchise as a whole. In and of itself, there is nothing at all to criticize about the work of Director of Photography Robert Elswit. I’ve seen many action movies shot without any artistic integrity or visual competence to say that Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol is surely one of the far better shot films of the genre.
The visual effects are excellent. I was never once taken out of the film. Every last effect is seamless and realistic with its surroundings. They entirely serve the story by reflecting the tone and intensity of the moment. The music does the same. The classic Mission: Impossible theme is punched in every so often at the right moment, but overall, it services the moment by enhancing it but not overwhelming it.
Frankly, I believe Brad Bird should be highly commended on his live action directorial debut. I’m sure he had very supportive assistance from Tom Cruise and J.J. Abrams, but at the end of it all, Bird is the one responsible for the final product that we see before us. Everything he was given was executed greatly, and I don’t feel there’s any fat in this motion picture. It’s very lean and well paced with smartly conceived and shot action sequences. This surely doesn’t disappoint as it delivers on the promise and expectations of the franchise. However, if their intention was to position Jeremy Renner to potentially take the reins of the franchise, I don’t think they succeeded. The screenplay simply doesn’t give him the opening to rise to an equal level as Cruise’s Ethan Hunt. Again, absolutely none of this is a failing of Renner himself. He has every quality needed to take on that role as franchise lead, but the story treated him as too much of a supporting character than one to step forward into the forefront. Regardless, I do highly recommend Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol. The franchise continues to please by improving upon itself and setting higher standards for each new outing.