Mission: Impossible—Ghost Protocol and Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows
Trivial pursuits
Mission: Impossible—Ghost Protocol
The latest Mission: Impossible film, an enormous piece of product said to have consumed some $140-million on its way to an IMAX pleasure dome near you, has one idea, and you already know it. The idea is: Run for your life!
In Ghost Protocol, the fourth installment of this 15-year-old franchise, Tom Cruise—short of hits in the five years since the last film in the series—returns as Ethan Hunt, star agent of the Impossible Mission Force, that U.S. government espionage squad dedicated to squashing colorful malefactors in picturesque locations around the world. This time out, Hunt has a new team: brainy-hot Agent Jane Carter (Paula Patton, smart choice); displaced intel analyst William Brandt (Jeremy Renner, over-qualified for this sort of exercise); and, also back again, tech wiz and comic-relief specialist Benji Dunn (Simon Pegg). Their target: nuclear terrorist Kurt Hendricks (Michael Nyqvist, of the Swedish Dragon Tattoo movies), whose rather Bondian ambition is to destroy the world and then rebuild it into a new, improved, presumably more Hendricks-centric society.
The story begins inauspiciously. Hunt is confined in a Moscow prison, for reasons we don't learn till much later. Carter and Dunn bust him out, and they all set off in search of the nuclear launch codes that are a key component of Hendricks' scheme. There's an unexpected complication, though: The Kremlin explodes (in a burst of exemplary CGI) and Ethan's team is set up to take the blame. At this point, the government disavows all knowledge of the IMF, leaving Ethan and his little band to accomplish their mission with no further support. Since the launch codes have fallen into the hands of a pouty freelance assassin named Moreau (strikingly upholstered Léa Seydoux), and she's on her way to Dubai to hand them over to Hendricks, Ethan and company have no time to mope over their new outcast status.
The story is inevitably generic: a frenzied international chase sprinkled with squibbets of backstory and occasional intrusions of emotion. But the script, by Josh Appelbaum and André Nemec, is cleverly structured (especially in a montage of duplicitous negotiations taking place in separate hotel suites). And director Brad Bird—the Pixar wonder kid lured away from Oscar-winning animation (The Incredibles, Ratatouille) for a first foray into live action—is resolute in keeping cliché pyrotechnics to a minimum: Most of the thrills here are provided by practical stunt work, for which Cruise must be given abundant props. Amid all the usual spy technology (an "eye cam" contact lens, a portable invisibility screen, a weapons-stocked safe house tucked away in a freight train) and a furious chick fight of which James Bond himself would surely approve, we find Cruise being banged around in a wild car chase through a blinding sandstorm and body-slammed from one to another of the moving platforms in an automated parking garage.
His most spectacular feat takes place on the upper reaches of Dubai's Burj Khalifa, the world's tallest building, whose glassy façade rises more than half a mile skyward. (The owners of this super-hotel, which has been something of a financial bust, were no doubt delighted to host a money-stuffed Hollywood production.) Here the actor is required to climb from one floor up to another on the outside of the structure, using a pair of computerized "Gecko Gloves" that prove to be not all that reliable. As he dangles and swings, cinematographer Robert Elswit frames the star's perilous progress up the side of the building, with the city itself spread out far below, to vividly demonstrate that what we're seeing is real, not digitized. I know I was impressed.
The story moves on to India for some sillier fun at a champagne-fueled mega-party in Mumbai, site of the movie's preordained wind-up. Ghost Protocol is a picture calculated to extract maximum profits from a global audience, and surely it will succeed. Just as surely, another sequel will be called for. But will Cruise, now pushing 50, be up for another punishing workout? At the end of this film, one character says to him, "I'll see you in Kandahar." You do the math.
Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows
In 1893, having wearied of his most famous creation, Arthur Conan Doyle sent Sherlock Holmes tumbling off a Swiss mountain ledge to his death in the foaming Reichenbach Falls, still locked in battle with his nemesis, Professor James Moriarty, "the Napoleon of crime." Holmes stayed dead for eight years. But then…
Well, I don't want to suggest the non-possibility that director Guy Ritchie has no sequel up his sleeve to follow A Game of Shadows, his second neo-Holmes movie. This new one retains some of the virtues of the first—mainly the irrepressible Robert Downey Jr. in the title role; amiable Jude Law as his prickly colleague, Dr. Watson; and Sarah Greenwood's plush Victorian production design. But it also continues, and compounds, the shortcomings of that earlier film, chiefly the edited-to-death incoherence of Ritchie's action scenes, with their tedious slo-mo trappings and kung-fu anachronisms, and his complete indifference to the elegant charm of Conan Doyle's famous "consulting detective." I mean, Sherlock Holmes in drag? Please.
While Conan Doyle did bring Moriarty out of the shadows in The Final Problem—the Holmes story to which this movie is largely irrelevant—Ritchie drags the evil brainiac onto center stage, which is a predictable mistake. Any character so malign must shrivel in the light; and Jared Harris (of Mad Men), who plays the nefarious professor, is too genial a presence to pass for sinister.
In Ritchie's iteration, Moriarty is secretly a munitions magnate plotting a huge payday by fomenting a European war. Holmes will of course have none of that, and his determination to foil his arch foe's plans takes them from London to Paris to, finally, Switzerland, with many noisy complications along the way. Rachel McAdams returns to the proceedings, very briefly, as Irene Adler, who is both Moriarty's confederate and the object of Holmes' affections. But she's quickly replaced as the plot's female focus by Noomi Rapace (from the Swedish Girl with the Dragon Tattoo movies), playing a gypsy fortuneteller and onetime anarchist bomb-plotter called Sim—unfortunately, a waste of this intriguing actress's time. Stephen Fry does manage to make something out of Mycroft Holmes, Sherlock's portly older brother, even when Ritchie requires him to parade around in the nude. (Mycroft also addresses his younger sibling as "Sherly," another of the series' clunky homophile insinuations.)
As for Downey, he seems already to have exhausted the possibilities of this jokey, wisecracking Holmes, who's little more than an ornament on a movie of such contemporary action-flick excess. The Holmes of Conan Doyle's stories would easily have figured that out. If only someone had thought to consult him.
Kurt Loder is a writer living in New York. His third book, a collection of film reviews called The Good, the Bad and the Godawful, is now available. Follow him on Twitter at kurt_loder.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"Are they extensive?"
I thoroughly enjoyed Sherlock Holmes. (Although I don't know where Foreman or Chase were.)
This. The dialog was fantastic.
"We have no need of your lucky hella, gypsy woman!"
Watson: Get that out of my face.
Holmes: It's not in your face, it's in my hand.
Watson: Get what's in your hand out of my face.
...
Holmes: I'm working on a device which will suppress the sound of a gunshot.
Watson: Well it's not working!
The dialog sparkled in the first one. If they can match the dialog, fuck the action, it'll be worth it.
I never saw the first one, as I was told it was shit. You say the dialogue was good; what about the story?
Shitty shit shit shit.
Anyone remember that Jackie Chan/Owen Wilson flick Shanghai Knights? For some reason these new Sherlock Holmes movies reminded me of that, but they're probably worse.
So the advice I was given was correct. I'm glad I followed it.
For some reason these new Sherlock Holmes movies reminded me of that, but they're probably worse.
So you haven't seen them.
I saw the first one, not the second.
It wasn't shit. The problem is once you make a movie about Holmes, it's got its own baggage bringing a lot of snooty gits out of the woodwork claiming it's "not authentic". But having actually read Doyle's Holmes, Ritchie's version was actually more authentic than all of the "Holmes inspired" versions you see on PBS where he's a poofy fop with the stupid deerstalker hat (which the actual Holmes never wore).
The story was decent, fairly straightforward potboiler about a guy who wanted to take over England (and the former colonies) by using fake black magic to make people believe he was more powerful than he really was. Women tied to railroad tracks, that type of thing. But the dialog and interplay between Watson and Holmes was so brilliant, that you didn't much care about the story.
If you like Ritchie films, it was actually one of his best.
I don't really care for Ritchie films.
I hear what you're saying, Paul, and I'm not someone who cares at all about Holmes' authenticity. In fact, I really liked the idea when I saw the commercials for the first one of making him more of a rumbler.
But I do care about the story in a film like this. Dialogue can't carry the whole thing.
I haven't finished the complete works of Doyle, but I believe the original Holmes was a bare knuckle boxer. I'll look it up.
Did they include his recreational cocaine use in the first movie? I forget.
Did they include his recreational cocaine use in the first movie? I forget.
He was imbibing something that was supposed to be used for eye surgery. Again, more points for authenticity.
Yep, here it is:
Some reviewers of the first film seemed to be shocked that Holmes would deign to engage in such unruly behavior. People have really come to believe that Holmes is a dainty fop in a deerstalker cap.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_Holmes
Paul, I must respectfully disagree with you on this. Ritchie's first Holmes film was a Doyle-inspired steam punk action flick. It didn't invoke a late Victorian London atmosphere at all; with the notable exception of the costumes. It reminded me of Will Smith's "Wild Wild West" in many ways.
While Jude Law was an enjoyable Dr. Watson, Robert Downey, Jr. was way too emotional to be Holmes. Holmes was as cold as ice. Watson referred to him as being like a machine on more than one occasion. Downey was on the verge of giving a wink & nudge in every scene!
As a Guy Ritchie film, it's watchable and entertaining. As a Sherlock Holmes film, it was almost unbearable. Give me Jeremy Brett, Benedict Cumberbatch, or Peter Cushing as Holmes any day of the week; your choice of Watson.
My vote is for Jeremy Brett as hands down the best Holmes.
My vote is for Jeremy Brett as hands down the best Holmes.
My British mother agrees with you, but she liked foppish Holmes better than bare-knuckle boxing holmes.
Brett's Holmes was not foppish. He was intense, dramatic, physical, and more than capable of holding his own against anyone who assaulted him. At various times he was shown boxing, using a sword-cane, and taking on a guy with a quarter-staff.
Ritchie's first Holmes film was a Doyle-inspired steam punk action flick. It didn't invoke a late Victorian London atmosphere at all; with the notable exception of the costumes. It reminded me of Will Smith's "Wild Wild West" in many ways.
That's a really poor comparison. There was no fantastical technology in the Holmes film. There was really nothing "Steampunk" about the film. At all. The only "fantastical" technology popped in at the very end with the cyanide gas dispenser. To compare the first Ritchie film to Will Smith's Wild West is like comparing Minority Report to I Robot.
While Jude Law was an enjoyable Dr. Watson, Robert Downey, Jr. was way too emotional to be Holmes. Holmes was as cold as ice. Watson referred to him as being like a machine on more than one occasion. Downey was on the verge of giving a wink & nudge in every scene!
This I agree with. Downy's Holme's was much more... what's the word, personable? Quirky? But I'm not a stickler for that level of authenticity. Just get rid of the deerstalker hat, and I'm good.
As a Sherlock Holmes film, it was almost unbearable. Give me Jeremy Brett, Benedict Cumberbatch, or Peter Cushing as Holmes any day of the week; your choice of Watson.
Well, wait a minute, you can't complain about authenticity, then throw in Jeremy Brett. Jeremy Brett is the epitome of the fake Sherlock Holmes. A fine actor, but hardly a bare knuckle boxer.
What I meant by comparison to "Wild Wild West" was the same lack of genuine atmosphere, not necessarily the steam punkiness aspect. I've only seen Ritchie's Holmes film once, so I can't remember exact scenes, but overall it felt steam punky to me. Neither film captured the time period it was supposedly set in realistically.
Have you seen all of the BBC production with Jeremy Brett? He most certainly did fight bare knuckled, took drugs, made use of many disguises as well as embody the coldness and rudeness of the written Holmes. His mannerisms are also very true to the Doyle stories. He also wore a top hat as well as other types of hats.
Have you seen all of the BBC production with Jeremy Brett? He most certainly did fight bare knuckled, took drugs, made use of many disguises as well as embody the coldness and rudeness of the written Holmes
My British mother watched it incessantly, but I confess, I only saw it here and there. But I appreciate the correction. I do remember something about the Brett character taking drugs, but I'm surprised he fought bare knuckles, so props to him.
I understand that the Brett productions were BBC produced picked up by PBS, but did Brett's Holmes take place in the 20s or the late 19th century? It seemed from what I remember there were art deco touches... but I may be confusing it with the Poirot productions... which my mother watched incessantly.
The BBC stories took place in the late 19th century -- at one point Holmes fired bullets into the wall of the letters VR - for Victoria Regina. In any case, Holmes is retired by 1903-4, and Doyle's last story is set at that time. I can't remember if the BBC filmed that or not and I'm too lazy to go and look at the DVDs or google it.
Sorry to be such a stickler, but I love those stories, so I suppose I'm one of those gits that gets upset when someone takes liberty with Holmes' character. 🙂
However, the modern reinvention with Cumberbatch really is good. Check it out if you haven't already. I think you'll like that Watson as well.
The BBC stories took place in the late 19th century -- at one point Holmes fired bullets into the wall of the letters VR - for Victoria Regina.
Hey now, that was one of my favorite scene in Ritchie's first Holmes film, where he was shooting the VR into the wall whilst "working on a device which would suppress the sound of a gunshot".
Sorry to be such a stickler, but I love those stories, so I suppose I'm one of those gits that gets upset when someone takes liberty with Holmes' character. 🙂
If you're a huge Holmes (Doyle) fan, I can understand people having high expectations. It was actually Ritchie's film that got me into reading Holmes so I picked up the complete unabridged Holmes library.
but overall it felt steam punky to me. Neither film captured the time period it was supposedly set in realistically.
I felt that the first Ritchie film captured Victorian London quite well-- especially with the Tower Bridge still under construction.
Aside: I do remember noting one minor technical issue. LeStrade loads his shotgun and you see the shells. They were red plastic like modern shells. Back then, the shells would have been made of either brass or possibly waxed cardboard.
"I felt that the first Ritchie film captured Victorian London quite well-- especially with the Tower Bridge still under construction."
Not only that, but still under construction at Westminster....
Have you seen all of the BBC production with Jeremy Brett? He most certainly did fight bare knuckled
Ok, Celtgirl, I just watched that Youtube clip and you have to admit, that backhand by the bar patron was quite possibly the most horribly correographed scene since something made by Ed Wood. The rest of it didn't improve much.
It wasn't the best fight scene, I agree. But, they do try to show that Holmes didn't ride around London in a Hansom cab shouting, "Indeed!" and "I say!" like Mr. D'Arcy. We can all agree that Brad Pitt is a better bare knuckled boxer on film.
Can't remember about the drug use in the Ritchie film (I may have been drinking while watching), but the BBC production showed Holmes' needle and talked explicitly about his drug habit, & had at least one episode showing the opium dens of the period with people actually smoking opium.
I'll agree Brett was probably a smidgin too old and that hampered some of the physical scenes but he really did have the right nuance of intensity and cold blooded calculation and quite frankly the series is the closest to Doyle's Holmes I've seen.
"There was no fantastical technology in the Holmes film"
Right. If you ignore the villain's Bond-prop-with-rivets Amazing Parliament-Gassing Machine.
"Right. If you ignore the villain's Bond-prop-with-rivets Amazing
Parliament-Gassing Machine."
I didn't. Re read my comment.
Oh, and Brett has donned the Deerstalker hat, an unforgivable sin.
http://oranges-world.com/sherl.....brett.html
Another thing that made the first film so good was Jude Law's portrayal of Watson who, in every production I've ever seen is always portrayed like a loyal dog. Doesn't add much, but he's always there. Given that many (all?) of the original Doyle stories were told from Watson's perspective, this always perplexed me.
Pretty decent. A bit crowded but it isn't wasn't a bad film.
I agree. Complete ripoff of House.
But you're aware that the character of House was inspired by Sherlock Holmes. (House, "homes"... Wilson, Watson... Both savant detectives...)
I'm really surprised people hated Sherlock Holmes. I thought it was pretty entertaining.
People didn't hate it. It was mixed. RT had it around 65%. Some people (like you and I) found it to be a surprisingly entertaining film.
I think that any time you make a Holmes movie, people come into it with high expectations.
Another issue is that it's a Guy Ritchie film, and his movies sometimes put people off. The only film of his that ever put me off completely was that Madonna abomination, but he finally sent her packing and started making good movies again.
I have no problem with Ritchie films, and I went into Sherlock Holmes expecting to like it. I'm a Downey fan, and although I wasn't sure about Law, he was good as Watson. The pair had chemistry on screen.
Haven't seen the film. Don't care much for Ritchie's productions and am enough of a fan of the books to be wary.
House is not only based on Holmes, the writers have made the analogy blatant on numerous occasions. House lives at 221B Baker Street, which is probably the most revealing moment.
If you don't like Ritchie's films to begin with, you may not like it. Although in some ways it's less of a Ritchie film because he hasn't invented the subject matter, he's just coopted it.
Ritchie isn't always full on hit and he's had at least one very bad miss, but I consider myself a fan.
But I also tend to go for movies with colorful, shady characters who are what they are, dim-witted flaws and all. Think Thick as Thieves (1999 version, not the 2009 version) or Welcome to Collinwood. Movies which tend not to review well or do well at the box office, but are absolute diamonds.
I might watch it at some point.
Brad Bird directed? Really? I like his animated films quite a bit. But I hate, hate, hate the bullshit film versions of Mission: Impossible.
The TV series, on the other hand, was great fun.
Well, Bird is a pretty talented guy, but directing animation is significantly different than directing live action. Still, it'll probably be watchable. The first one was mildly watchable; it was, after all, directed by Brian DePalma.
That's *Shirlene* Holmes to you.
What's the drag business supposed to be about, anyway? In the Doyle stories, he was a master of disguise.
So was that it? Is he in disguise? Or are they adding bullshit to the Holmes story?
He's in disguise. (although I haven't seen the new film yet) In the first movie there's a great scene where he's walking through a carnival, stealing bits of clothing and the like, building a disguise on the fly.
Well, that's not an issue then.
That was a pretty good sequence.
OT: I also posted this in the Sheriff Joe thread, because I think it's that fucked up.
Rich person claims rich people simply hoard wealth, and do not create jobs, uses himself as example.
Have some more stupid.
http://articles.businessinside.....ich-people
Because, despite Hanauer's impressive lifestyle ? his family owns a plane ? most of the $9+ million just goes straight into the bank (where it either sits and earns interest or gets invested in companies that ultimately need strong demand to sell products and create jobs).
How does the bank make a profit on the money that just sits there and earns interest?
Doncha love how they just slipped that "or gets invested in companies that ultimately need strong demand to sell products and create jobs" in there?
And why do they seem to think that pointing out that companies need to demand to survive and grow somehow invalidates the fact that the investment in them creates jobs?
My most anticipated action films of the year. Brad Bird directing MI:4 is reason enough to be excited for another dose of Cruise.
The first Guy Ritchie Sherlock was ridiculously good fun and a delicious guilty pleasure. Certainly Ritchie's best since Lock Stock. Pity McAdams' appearance in the sequel appears to be so brief (yes I do appreciate eye-candy but there also seemed to be good chemistry between her and Downey Jr in the first film).
I'm confused.
In the Mission Impossible review, who is "Evans"? Should that have been "Ethan" (Hunt / Tom Cruise)?
Totally unrelated - Paula Patton was hot in those PG-13 wet T-shirt scenes in Mirrors.
OK, at some point they changed every instance of Evans to Ethan.
I'm glad my proofreading skills were useful. But that's all you get for free; my normal rate is $1,000 for each typo found.
I generally think most movies are shit, but I liked the first Holmes flick, and am looking forward to going to see the new one in the a.m.
I don't care for Tom Cruise, but this one (MI:4) looks better than the last few, so I might have to see it in the theater.
i like ritchie's movies in general (i hate when people refer to movies as "films" ... always seems pretentious and snobby... anyway...) the first sherlock holmes was just ... meh.
it would have been a dissapointment if i paid to go see it. as a rental, it was ok
i loved snatch and lock stock etc. and it wasn't even close to that
ive never read any of the books and am not a sherlock holmes fan in any way, so the authenticity thang is irrelevant to me.
downey is a great actor, and eminently likeable. any other actor, and it probably would have sucked. he turned it into a "meh" but couldn't make it much more than that
Say hello to Erica F, the very first Portuguese girl to join Team Hegre!
Erica is what you would describe as a natural blond bombshell. She's super tight, toned and perky - almost like she has been chiseled out of marble. Erica also has the marvelous quality of being petite but curvy, and it has to be said she has the most incredible ass.
Erica just loved strutting her stuff in front of the camera and is a natural born poser. Erica is new to erotic modeling but says that she loves the job. Erica also loves dressing in sexy clothes and high heels. She enjoys turning heads wherever she goes. But we are sorry to have to break the bad news to you - this gorgeous girl is already married.
She may just be starting out but Erica F is sure to go far!
So, anyone else hear about Bob Barr dropping the pretense of being a Libertarian? The SOB just endorsed Newt.
-jcr
How does one "pretend" to be a libertarian when a roomful of "libertarians" cannot even define the term? Blah blah "non-agression principle" blah blah "fuck the pigs" blah blah "no such thing as intellectual property"...Reason-brand "libertarianism" is half-baked and full of holes.
I could barely understand anything Downey said in the first film with his mumbled British accent. Jude Law was perfectly understandable speaking English.
I had the same problem with Downey's lines. In fact I might have even watched the DVD with subtitles turned on.
Oh, look. Teal and Orange. What a surprise.
If you Google it you will never be able to watch a movie the same way.
http://theabyssgazes.blogspot......-stop.html
Well whether he's a fan of the movies in question or not, Kurt Loder has obviously memorized the entire cast from "the swedish dragon tattoo movies".
Put me down as a Jeremy Brett fan. Never seen a better representation of Holmes, and I've read every Holmes story several times.
As for whether he ever wore a deerstalker, well, who knows? Its not like Doyle ever says he never did, and its the kind of thing a gentleman would wear in the country, at least, at the time. So I give him a pass on that.
It was Strand Magazine illustrator Sidney Paget who was the source of the deerstalker hat. He drew the detective wearing a deerstalker while out in the country in the stories The Boscombe Valley Mystery, The Adventure of Silver Blaze, and The Return of Sherlock Holmes. When the story had Holmes in London Paget usually drew him in a top hat.
Really enjoyed this movie because the plot was so different and refreshing to the previous movies and Tom once again played his part perfectly. Watched it here if you are interested http://www.scenestreams.com/mi.....tocol.html
In "The Adventure of the Mazarin Stone" (from "The Case Book of Sherlock Holmes), Holmes tells Watson "You've seen me as an old lady, Watson. I was never more convincing." So yes: Sherlock Holmes in drag, indeed.
Furthermore, Holmes was "undoubtedly on of the finest boxers of his weight that [Watson had ever seen]", ("The Yellow Face"), excellent at fencing ("A Study in Scarlet"), and it was his prowess at the Japanese martial art of Baritsu or Bartitsu which kept him alive while confronting his nemesis Moriarty on the edge of the Reichenbach Falls ("The Empt House", in reference to "The Final Problem").
The above and the fact of Holmes' untidiness in spite of a "certain quiet primness of dress" ("The Musgrave Ritual") -shooting indoors, correspondence tacked by a dagger, tobacco in a slipper- all suggest that the mention of the Great Detective's "elegant charm" and supposed languor is derived from at best an incomplete reading, and at worst what Mr. Loder's picked up from movies or TV.
Perhaps Mr. Loder should consult Arthur Conan Doyle.
UR ALL RONG DANGIT!
This was one of the few recent movies I walked away from not feeling slightly sore in the rectum and imagining the theater owners holding my ticket money and snickering sinisterly.