The “Mission: Impossible” television series was a sacred cow, along with other fine 80s trash like “The A-Team”, “Knight Rider”, “Airwolf” and more. The 80s version of the show was highly enjoyable, as I’m sure the 60s version was but I never saw those! So when 1996 came along and Brian De Palma and Tom Cruise promised to make a high definition version of this sacred cow on celluloid, I was quite excited to say the least. And that first film, at least to me, did not only just not disappoint, it exceeded my expectations.

One of the main aspects of the television series was its adherence to formula. Although the details changed episode per episode, the basic structure remained the same. Team Leader Jim Phelps is presented with an impossible mission that he must “choose to accept”; he then rounds up the team, and swings in to action. After a couple of hair-raising moments, face masks, action and fun spy stuff, they usually get their man, device or whatever goal they were trying to accomplish. Having this formula imprinted on my brain, the experience of watching the 1996 film came as a complete surprise because although in a sense De Palma and Cruise stuck to the formula, they bent it in a few places just enough to throw your perceptions of the old formula out the window. Killing the team off in the first Act was a brave move indeed, and created a sense of unpredictability that films like these don’t often have. My favourite scene in the film is Cruise’s Ethan Hunt squaring off against his boss Kittridge in the Aqua Bar. The dialogue in the scene requires careful attention, particularly as the scene throws the entire plot on its head and reveals itself to be something other than what you expected. Of course, the icing on the cake is Ethan’s escape from the bar. Exciting and spectacular to say the least! I remember thinking at that point: where is this film going? I was hooked for the rest of its run time.

The second and third installments in the franchise are write offs to me, proving to be major disappointments. After the carefully executed intrigue of the first film, the second film was down right dumb and an excuse to show off John Woo’s directorial action skills. Some spectacular images aside, the film was obviously a response to the one critique the first film received which was that the plot was too complicated. So what did they do? Make the plot paper-thin to the point of non-existence. And the whole exercise seemed like a Tom Cruise show-off spectacle. The second film did not feel like “Mission: Impossible”. And as for the third film? I like J.J. Abrams’ directorial abilities I think, but blatantly ripping off “True Lies” (which itself was a remake of a French film), even down to copying the bridge action sequence, was downright insulting. If “True Lies” didn’t exist, I’m sure the third film would have been brilliant. But it’s not. It’s a poor facsimile of a much better film. At least “True Lies” didn’t take itself seriously. It was also criminal that Phillip Seymour Hoffman’s villain was only utilised for ten minutes in the entire film, particularly as the trailers gave the impression of a much larger role and confrontation with Ethan Hunt. At this point, I had the good memories of the first film and resigned myself to the fact that only the first film would be the good one for this franchise.

The fourth film seemed like a joke when I first heard it. Dumping the sequel number and introducing a subtitle, “Ghost Protocol” seemed like a last ditch attempt by Cruise to get his franchise and popularity back on track. The only curious point to note was that respected animation director Brad Bird had been tapped to direct. Could this decision manifest itself in to a reversal of critical fortune for the “Mission: Impossible” franchise?

Given the paltry second and third films, I just didn’t trust the franchise to deliver. Then, the reviews came in, and they were stellar. Rotten Tomatoes had “Ghost Protocol” at 94% fresh. I had to double-take when I saw that rating. A film rated above 90% is generally speaking excellent. With my curiosity piqued, I decided to take the plunge and watch this film at the cinema.

After two dud films, the fourth Mission: Impossible film finally restored my faith in cinema-based outings of this franchise. If anything, this was the closest film of all to the original television show. It had spectacular action, images, spy intrigue and a great cast of characters. Brad Bird’s technical flair was also on show, particularly in the scenes in Dubai atop the Burj Khalifa and the subsequent chase through a sandstorm, as well as the scene where Ethan gets his mission only to be ambushed by Russians in a fire fight; when the car flips over with the camera still in the car, it’s quite exciting and visually fascinating.

What really got me though with this entry in the franchise was just how much fun it was, while simultaneously being more inventive with its story, action and spy set pieces. The second and third films did not inspire that type of invention, at all. This film sweeps you away with its fun action scenes, fascinating visuals, and fun characters. Even an older looking Tom Cruise shows he still has it. This might be the film to re-invigorate his career, particularly after the Oprah couch-jumping incident and the subsequent less-than-spectacular opening of the third Mission: Impossible film.

Mission: Impossible Ghost Protocol is a winner. For me, I now can’t wait until the next film in the franchise. Let’s hope they can make at least one more good film before Tom Cruise looks too long in the tooth to keep doing them!