Some questions that popped into my head while watching Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol (directed by Brad Bird) the other night-- which isn't really meant to imply I care much about the answers:1. Is Tom Cruise getting a little old for this action hero stuff? He looked a little flabby to me in several scenes. Maybe its time for a desk job.
2. Was Dubai built to serve as a movie set? It certainly makes for great aerial shots, but does anything actually happen there aside from convoluted spy games?
3. Is it possible that Simon Pegg is funnier than Ricky Gervais? Or just a modern day Nigel Bruce?
4. Why would you put Tom Wilkinson in a movie for all of about three minutes? I know any longer would have had him acting Cruise off the screen, but really-- couldn't his essentially thankless role have been just as efficiently handled by someone who would not have raised my hopes that the film was about to get a lot better?
5. By the same token, why give us a single shot of Michelle Monaghan? Couldn't they have squeezed her into a flashback or something? What a tease.
6. Wasn't it really stretching the bounds of credibility to have Tom Cruise out-run, then out-fought by a guy who was clearly ten to fifteen years his senior (in the plot), not to mention a diplomat?
7. Didn't "Ghost Protocol" refer to the fact that the MI team was cut off from official support and supplies? Then where did the car in the climactic chase scene come from?
8. Could there have been a more obvious fate than that which befell the female assassin? You could see it coming from a mile away.
If any of these queries make you apprehensive about the quality of this movie, you might want to avoid it. If you really don't care (and in the end, I sure don't), then you might enjoy it for the escapist fare it is.
No comments:
Post a Comment