What I liked: We have evolved from fighting the Nazis. We have moved on from cold war nuclear attacks (we still have Russian sleeper agents though). We have moved past terrorist bombings. What is the next great threat? Economic terrorism naturally. Yep, I see this setting a trend in spy/action movies. I did like how they set up Ryan’s backstory. It was a little close to home having him get shot down in Afghanistan but worked for an up-to-date Ryan. I liked him as the out of his depth analyst he plays in the first half of the movie. Some of the fight scenes were good.
What I didn’t: Why is it that the spy’s girlfriend always shows up at the most inconvenient moment demanding a full explanation of spyly activity? And why has the spy never come up with a reasonable explanation before this point? I mean it can’t really be that big of a problem and if it were you would think some of the spies would have watched spy movies and thought about the situation. Also, I may be biased in my dislike of russian literature, but feel that a literary discussion of Tolstoy is a poor diversion for an espionage mission. Finally, does the CIA have more than one field agent or does it not? I mean if ryan is in Russia finding the necessary information on the attack would it not be more efficient and more effective for him to do the analyst thing via telecommute while the agents already in the immediate vicinity get right to work rather than waiting for the 12 hour transatlantic flight? If done well Ryan would lose nothing in this arrangement, the suspense could be built in both places at once. Not to mention there would be some growing room for Ryan in...a sequel. I’m just saying Ryan does not need to be the sole person saving the world in all 7 of the crisis presented in the film.
Who should watch it: Anyone looking for a solid action flick.
Would I watch it again? Sure but it would take a back seat to Ryan in Hunt for the Red October.
Comments
Post a Comment