I love Netflix because I love stories. Film, print, song; I devour them in any medium. I’ve always hated sitting in the dark watching a big screen with strangers yelling at it even before prolific iPhone texting masturbation. Netflix brings unlimited movies to my door (their streaming selection is the equivalent of renting a VHS from the local drugstore without the option of a cough syrup cocktail). In addition, it helps me avoid interactions with real people.
Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol came out in 2011 and I watched 3/4 of it last night. I turned it off with the final 20 minutes remaining. Stay with me on this.
On Rotten Tomatoes, the critics’ averaged 94% and the overall review average is 85%. That’s a fine looking aggregate of goodness, if I must get analytical on your ass. I’m a sucker for blow’em up, fast-paced Hollywood blockbuster movies. So why did I turn it off before the end? Drunk, you ask? Fall asleep, maybe? Neither. I simply lost interest. The production values are incredible and the international sets are stunning. You’ve got Tom Cruise and sexy women, gun fights, aerial acrobatics, car chases; all of the stuff that is totally unbelievable, unrealistic, and highly entertaining. But I knew that going in. It’s a Mission: Impossible movie, not a government training video on firearms safety. I should have loved this move, and yet, eh, I just couldn’t finish it. I would never leave a negative review on something I didn’t finish, even if I was 75% through it. If I did, my “review” of Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope might look something like this:
“I only watched the first 15 or 20 minutes, but this story did nothing for me. I mean, the bad guy in the first scene, wearing a black mask and hood? Then we get introduced to the protagonist who is some whiny teenager on a boring double-sun planet. I hate these annoying, one-dimensional characters. Could have been so much more…”
Are the 94% of critics wrong? Do the 85% of the folks on Rotten Tomatoes smoke crack while writing reviews? Probably, but that’s beside the point. A reviewer for The Akron Beacon Journal wrote, “…a strong cast fighting a silly plot.” A plot? You’re watching a Mission: Impossible movie for the plot?
Action movies are made to entertain. They are not meant to educate. They are not high-brow cinematic creations and are certainly NOT realistic. Why would you slam a Mission: Impossible movie for its realism or plot? Its kind of like watching the first 10 minutes of a gay porn flick and then leaving a negative review because you didn’t see any boobies (there it is, my promise made last week is fulfilled).
And where are the ghosts? They probably appeared in the last 20 minutes of the film.