Seeking a friend for ghost protocol

I recently watched two films that really made me think about what it is Hollywood gives us in the way of films. How they are packaged to us, marketed and consequently viewed by their respective audiences. First I saw a summer blockbuster from last year which I thankfully didn't spend $16 at Arclight seeing, MISSION IMPOSSIBLE IV: GHOST PROTOCOL (Brad Bird, Paramount, 2011). Then I saw this summers quite unheralded release of SEEKING A FRIEND FOR THE END OF THE WORLD (Lorene Scafaria, Focus, 2012). After watching both in the span of a few days I realized these films were an excellent example of how Hollywood knows exactly what they are doing, how they go about accomplishing that which they set out to do and how we as audiences allow the shit to keep piling up, gladly forking out our money for garbage films. SEEKING A FRIEND is a marvelous film. It is intelligent, fun, well written and crafted. It evokes emotion and prompts feeling; basically it does all that we want a good film to do. GHOST PROTOCOL is a contrived package of processed goods. It is the epitome of what Hollywood can do. The viewer begins the film ambivalent and walks away apathetic to what it just saw. There is one sure reason Hollywood does this, money. That doesn't bother me as much as the question of why we continue to let it happen. So I think maybe if I analyze the two films I might find an answer to our choices, so..... For me, a film begins and ends with its story. SEEKING A FRIEND provides a fantastic narrative, and it does so with all aspects. The story is often funny and at times emotional and feeling. Before the film really gets going along its narrative structure there is a party for "the end of the world". This sequence is brilliant. Scafaria (she also wrote the film) does an amazing job getting mileage out of how people would act knowing they are going to die soon. When Diane (Connie Britton) tells a depressed Dodge (Steve Carell) " ah sweetie, it's okay, you don't have to do heroin" not only do you almost piss yourself laughing but the very core of what is occurring in the world crafted by Scafaria is exposed. These are people placed in an abnormal situation but treating that situation as calmly as they would do anything in their lives. The entire film plays out like this, just as well written. It has great dialogue, real characters and most importantly IT ENDS THE WORLD. I cannot tell you how scared I was that this wasn't going to happen. Technically, the casting of Carrell and Keira Knightley was outstanding. You wouldn't think these two would have chemistry but they do and by the end of the film you find yourself rooting for them to be together. Normally I am not a huge Carrell fan but I love Knightley and they both make it work. Watch also for an excellent minute or two from Adam Brody and Patton Oswalt. I also was particularly impressed with the work of Lorene Scafaria. She doesn't go heavy handed in her directing, instead choosing to deftly let the work do what it needs to do. I am sure this has a lot to do with her writing the script, as she could probably envision exactly what she wanted. Her choices for casting were great, she got great performances from her actors, her musical choices were superb. In the end I look to see how a film reflects us, it's viewers. This film raises some remarkable questions and one can easily come away from viewing the film with a different outlook. Facing the end of the world, many of the films characters change what they are doing, but it's two main characters do not, at least not immediately. Their voyage is their change. I wonder, why do we live as we do, choosing paths we do not care for? What would we do if we were faced with our end? Why wait to cliff dive, to surf, to travel, to do heroin (joking)? This films ultimately shows us what is important to each of us is different. The trick is finding what is important to YOU, and chasing it with your heart. To me, this is what makes this such a great film. And a great film is not what I would call GHOST PROTOCOL. Does the film have a narrative or is it just one gigantic action sequence? And I understand our desires to see action such as this but at this point what Ethan Hunt does is so implausible as to be laughable. What was that mess in Dubai they filmed? Seriously, on the building, scaling from the 105th floor to the 134th or whatever. One handed. Just utterly ridiculous. The films villain was on screen for about five minutes and while I love seeing Michael Nyqvist getting an American role, maybe we can let him speak to? The film was a blatantly obvious attempt to a) wrap up Tom Cruise's run with the franchise b) set up Jeremy Renner and his new team as the face of the IMF films and c) make as much money as possible. Finally, the dialogue. I do not remember clearly but did the other Mission Impossible films use the hammy Bond one liners? I don't recall that they did so why the cheapening of the dialogue for this film? It is very maddening as viewer to see these type of things. Also maddening is to see a star, particularly a great action star like Tom Cruise not do so well in his transition to more suitable age defining roles. I have always been a huge Cruise supporter, believing he knows what works and he does it well. But at this point I don't believe he will transition into older roles gracefully, say like Tom Hanks has done. In GHOST PROTOCOL he looked haggard and tired. It almost felt like he was a boxer who in an effort to make that final comeback spent six months doing everything he could to get back into fighting shape but ultimately the body has been through too much. And like a Larry Holmes or George Foreman, the fans long for the glory days and prefer forgetting what they just saw. And forgetting what we just saw is not how you want to come out of a film. For me, the film felt like MISSION IMPOSSIBLE meets THE INCREDIBLES (Bird, Pixar, 2004). The comedic lines were hammy. The action was a bit to over the top. Much like the second installment of the franchise, in which John Woo placed his particularly indelible imprint on that film, so too Bird has done with this one. I just didn't feel like Bird's style meshed well with this particular franchise. So after having written about both, getting my thoughts on paper, have I realized anything? Have I determined why people continue to see films like GHOST PROTOCOL yet ignore SEEKING A FRIEND? My thoughts stretch to that great book by William Goldman, Adventures in the Screen Trade. In it Goldman realizes that in Hollywood "nobody knows anything". In trying to figure out why people choose to see the films they do I believe I must do the same thing and realize that when it comes to picking good films to watch, NOBODY KNOWS ANYTHING.