My only misgiving about this was the "prologue", with the incident on the icy bridge. Alternates were available to furnish the backstory without pointless references to politicians and vehicles going off bridges. And in retrospect: if someone can save the world in the major plot, he could not have saved one person earlier? If you have not learned you shouldn't ask such questions about contemporary action films, I think you are unnecessarily limiting your enjoyment of the current cinema. For example, I've actually read a comment comparing this film unfavorably to Mission Impossible and Die Hard. Yes, and in The Three Stooges, you only liked Curly and Moe, but didn't like Larry. Give me a break.
This film was rather low on believability. But who is currently making comparable and believable action films? I had a terrific time watching this. I was actually surprised, because I entered the theater with very low expectations. This film is not art. It is not a masterpiece. It won't live forever as a shining example of its genre. Its only appeal is whether the viewer bought into the premise and the action. I bought. I got my money's worth.
This film was rather low on believability. But who is currently making comparable and believable action films? I had a terrific time watching this. I was actually surprised, because I entered the theater with very low expectations. This film is not art. It is not a masterpiece. It won't live forever as a shining example of its genre. Its only appeal is whether the viewer bought into the premise and the action. I bought. I got my money's worth.