Incredulous Movie

Rating: 4/10 (2 September 2016)

While I enjoyed the visuals in the movie purely for escapist reasons and also watching the coolness of the late 1950's (looks a lot like the 1960's to me) I kept thinking, "How plausible is this really?" and if one is constantly thinking that despite a desire to have fun watching, that's not a good thing.
Basically, my problem is, "Why is everyone behaving that way?" For example, the bad guys going after Thornhill at first instance just on the basis of a very flimsy move--just standing up really at the wrong time. You'd think experienced spies would look for far more clues, like following him home, checking his statistics in official records, etc. I know there was a paging at the time, but still.... I think in real life, the bad guys would have let him go after just a few minutes after realizing they were acting incredulously.
Secondly, there was no reason for the femme fatale Kendall to be so friendly to Thornhill... okay, maybe she's attracted to him regardless, but a lot of the time she helps him and at other times she totally forgets him, even sends him to certain death (by the crop duster plane). What? There wasn't consistency. It was hard to believe she worried about him at all, and at the end she loves him? Please.
Thirdly, it was so complicated for the bad guys to send Thornhill in the middle of barren countryside. Huh? Just gun him down in a dark alley, why go to such trouble. It seemed the entire movie was written just for visual effects, not on the basis of reality. Yeah, yeah, I know movies aren't reality, but still, this was so unbelievable that it left a hollow feeling inside me, wondering why it couldn't at least make sense. Another problem with sending Thornhill so far out in the middle of nowhere... the female agent Kendall tells him to go, right? Obviously the bad guys want him to go there to meet his end (complicated way of doing it, but anyway...). But at the same time, (spoiler, but it's been decades since this movie was out) she's a double agent, so why would under her "government agent role" she send him to his doom? She would at least pretend to fumble the instructions, but no, she cruelly and callously sends him to certain death (does anyone really think he would have escaped if this wasn't a movie?). And why wouldn't the government, if it wants to keep Thornhill alive, know of (through Kendall) or instruct Kendall to not send Thornhill to a fight he can't win? Baffling.
Fourthly, I know security was far less in the ol' days, but Thornhill could go inside a United Nations building and meet a diplomat there, and the diplomat says yes right away instead of channeling through staff? Surely in the history of diplomacy in hundreds of years were far more professional and sensible than that. And the diplomats would stick around in waiting rooms where there's a crowd and anyone could have emerged from the gritty streets? They work in offices, and they're very busy, usually with weeks booked in advance.
Fifthly, why did Thornhill keep going and seek the answer to all this? I know without Thornhill, the movie would have ended right there, but he doesn't have any personal stake in the outcome (true, he becomes attached to the safety of the female Kendall near the end, but that comes in pretty late in the movie) so I felt as if he was detached from what was really at stake in the movie. He doesn't passionately believe in saving America from secrets, nor is anyone in his family threatened, nor is he seeking fortune, so what was his motivation for hanging in so long at great danger? With him going through so many situations, with so much danger already happening in different ways, I couldn't understand why he kept going. All he had to do was hide out and stay with family or something. Yeah I know, it's a movie, so he has to keep going. That's the plot problem of using a main character as disinterested bystander who still discovers no personal stake as the movie drags on (as opposed to other movies where the unwitting hero starts to learn about and feel strongly about an injustice against a person or a group, or finds out secrets that could lead to personal fortune, or avenges someone close to him).
Okay, so the scenes in the barren farmland and at Mount Rushmore, (Really? You can own a property on top of Mount Rushmore, just a ten minute run away from the famous faces!) okay, they don't make sense, but I think people like the movie because of these two scenes, without them, I think this movie would not be as famous today. I agree these scenes are exciting and original, and fresh to watch, but I have to cast aside disbelief to enjoy these (and I do enjoy). The problem is I can't cast aside my disbelief for the other scenes of the movie, about 90% of it in fact.
Well, there's more, and I could go on and on, but those are the things at the top of my head. And why in some scenes do the bad guys hold back (crowds sometimes stop them, sometimes the crowds still don't stop the bad guys from extracting Thornhill away) and in other scenes do the bad guys act foolishly in eagerness. Very selective motives if you ask me. To please the writers.
The movie was written for its visual effects and to make the story continue no matter what to make sure it was slightly over two hours. That's all I think it was. Excellent visuals at times (and the 1960's colour and "cool" styles and historical reference) and thrilling showcases of famous landmarks that aren't overused in other movies, though.