The big twist at the end of this film is the reveal that Dwayne the rock Johnson was in fact never an FBI agent at all.
So how come he was working on the case of catching Ryan Reynolds with Interpol at the beginning of the movie?
Are we to believe this international criminal catching organisation just lets people walk up and join their team overseas with literally no verification checks? π
Just spitballin' here... maybe they hacked into the FBI database and installed a fake profile for him complete with work history? They might even have seeded it with fake phone numbers and email addresses, so that if anyone from Interpol called to confirm his identity the call would be routed to the Bishop.
shareThey never needed to hack the FBI anything.
Inspector Das says it herself: she took the Rock at his word when he showed up with a written authorization on FBI letterhead. When she called the real FBI, they denied ever knowing him.
Later, Gal pretends that she intercepted the Interpol call to the FBI. Personally, I thought it was a stretch (how could she know WHEN the inspector would call?), but turns out Das called the real FBI after all.
And the ONLY reason they EVER needed the FBI cover was to fool Reynolds's character. It was all just a long con designed to get Reynolds to lead them to the third egg.
Just remember, they WANTED the Rock to get exposed as a phony.
Inspector Das says it herself: she took the Rock at his word when he showed up with a written authorization on FBI letterhead.
I don't think any of the act was intended to fool anyone but Reynolds.
If he'd been real FBI, he would've turned himself into Das at the earliest opportunity. Gal's character could not have "stolen his life" with a single intercepted phone call. Quantico would have records, trainers and co-workers who could vouch for him.
That's what occurred to me during the film, but I let it slide because of the clearly intentional screwball tone.
But even the Rock's direct interaction with Das, throughout the second half of the film, was at least within potential earshot of Reynolds's character, so that's my take on it.
It's a weak defense, of course. And I mainly rest on the notion that the whole film was farcical by design, so the plot doesn't need to be airtight as long as the gags keep flowing.
I do find it interesting, though, that almost no one on this thread and a minority of posters on this message board have bothered to refer the the characters by name. They're all so obviously just playing their own public personas that we naturally think of them as Godot, Reynolds and the Rock.
I take that as a sign of the intentional silliness built into it, rather like the Rock and director's earlier collaboration on "Central Intelligence" (another weak and stupid film that I find unreasonably entertaining).
But even the Rock's direct interaction with Das, throughout the second half of the film, was at least within potential earshot of Reynolds's character, so that's my take on it.
That's not a plot hole. If you want to call it implausible, you may, but a plot hole is not simply something that is unlikely to occur.
shareI don't know... I was thinking some some could claim that when I wrote the OP. I guess it's a grey area...
A plot hole being an error or inconsistency going against logic. I'm not too sure there's much logic in a crack incredible well funded international crime unit letting someone join them based upon a letter signed by their mom but yeah maybe you could just call that implausible.
If only we had an expert regarding plot holes on this site would could say for sure one way or the other...
Ah yes, the plot hole expert. We do need one of those around here.
I will simply add that it's only a plot hole if it violates the film's own internal logic. So I will agree that in a different, more serious, more grounded film--take Heat, for instance--it would be a plot hole. But not in Red Notice, which establishes from the beginning that it's a silly film full of implausibilities and is not to be taken seriously.