Mission: Impossible II

I hadn't seen this movie in years and, with all the ROGUE NATION excitement last year, I sat down and revisited MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE 2. I'd seen it in theaters back in the summer of 2000 and I vaguely remember enjoying it, but not as much as the first film. Watching it again more than a decade later, I see just how lame it really is. As a fan of the series who's excited to see it doing so well now that we're five movies in, I was disappointed to go back to MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE 2 and find myself bored out of my mind. It's a prime example of throwaway entertainment. The action is dull, the characters are bland, and the stakes never feel important. Directed by action maestro John Woo, the focus is on style while plot and characters take a distant backseat. In his second big screen mission, Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) is assigned to retrieve a genetically modified form of influenza that kills its victim within 24 hours. It (and the matching antivirus) was stolen by fellow IMF agent Sean Ambrose (Dougray Scott) who's gone rogue and plans to use it to embezzle money from the corrupt owner of the company that created it. Part of that plan is, of course, to release it on the unsuspecting public and reap profits while innocents die. To get the inside scoop on Ambrose's plans, Hunt recruits the man's former lover, Nyah Nordoff-Hall (Thandie Newton) to reignite their relationship and report her findings to Hunt and the IMF.

I honestly can't believe Roger Ebert gave this movie a positive review…

Geez, where to begin…? I guess the action and John Woo's "style". From the little bit of his work I've seen (i.e. a few of his American projects), I'm just not a fan. He can certainly craft an intense action scene but he's also got a lot of trademark visuals that he uses to nauseating extremes here. No, not his doves. The dove doesn't appear to the very end of the film. The slow motion. So much slow motion. It's used everywhere in this movie and all the time. Eyes meeting across a room? Slow motion. Eyes meeting between drivers in a high-speed chase? Slow motion. Walking? Slow motion. Jumping? Slow motion. Slow motion? Slow motion. Run this film at normal speed and you could probably fit it as a one-hour M:I television special with commercials. And then there's the gratuitous use of explosions. I love a good movie explosion as long as it's motivated. In MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE 2, if a car so much as hits a speed bump too fast it's liable to explode in a blaze of glory. Personally, vehicle crashes are more interesting without the explosion because you get a better view of the impact, rather than another identical (improbable) fireball. MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: 2 is first and foremost an action film, but when the bullet wounds are bloodless and vehicles explode for seemingly no reason it feels cheap and pandering like toilet humor in non- funny comedies.

It all made sense when I was watching a promotional puff-piece for the film and writer Robert Towne explained that he was approached with a series of action set-pieces designed by Woo and Cruise. He was asked to write the script around the action. As a result, we wind up with a weak story of Ethan Hunt and his team chasing a vaguely-threatening MacGuffin and a forgettable villain. I don't know much about IMF operations and hiring practices but you'd think someone would've noticed Ambrose was getting ready to go full-blown villain. As much as an IMF agent is expected to endure in the course of their job, you'd think they'd have team psychologist to check in on them and maybe realize that they had a psychopath in the field. Ambrose falls far short of being an awesome antagonist on the level of Jon Voight in the first film or Philip Seymour Hoffman in the third. We know nothing of his motivations other than he wants to be rich and he has zero qualms about killing entire populations to do so. To get at Ambrose, Hunt is forced to recruit Nyah and use her as bait. Which…OK…but once Ambrose's location was discovered, why not pull Nyah out and go all IMF on his base of operations? Isn't that their job? Instead, she gets to play spy, putting her civilian life in danger to report information that Hunt could've obtained with one of his crazy awesome IMF infiltration missions.

So many complaints…what can I say positively about MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE 2? Tom Cruise continues to be awesome as Ethan Hunt. I love the work he's done in this franchise and the fact that he insists on doing his own stunts is impressive. The opening with Hunt free-climbing is that much more intense because we can see it's Cruise on the side of that rocky cliff-face. Ving Rhames is always a cool presence, even if his character is one-note in his fashion obsession this time around. And the M:I theme got a nice rock upgrade for this film. Still, you're better off skipping this one and moving on to MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE 3.

Mission: Impossible II had a promising start, but got out of hand as time went on. In the beginning we have plenty of great scenes, like the rock-climbing in the intro or the car chase in the mountains. The plot is interesting and fun, but it all comes crashing down after some time when the action begins.

Where do I start? There were a couple of problems. The action is incredibly over-dramatic and unrealistic. Some stunts were impressive, but in the context of the movie it just didn't work. I like my spy movies grounded, and when I see movements that defy physics, like a man being thrown over a meter into the air by a karate kick to the chin, it takes me out of the movie. There were a lot of moments like that where you can't help but question what you are seeing, and that is never a good thing. There were so many scenes that were unrealistic and over-dramatic to the point where it just got ridiculous. It was the same when it came to usage of slowmotion. The slowmotion was very overused and it sometimes destroyed the immersion. The cinematography in general was a bit weird sometimes. Sometimes, it would zoom in on characters faces way too often and often during weird moments. The sound design on the guns was a bit off as well.

As listed above, there where a lot of negatives about this film, but it wasn't all bad. There were some good moments and the story had some interesting aspects to it, but when you question something, you begin to question everything and thats when you see a lot of flaws with this film.

De Palma declined to continue the series. Enter: John Woo. Enter: camp.

Watched this one with the lads, we're slowly going through the series before Part 8 (the final part? Right?). Had to tell them that this is an outlier, it all goes mostly uphill from here.

What a film. I mean, what a film. When it fully commits to John Woo's style, it's glorious. Unfortunately most of it is trying to be like that first movie.

The plot is convoluted. So much was cut for presumably momentum and more bouldering screen-time. There's a few great sequences (with some truly epic music from the Zimmer that don't simmer) but overall it feels like a large misfire. This is not continuing with the strengths of the first movie.

Still, at least it's a fun movie to watch. Most mediocre films are dreary, it's only the truly bad or truly great ones that usually get a rise out of me. This is an exception. Partly because of its high highs, but also because it's a fascinating outlier in a series that took its sweet time finding that sweet spot.

I just watched this movie for the first time, and I kept having this vague feeling that I'd heard the story before. Then it came to me: Notorious! It's an Aflred Hitchcock film starring Ingrid Bergman and Cary Grant from 1946.

The basic plotline goes: girl comes from questionable background. guy is sent to get girl for top-secret mission. guy falls in love with girl. guy discovers that girl must seduce the enemy. guy is not happy. girl goes. girl seduces the enemy. girl discovers enemy secrets. girl gets sick. guy rescues girl.

Can we say deja vu? The scene that really clinched it for me was the horse racing scene. Ingrid and Cary do the same scene! It's scary. All they did was update the plotline a little (ie, virus instead of gunpowder for the Nazis), throw in some action (well, a lot of action), and bogus technology, and you're set.

Watch Notorious for yourself and see what I mean...

I love the Mission Impossible series and MI2 is probably the weakest one but i don't think that makes it a bad movie. it's directed by John Woo who is a master of action cinema. Watch Hard Boiled, The Killer, Bullet in the head and Face Off to see his over the top, balls to the wall action movies. I just don't think his style really works in an American spy thriller as the slower more dialogue heavy moments are full of exposition and cartoonish moments. John Woo's movies are more theatrical in tone and it doesn't really work here, it comes off as a bit silly. There had to be some kind of studio meddling because you can tell the violence was toned down in editing as well. It's rated a 15 in the UK but i reckon it's more like a 12A. Even so i still enjoy this movie for what it is, there's strong performances by everyone, lots of cool high tech spy gadgets, decent action with some awesome stunts and you can see the start of Tom Cruise taking risks to make these movies as he performs a lot of the bike stunts and kung fu himself(As far as i can tell). There's also a pretty breathtaking rock climbing scene at the beginning of the movie.

The series really took off from Mission Impossible 3 onwards but this is still a fun action thriller, not brilliant but i have seen MUCH worse movies which other people claim to love and praise.