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.

I knew going into this movie that it was going to be easy viewing, but I thought it would have more of a plot. Sure, the action scenes are great in that classic John Woo, ultra-choreographed way, but the plot isn't original or have much to it. Dougray Scott tries as the villain, but he's not scary at all, just sort of mildly irritable. After all, this is a villain who demands stock options as part of his bounty. (Truly, a sign of the times, and the audience laughed at that one.) Thandie Newton, who I had never seen before, is certainly beautiful, but she carries two expressions on her face through the entire movie, and resembles Ally McBeal in a tighter T-shirt. And then there's Tom. His character is more of a James Bond clone than the character is the original movie; I admire his guts and fearlessness for doing several scenes (especially the opening one), and the truth is, he's not bad. This just could have been much more. I did like Anthony Hopkins, though. He brings class to whatever he appears in.

The first 60 percent of this movie was pretty good; the last 40 percent was mostly action and mostly so hokey, so stupid, it was an insult for any viewer with a brain. Too bad, the first Mission Impossible was excellent and I hear the third film was good. However, this second one was a stinker by comparison.

I except most films to have that "Rambo mentality," as I call it, where hundreds of bullets are fired - and missed- at the hero, while he or she hits everything in sight. That was here but so overly done that is was absurd and downright annoying after awhile.

Tom Cruise, our hero, should have been shot so many times I lost count. This is director John Woo, for you, who always overdoes action and sometimes makes it ridiculous.

The good points are slick photography, interesting characters, good surround sound, low profanity and a very good soundtrack. Thandie Newton is attractive heroine and Dougray Scott is satisfactory as the main villain.

The movie plays more like a James Bond film, although it still has MI touches such as the fake rubber masks we saw in the first film. More realism in that 40 minutes would have made this a far better film than it turned out to be. Oveall, a bit disappointing.

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.