Cool News
MISSION IMPOSSIBLE 2 review
You know what? I really do hate it when I’m all
jazzed for a big action summer spectacular, and end
up with about an hour and ten minutes of snore time,
to suddenly be woke up by loud explosions and Lalo
Schifrin music that’s been bastardized into a hip/Bon
Jovi-esque retread.... that is suddenly propelling the
movie that I thought I was going to see.
Hey folks, Harry here and I just got back from
MISSION IMPOSSIBLE 2. I went into this one
wanting it to make me think.... “Joe Hallenbeck is an
Idiot!” Why? Well, Joe also seems to be under the
delusion that GLADIATOR was not a good movie, so
there is a history of insanity in the man’s life. ALSO,
Moriarty didn’t like the script to MISSION
IMPOSSIBLE 2, which was another feather in the
cap of the film... cause Moriarty also didn’t like
ARMAGEDDON, THE ROCK, INDEPENDENCE
DAY, etc... movies that were just fun goofy films.
Good summer popcorn flicks.
The first two/thirds of MI2 are a snooze fest, shot
dreamily by John Woo and his DP. But unlike Woo’s
flicks: FACE/OFF, HARD BOILED, BULLET IN
THE HEAD, THE KILLER and the A BETTER
TOMORROW series.... This film is closer to the past
work of his DP, Jeffrey Kimball: STIGMATA,
WILD THINGS, THE SPECIALIST, CURLY SUE
and REVENGE.... while deftly steering clear of his
better work like TOP GUN and TRUE ROMANCE.
This film reminded me of THE WORLD IS NOT
ENOUGH and GOLDENEYE in it’s lack of coherent
or compelling plot and character. The sheer enormity
of it’s blasé dentist waiting room pacing.
Let me give you an example.
Thandie Newton’s character is a thief that had a prior
relationship with Dougray Scott’s character who was
in turn a former IMF agent.
Why is Thandie Newton a thief? Why did she have a
relationship with Scott’s character to begin with?
Why did they break up? Where is Thandie’s
character from? Why does she like going to bed with
IMF secret agents? How did she meet Dougray
Scott’s character? How did she get out of jail? If
she’s an international thief that has never been
caught, how does she have a record? Being a thief and
a bad girl, how come she is played as being a
complete innocent that never ever does anything even
remotely bad?
Alright, now let’s look at Dougray Scott’s character.
Why did he leave IMF? What was his specialty at
IMF? Do IMF agents commonly make it a habit of
disguising themselves under orders of the IMF to
look like other IMF agents? If IMF didn’t know what
this Chimera thing was, then how did Dougray Scott
mystically gain the knowledge of what this was and
why did it all seem like it had been planned for
months when it allegedly was an emergency mission?
What is Dougray’s character’s prior association with
Ethan Hunt? Does he hold any grudges? Were they
friends? Did IMF fuck him over? What turned him
into being a bad guy? Greed? What?
Alright... SO... for this big ass mission where the
whole world is in danger, Ethan is allowed to only
have two additional agents, both of whom have no
real field skills. One is basically just a helicopter
pilot, and the other is basically just a computer geek.
He’s forced to take onto the team, an unknown
quantity that is a known internationally wanted
criminal that has a prior relation with the alleged man
responsible for a couple of hundred deaths. Wait a
second. This really sounds like a half-assed planned
IMF mission.
They identify the known players in this big scheme,
but do no background checks, exploit no weaknesses
and coordinate no Stings.
We’re dealing with a virus that can destroy the
world’s population. As soon as Ethan and his fun
bunch learn that Dork Boy doesn’t even have the
virus... HOW COME THEY DON’T CALL IN THE
MARINES? I mean, are you telling me that they
would play this all quiet and nicey nicey? This is a
matter of millions and millions of lives. Where’s
swat? Where are the local authorities? Where’s
backup?
How in a MISSION IMPOSSIBLE movie can the
movements of the bad guys take place without their
knowledge? You mean they completely leave the bad
guys under no watch while they are taking on another
part of the mission? Uh uh... I don’t buy it.
This was an incredibly sloppily written film. No
character development for anyone anywhere. For the
vast majority of the film it is tedious to an extreme.
As a matter of fact, the bad guy has better working
knowledge of Ethan Hunt, than Ethan exhibits of him.
There is one theme in the film that I felt was... well
ridiculous. And that’s the.... Everyone wants to be
Ethan Hunt plotline.
You see, it seems that they had this piss poor
screenplay that they couldn’t really attract A-list
talent with, but it was a project that Paramount and
Cruise wanted to rush into existence as a Summer
HomeRun. Well, they couldn’t get well known
people so they hired Mr EVER AFTER and Brendan
Gleeson (who I find to be an extremely great actor
when given a part that requires more than just
standing around staring at people). SO what do you
do when those are the two big stars opposite the table
from Tom Cruise? Well, put a Tom Cruise mask and
the mystical make my voice and accent go away to
sound just like that of Ethan Hunt’s. These mystical
masks have the ability to not only be INSTANTLY
applied. Not only seem to conform to anybody’s
features.... But they seem to come with instant contact
lenses as well as Sweat and Blood features. Now, I
could let this pass if there was say a science fiction
excuse... some sort of Holo-face generator mask
thingamagig... but there isn’t some sort of bullshit
sci-fi excuse. It’s just a Magical Instant Foam
Rubber/Latex Appliance with the best damn hairplugs
you ever did see.
So whoa.... During one pathetic ‘is this a’ love scene,
I was almost hoping that Thandie would pull her face
off to reveal it was Tom kissing Tom.
Remember STAR TREK 5 (also from Paramount?)
Remember how in the opening of that film, Captain
Kirk is climbing the rock face of a cliff for no reason
other than to show what a macho macho man he was?
How the scene did nothing to advance the characters.
How the scene was there to merely stroke the ego of
the actor in it? To establish how wonderfully fit he
is?
How about an opening that showed Cruise and Scott
on an early Impossible Mission when Jon Voight was
still a good guy, where Dougray was forced to be left
behind. When suddenly IMF disavows all knowledge
of him and leaves him out to dry? How about hinting
at a friendship? Giving us any shade of grey to these
characters. Making Cruise sympathetic to his fellow
IMF-er.
How about anything to advance the characters, give
pathos to the hero or the bad guy. Where is the bond
between ANYONE in this movie?
Where is the teamwork in the film? I mean... the
aussie IMF-er seems to be a cab service, and Ving
seems to be the telephone operator type. Hell, they
aren’t even as cool as B.A. and Murdoch.
Anthony Hopkins? Ok... he’s a God. His scenes
bulge with intense line delivery.... BUT he’s in the
film less than it takes you to read this review. He’s
great. He’s like that bit of Sirloin amidst the tofu.
Now... is this film a complete load of shit?
Oh god no. No, this is just a mediocre film, that
happens to have around 30 to 45 minutes of
incredible JOHN WOO absurd/genius/magical action
at the end of the nap. Is it worth going to the theater
to suffer through a mediocre film for this end orgy?
Yeah. It is.
However, if you are reading this review... you are
probably at work right now. There really is NO
NEED for you to go see the film after work, and pay
full theater prices. I recommend, holding off. Wait
till you are off on Saturday, catch a matinee. See it
by yourself or with your film buddy. But if you want
to see a real good film at night with your date.... Go
see SHANGHAI NOON. It’s a far better piece of
entertainment than MISSION IMPOSSIBLE 2.
As for my review of SHANGHAI NOON.... I’m
working on it. But it is easily far more fun and
thrilling. MI2 wants to be that big E-ticket ride, it has
the long boring wait part down, and it has the flashy
ride at the end. But afterwards you kinda look at your
watch and say, “That’s it?” Yup... that’s it.
ADDED PIECE: I just read the first talkbacker below, who states why he will love this film.
I reallly loved "A better tomorrow 2" and that story really sucked. The action in the movie make it worth watching. I believe the same equation applies to this movie. Wrong?
WRONG! Agreed, the action in A BETTER TOMORROW 2 ruled the Earth. But you should realize that all of the action in this film has been cut back to PG-13. All sexual content is PG-13. Go through your favorite John Woo action scenes and remove the balletic lead puncturing of bodies as squibs explode out the backs of men, leaving smears on the walls behind them. This film is BLOODLESS. If you are going into this with ANY of Woo's HONG KONG action dancing in your head.... forget about it. That type of action isn't here. Imagine if you saw Chow Yun Fat firing bullets that you never saw where went. But when the camera turned around, dead people were on the ground. Bullets hit tires and gas tanks, not heads here.
Also, if you hated the mystical surviving dog in ID4, there is a mystical asbestos dove that I'm sure you are going to love. Personally, I recommend bringing your palm pilot to the movie. You might as well accomplish something with your life for the first hour of this film.
For Further Comments from Harry upon MISSION IMPOSSIBLE 2, CLICK HERE!!!
-
+ Expand All
-
I reallly loved "A better tomorrow 2" and that story really sucked. The action in the movie make it worth watching. I believe the same equation applies to this movie. Wrong?
-
Can't there be ONE movie this year that is COOL? Fuck! I'm going back to my new "Pee-wee's Big Adventure" special edition DVD. Rock on!!!
-
(Writing from the UK, so I won't get to see this for another 5 years.) ANYWAY, how does it compare to: a) The first Mission: Impossible b) Face/Off. c) Once a Thief (And why didn't they get Lalo Schifrin to do the score? It's not as if he's dead or something.) And is Con Air better than Armageddon and The Rock? I need answers.
-
I'm not expecting much, and not just on the strength of Harry's review, either. Its pretty damn pathetic when people are prepared to spend 100 million on a film that they fial to even keep a close eye on script, characterisation, plotting etc. I was pretty sure that these sort of things are integral to most films. I mean, buildings - they cost a lot of money - but they mostly have stairs, right? You'r e not expected to climb them yourself, right? The only big summer relase I've really enjoyed in recent memory (mind I haven't seen Gladiator yet, so I may be talking Bollocks) Is TPM, which I probably enjoyed more for its psychological resonance than anything purely cinematic. Why are we treated with such disdain?
I swore after Armageddon I'd stay clear of the hype, and that aint changing. I'll catch this one on rental. A rushed sequal to film I didn't think was very good, purely to massgae the ego of its 'star' with a big hit. I'm sold. Though I am looking forward to Minority Report - yes, I know I'm a hypocrite. -
The movie kicked ass. Go see it. Forget what Harry says.
-
May 24, 2000 3:49:24 AM CDT
JoBlo agree with Harry... 1) action 2) long sleepy time 3) more
by joblo
Right on, dude! I saw this puppy on Monday and despite really LOVING its first 15-20 minutes or so, fell dead bored during the hour next. What the heck were they thinking? Despite wallowing the story down to a basic plot (bad guy has virus to destroy the world), why do you need AN HOUR to build it up, dammit! Show me some WOO action shots! Enough with the rubber mask tricks...it was funny the first time...IN MISSION IMPOSSIBLE I!!!
I WISH the last 40 minutes of the film were spread around the whole picture, instead of sticking out like a sore thumb. Sure, the motorcycle chase scene is one of the cooler action sequences that I've seen for a while, but Wooey, Cruisey...why-oh-why, my friends, why water it all down with so much inane exposition...?
All in all...I'd still give it a 7/10, but God knows I was hoping for so much more... :) -
Hey dmodog, ever hear of something called a "bad plot"? According to you if a movie has talking between the action it must be one of those, "smart action thrillers" that all the big grownups talk about, right? MI2's first hour and a half is crap. No good action, excitment, or plot. But for me, the last 45 mins or so make it all worth it. The motorcyle scenes are AMAZING! Even without the gore Woo is still able to pull off some great fights. Don't be like dmodog and defend Woo on this. He really blew most of the time but he is still able to churn out some of the best action scenes out there.
-
I don't think he understood the plot. Probably too many big words...
-
A number of points Harry: 1. Gladiator is not a great movie. If you took the story out of Rome and had in in a contemporary
setting, it would become clear just how flimsy the script is. It is an adequate story backed up by a beautifully recreated Rome with
a few great performances. Watch it after watching Spartacus. 2. The film reminded you of Goldeneye "in its lack of coherent or
compelling plot and character" yet you suggested that perhaps "How about an opening that showed Cruise and Scott on an
early Impossible Mission when Jon Voight was still a good guy, where Dougray was forced to be left behind. When suddenly
IMF disavows all knowledge of him and leaves him out to dry? How about hinting at a friendship?" ironically, that is the opening to
aforementioned Goldeneye. 3. Why are you looking for so much character depth and plot in something that has only ever been
billed as a summer action flick? It is no excuse that it is lacking all of these elements just because it is a summer flick, but you
can't say "cause Moriarty also didn -
Gun me down if you will, but sort of feel that Woo peaked with Hard Boiled. So buzzed was I when I left that film, I thought Man, there is NO WAY that hospital shoot-out is gonna be topped. Over the years, and to my glumness, I think I have been right. And I think Woo knew it too, which is one of the reasons he headed to America. Maybe he hoped that the bigger budgets would mean more money to spend on extra squibs, CGI, windows to break, and buildings to blow up. Well John, yes . . . . and no. Sure, you have money, but you also lose complete creative control and that most vital asset, the Incredible Disposable Low Price Hong Kong Stuntman(tm). But I can't blame him for it, he was stuck in an increasing dead-end in HK. I will go to see MI:2, but as much as I try, I'll be making mental copmarisons with A better Tomorrow I and II, The Killer, and Hard Boiled, and counting the number of times Hollywood suits forced him to pull his punches
-
Woo's American films are all about the action now, not the violence we all are afraid to admit is the real reason we see his films. From A Bullet In the Head to Hard Boiled to A Better Tomorrow 2, we all get off on all the blood and bullets, fuck the story, they havent all been that great.
A perfect example is after Hard Target, which resembles his HK stuff more than his more mainstream Hollywood stuff if you really watched hisfilms, He made Broken Arrow, a movie with a bigger budget and the first thing he does in the movie is blow up like 5 helicopters throughout the film.
Now he is being used for action scenes, not gun scenes and well have to get used to it. -
It got glowing reviews all over Europe. So watch your mouth...
-
His action sequences are becoming terribly predictable. There's really not much joy in seeing them again and again. None of his american films have been good. Everyone says how he's the best action director but great action directors should make all around great movies and not just action sequences.
-
Damn Harry!!Don't hold back how you really feel,give over!I came across a British(?) search engine yesterday-Slinke.co.uk- and Ain't it cool.com made it's "cool sites" list;I'll paraphrase"...worlds' most powerful film critic...a bad review will almost guarantee a movie will flop...". Darlin', YOU RULE!!!
-
Again, the comments that Woo is repeating his old action work. Since when did Woo do rock climbing, sky diving or huge motorcycle & car chases? Or the plane vs jeep vs helicopter? Or boat battles? And when the hell has Woo ever been known for martial arts fights (as tons of reviewers seem to think)? This is just another example of people hooking into a few trademark Woo-isms (shots of doves, twin guns) which probably span less than 3 minutes of the running time and proclaiming the ENTIRE movie is a retread. Makes no sense, but it sure sounds good in a review!
-
If anything, I think Woo has been trying show some variety in his action setpieces. Sure, he always has a shootout - That's what he's known for, does best, and his fans demand. But it's always mixed in with other type of action scenes. Broken Arrow, Face/Off, and now MI2 all go beyond the shootout repeatedly, all in different ways. In Face/Off, he even filmed the shootouts in a different manner. More closeups and a Hollywood in-your-face feel. Some hard-core Woo fans were complaining about that. So quit it with repetition comments! Slow-mo is technique, not content. It goes with Woo like blue filters go with James Cameron.
-
The original ONCE A THIEF with Chow Yun-fat, Leslie Cheung and Cherie Chung is a good movie. It's more of a screwball comedy than a shot-to-rags movie but it has a lot of good action. John Woo also made a TV movie of it with a bunch of gwailos. I didn't see it but I heard it sucked all over the place. See the first one!
-
One, two, three, and to the 'Fo, Jerkity-McJerk got da turds waiting at the Doh. -
When I said Woo was repeating his action sequences, what I meant was his tecnique of shooting them and not the location of the actual scenes. I'm not saying the actual scenes are alike in MI2 compared to say Face/Off i'm just saying his style just isn't exciting anymore and his films in Hollywood have been so-so at best.
-
May 24, 2000 7:43:40 AM CDT
well i trust Harry about as far as I can throw him( which ain't
by jon l. ander
just go and see this for myself.
And i think Face/off is better than "so-so". How you can critcise this film the way harry has done and praise armageddon is beyond me. -
Check out this review by Stephen Hunter, author of Black Light, Point of Impact, and a pantsload of other bestselling books:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/entertainment/movies/reviews/missionimpossible2hunter.htm -
May 24, 2000 8:01:36 AM CDT
Moriarty didn't like the scripts for Armegeddon, ID4, etc.?
by all thumbs
That's because he has taste, Harry. Those films are bad, bad, bad.
-
What are you thinking, Harry,applying some narrative analysis to Mission Impossible?Who cares if Thandie Newtons character is poorly developed? This isn't Sling Blade for Pete's sake. It's pure, unadulterated escapism. Look at your calendar...It's summer, for crying out loud!!! Trying to say that this film porly develops characters and fails to illuminate plot points is just idle pretension. You might as well wonder why Cheetah the chimp keeps sexually assaulting the assistant producers...Its the nature of the beast. We know what to expect. We're not sheep. Here's a shameless plug for you. You can check out my review at www.othnielreview.8k.com
-
that stuffs just what i wanted from this flick and it looks like i'm going to get it.
-
Actually, the rock climbing opening in Star Trek 5 DID have a purpose. Toward the end of the film, Kirk is being chased by the "God" creature, and he climbs up a cliff to get away from it. The rock climbing sequence at the beginning was to show that Kirk could climb.
Funny that you mention Trek, since the initial story was written by worthless Trek hacks Brannon Braga and Ronald D. Moore. Figures that they would rip off an opening from an Original Series film instead of coming up with something themselves. After all, the Next Generation films they wrote ripped off The Original Series, too. Why stop now? -
Gladiator was good not great. Every other film mentioned here is lousy. John Woo hasn't made a decent American movie yet. Action is boring when nothing else matters. MI:2 is probably mild fun but nothing extraordinary or reinventing. I did like American Psycho.
-
Anyone you thinks Armageddon and Independence Day are good films just doesn`t cut it telling me MI2 sucks. I support Moriarty 100% on his comments on your bad taste. I think I
-
You'd think with Hollywood's current love affair with the "twist" plot device, MI2 would be a little more like the original series. I used to love the look on the villian du jour's face after they realized he/she had been totally screwed by Phelp's and crew. As I recall, the original series had more in common with "The Sting" than "The Rock.
-
Someone finally saw who the writing credits spell out; not Robert Towne (he probably read it, vomited on his keyboard, then ran spell check and announced his edit finished), but Brannon "Wobbly" Braga and Ronald "McDonald" D. Moore. These two cretins managed to turn fairly decent, if slightly pretentious sci-fi TV shows into completely unwatchable lumps of rotting shit. The rot was almost interesting in relation to its origins, but not even close to redeeming - be afeared of Harry's long shit metaphors gaining popularity. =) Anyway, though I may end up being dragged to this be half-witted pilgrims - I have a feeling the Knight and Squire will love this - I will not enjoy it, and will make a point of hurling one moistened gummi-bear onto the screen for each minute I am bored. NOTE: red ones show up better, in my experience. --- On others note... Why had noone given Chow Yun Fat a starring role without a gleaming white face alongside him? Why are people so afraid of letting John Woo direct his movies? Do they not realise that 13-year olds can get into R-movies with absolutely no effort, and be better for the experience? Sigh... --- By the way, Gladiator was even better than I expected. Finally, someone had the balls to make an unconditional Hero movie again. For those who said (and this I recall from other Talkbacks) that the flashbacks were cheesy, use your fucking heads. How else would a Roman think of death? How else would he envision a journey home? For people who didn't like the way the battles were shot, I suggest you go pick a fight. You'll find out really fast that the elegance about hand-to-hand fighting only comes out when you stand 10 feet back - in reality, it's immediate, ugly, fast, and senselss. You can even note that, frequently, Scott did pull back to give a wider view, to show the grander spectacle, the view from the gallery. --- A final note: Kenneth Branagh's "Henry V" is being released as a DVD on July 15, if memory serves. Anyone who doesn't buy it should seek me out - you'll have some serious offences to be pardoned, and about $25 to part with. --- Radix malorum est cupiditas.
-
Hey, actually, Woo did make some pretty good Martial Arts movies in the 70s. He actually made one of Jackie Chan's earliest movies called Shao Lin Men aka Countdown in Kung Fu aka Strike of Death (1975). That was from the IMDB. However, he made an KICK ASS martial arts film called **The Last Hurray for Chivalry**(1978). I think this film rivals any of the latest martial arts films (inc. Enter the Dragon) and could possibly be the best one of them all. Some of the stunts in this movie are INCREDIBLE, including a 20 minute swordfight in the middle of the movie which is better than any fight in Gladiator except for maybe The Battle of Carthage (which wasn't a swordfight).
-
He shot a great R rated movie and was fucking raped in the ass by the suits and had his film taken and recut to be a "friendly" PG-13 turd. I have no doubt the recut action scenes are nice at the end but what I want to see is Woo's cut of the film! The one that was ripped from him and given to some talentless fucking hack. The ones with the blood. The ones I herd rumors about almost having trouble getting the R rating. It was said on one site that they had to recut the film because it didn't make sense. This is bull shit and I've seen many more sites tell the truth. The studio just didn't want to take a chance on a great R movie. WELL THEN WHY THE FUCK HIRE WOO IN THE FIRST PLACE. I hate suits may you all rot in hell. Your only saving grace would be if you give us Woo's cut on DVD or in a few months put the Woo cut in theaters after you've made your hack money and give us the REAL fucking film. I was all jazed to see this upuntil I heard they took the film from him then I KNEW this would blow. How can anyone recut something that noone but Woo could have shot and have it be any be good. I'm looking forward to his next film and I just hope on this one he has his asshole covered so he isn't fucked again.
-
If for nothing else than the lack of plot, it's that fucking mullet he's got. What the hell is with that thing?
And every interview I've seen has him talking about how he does most of the stunts, which is such a load. Does anyone think a studio would let Slappy actually come close to hurting himself?
Also, is there some part of the movie where he has to live up to the example his dead father set for him? I hate to see that tired old line put to rest.
-
I am in the minority. liked the first M:I. Anyone who thought the plot in the first movie was confusing is an idiot. Traitor steals fake list of agents thinking it is real. Frames Hunt. Hunt wants to draw out the traitor. Steals real list to convince other bad guys to help him ferret out traitor and clear his name. Dumb, yes, but confusing? If this movie is better than the first one, it will be good. The fact that Woo is behind it makes me drool. Woo lite is better than Phillip Noyce or Martin Campbell at their best. Once you've seen his masterpieces, you want Woo anyway you can get him. Other directors shooting heroes with two guns are mere pretenders...Woo is the master! Yeah, "Hard Target" and "Broken Arrow" blew chunks, but there were flashes of Woo at his finest. You even consider buying "Blackjack" with Dolph Lundgren (Canadian TV pilot directed by him). Woo kicks action movie ass.
-
Now my expectations are WAY lowered, so I'll probably enjoy it more, whereas all the AICN hype for Gladiator had me expecting another Blade Runner and I walked out slightly dissappointed. But hey, that's my own stupid fault for spending way too much time on this site.
-
the truth is...john woo plots aren't so great, there's a lot of holes in all of his HK movies and if it weren't for the action scenes and the fact the chow yun fat was starring, they'd be pretty shitey. did anybody see just heroes? perfect example.
and for those who hated hard target, try and get the uncut version (which i have), it's a grade better in the action scenes and more violent...but then again...IT'S STILL VAN DAMME -
With all of the masks being ripped off I thought I was watching a Scooby Doo movie. If only it were so. I'm pissed they put all that chick romance crap in it. M:I totaly blew this away. M:I2 is a Tom Cruise Love Fest. Cruise can kill people with one shot while flipping end over end but the bad guys with the auto machine guns miss him everytime? What crap. And Cruise can shoot with marksman accuracy on a motorcycle, which is spinnin, on one wheel. But the guys with the machine guns hanging out the car miss him?? What a load of crap. ANd I think Cruise was trying to be Jackie Chan with all them kicks. The good part is I made out with my girl friend for the first hour.
-
Anyone who says that Woo does not have a style of his own is simply not well-versed in cinema. The Killer is just action scenes??? And the Mona Lisa's just a painting... The Killer is DRIPPING with style - the film as a whole feels nothing like Peckinpah - there's a couple of common themes and yes, there's slo-motion, but that's about it. Woo's storytelling in non-action scenes, especially in something as moody and noir-is as The Killer, has always been at least as interesting if not moreso than his action. You can turn on a Woo film you've never seen - and not even in an action scene - and you can instantly tell that it was directed by him. He has a style that is unlike anybody I've ever seen, studied or heard about - not saying he's "the best" - he's certainly an original, and has added to film language as a whole. And his films have not been just about action, either. Maybe in Hollywood, but in Hong Kong? Woo's Hong Kong films have SO much more story and character relationship stuff than American action movies that it's not even funny. Even classics like Die Hard and Raiders of the Lost Ark - our best action films, don't plumb the depths of honor, loyalty, and other themes that Woo injects in all his best work. I'm not saying these make his films better, just different, and DEFINITELY more "story and character-oriented". What American action film has the soul and character drama of A Better Tomorrow? Or The Killer, or especially Bullet in the Head? Woo does dramatic action, and he's really the only one that has made it in a long time. They are action movies to be sure, but they have a very heavy streak of drama that we just don't see mixed into our "action" movies over here. So all this "Woo only does action" is crap. His films have gotten such a following NOT because of the action - which is gorgeous and inspiringly beautiful - but because of the PASSION in storytelling. His strong themes on brotherhood, loyalty, honor - that's what makes a Woo film a Woo film, not the action. And unfortunately it looks like M:I-2 is just another action film.
-
That's really what this movie is about. There might be some tiny spoilers in here, if you care. I agree mostly with Harry, though Armaggeddon, The Rock, and ID4 were pretty bad. Moriarty was right there. As for John Woo: the best director in the world could not make a good movie out of a bad script. Yes, it's summer, yes, we expect empty popcorn films with no value, and no intelligent plotlines or character development. We're kind of dumb like that, but I watched this movie knowing that, and I was still dissapointed. I suspended my disbelief enough to get past most of the facts that Harry listed. I was O.K. with the plot, I was O.k. with the masks I was O.K. with Tom Cruise and Dougray Scott having no roles to play, but Thandie Newton bothered me. It's not her fault, her body was used as a plot device, that's all. The biggest thing that bothered me is that her "relationship" with Tom Cruise is too unbelievable. There is NOTHING at all to suggest that they should fall in love. They are both really attractive. This suggests that they should have sex, which they do. After this, being male, I can understand why Tom Cruise mught have a thing for her, her character however is non-existent. She just does whatever she is needed to do to advance the plot, and when she's done with that, HER CHARACTER DISSAPPEARS, and when they need to end the movie (thank God) they bring her back AND NOW SHE IS SUICIDAL! What the fuck? Action sequences are boring without a reason to care about the characters involved in them. And action movies (if that's what this is, not much action in it though) are boring if there are no characters to care about, no one to identify with, no real reson for their existence at all. (Making a shitload of money for suits in Hollywood is NOT a real reason.)
-
Why is everyone so hot for Woo? I mean, Jada Pinkett was totally unconvincing, and Tommy Davidson was trying too hard to be funny...
-
That Palm Pilot line at the end was pretty damn witty.
-
Let's face it people--we are all becoming speed junkies. ARMAGEDDON, THE LOST WORLD, GODZILLA ($136M - still a big hit), MISSION IMPOSSIBLE 1--we know what we're getting into when we read reviews like this before the film comes out. I love John Woo also and had really high hopes that he could stand this possible franchise up on its ear--but apparently not he was even enough to beat the Mighty Hollywood God of Screenplay Mediocrity (who is completely growing in power!). But an exciting trailer is all we need to control us like mindless zombies and cause us to plunk down $8.50 on opening weekend. We're all Hollywood whores--I'm even guilty of it too. I don't mind some mindless fun every so often--especially in the summer--but these movies have lost their sense of FUN. Was it just me or were those movies I mentioned above completely JOYLESS? What happened to THE INDY FILMS, LETHAL WEAPON, THE TERMINATORS, SPEED, IN THE LINE OF FIRE, ALIENS, DIE HARD--movies that satisfied the thrill junkies in all of us while also giving us a story that holds your attention. Decent writing people should not be too much to ask--especially in an age where FX has made the possibilities limitless. This should be a golden age in cinema where the visuals should allow the stories to actually be BETTER. You know the only way that Hollywood will give us great action AND a great story is if we stop supporting films like this before they make the monstrous amounts of money that they make. MI2 is $200M easily--another $300M worldwide. Why mess with the formula of dumbing down the movie for international audiences? But it's too much to ask--we'll keep going because I, like the rest of the movie geeks, have hope. MI2 is that self-designated must-see movie that will hypnotize us all into diving in our wallets for those last 45 minutes. We truly love the possibilities of cinema and we want that theater experience that will keep a smile on our face for days. And a movie will come along every so often to pull us out of the mire and keep that smile on our face until we become neck deep in shit again. Why oh why can't action movies now live up to the promise of THE MATRIX?!
-
May 24, 2000 12:55:17 PM CDT
Woo should be allowed to direct his films as he want's them...
by mephisto666
If they didn't keep chopping the
films up so they weren't so bloody then they would be excellent. I think what Woo wants behind him is not a big budget but artistic licence and control. And I agree with doom1701, the MI series was about a team working together, giving them interplay and relationshops to develop their characters. The other MI film was nothing but a love-in for Tom Cruise. Woo needs to work with a talented actor who's ego won't get in the way of the plot or the camera. -
Bean Curd Rocks!
-
When I heard there was going to be a sequel I was all exited. What is this fucking shit? Last night I watched the first one, which is far superior. Everyone critisized it for being different from the series. But what the hell is this fucking techno motorcycle shit? And Tom cruise, get a haircut. You were far sexier in 1996.
-
I hate to be a jerkface, but it's difficult to finish a review when each time the words "its" or "it's" are utilized, they're used incorrectly.
Please, Harry, try to remember this next lesson, because it adds infinite legitimacy to your site. It also means that slimy journalists at rags like Premiere will be able to quote you without continuing to write (sic), which is basically the equivalent of saying you're a primate who can't form a sentence (which, obviously, is untrue, as your reviews are usually quite well-written).
It's means "it is." Example: "It's amazing how Yahoo Serious doesn't get more work."
Its is possessive. Example:
"Disorderlies will be getting its own Special Edition DVD this fall."
-
... because I'll never forgive them for making Jim Phelps a bad guy. It's like have Marshall Dillon turn bad and kill Festus and Miss Kitty in a big budget film of Gunsmoke. Who gives a damn about Ethan Hunt? Not me. I have no vested interest in his character. If they'd just made Tom Cruise the Jim Phelps character in the first movie and not made him a bad guy, all would be fine and they could continue making MI movies to their hearts content. They could make Ethan Hunt movies to their hearts content if they'd do away with naming it Mission: Impossible.
I'm going to see MI2 and pretend like it has nothing to do with the original TV show at all (and have no resemblence to the abomination that was the first film) and hope it kills a couple hours with eye candy based on the trailer. I don't care for a MI3 though. This is it for this series as far as I care. -
of Star Trek V. It went seriously downhill from here. The camping scene was the only good thing about Star Trek V, as far as I could see. It gave a touch (just a touch) of realism to what were generally a bunch of plastic people. A damn sight more realistic than a one-handed, reverse endo on a motorbike, Mr. Recoil-doesn't-affect-my-balance.
Hmm...thinking about Star Trek V seems to have put me off my minestrone. -
i saw it this afternoon and liked it better than the first. With all this talk " Sshe came back and was suicidal at the end" means you weren't paying attention. Secondly like someone said before the first hour sets up the plao. And now this is a SPOILER. Harry you weren't paying attention too. They didn't storm the place when they found out the bad guys didnt have the virus because they had the cure to the virus. Pay attention next time. END SPOILER
With all that said I think it's about time we all get ouropinons from one place .. ourselves -
I wanted to see this a smuch as anyone else, but only because of Woo. No one (including me) even *liked* the first one. Now, everyone's surprised to hear that it sucks. Oh, and Harry, I've accused you of being a sell out, but after trashing BE and this, I've gained my respect back. Long Live Harry!
-
I love how Harry goes to great lengths to take MI2 to task for plot weakness, character development, pacing, etc.
It's too bad he didn't apply the same criteria to his reviews of Phantom Menace. He also seemed to overlook the same flaws in Armageddon, The Rock, and the other "blokcbuster" movies he reports to love.
I'm seeing it tonight and I have a feeling that Harry is off his rocker on this one.
-
Obviously Eternal has made many fantastic action movies and has a lot of experience to lend his expertise on what constitutes a great action movie and a great action director. I'm also sure eternal thinks that Desperado is load of garbage too, which in my book is a beautifully shot and well orchestrated action movie. Granted there are some cruddy Woo movies but the ones where he hits it right and fantastic pieces of film. Somebody needs to open up their mind, maybe release yourself and just enjoy the obsurdity of his ballet gunfights.
And yeah I also enjoyed the first Mission Impposible. It could have been better and I wish it was because Brian DePalma
has talent and an eye to tell a story visually. Of course you probably also think Evil Dead two is a pile of shit too because it pretty much has no plot. Let's see one of your action sequences or one of your plot filled movies so ever Woo fan out there can tell you that your so called pieces of work suck the skin off of Jar- Jar's balls.
Go John Woo!!!!!!!!!!!! -
Liked "MI:2" better when it was called "Face/Off."
-
Luckily, I've escaped being kicked in the balls, but people tell me that it is really really painful and I believe them. So for me, paying $8.50 to see MISSION IMPOSSIBLE 2 is like paying someone $8.50 to kick me in the balls. I will never understand why people go and see $8.50 for a movie that is reviewed poorly and has bad word of mouth simply to see exciting action sequences and special effects. I mean, I stayed away from ARMAGEDDON, GODZILLA, MISSION IMPOSSIBLE, and WILD WILD WEST and waited for them to come out on cable, and even watching them on cable was about as bad as being kick in the balls.
-
May 24, 2000 2:47:47 PM CDT
TO ALL YOU HARRY WORSHIPPERS... AND TO THOSE WHO CALL WOO A "TAL
by moto
First of all you people, "GET A LIFE!" You won't watch a movie because "HARRY" doesn't like it? Think for yourself!! Judge yourself!! Come on... Harry is not the "all knowing" of every frickin' film out there. He's a guy with a computer, and some cool connections, that's it!
And to you people saying WOO is a talentless hack... LET'S SEE YOU GET BEHIND THAT CAMERA shitheads! Look at Woo's HongKong films... they are the reason you have MATRIX and BLADE, and many other films! -
No wonder you've been getting a big head listening to these people!
Fine, you have your opinion... that's great. Well, here's mine... what were you expecting. That first hour? It's called a plot! Why the hell do you need to know a backstory for every character??? Did they do that in THE ROCK or ID4? No. Did they do that for every STAR WARS character? No.
That was the owrst review you've written in awhile... and the worst thing on this site since those Oscar flubs. Why? Because the only way you backed up your points were with comparing the film to GOLDENEYE, THE ROCK, ID4, etc. When you mention those films (which I admit were fun), all of the points you try to make are canceled out. -
Won't ANYbody learn (since Batman 2) that Hollywood will NEVER bring out a great film anymore?
All it's about is the quick $$$$. Hell, if Star Wars Ep 1 sucked big time, what hope is there at all for anything from these horribly "creative" people?
Please, stop complaining and even HOPING that Hollywood will bring out any good action films with intelligent plots and stories. It all stopped with Cameron's classic Aliens. -
Don't you notice that this asshole hasn't even seen any of Woo's HK movies (save perhaps The Killer, and that was probably the dubbed pan&scan tape from Blockbuster) yet makes it a point to post how much he hates Woo in EVERY single Woo-related story for the last year or so? In all that time he has never bothered to seek out Woo's other films (despite saying "I should" repeatedly), yet sees fit to write novella-length critiques about Woo. He just wants to get a rise out of you guys or perhaps he was slighted by Woo in some way. Just get on with life, Eternal. They didn't choose you because you weren't the right man for the job. Nothing personal. Move on. The only thing your vehement but vague (of course) rantings about Woo does is to convince others that you're a sad nut. Just ignore this dipshit.
-
And have you ever noticed that, within these stupefying "novella-length" posts, Eternal never backs up his opinion with any kind of support? Look, this guy's been waxing idiotic on movies since talkback began, and he's long been considered one of the least informed posters around. I'd be hard-pressed to find a more suspect authority on film than Eternal. Face the facts, man..... you are ignorant of the filmmaking process, and, most probably, bitter that you shall never transcend the hollow trappings of your dreary life.
-
May 24, 2000 3:42:17 PM CDT
Holy Shit!! I completely forgot about that dog!! Wait a second..
by el duderino
the violence and content in MI: 2 would make PG-13. Did Universal do the unthinkable? If so, SHIT!! Just look at LOST WORLD, could've been R, but had to be toned down, and look at it.
(PLEASE READ THIS STORY,THANKS)
.. simply horrid. On a side note, I think it would be fun to make treatments for bad screenplays. Hell, writing a screenplay from scratch is really hard, and I usually get side-tracked and forget what I was writing about in the first place. With bad screenplays, you know what sucks, and you know what would make the film cooler. Oh, and sorry for being one of those assholes that types their comment in the subject box. -
Good for you for writing a negative review of a movie (any movie) Harry. However, I think you may have been setting your sights a bit too high with this one. Haven't seen the film yet, but as long as the action sequences and effects are okay I don't think I'll be too disappointed. This isn't to say that John Woo rocks or I don't care about plot, but in a movie like this you know that plot's gonna take a back seat to Cruise and his self-performed stunts.
-
Sorry, Eternal - rereading my post it comes off as condescending. I really didn't intend it that way, but text doesn't often convey tone very well. I have no problem disagreeing with you - film is art, and there's nothing more subjective than that. I'd just have to ask you in relation to The Killer - which version did you see? Many people make the mistake of seeing the VHS version - the subtitles on that one are very poor, and they tend to undercut the film, also, many of those versions are "R" - the dreaded "rated versions", which hack the film to shreds. The Killer should be watched widescreen, in the unrated cut, preferably with the Criterion version that's available on laserdisc and out of print on DVD - but a new version will be released very soon, I hear. The Criterion subs are FAR better than the ones on the VHS. Anyway, I think it's obvious that Woo is never going for realism. If you're looking for that then you shouldn't look to his films - he's consciously not going for it. He's trying to portray a world that's larger than life, and take the real world to the level of myth as a playground for his honor/brotherhood morality tales. Who cares that the hero fires more bullets than the gun holds(though I'm not sure, those guns hold eighteen shots a piece and they always cut away, giving the hero time to reload offscreen...)? It's a dreamworld, but that's okay because the laws of that world are established from the beginning of the story, just like in any movie. EVERY action film, fantasty film, sci-fi film, whatever, bends realism to extremes, but as long as they set that up at first, then that's okay. It's only when the tone of the film is realist and changes to fantasy later on that it doesn't work. Can Indiana Jones really go through everything he did in Raiders and end up with just a few scratches on his chest? Barely any blood, no black eyes, etc. Of course not, but we don't care, because the tone is set up early on. This is no different. The action scenes are works of art in themselves - it's like Jackie Chan stuff - the beauty of motion, balletic mayhem, but in a different style. They're like production numbers, or as a few critics have called them, arias in an opera. But I maintain that the opera itself is just as fun to watch. American films are so cynical and detached, especially American action films, that they eschew all real bonding between characters beyond a bare and unsubstantial surface. They're afraid to probe too deeply into the themes of honor, loyalty and brotherhood - terrified of trying to portray deep emotion between men joined by the brotherhood of bloodshed. Woo's films are fresh to me because they embrace this. They go for broke with all that emotion and bonding, and they feel much more substantial than American action films. Think of Die Hard - we have a relationship with McClane and his wife, but although it's handled well, it's still just a surface plot line. The bond between the three friends in Bullet in the Head is so much more deep, but it's still an action film. Woo also is a great storyteller, and every frame of The Killer is rife with invention and style. Like the scene that illustrates the Cop and the Killer are coming closer together, not just physically in the chase but also in spirit - represented in a slow dolly past a set of doors to a soulful song, as each frame is passed each man is cut in and out of the sequence... It's great, visual fimmaking, which Woo has an incredible knack for. Yes, I'm a John Woo fan. No, I haven't liked his American films nearly as much as his Hong Kong stuff(that includes M:I-2), except for much of Face-Off which was trying to do more than be just another action film. There's many problems for Woo in America - controll of story, yes - again, American action films are just too cynical. Time is another. Look at the opening shootout scene in Hard-Boiled... The whole setup to that scene, as well as the shoot-out itself, has SO MANY angles and shots in it that it's just incredible - probably as many as in a full half of many American films. The sequence must've taken forever to shoot... But Woo can't do that here, because he doesn't have nearly as much time for each shoot, and the American Union crews don't get near as much done in each day. With more power he may overcome all this, and hopefully get final cut and more control of his stories, but it hasn't happened yet. And no, everybody, "fun popcorn movie" is no excuse. That didn't fly in the days of Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Die Hard, Aliens, etc. - those films all had strong plotting, a sense of fun unmatched today, and interesting characters. We're not getting that anymore because of this new "popcorn movies don't have to have plot" attitude that everybody is bandying about. We won't get classic "popcorn" movies unless we demand them - and demanding them means not paying for crap that only does half the job - crap like Mission Impossible II...
-
I think it's interesting that Harry spends most of his review slamming MI2's lack of logic after talking about how ID4, Armageddon, et al, are good popcorn flicks. I assume the missing ingredient in the Cruise flick is the limp, repetitive and uninspired action that the other films pander to our A.D.D. attention spans. Hmmm...I wasn't excited about this film before and I bet Harry's review hits the nail on the head, so I'm even less excited about it now.
-
Harry writes that MI:2 is a piss poor screenplay that they couldn
-
I'm going to see this movie, for two reasons, 1) I will probably having nothing better to do and 2) I gonna make up my own mind
although i do think summer movies have taken a turn for the retarded. -
Harry you should really not try to take notes using your palm pilot during a film, or else should spend a little less time fishing around in the bottom of your popcorn bucket for that last nibble. Most of your plot problems were answered in the film (i.e. Nyah gets a record because the IMF creates one for her). I will agree on you that one of the problems (and it ain't a big one) is that there is too much Ethan not enough IMF - they're supposed to be a team after all. You were a little heavy handed I think. Chill out. It's a summer movie - give your readers some credit - most of us just want to have fun.
And all of you who whimper about Hollywood money making and Woo's artistic integrity - you don't know s*$t about how this town works - it's been about the dough and the glitz since day one. Grow up - we're not a bunch of first graders playing house. Studios are money making ventures and always have and will be. Not that we don't have a hell of a time doing it! More power to Mr. Cruise. If I had the good fortune, discipline, stamina and intelligence it takes to make something like MI2 come to fruition, and I got to hang from cliffs in Utah and do stunts in Australia and make millions doing it, then I'd be one happy m.f.
Hopefully the movie will inspire someone to get off his ass find a calling - T.C. ain't got nothing that no one else hasn't got - well, except for extraordinarily nice teeth. -
What makes me knowledgeable is the simple fact that I work in the industry, while you..... do whatever it is Eternal does (i.e...... auto detailing?) Time and again, you are blown out of the water by superior intellects on this board. I implore you, do not embarrass yourself again. On a separate note, Marketing Man was my nemesis, but he met a rather gruesome end when his GLADIATOR predictions failed to pan out. Its success caused him to meltdown and lose his job as Head Fluffer at Vivid Entertainment. Which reminds me, do you need a job?
-
That's a good one! Harry's no Tom Cruise, but he's definitely cooler than Ethan Hunt.
-
I totally agree with Moto on this one. Harry pull yourself together man. ID4 og Armageddon are good films and MI2 sucks??? I think Harry has lost it big time.
-
Am I the only one who has never been excited about a sequel to what was a terrible film anyway? The first one sucked donkey balls, why would you expect more from the sequel? Sure, John Woo makes some cool movies, but his American movies haven't been great.
When I hear about a Mission Impossible, I think terribly convoluted and thin plot, vehicle for decent action with cardboard cutout characters.
Why was anyone excited about this? It's like Broken Arrow 2 would be, I imagine.
Fuck that. I'll wait for video with this one. -
Anyone ever bother to read his bio? Here's a guy who was born in the Hong Kong slums, whose brother starved to death, was lucky enough to get an education, get in on the bottom rung of the HK film business and years later, after hard work, become a director of $80 million dollar motion picture with one of the top stars in the world. Fuck all of you that put him down! Let's see what you can do, you suckass momma's boys that live with your mommies and daddies!
-
I haven't scrolled through the rest of the talkbacks, but my reaction was the exact opposite of Harry's. I loved the first 2/3 (through Thandie's big moment)and felt the last 1/3 was a little too predictable. In fact, what I liked about the first chunk--unlike the first MI movie--was that I understood that there was a great deal going on that I wasn't seeing. In the first film, I felt everything was too laboriously spelled out, whereas in this I wasn't sure what was going to happen--until that moment, and then I could work out the endgame. It was also nice to see an adversary that was more than Hunt's equal (which makes things interesting).
What this really felt like was a c. 1940 studio picture--not really Woo, not really Towne, but both of them really overcompensating for Moore and Braga. And yes I still don't get why Cruise bought a team concept in order to turn it into a star vehicle, but I still hope he can get Stone for MI3, which should be even better. -
I agree with everyone on the summer movie/plausibility thing. (See Hitchcock's comments to Truffaut on plausibility in NNW.) And I don't hate Harry because we disagree--I'm with you on ID4, not with you on Armageddon, and thought you were soundly misguided on World Is Not Enough. Not to state the obvious, but these are only movies after all.
-
I haven't seen this flic yet but I am going to try to get to it tonight. I have a feeling it is going to be nonsensical but whatever. I have to see woo flix as often as possible. I am just looking for entertainment.
Ps: this is the funniest website EVER!
www.geocities.com/kokosavage -
Jeezus, I'm getting sick of that term. I just saw the movie, and it was the worst two hours I've had to endure in a long time. I'll definitely see it again.
The action was beautiful, the plot...tepid (Where have you gone Robert Towne?), and Tom should've just shot the chick when she wanted him to. That would have made things personal, and given Ethan more of a reason to kick Dougray's ass. I can't believe Towne would off Faye Dunaway, but not this Thandie Newton chick..Ugh. -
....you're putting a little too much thought into what is essentially the popcorn movie of the summer. I mean, come on! The first hour or so is called "the plot", as so many here have mentioned. If they spent that time building up the relationships between everybody, I would've slept like a baby. But instead, they decided to spend it giving you the situation, and jumping right in. It's an action flick, if you spend the whole time comparing it to everything, you miss the purpose, and the purpose is kick ass and chew bubblegum, and that it did. And even so, my only comparisons are these: 1. the car scene was straight out of Goldeneye, no doubts.
2. The bungee from the ceiling scene in MI kept coming back to me when Ethan dropped in the lab.
3. I swear to God, I kept getting this Pierce Brosnan/James Bond vibe from Tom Cruise for a good 20 minutes at the beginning
Thats it, thats all. On my scale, movie gets a 3.5/5 -
I saw MI2 and while i agree with harry that the first hour or so was slow, overall the film was worth it. Besides, maybe they'll save the friend angle for MI3. All they have to do is say maybe Scott didn't die at the end. He mightve put a mask of himself on one of his cronies OR he was wearing a bulletproof vest and faked being dead. I think they should've had teams like MI1, where everyone was assigned a different specialty. I'll quit griping now. But doesn't anyone else think the part in the beginning was pretty ironic when "Tom" pulls off his face to reveal he's really....DOUGRAY SCOTT!!!! Let the bashing begin.
"We need a Napoleon.An Alexander. Except that Napoleon lost in the end, and Alexander flamed out and died young. We need a Julius Caesar, except that he made himself dictator, and died for it."--Colonel Graff, Ender's Game -
Is it FACE/OFF? No. Is it HARD BOILED? No. Is it better than most of the action films released in the past year? HELL yes, and then some! Harry is an unpredictable person, he likes some things, he hates others. Many a time I've been surprised by what he likes. It's typical of Harry to critize such a movie before seening it twice...or thrice. Most of you people say you hate this movie because of the screenplay. Like it's better than the story on GLADIATOR. Come on, that's a mediocre plot if I've ever heard one. What happend with MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE 2 is what I like to call the hype factor. MEN IN BLACK had it, THE PHANTOM MENACE had it, and every James Bond movie has it. This totally detracts from the movie. You set your standards so high that no movie ever made can surpass it. Jeez, I know I'm in the minority but I loved this movie. Those of you who say you "snoozed" through this Woo-a-thon must have had the attention span of a dead dog. And for that new animation, holy shit, what a slap in the face to those of us who are actually fans of the greatest action director alive. I know you must think me insane but I liked this film, it's different than what John Woo has ever done, it's more like the original MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE. The first 2/3rds was complete espionage, which built until the last 30-45 minutes which, like pure Woo, was completly balistic, even if the blood hits were cut. I know you're intitled to your opinion...but your wrong.
-
...was the Chicken Run trailer that was shot in the style of Mission: Impossible 2. I was laughing after I saw that right before the flick.
-
Just saw MI:2 today and the best part was the trailer for Chicken Run! MI:2 sucked but the Chicken Run trailer was excellent! Can't wait to see that movie now. I think that C-R:1 trailer had more action and plot than MI:2 did.
-
uh... i liked it. a bunch.
-
May 24, 2000 8:26:32 PM CDT
If you haven't seen the flick yet, then SHUT THE F-CK UP
by thedudespeaks
Sorry Harry, but the DUDE's gotta call ya out on this one. Man, you cant seem to remember what a sucky movie really is. Sure, plot had holes, but so does your review. You liked Independence Day because why, its strong plot? believability? Yeah, so Will Smith learns to fly an Alien ship in about 6 seconds, and that big-eared freak Jeff Goldbum hooks his laptop to dump a virus to an alien computer... what, the aliens were using windows95????????? HERE'S SOME ADVICE, BIG GUY: Pull that cork out of your ass and go see it again before you open your pie-hole. the DUDE has spoken
-
Eternal. It has come to the DUDE's attention that you consider yourself a tough guy? Why? Is it because you sit in your bubble and whack at your keyboard all day? Well, bubble-boy - if the DUDE wasn't a pacifist I'd come over to your bubble and kick your ass sideways. BTW - "TB Tuff-Guy" is a registered trademark of the DUDE.
-
May 24, 2000 8:42:42 PM CDT
I Respect Harry, But Check Out Another More Consistent Opinion
by thedanshadow
I'm writing this small little review for one reason: to give the opinion I believe the majority of filmgoers will share, to some degree, when they see Mission: Impossible 2.
I was flabbergasted to read Harry's review of M-i-2. Here is a guy who will forgive any movie for minor details, as long as it is cool, or at least well-made. Hallenback's p.o.s. rant was expected and at it's usual pathetic level (check out Eminem for tips on dissing with style and comedy). I hope people will not be turned away by these two unfavorable reviews, because Mission: Impossible II is a great movie, and an excellent popcorn movie.
People's biggest complaints are plot and the story being too slow until the action kicks in. These people really don't get it. Rabid Woo fans conjure up self-serving images of Woo making a good film, or wanting to make one, and them those "damn suits" ruined it. Please, I'm so sick of that. Just take the film for what it is, and not what you wish it could be.
I, for definitely more then one, was not disappointed. The film opens cryptically, but with interest. It sets up the story, and will be explained later. This is clever folks. Showing Hunt and Ambrose on some "old days mission" would be ripping off cliche beginnings like Goldeneye. Cut to Hunt, on vacation, rock climbing. Cruise likes extremes sports in real life, and he's doing his own stunts here, as in virtually all of the movie. He's handsome, he's a very good actor, he's got gigantic star charisma, and he's an incredibly psychical actor too--what more could you ask for? He gets pulled off vacation, and set off on his mission. Sparks fly, when he meets Nyah (Thandie Newton) who he must recruit for his mission. He helps her steal her mark, gets her caught, talks her out of it, and then offers his proposition. After she gives him a bit of a chase, they collide, skip the "decent waiting period," and hop into bed. There's genuine emotion here, and their relationship is suprisingly strong in this movie. Later, when Hunt must leave her with the bad guys, jumping out a building, he tells her to stay alive, and he'll find her, in a very strong emotional scene, similar to a scene in Last of the Mohicans. When Hunt reluctantly tells Nyah that she must seduce her old boyfriend, corrupt IMF Agent Sean Ambrose (Dougray Scott), it's an equally strong emotional scene. Right from the beginning we see that Woo's incredible directing skills bring virtually every scene to such evocative life, giving it deep texture and virility. This movie packs a powerful punch, and goes for the knockout. Dougray Scott is a strong villain, although not as strong as the villains in Broken Arrow and Face/Off. It is mentioned that he looks similar to Hunt, and he is portrayed as a kind of altar ego of Ethan. Like Ethan Hunt if he had decided to look out for number one, and make it rich. The jealousy and racetrack scenes, which have been commented as riffs off Hitchcock's Notorious...a fifty year old movie. I think we could put some basic themes to use a couple times a century, don't you? They were very good, and *not* boring, and that's what counts. Once Hunt and his two team members (the only weak characters in the film), discover Biocyte facilities, which house the virus and anti-virus (go see the movie and see what I'm talking about), it gets exciting for those who can only appreciate action. And believe me, this is great action, with lots of minor conflicts, tense sub-plots, and a kinetic over all momentum, racing over the final hour. John Woo action. Who cares if there's not a lot of blood--there wasn't in The Matrix either. It's not necessary, and makes the film more palatable to those who are not desensitized to violence. There's plenty of gunplay, trickery, Hero vs. Villain (a Woo favorite), karate, covert tactics, and yes!!! A motarcycle/car/helicopter chase, capped off by a killer duel that had me squirming in my seat. Why? Because they took an hour to get interested in the characters and story, when they very easily could have started out with action, had not human emotion, and coasted on the first movie and Cruise's star power. I like the first Mission: Impossible a lot, after watching it four times on video. It was a cold, sterile, sneaky, straight out espionage thriller/mystery. With the sequel Cruise went bigger in better, with lots of life, color, scale, locations, action, and adventure. I like them both, both John Woo is a much better director then Brian DePalma, and he made a much better film. And, I love Gladiator, but Woo is a stronger film maker then Ridley Scott. And Cruise is a better star then Russell Crowe. So for those who say, go watch Gladiator again instead, I wouldn't listen to them. I recommend seeing Gladiator again, but you should definitely rush out and have a great time watching M:i-2. And to top it off, the great Hans Zimmer did a better score for this movie than Gladiator.
Response to detractors:
1)Robert Towne rewrote the film, but it's not his baby, although for the record, I don't the the final script sucks.
2)This is not a rushed cash-in--it's been five years since the first one was completed.
3)This is better then any modern Bond flick.
4)It is quite violent for PG-13...perhaps Cruise simply used clout to get the rating, rather then cutting important footage.
That's about it, I hope you will consider my opinion.
Dan Shadow. -
I can understand enthusiasm about both of these films. But those who like surprises, and who like intelligently written films, seem to be having a lot of trouble with both Gladiator and MI2.
SOME CAREFULLY THOUGHT-OUT REVIEWS ABOUT WHY GLADIATOR FAILS: I've had to agree with the review of Gladiator at salon.com (Go find it. It's well worth reading.) And I've had to agree with Roger Ebert's review of Gladiator as well. (Well worth reading.) And check out www.greenlakepc.org/reflections/movies/ for several valid complaints as well.
My own attempts to explain why Gladiator left me feeling totally disappointed:
1- You always knew at the beginning of a dramatic scene how it was going to end. Because there was no real mystery or supense in this formula, the music and camera had to create tension instead. (I knew, anyway.)
2- Battles, except in the opening war scene, were filmed so close-up they were disorienting.
3- The story gets rushed and oversimplified just to get to the violence.
4- A whole lot of talk about the glory of Rome. But what is Rome? "A dream." "An idea." Huh?
5- If Gladiator is really just about gladiator battles, they shouldn't have tried to make it a Braveheart story as well, because there's not enough time for the kind of character development we need to really know and understand the characters.
MI2 fails because it wants to be a fun original action movie, but the plot is so ridiculously shallow that the movie ends up being a showcase of Tom Cruise's stunts and martial-arts talent. At least the first one had a story you had to think about. I LIKED the first story. The fact that many people found it "incomprehensible" goes to show how audiences just want to be entertained, they don't want to use their brains. That's sad. Great adventure and action like "Three Kings", "Face/Off", "Blade Runner" and, hell, even "Raiders of the Lost Ark" had enough story, characterization, and plot to keep you guessing.
I'll stop now. But my grinning is much diminished after the predictable, overlong M:I 2. This is one sequel I won't be paying to see again.
The Grin -
Ans did someone dare say Cruise is a better star then Crowe? HAHAHAHA Watching 5 foot tall Cruise doing summersaults, then kicking someone in the head in slow-mo is damn funny. I don't buy Cruise as an action star in the least. Stop knocking Gladiator it's great!
-
I saw MI-2 this morning. And while I agree 95% with Harry's review -- dead-on in summarizing the problems with the film -- I did have a good time. It's the kind of movie that's fun while you're in the theater, then leaves you once you get up from your seat. I didn't have as much of a problem with the lack of action in the first half of the film as Harry did, though I would've had LESS of a problem if they'd filled that first half with the stuff that Harry wrote about. BACKSTORY BACKSTORY BACKSTORY!! This film could've been twice as good had it provided better character background and relations. Now onto what I alluded to in my subject heading. The plot of MI-2 was obviously based on Alfred Hithcock's thriller classic NOTORIOUS, with Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman. You'd be better off renting that great great film than spending $9 on MI-2. Sure, the old black-and-white might not have John Woo-testosterone action, but it is 10 times as thrilling. And all of the character development that Harry and I wished for in MI-2 is in NOTORIOUS in spades!!! If MI-2 had only a third of the intelligence found in NOTORIOUS' screenplay, it would be a truly great modern-day action flick. But they don't make them like they used to, even when they try to make them like they used to.
-
Armageddon is a gem compared to MI:2. Did John Woo direct this thing? Honestly, this thing was abore. The only entertainment value was the motorcycle chase. The rest of the movie was a complete snore. they had a good idea for a movie, but some how this shit wasn't entertaining. I looked at my watch like 4x!! Well, not even John Woo could save this movie. I Hope "Gone in 60 Seconds" will be more exciting.
-
May 24, 2000 9:24:47 PM CDT
What do the two worst films of 2000 have in common? Scientology
by buck turgidson
M: I - 2 is laughable, but I should lay off L. Ron Hubbard and his followers. John Woo bears the brunt of responsibility for this pointless waste of time. Save your money. It's not even a fun popcorn movie. BTW, I liked the first "Mission: Impossible."
-
I saw MI-2 this morning. And while I agree 95% with Harry's review -- dead-on in summarizing the problems with the film -- I did have a good time. It's the kind of movie that's fun while you're in the theater, then leaves you once you get up from your seat. I didn't have as much of a problem with the lack of action in the first half of the film as Harry did, though I would've had LESS of a problem if they'd filled that first half with the stuff that Harry wrote about. BACKSTORY BACKSTORY BACKSTORY!! This film could've been twice as good had it provided better character background and relations. Now onto what I alluded to in my subject heading. The plot of MI-2 was obviously based on Alfred Hithcock's thriller classic NOTORIOUS, with Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman. You'd be better off renting that great great film than spending $9 on MI-2. Sure, the old black-and-white might not have John Woo-testosterone action, but it is 10 times as thrilling. And all of the character development that Harry and I wished for in MI-2 is in NOTORIOUS in spades!!! If MI-2 had only a third of the intelligence found in NOTORIOUS' screenplay, it would be a truly great modern-day action flick. But they don't make them like they used to, even when they try to make them like they used to.
-
I'm very glad I didn't read Harry's review and not go see M:I 2... I was reading it, and it sounded horrible. Now, after seeing the movie, I have realized that it was a LOT better then what he thought it was. Was it the best movie I've ever seen? Of course not, but it was worth seeing. REALLY makes me wonder about these other movies Harry has said were horrible that are probably very decent movies... I bet American Psycho is an awesome movie too, but I can't comment on that as it didn't come to where I live.
Well, thanks Harry, you saved me a lot of time now from reading your reviews now, and I'll just read upcoming news. -
May 24, 2000 9:52:48 PM CDT
Let's all go down to the Celebrity Center and demand our money b
by doc daneeka
Now I finally know the scientologist conspiracy - make really crappy summer movies. First Travolta in Battelfield Earth and now Cruise in MI2. Does Kirstie Alley have a flick coming out this summer? I wasn't expecting too much from MI2, but it didn't even meet my lowest expectations. The large crowd I saw it with this afternoon was laughing it's collective ass off through most of this incoherent, silly, brain dead movie. The only fun in this movie is pointing out all the awfulness afterwards with your friends. It's like picking through a huge piece of dung to find the undigested treasures. I'll be talking about this movie for weeks.
-
That said, MI2 was pretty damn good. I still think Gladiator is the best movie of 2000 so far, but MI2 is not that far behind. Yes, the violence was extremely toned down, but the plot wasn't THAT boring. I thought it went along fine. It did have some major plot holes though. One major thing was that why would a large pharmaceutical company not keep any documentation on the virus and the antidote. Why do need the actual virus and the antidote in order to duplicate it ? This may be a dumb thing to say, but I am not a chemistry major so I really don't know. Anyway, the plot holes weren't big enough to detract from the experience. As Harry said, the last 30-45 minutes are pure gold. Excellent. The lab shootout was classic Woo, if only they would show the buckets of blood spilled. The ending was AWESOME. The story was pretty good but I don't know if this was better than the original. I found the first one exciting and tense, and the time flew by. This one is more slower paced though, but still a pretty good, if not the best, movie.
-
I've got M:I sitting one foot from me right now. It's just a great, fun, intruiging film. M:I 2, however, is just full of half-assed attempts to remake it in a different setting with different obstacles that are far too simple-minded. The intricasies and frustrations of the obstacles in the first movie really made it feel like it was an Impossible Mission. As for Woo, he's still great. Look at "Face/Off." He needs a movie that's a little more in the clouds, rather than M:I 2, which again has the problem of people sitting at the computer and timers. How OLD and BORING is that stuff. It's key typing and countdowns. I'm sick of that. At the end of the movie, X and Y were meeting in the park, and people in the theater were, with no expression on their faces, getting their things and standing up. This movie was SO EXPECTED. If you don't get what I'm trying to say, maybe this will make sense: god i loved that rain of frogs.
-C -
May 24, 2000 11:10:54 PM CDT
GOD DAMN CAN ANY OF YOU COMPUTER MOVIE NERDS BE POSITIVE FOR ONC
by wallydip
The internet sucks.. it's just an outlet of people to bitch...!!! bitch bitch bitch Mind your Own FUCKING BUSINESS
-
talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk love love love love love talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk BANG BANG talk BOOM BOOM talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk love love love love talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk love.
-
... because I wasn't going to be able to catch a later show of "Virgin Suicides," and I was in the mood for a movie.
Harry's right. He's dead on, matter of fact. The movie has maybe two dozen great individual shots and a nice finish, but sweet jesus, what a haul it is to get to that finish.
The script felt like a) it was a first draft, or b) it was a bunch of first draft efforts from different screenwriters, none of whom hung on long enough to iron anything out. Towne can do better than this. Jesus, even Devlin and Emmerich can do better than this. -
You know, the moment I saw Harry's negative review this morning, I knew that M:I 2 had a chance at being truly great. Harry often hates the truly great movies, and often loves the pieces of crap.
Sure enough... DAMN. Easily Woo's best American film. Mission: Impossible 2 was just fucking incredible.
My local theater can expect to see me buying a ticket again in a matter of two days or less. -
May 25, 2000 12:17:02 AM CDT
"[Woo] needs a movie that's a little more in the clouds" Pigman.
by wesley snipes
That's the most perfect quote ever. I'm serious. After the extreme wordiness that is AICN (I'm guilty of it myself), it brings a tear to my eye when someone so beautifully summarizes a concept into one elegant sentence. That sentence is loaded. Wow. Good work, "pigman". (I'm not joking here at all)
-
.. that I agree with your negative review, I just think you made a good point. MI2 is sweet. ;)
-
How many Scientologists are there in America? Divide $12.3 million (opening weekend gross on Travolta on Kiss Boots by $8.00 [average ticket price]). That's how many. Now it's Memorial Day Weekend. How many Scientologists are there in America? DO THE MATH! Story and Scientology are mutually exclusive. Guess who wins. Middle-management studio morons. Guess who loses. YOU!
-
Yeah, and cameras are panning all around me. And I'm kicking up a lot of dust, and getting ready to go practice my karate I learned from "The Matrix." This movie was bad. I seriously liked Battlefield Earth better than this schlock. Woo has taken a definite step back from his awesome "Face Off." What didn't I like? Not the story...I thought the story was great. No, the action sequences were what dissapointed. WAY too much slow motion. Boring car chases. Way too many masks. And what was with that final gun move? The protagonist in Resident Evil: Code Veronica for Dreamcast makes the same move at the beginning of the game, and it was way cooler there. Sorry, and I'll probably get flamed, but I was really dissapointed here. Oh well, what's coming out next week?
-
...because everything about this movie sucked. The script was horrible but I don't blame Robert Towne 100%. He had to write a movie that connected several "key" action sequences and apparently wasn't given a hell of a lot of time with it. The casting was not very good either and John Woo's direction is piss poor. I don't like his American films. He has not matured as a director at all!! I think he'd be okay if every character didn't have to have two guns and if all the action sequences weren't in slow motion. There's nothing I hate more than having an important or cool moment on screen and having the director insult my intelligence by highlighting it with slow-mo. If you've seen the action sequences in FACE OFF, you have no need to see M:I 2. And if you're expecting to see great fx...forget about it. The airplane crash in AIR FORCE ONE looked better than this garbage. Oh yeah! To everyone who excuses poor storytelling by using the phrase "summer popcorn flick", let me just say: "There's no such things as a 'popcorn movies', there are only movies. They're all supposed to be good."
-
I'm suffering from some major sadness here. I thought the first Mission Impossible sucked shit, and I haven't liked Cruise in anything since Risky Business, but, so far far Woo has never disappointed me. So I was thinking: "Wow! Woo is going to pull off a miracle! Make an acceptable sequel to a film I loathed, _and_ give Tom Cruise another good role!" But, according to Harry, this hasn't been accomplished. And, no, there has never been a film worth sitting through over 45 minutes of mediocrity for a bang-up ending, no matter who directed or who stars.
-
For anyone to say this movie is anything less than one of the better "popcorn movies" out there is insane. I liked both armaggedon and Independence Day but those movies cannot contend with the pure art of action that Woo and Cruise diplay in MI:2. Yes the masks do go on a little fast, but this is a movie. That should be accepted just like removing one guys face and putting it on another was accepted in Face/Off. It's a movie boys and God Damn entertaining one at that. Harry liked gladiator and if I remember corrrectly that had a bit of a slow part in the beggining. It's called plot and character development time. Yes there wasn't much of either in this movie but a summer movie is what it is. The one major complaint I had about Armaggedon was that it was too damn long. If the movie Harry wanted to see was put up there it would have been a three hour plus movie. I would love to sit in a theater and watch a three hour John Woo movie but most summer movie watchers won't. So I conclude that this is indeed the movie I and most people wanted to see. Especially if you've been dying for some John Woo action. The White Dove Lives!!!!
-
You know, after seeing this movie today, i came to the realization that GLADIATOR totally stuck its big sandeled foot right up cruises ass. Gladiator was a vastley superior film that i feel has been misreviewed by many people. MI2 on the other hand won't suffer that fate. Because it openly shows how shallow and contrived it is. The first film was the same yet slightly better.
Yes i payed attention and understood the plot which is all that script was, a plot outline that they built a popcorn flick around. I agree with harry on this one. AS for john woo.. whats to say, the man is the master of mayhem. But his action is so much like a hyperkinetic ballet that the story just becomes the short breathing space between action scenes. But since this movie has no real story, who cares. Go in the afternoon the action looks just as good for $4.00 as it does for $7.00 -
no one applauds at the end, Hell I heard applause after SCREWED was over...(just kidding, like I would even go there..)
but before the end credits, people were rushing out of their seats...What a major let down...Tom Cruise just is NO JET LI and Thandie Newton, visually easy on the eyes did not even kick ass, at least Carrie Ann Moss got a bitch slap in or two... The Flameco scene was just cheesy and can John Woo lay off on the damn pigeons? Face OFF was much more exciting then this, Well I guess I am more looking foward to the comedies this summer then action, PRAY X-MEN and and PERFECT STORM won't suck ass but honestly I think THE PATRIOT WILL BE THE MOST SATISFYING PIECE OF CAKE THIS SUMMER next to GLADIATOR, Dinosaur was a bore, and if all else fails, honey whip me up some KLUMPS! Poor Tom Cruise, all that hard work for this???
It's not his fault that he looks silly trying to fly in the air like some hong kong bitch! When it comes to Action stars, Tom is mediocre! -
Mission Impossible Two just plain sucks. John Woo is a fucking joke. The audience began openly mocking the screen about two minutes in and lined up to spit on the screen at the end.
Next time hire a homeless guy to direct and produce. Or a dead person.
-
Ok the whole John Woo argument seems pretty played out, but in this one film here... did anyone notice it totally ripped off Darkman twice?? The whole "intense" scene with the cigar cutter... Darkman. Disguising one bad guy with the good-guy mask so the other bad guy shoots him... Darkman. What gives??
-
FIRST>>>Nyah has the virus in her system... So what do the bad guys do? They drop her off and trust her to 'stay in downtown Sydney...'??? Dude, why not just harvest that bitch and drain her dry before dropping blood filled water balloons over a school yard or something? Trusting her to just stay around and not do anything rash like throw herself off a damn cliff??? SECOND>>>I love it how diseases have time limits... THIRD>>>What kind of damn applicant pool does the IMF hire from? In both films now we have IMF members going bad or being kicked out? Let me put it this way... FOURTH>>>Actually, I'm curious what kinds of people join the IMF... This might have been a more interesting premise if we had seen or heard how people got recruited into the IMF in the first place (like Hunt and Ambrose)... How they get indoctrinated into the IMF? With Bond, for example, I get the impression just by watching him that he started out a naturally gifted and charismatic young HMSS agent who quickly was able to excel in situations that had killed several others. Hunt, on the other hand, gives me the feeling of a loner who forced himself to cut away from all his old family and friends for the protection of all. FIFTH>>>IMF wallpaper on a laptop??? WTF?!? We really are the trusting sort, aren't we? Didn't we just have like THREE Pentagon laptops go missing? SIXTH>>> Considering how much danger that Nyah was in at the track and how well-known Hunt would be, why not a fake face? SEVENTH>>>I have a stupid idea, why didn't the owner of Biocyte just destroy the virus himself? It'd save him $30M and leave Ambrose with a worthless antivirus...(I can assume that perhaps he didn't know Ambrose didn't have the virus, but...) FINALLY>>>This movie could have been a lot better, but I had several other non-tech problems... (Nyah was a whiny bitch, the length of time it took to figure out what the hell Chimera was...(WTF, the guy worked for a drug company, and was in a desperate hurry...what did they think it was, a new childrens' chewable aspirin?) The extreme overuse of slomo...
-
(1)Did anyone mention that Tom was Exec. Producer of the movie. And many times, if the director wants to get the movie out and get paid, he'll do what the producer wishes - after all, in the long run it is the producer who can grab the director by the balls. Producer says "dance", director dances. It's an old story. Now, Tom wants lots o' people to see his movie. Tom knows that he can get more kiddos in if it's PG-13. He tells John "No R this time". Tah-dah. Cut the usual Woo out. Tom says "I want to do a whole bunch of fun stunts and show off - I don't care how unrealistic they are". There are tons of stunts. Producer says "Put this in, take this out", this gets put in and that gets taken out. It was Tom's baby all along. John - well, I don't know what he was doing when he accepted the job. (2) Anyone else notice a trend that directors and actors work best in their countries of origin? People always say (and are usually right) that " 'such and such' did much better work when they were making movies back in "country of origin". Well, to get huge in America, you have to go American. And there are a vast majority of Americans that won't go see a movie if it has subtitles. Evil paradox. (3) The GLADIATOR bashing. Yes, BRAVEHEART was a *MUCH* better movie, but I have a personal attachment to GLADIATOR. And no, it's not Russell Crowe. It's that damn special effects thing. This is the first Roman epic in decades. It's the first one that's utilized the technology available today. I went and saw this for historical (albeit inaccurate) purposes. As an archaeological student, I have dreamt of what Rome and the other outposts of its vast empire looked like in its heyday. But the pictures in my head are never as clear as the ones I see with my own two eyes. And this movie provided my eyes with what they so longed to see. The beauty and majesty of it all. Someone earlier mentioned that they didn't get the "for the Glory of Rome" stuff and asked "What is Rome?" I never picked up on that question, but that's because I've studied Rome, read dozens of texts and attended multiple lectures on Rome, and I can see where the general public could be left out in the dark on the movie for not knowing what I do. And it's not your fault, but that knowledge does make the movie stand out on a different level. (4) All movies and their worth are a matter of personal perception. I adore movies that make you think. I adore movies that have a certain thing relating to me and/or my passions in life. And I also love mindless movies that are just there for shits and giggles (i.e. - I adore Road Trip. Have seen it twice already). Popcorn flicks have their place with me, but they're usually saved in my back pocket for the times when I have nothing to do and have seen the movies I've really wanted to. TWISTER was a popcorn flick. But I enjoyed it (also, personal interest there). ID4 was "Eh" with me. As was ARMAGEDDON. It's all a matter of individuality, people. Don't go jumping after Soma just because a large group of people say it's great and wonderful and makes you happy and free. But don't burn all the world's books because people say they're evil things, either. (Two book references, both classic reads.) Just decide for yourself based on your own judgement.
-
I totally agree with Harry and even more so... This movie was **DULL** Predictable... Boring... Cliche... and downright lackluster... Did it suck? Well, no. But it was just like any other average action movie... Average. It's everything you've ever seen before... Nothing new... No surprizes... No great acting. same old stuff... Again. On the upside there still is an awesome and fresh movie out this weekend!! It's called Shanghai Noon and it's a hell of a load of fun (and good action). It's just too bad we all couldn't have seen the original 3 1/2 hour cut... I could've sat through this awesome theatrical release for another good long time!! I will probably see it again 2 or 3 more times this week. (oh, and for people who missed the hard rock on M:I-2... Shanghai contains portions of songs from Kid Rock and AC/DC... which were completly in place in the film) SN Rocks!! Have fun this weekend!
-
Chimera is Japanese for "big dumb movie." My theory is this: John Woo was beaten, gagged, and dragged in chains to a seedy basement where Hack Director So-and-So used one of them nifty masks to assume the identity of the actual John Woo, who was released briefly to direct the final action sequence in the movie, then bound with chains again. Oh, but that mask trick is just brilliant. I for one kept waiting for Tom Cruise to remove his face to reveal that in fact it was Sean Connery all along - talk about a cool ending. Don't get me wrong, I'm pro-stupidity, and if you told me I would be sucking this movie up for it's half-witted, lame brain, inane, idiotic dialogue over the John Woo Action - I'd say, "brotha, you crazy!" Another theory: this movie was secretly made in 1991 for the straight to video market and just now released in theaters. This must have originally been a vehicle for Eric Roberts and Anna Nicole Smith...but enough on that folks -we have more important matters to deal with. We must set forth on our own mission to rescue John Woo from the pits of Paramount Hell. Now who is with me?
-
M:I 2 in not an Action film....it is an Epenage film or how ever you spell that. God it was realy fucking lame...yea the begining was a snoozer, but by the end it was like "Fuck, You just waisted my time now just hury up and be over" It kills the semi good action. Plus Tom Cruze dose not pull off the whole ass-kicking fighter/kung Fu thing!! Ahhhh he sucks. I saw Shanghai Noon and is was Great!! See it this weekend instead, And save this for a very very slow day (and if it's free)
Lastly: This Movie Sucks my Ass
_-_-DUTY-_-_....Out -
To all of you out there who claim that "The Rock" and "Face/Off" was bad movies.... Do you like movies at all? "Face/Off" is one of the most original and ass-kicking action flicks that hit the screen in the 1990s. As for "The Rock" it was just a fantastic ride wich actually had the guts to question sides of uncle Sam instead of kissing his ass, like "ID4". Now the ripping off of masks in "M:I2" is dumb. It's just the idea from "Face/Off" recycled. But when an action flick doesn't work, don't blame Woo, blame the film company, and..just get over yourself. This is a sequel. How much can you expect from that? So they just made this to make money. You weren't forced to see this flick you know. And quite frankly, you should have known better than to have high expectations....
-
I noticed that alot of people are now blaming Cruise for all thats wrong with MI2 ??? WTF ? When you guys hated Gladiator, did you blame Russell Crowe ? Ok so he's the producer, but he aint the only one, you know. It's actually the studio heads that call the shots when Woo should be calling the shot. Woo made a great film although some of it was butchered by the studio. Some guy even compared Cruise to Costener?! Are you on Crack ??? Costener is an egoistic maniac, who has made ONE good film since Dances With Wolves - Tin Cup. Nothing else was above shit!! Look at his next release - 13 Days?? When I saw the trailer for that, I laughed my fucking ass off. I mean, we know that US aint bombing Cuba, so why should we watch ? It aint exciting, it's boring!! Look at Cruise, in the last decade he gave A Few Good Men, M:I 1&2, The Firm, Magnolia, Eyes Wide Shut, Jerry Maguire, etc. I mean, the guy was horribly overlooked for Rain Man, and then after 3 times, HE STILL DOESN'T HAVE AN OSCAR!!!! Give the guy a break, atleast he makes good films while playing in radically different roles - no other pretty boy (except for Pitt) would have the balls to take on T.J. Mackey's role in Magnolia.
-
I want to hear the grandmaster give "Gladiator" the business!
The Grin -
Now I thought MI1 was good, not very good or great, but this was just awful!!! Sure the effects were great the stunts, great, the explosions, great, but come on....can I have a plot that wasn't written for a 10 year old? Harry is right ON!
-
How come I haven't seen anyone else comparing these movies? You have the main characters switching faces - you have a motorcycle bit instead of a boat bit, and then we are back to a fight scene on a beach again! Did Tom Cruise see FaceOff and say "Damn, I want to be in a movie like that!"? This movie does suck but, no matter how many people tell me not to see a John Woo movie, I still go and see it. Anyone here seen Black Jack? At least I got to laugh at Lundgren.
-
Ugh....what a peice of crap...
rent The Killer again... I'm really tired of wasting my money on stuff like this. I'm going to go read a good book.
Kroll -
Thank you for the kind response. And despite your assumptions, I'm quite American - born and raised in Texas. I just live in Austin (which has a plethora of great films playing at almost all times of the year). And I'm an Anthropology major (Archaeology = branch of Anthropology). One of the things that they teach us right out of the starting gates is that we should put all first assumptions and opinions aside when observing something and try to see it from another's point of view. Look at their opinions and complaints, look at the object of their complains, and see what the true problem might be, minus the opinionated eye. Popcorn movies are something that we here in America have been force-fed our entire lives. We grew up with them, and they are a way of life. They were always the most-advertised movies of the year. And there is also a LOT of crap that is worse than the happy, mindless, "and they lived happily ever after" popcorn movies. There's the lowest-common-denominator movies. Movies that can only survive off bathroom jokes and horribly poor comedic timing, or a loose, unrealistic plot, a lot of suspenseful music, and a pretty face on the run. We've grown up with it. But also, some of us have grown weary of it. It's starting to get old for many, but the vast majority doesn't care - so long as they are entertained. I worked at a movie theater for a couple years back in high school, so I heard everything there was to hear from opposing points of view there. And it's quite true. The majority of people fell that, so long as they can get that warm dose of the comfy, same old, feel-good summer popcorn flickage, then there's no reason to complain. And if that's how they wish to go about it, then who am I to say they suck, they're morons, they're idiots, such-and-such movie sucked and if anyone liked it, they suck too? No, no. Everyone has their own tastes, and often those tastes have been defined by occurrences, experiences, and acquaintances in their lives. I love classic rock, along with jazz, blues, and more avant-garde music. One of my all-time favorite artists is the late, great Frank Zappa. I think he was a musical genius and an individual who could have changed the world. But most other people either haven't heard of him, or they say his stuff is too weird. That's cool. They can listen to their Matchbox 20 all they want. I've got my Frank. All a matter of opinion. That's what film reviews are, anyway - right? Opinion? I do believe so. If it's an article that tells you what happens in the movie without giving opinion, then it's just a summary. No one can base judgement on something if they have yet to experience it. And even if they do and others oppose it, it's no reason to start a war over. If everyone ended up thinking alike, then we'd end up living in a world like the one in Ayn Rand's "Anthem". And that would truly be a tragedy.
OH! One last thing. DARUIS25! You were going off about 13 DAYS and you posed your observation that "We know that US ain't bombing Cuba...". No, they're not. Cuba was threatening us, and the movie covers the height of the Cuban Missle Crisis. It was a very frightening time in America's history (as relayed to me through relatives living through it) - we were on the brink of being attacked at any moment by a government that had the power to completely wipe out all the nation's population. The movie shows much of the goings-on in the US Government at the peak of the scare (who knows how accurate the script is, but it goes after the general point). We came closer to nuclear war at that time than most people know. There was only a tiny, thin, little line between the Cold War becoming a very hostile and costly war. I'm sure that if there was anyone in that theater you were in that lived through the Missile Crisis, whether they were children at the time or WWII war veterans on-call at any time for the fateful news that the war had begun, they were most likely quite offended and saddened by your laughter. Those who do not learn of and from history are doomed to repeat it. Respect the fact that the people were living with the fear that every second of every day could have been their last. (SORRY FOR THE RANT PEOPLE. History is my thing.) Anywho, respect other people and what they've done, and don't go nuts if they don't like a movie (Once again, I wasn't talking about the movie to DARIUS25 - who himself has not seen it; just the concept and the fact that it was quite true). I'll shut up now. -
This mess is just as muck Woo's fault as anyone elses. I agree with Harry that this is a matinee movie only but as far as "cool Woo shit kicking in" somewhere in the movie, it just didn't happen. It sucks that everyone rips off John Woo and does it poorly but when Woo rips himself off and does a bad job, it's just sad. Unlike the first M.I. there is no great action set piece, just a bunch of kick flips and dumbshit. 3 more things...
#1. Fuck Robert Towne!! This guy hasn't written anything worth talking about since Chinatown and even that is suspect. REMEMBER that Roman Polanski changed Towne's lame ending!! Take Chinatown and put Towne's original ending on it (imagine if you can..)and what stands now as a classic would become mediocre... kinda like MI2 is.
#2. Woo is clearly bored with the material. If he wants to make a comedy, musical, or whatever the hell else he's been talking about then JUST GO FUCKING DO IT JOHN!!
#3. FUCK THE MATRIX! I respect Harry and Moriarty's film critisism incredibly but no FUCKING way is this film good. It is bullshit effects and nothing more. Like Titanic, it amazed the first time but on subsequent vewings it falls apart comepletely.
P.S. FUCK YOU HALLENBECK!! Bring your bat over here, you geek bitch!!
-
Don't see this movie when you're mad or feeling cynical or your girlfriend just dumped your nerd ass for the wrestling captain. If you walk into a theater with a smile on your face, you will walk out with a smile on your face (unless you just saw sumthing somber like "A simple plan," or sat thru crap like "Battlefield Earth.") You must remember that nobody knew what the f*ck the plot was even about in the first MI, so be glad they explained it for the average WASP middle America Joe Schmoe. It took long, yes. Joe is a f*cking moron, and things come slow to him. It wasn't pure Woo. It wasn't Armageddon either, which was one of the worst examples of studio-manufactured bile in recent memory. Either way, I had fun. The plot was full of holes...? Do I really give 2 flying sh*ts? The acting was believable and with the exception of Luther and Baird, the characters were well-developed. Do I think Hunt would have gone through all that for Nyah? No. Is anyone as sinister as Ambrose, or are any company CEO's that corrupt? Possibly. Can I get a mask that realistic for Halloween? Of course not. Did I creme my jeans with every twist and surprise (the scene where "Ethan" was shot, esp.) and every beautiful f*ckin gymnastic takedown? Hell yes.
-
Whoah, right on, DUDE! At the beginning of Mission Inplausible 2, I said, out loud "Oh, no, it's starting like Star Trek 5!" And it followed suit from there. (bad) Actually, I liked Star Trek 5 better than this. At least the plot in Trek 5 was coherent (although still not good). I DID pay a matinee price, and it was still a rip, because, with the drive and all, it was 4 HOURS of my life wasted, that I will never get back. Someday, when I'm dying, I will think of how I could have spent that 4 hours instead. Playing videogames, eating, curing cancer, sleeping, or any number of things OTHER than seeing that movie. Shit, my root canal was a better way to spend time, because at least it taught me something. (avoid cavities). Sigh.
-
Yeah, you heard me right, talkbackers. What the hell is up everyone's collective asses that they can't sit back and enjoy a John Woo movie for what it is: a mindless tour-de-force of action inertia, especially the last 45 minutes. How can you possibly say this is a disappointing movie, let alone a bad movie??? I guess my main question is: what more were you expecting here? If you don't truly feel satisfied at the end of this movie, you're not a fan of the action genre. M:I-2 ***1/2 (out of ****) A-.
-
I found it hilarious that most of the "rubber face masks" in this movie were of Tom Cruise. It was like it wasn't enough for him to be in most of the movie anyway. He had to put his face on the other characters whenever he wasn't on screen for more than a few minutes. Tom Cruise was the producer right? (I'm not sure.) Well I think that must have been a big part of why we got such a dissapointing John Woo movie. Cruise turned this whole movie into a love fest for himself. The only credit I give him is that he seems to have put a lot of physical work into it (like the long, but tiresome fight at the end - I mean tiresome for us, not necessarily for Cruise). That's more than a lot action movies give us. Otherwise he just plain sucks. And is it just me or is this man UGLY! I mean REALLY ugly! What's with that awful hair? And his skin is disgusting, especially when contrasted with Thandie Newton's skin in close ups. Ew, what an ugly man...
-
This movie BLOWS!!!!!!!!!!
Terrible, predictable and dumb, the complete and utter antithesis of what made Mission:Impossible the TV series a great show.
Do yourself a favor and stay away. Sitting in a dark closet is better than suffering through this piece of amateurish dreck.
And..I've finally decided: JOHN WOO IS F-ING OVERRATED!!!! -
Well ill start off by saying that there are no classic scenes in this movie. The first MI had that great CIA break in and that last train scene was awesome. What if that train scene had been done in John Woo sloooo-mo style? He woulda ruined it for sure just like he ruined the MI franchise forever. There is nothing exciting about seeing a guy doing slow motion stunts while shooting away with a couple of pistols. It is so lame, only someone with half a brain would enjoy that type of action. Do action movies have to be realistic?? no, but MI2 is just so over the top that u never feel that the hero( Hunt) is never in danger throughout the movie, he was made into a stupid comic book hero who cant get shot or hurt even if he tried. the only reason i saw this awful movie was because it had the MISSION IMPOSSIBLE name on it, man i feel so ripped off. What i saw wasnt MI, it was a cheap 1980s A-Team style of stupid action movie. Ill admit when i first saw MI i hated it, but after seeing it a few more times it grew on me and now i feel it is a great movie. I give MI 9/10 and i give MI2 3/10. (MI2 will never get good no matter how many times u see it lol). do yourself a favor guys, rent MI on DVD and see it again after seeing MI2, u will see a stark differnnce between a good movie and an awful john woo fiasco.
-
Thanks for your long detailed review of MI-2. It saved me 2+ hours because I was going to go see it with my dad this weekend. Now I think we'll opt for Shanghai. Also, what is up with that local Austin paper movie reviewer? I have hated him ever since his idiotic review of Saving Private Ryan--one star??? (or whatever it was). I frankly don't see how he keeps his job. Sometimes I relax my boycott and read his reviews, and I'm always sorry. Anyway, I wish you would review more movies--why don't you?
-
I fully agree with your review...unfortunatly I did rush out after work on Wednesday to see it after work.
My comment afterwards was "Why did it have to be so bad!?!"
Two of my biggest gripes are we've now had 2 MI movies where the bad guy is a rogue MI agent. And, in Mission Impossible, the MIF is supposed to win by outsmarting and tricking their opponents...not outshooting them...sigh. -
Why is it that there's about 50 talkbacks talking about how great Shanghai Noon is, and how the decent action movie MI:2 is the antiChrist? I thought Rush Hour was crap, and didn't laugh once. THAT was an extremely mediocre action movie. Chan movies have definitely lost their touch; I thought Rumble in the Bronx was terriffic, and now what do we have... a story about cowboys and ninjas and choo-choos or something. I will agree that MI:2 is only mediocre as far as story and things like that... but Woo is a ballet director. Characters flipping all over the place make for good eye candy, face it. Story is secondary. Hmm, let's see... 13th Warrior, positive Harry review. Mission to Mars, positive Harry review. Armageddon. Enemy of the State. Bicentennial Man. All positive reviews. WHAT THE FUCK DO THESE FILMS HAVE IN COMMON? BUENA VISTA PICTURES. Harry, you FUCKING sellout. Shanghai Noon, a Buena Vista picture, is being glorified while rival company Paramount's new blockbuster movie, sure to crush Shanghai Noon, is made to look like Satan's own turds. Hey mysterious Talkbackers whom I've never seen post before, how much do you guys get for working at Disney and bashing other films? HARRY GIVES FILM JOURNALISM A BAD NAME. Sellout.
-
I usually reserve this Talk Back space for people who want to bitch and moan about how bad movies are going to be or how their precious comic book characters were ruined by Hollywood, but I have to comment on your review of this film. I can't tell you how much I wanted to come in today after seeing M:I 2 and tell you what an idiot you were and how much this film kicked ass. But damnit, your review was far TOO kind to this utter piece of shit. I can't remember the last time I was so pissed off walking out of a theater. I loved the TV show and really enjoyed the first film, but this was wretched. And I'm sorry, but I officially HATE John Woo. If I see another slow motion, hair-blowing shot of Tom Cruise or some stupid ass doves flying around elegantly, I'm going to puke. Ethan's flip before opening his parachute was an especially stupid Woo-ism. Two guys colliding mid-air after jumping off their speeding motorcycles, now that would have been the end of this movie really quick had the stunt been a little more realistic and actually killed them. I guess I just don't GET him or something. I at least expected to see some kick ass action, but even this was not so. Blood didn't even make a cameo until that wannabe Wolverine got shot in the end. I loathe this movie.
-
What the fuck am I doing wasting my time reading this bullshit. I'm sick of the arrogant, pretentious, false braggadio that infests this place. Any action movie fan who doesn't like MI2 has their head firmly wedged up their ass. If you want a believable plot and realistic action(gay car chases) go see some chick flick in a theater filled with pansies, you'll fit right in. Fucking little babies. Get off your ass and get some fucking excercise while you're at it lard-ball.
-
MI 1 -- not a confusing plot, but confusing character motivation. MI2 -- mostly very clear plot, always clear motivation. MI1 -- grim, wanna-be "clever" with two cool set pieces. MI2 -- Over-the-top spy fun, hot babe, suspense, concluded by over-the-top amazing action fun. See a matinee in THX, enjoy the gorgeous eye and ear candy; pay attention and enjoy the story (unlike Harry, who did not pay attention, clearly). Lowered expectations will probably help you. Movies are for fun. Anybody who thought that monotonous strobe-light called "Armageddon" (aka The AntiCinema) was fun and MI2 was boring... oh, well... unfathomable subjectivity rears its ugly head again. Duke Ray... tired... sleepy... out.
-
Or rather, his films are. Woo has perfected an amazing recipe for apple pie. Its ingredients include slow-mo, gunfights, doves, brotherhood and melodrama. Now, assuming he/she was familiar with apple pie, what moron would intentionally bite into one and then complain that it fucking tasted like apples? If you've tried pie before and don't like it, then you don't eat it again! Simple, isn't it? Woo HAS stated repeatedly that he wants to try other dishes, but the pie is what made him famous and everyone hires him to create the same pie. One day, when he's rich enough or a patron is clever enough, maybe he'll be free to create some completely new dishes. But for now, it's pie. Woo DOES attempt to freshen up the basic recipe. The Face/Off pie was topped off with a big dollop of gourmet vanilla ice cream (the awesome jeep/plane battle) and chased with a glass of the milkshake to end all milkshakes (the boat chase). The MI2 pie was improved with cherries, whip cream, and more (love story, rock climbing, special effects, martial arts, bike chase, etc). But no matter how good these sides are, the apple pie is what everyone is focussed on and what Woo is famous for. The result is that critics always complain that Woo only knows how to make apple pie, even when the pie makes up only one-third of the meal.
-
One of the dead characters came back to life to die again! The second hand man to Mr. Dork who was shot like ten times got in the first car that exploded on the bridge! Explain that one!
He drove the first car that exploded, was Woo out of extras?? -
Harry!Harry!Harry. Mi:2 was not that bad , in fact it kicked ass.
ok ok I do agree with some of the
comments you made about not being
any backstory to the actors.
And you knew what was going to happen before it happened. And sure it had holes all over the
place, but come it was a damn
good film. Anyway, I love your site, I love your views,and you rock. I going to watch the The
Facalty to see you in it. So,
thats all for now. Until next time, save me some popcorn.
The Moviejoe. -
Today I went out to see MI2 going against the better judgement of critics everywhere. Basically I think that yes the film was slow and you kinda knew what was going to happen next. But I think this was a helluva a lot better then the first one because the finale was a lot cooler and the plot actually made sense and you didn't have to rack your brain. I mean come on since when has a bond movie ever casued you scratch your head and ask what the hell has happened some many times it causes your head to explode. Because this is a summer flick do not expect to see high quality stuff i.e. Insider and Election. If people wanted to see an intelligent film they wouldn't haven't spent so much cash already or this so called Piece of shit picture and whiloe that maybe true. It doesn't mean people will still think it kicks ass. Thank you and good night. P.S. When I saw the movie they showed both Shaft and X-men. These trailer kick some serious mother lovin ass.
-
I guess I should go watch some "great" movies like "Iron Giant" and "The Phantom Menace". Maybe catch "Eyes Wide Shut" and call it a classic triple feature.
You and Ebert and all the other bozos have no idea about what it means to be consistent. To have credibility you have to look at all these films the same. You rip MI2 for not having a plot, yet Episode One is just "eye candy" and doesn't need a plot; I should see it as if I am 12. MI2 exceeds Independence Day and all those other summer movies by far. It was wonderful visually speaking, and if you can't get that, then fine.
I just wish someone else would start a site with better reviews than what we get here. You really need to trim down your overlong reviews, learn some basic English, and get some consistency. -
After reading some of these pro MI2 posts i have come to the conclusion that MI2 was made specifically for the morons of the world. They keep saying that its just a summer movie it doesnt have to make sense, some even said the story was good...omg what idiots. True the story doesnt have to make perfect sense but then again a movie shouldnt insult your intelligence like MI2 does. Lame plot and stupid action is what MI2 is about. People complain that they had to use their brain on the first MI, lol i hope they didnt hurt themselves.
-
Can you please tell us what was the difference between the test screening and the theatrical cut ? eg. what scenes were cut or how much blood was taken out ? Thanks.
-
Remember how the actual Mission Impossible before stupidass Paramount decided to cut it and make it 2 hours and PG-13?!?! DAMMIT! THOSE IDIOTS! They cut out a LOT of plot/character development. An hour's worth of it. They'd better god damn well release the 3 hour NC-17 version on DVD or something....because I'd bet anything that THAT version will explain EVERYTHING...well maybe except the masks....but Mr. Harry, you would then be complaining that there is now TWO hours of nap time.
-
O.K. This was with out a doubt one of the worst movies I have ever seen (excluding Message in a Bottle which my girlfriend dragged me to). I am a huge fan of John Woo. What happened? First of all, I wanted to see an action movie. What I got was a poorly written love story with some action at the end. Ethan Hawk wasn't saving the world, he was a pathetic punk. He falls in love with a chick he doesn't know (neither do we) 8 hours after meeting her, and then acts like a pathetic love struck pussy for the rest of the movie. Where did the writer get the crack he was smoking? How could this make it to the big screen? People in the theatre were laughing throughout the movie, and it wasn't suppose to be funny. I mean, give us a little credit as an audience and put a little thought into your work. I left that movie feeling like I was robbed. Someone picked my pocket, took out 8 bucks and 2 hours of my time, and then let me go.
-
Personally, I thought the movie was excellent. It seems to me that anyone who has a gripe about the film is missing the point. This movie should be taken for what it is....a great action movie. Getting lost in all of the backstory would only clog up the movie and take away from its true intention....delivering high octane action. I don't even understand what gripes you have about the first half or so of the movie being boring. I thought you guys wanted to see character development.
I also thought the pacing for the movie was incredible as well. It seemed to divide the plot development by throwing in incredibly tense moments and action scenes all the way through the movie right up to the big payoff at the end with possibly the greatest filmed action sequences by John Woo to date. So what there was a lack of blood in the action scenes. They were great nonetheless. In fact, I hardly noticed that there was no blood because I was too busy ENJOYING the action instead of picking out flaws too miniscule for any NORMAL human being to notice or give a damn about. I could understand doing this if you were a critic or something and you were getting paid for it, but if you weren't then I think you should really come back to earth and realize that us normal people just wanted to see a great action film and that's what we got. Now, if you're an overly analytical volunteer movie critic who wants to see deep backstory elaboration and explanation, a Shakespearian quality script, character development out of the rectum plus the greatest action actions scenes that exceed what out current technology is capable of crammed into a two hour long timeframe will probably be disappointed. Mission Impossible 2 is a great action movie that the casual, average, and normal action fan will enjoy. -
lets see now harry...ambrose left imf for the money he could get off selling the virus and nothing more...greed can control anyone. the reason he was disguised as hunt was because the doc asked for hunt and imf did not know where he was so ambrose was sent in his place.... scott didnt know what the chimera really was until he talked to the doc on the plane but whatever it was it must have been really important to warrant the use of imf. the only prior association mentioned of ambrose and hunt was that ambrose doubled for hunt a few times. i doubt that made them friends...or enemies. now on to thadie's character...why is she a thief...does anyone really give a shit. why is ethan an imf agent? why did they break up? well lets see...he was totally obssesed with her and she didn't really care that much for him so she left. girls will be girls. imf set up her record in order to get her caught so that ambrose would bail her out. and just 'cause shes a master thief doesn't mean that nobody will notice when their stuff is stolen...eventually a pattern develops...just a little fact of life. and she is an innocent...she steals as quietly as possible because she probably wouldn't put up a fight if she got caught. next time...if u stay awake u might actually be able to answer some of your own questions. i thought this was an awsome movie..i loved the action..and the implausability of the action made it that much more entertaining. are you going to tell me that u actually thought that the flips and jumps in matrix could be done? gee..i dont remember hearing anyone complain about that one. its a good movie and the only way u wont enjoy it is if let harrys dick get in your ear. go see it and leave your brain at the door. im going again next weekend.
-
the moment starting when hunt enters the biocyte building to the credits has some of the most amaizing and intense action ive ever seen. i dont know about you but that motorcycle scene kicked ass.
-
I'm pretty much with Harry on this one. Many times I rolled my eyes at an inane line or cheeseball scene, only to jump forward in my seat moments later at some cool-ass stunt. A SPOILER Example:
The last of the mohicans scene. "STAY ALIVE!" made me want to wretch. But before I could nudge the person next to me and roll my eyes, Cruise jumps out of that hole in the wall with both guns in a Spiderman pose that would make Todd MacFarlane proud. The coolness of the action totally distracted me from the inane bullshit.
However, the bullshit lingers more. And the problems were easilly fixed. Thandy's character could have been completely different (and more satisfying) with minor changes in dialogue. For instance, when Cruise asks her to whore for IMF, what if she didn't have a problem with it as long as it got her record clean? If she treated Ethan like the one night stand he was, it would have made more interesting interplay as he tries to keep her out of danger. Thandy fix #2 would have occured when she injected herself with Chimera. The script treated it as a selfless act to protect Ethan (or some shit), but it would have made perfect sense for her to have simply done it to ensure that Dougray didn't pop a cap in her. With the virus, she's valuable to him. Without it, she's just a chick who left him to shtoop Tom Cruise. It would have been consistent with the way her character was initially established if she had simply read the situation and determined the only way to ensure that she got out of that building alive.
Those are the main two points that stuck out for me right off. I think though, that with a movie like this we shouldn't devote more brain power to dissecitng it than the screenwriters spent writing it. Sorry to rample so long. -
Harry does know jack. Yes, the first 2/3 had very little in the way of fight scenes, but this is Mission Impossible not Rambo. If you want a movie about a brainless brute killing and blowing things up without thinking about why or what he is doing, rent Rambo. The plot, while not complex was reasonably sound and the action kicked ass. Yes, the movie suffered a little from the chop job done to get it down to a PG-13 movie, but MI:2 is still the best movie so far this year.
-
Okay, you know what, this movie was okay. It was alright. But it was not awesome. I rented the first Mission Impossible again after I saw MI2 and it is obvious that the first one is a far superior and much more ambitious movie. Trust me, this is the perfect way to put MI2 in perspective - see the first movie again. There's a reason that it is a classic. Some of these talkbacks really irritate me - I may come off self-righteous here - but as someone else mentioned, the same people who thought that MI2 was a really great movie are the same people that thought the first Mission Impossible was "too complicated". The difference, I think, is that the latter has "intense" action and the former has "bloated" action. It not a matter of nitpicking to know the difference - it's a matter of good taste.
-
Okay, you know what, this movie was okay. It was alright. But it was not awesome. I rented the first Mission Impossible again after I saw MI2 and it is obvious that the first one is a far superior and much more ambitious movie. Trust me, this is the perfect way to put MI2 in perspective - see the first movie again. There's a reason that it is a classic. Some of these talkbacks really irritate me - I may come off self-righteous here - but as someone else mentioned, the same people who thought that MI2 was a really great movie are the same people that thought the first Mission Impossible was "too complicated". The difference, I think, is that the latter has "intense" action and the former has "bloated" action. It not a matter of nitpicking to know the difference - it's a matter of good taste.
-
Ok, Listen up Phreaks!
I don't know what you guys are smoking, but M:I2 was an AWESOME MOVIE! I don't know what kind of cave your living in, but it must be in the center of the earth. The movie has (like most good stories) a build-up period as i call it....best part of this movie, is that the climax is almost the whole last half of the movie. And I don't know about what you mean by don't bother bringing a date on this movie...I brought my g/f and she loved the movie as much as i did.
I have to say, this is the top MUST SEE MOVIE OF THE YEAR. I guess you guys don't have the intillect to fully appreciate the Martial Arts, gunfighting, and chase sequences.
And the Flying bird is supposed to be a symbol...i guess you never Graduated from High School so you never figured that out you Moron!
All In All...I give this movie 4.5 stars out of a possible 5 stars. -
And Something else....Mission Impossible was not a better movie than the second...shit, if it was do you think they would have made M:I2? I think not....I swear, everyone who hates this movie must be a stuck up little prick with a 10ft wide rod stuck up their asses.
-
Thirty minutes into this movie I realized my butt was getting sore. Then I realized that this was huge - simply becuase this has never happened before during a John Woo movie. I was bored. By the time the "big" action sequence was occuring - I was already mentally making my grocery shopping list, balancing my checkbook, remembering I had a copy of "Sleepy Hollow" at home I could be watching.....
Questions about this movie:
* How many plot holes can be solved with a latex mask?
* How many people leaving the theater will be saying " I wanna be just like Ethan Hunt!!!"?
* Hey, will there be Ethan Hunt Holloween masks this year?
*How many close-ups requirements were in Thandie Newton's contract?
*For a $50,000 Audi sports coup that she was driving - it sure had a real weak door lock.
Seriously, if you think about the original Mission:Impossible series - they had a whole TEAM of individuals - each possessing certain strenghts. That was the appeal - it was also the suspense of the operation. And, at the end how they duped the bad guy. Great stuff. Unlike here, seeing Tom Cruise and villain go mano a mano. Sorry, but I think John Woo was the wrong choice here as a director. I was originally stoked when I heard - but then I realized someone who is more in tuned with a suspenseful story line would have been more suited. AND FOLKS, THIS IS ALL MY OPINION. One more thing, I didn't like this movie. Its even a waste of matinee time. -
While MI-@ is far from the best movie ever made, it is good fun, if implausible, summer movie fun. I thought it was much tighter than Armageddon, although I'm tired of seeing over the top, too unbelievable for it's own good action and stunts. Still, i'd reccomend it if people just want to escape for a little while. You;re taking this movie too seriously, Harry!
-
The movie sucked, Gladiator sucked, every other damn movie this year probably will too! At least the Hollywood ones. And dammit indies are never shown in my area so I am one screwed moviegoer. :(
-
Does anybodey out there actually remember the original Mission Impossible TV series? Neither of the Mission Impossiple films are faithful to the TV series, they are just action movies that use the name for recognition purposes. The TV show was about a resourcefull team - not one man playing James Bond but a team! Their missions were conducted under secrecy: stealth and subterfuge were their middle names. Nobody knew of their prescence until after the mission was complete which is why there was hardly ever a gun fired, a car chase or a far fetched kung fu fight! Both these films could have had the same measure as success without the Mission Impossible name-tag considering their casting so why use it if all they are going to give us is more formated action flicks? John Woo, love him or loath him is an action director - the last thing you need in a proper Mission Impossible movie. If there is to be a M.I.3 it needs two things:
1: A director and screenwriter capable of fashioning a suspense filled espionage thriller. I nominate David Mamet for both.
2: An A'list ensamble cast to play a team who do not fail, do not die and who definately won't ditch their scruples for a quick buck (not IMF material). I nominate George Clooney, Edward Norton, Russell Crowe, Gwyneth Paltrow and Don Cheadle.
Think about it Paramount!
-
I tried to like the movie. I mean with John Woo involved, Tom Cruise and Dougray Scott, I really really tried. But I just couldn't do it, in some parts. I thought THandie Newton was miscasted. She looked about 12, except her cleavage. She didn't have any chemistry with Cruise but, in my opinion, sizzled with Scott. Wrong move, since she's supposed to be Cruise's love interest. I think she should have been a stronger character and it would have been cool to see her in an actual heist rather than the lame attempt shown. Having her sleep with Cruise early on was also a mistake. She should have had a stronger bond with him, therefore making it harder for him to accomplish his mission. Also it was never explained why things didn't work out between Scott and her.
All in all, I liked the overall picture for the action but not the character. I couldn't see why Cruise or Scott wanted Newton for more than just one night. -
May 30, 2000 4:18:24 PM CDT
action/love storey (what MI-2 WASN'T)GINA GERSHON WOULD'VE BEEN
by slick_sage
I was hoping for a love story between two strong characters in this movie. Since I was very disappointed, i"m still waiting. Is this too much to ask for? I mean this movie had the potential but completely screwed it up. I don't think it would have been too hard to find a actress who had chemistry with Cruise. Personally, I think Gina Gershon would have been a better casting choice. She would have done the touch girl thing really well along with all the other emotional stuff. She was great in Face-Off.
Plus the fact she doesn't look underage would also have helped.
ONe more thing, having the main characters sleep together is a good thing but not when in the first 5 minutes of the movie. I mean I'm expected to belive that Cruise just can't let go of Newton for this????
-
this movie was the fucking B O M B!!! way way way better than that plotless piece of mumbo jumbo called M:I-1...they should ban DePalma's ass from Panavision cameras FOR LIFE. the only lame thing was those stupid PG-13 ass edits that only showed the bad guys falling. this is John Woo, dammit! gimme my bullet holes!!! Harry, you missed it on this one, kid. I'll take this over the last 3 007 flicks combined.
-
All through this movie, watching Dougray Scott, all I could think was "DAMN, he would have been AWESOME as Wolverine!" THis thought went through my head over and over again as I watched, and swore to follow the career of, Dougray Scott. Hugh Jackman better be a real kick-ass version of Wolverine, or there will be some serious flaming of "X-Men."
-
I was able to find this archival Talk Back from the '60s (maybe Head Geek, Sr. wrote it, I can't be sure). It's a review of the then-new James Bond movie, GOLDFINGER, that seems to relate to the current MI2 discussion...
"Man, am I disappointed with what United Artists and the morons at Eon are doing with Fleming's incredible Bond character. This new abomination, GOLDFINGER, takes the cake. Where's the character background? I mean, holy cow, what is Goldfinger's relationship to Bond? Why did Bond become a spy? Why did this "Pussy Galore" (heh heh, get it?) character become a pilot? Why does Galore fall for Bond, beyond Connery's huge ego? And that ridiculous sports car with about two tons of gadgets in it -- come on! The power to weight ratio on that car would keep it from moving three feet, forget about that unbelievable chase they expect us to buy! (I no cuz I read about power to weight ratios in Popular Mechanics.) And to think that I was hoping that director Guy Hamilton might releave us from the dreck that Connery and his goons have made of Bond. (Remember that female SPECTRE agent in 'From Russia With Love' that was so obviously ripped off from Mrs. Danvers in Hitchcock's REBECCA... but with none of the depth of that classic movee!?? Damn Connery and these mediocra UA hacks!) Why cant they make good popcorn movies like Roy Rogers and Tom Mix used to do when I was a kid? Im going to go watch my 16mm print of 'Flash Gordon Goes to Mars' to get the bad taste out of my mouth."
-- Author unknown.
//Some things never change, I guess. Duke Ray out. -
Good lord there are some stupid people here. For once I actually agree with Harry... there were so many problems with this movie you could have driven a truck through the holes. Of course, I knew we were in for trouble when Ron Moore and Brannon Braga were credited with the story. My favorite plot hole: They have Thandie thrown in jail so PseudoWolverine can come save her. We then see her casually strolling out of prison, and then she's on a boat in Australia. Wow, it was the most laid-back jailbreak ever. What a cruddy script. But hey, at least we know that top-secret research labs of major pharmaceutical corporations are infested by flocks of pigeons and doves. Flap flap flap...
-
Does anybody read comics here? If so, do you remember how in the beginning of the nineties, there were scores of comic book artist who were ( I dare to say ) inspired by the likes of jim lee, and todd mcfarlane, and various other artists who's stylization made comics more collectible and less readable? These guys were really good at what they did and understood why it was that they did what they did. Unfortunately, those who chose to monkey their styles did so without that understanding. They wound up creating art that was a caricature of what the originators of the styles had created. Too many little lines, too many technical pen hatch marks, too many women who's ribs connected to their legs and not their hips; now we have the illegitimate spawn of these hacks: the capcom/art adams/gen-13 conglomerate artists.
I say all of this to point out that style without reason is without effect. If I could figure out why this guy always has slow motion action sequences of doves flying through fire and such, maybe I could say that MI-2 was a worthwhile movie, but I can't, because there is no reason besides its aesthetic appeal. It's not even because I can't figure out why! I don't understand half the symbolism in David Lynch movies, and I don't know too many people that do ( although plenty of people will claim to ), but at LEAST I know that David Lynch understands it, and there's a reason for it!
I didn't want to go see this movie but somehow got roped into it. One of my rules for judging movies before seeing them, is that if the title is a respective series of numbers and letters IT WILL BE MEDIOCRE. The worst offender as of yet, was Independence Day, who's title only sought to capitalize on the success of Terminator 2, as the movie was NOT Independence Day 4. This is a clear indication that it will be another formulaic thought vacuum. -
How am I supposed to believe that Maverick is in love with this woman? He's prostituting her! This is disturbing.
-
How am I supposed to believe that Maverick is in love with this woman? He's prostituting her! This is disturbing.
-
I thought the "love" story was
a DUD. Thandie not that beautiful. How could he find her
so wonderful in a few hours? Also, Matrix did the fights better. I didn't believe Anthony
Hopkins was personally and physically in any scene with Tom.
Some fights were WAY TOO LONG.
Also, I don't believe Tom did
his own mountainclimbing. Looked
like a "set" to me. Especially
that jumping across part and the
scene where he was braced under
the rock. Oh, come on, it is
HOllywood after all. Actually,
I had been hoping she would
jump off the cliff at the end.
She really didn't look that ill.
But it is going great guns at
the box office.
-
Mission Impossible 2... what can I say about this film? Well, let me start with the obvious... I have yet to see a John Woo film's final cut that isn't bastardized with the drooling ending/30-minute slo-mo fight sequence a-la Mexican standoff where the two guys aim guns at each other and grimace, then fight for 20 more minutes before the bad guy dies in the most obvious "good-guy-near-death-reversal" maneuver possible.
Beyond that, let me go back to a couple of films... Goldeneye for starters. This film was, granted, one of the worst Bond films ever (though, never underestimate the horrible screen presence of George Lazenby)... HOWEVER, at least the psychotic good-guy-turned-bad-guy DID have some sort of background AND a reason to hate 007 and both were at least incorporated in dialogue if not flashback scenes. Other than that, the film was absolute shit.. but kudos to Pierce Brosnan who, by his own admission even, appears to be the first actor to actually love the role (which shows somewhat in Goldeneye but in more perfection in Tomorrow Never Dies). MI-2 gives you nothing except a plot that is so watery that only the studio which originally refused (and as a result is forever kicking themselves in the ass) to distribute Star Wars (1977), yet, as mentioned in Harry's review, went on to allow William Shatner to direct the worst Star Trek film ever (Star Trek V).
The second film to look at, most obviously, is the first Mission: Impossible. Here we had a more believable situation, with characters that at least SEEMED like more than just taxi drivers and computer geeks... no one really believes that a guy like Ving Rhames would be a computer geek, but that's what makes him the movie's walking sight gag. You also have a well-defined intelligence community with patriots and selfish bureaucrats (not unlike the real thing... perhaps minus the patriots...)...
As for the people out there who claim that MI-2 had an easier to understand plot than the first... well, what was so hard to understand? You had an intelligence community with a mole and Ethan was suspect... the confusion came when you found that Ethan was in on the molehunt with Kittrich from the beginning... but you're SUPPOSED to be surprised by that. What MI-2 did to simplify the plot was basically this: eliminate the plot all together, and have some big-ass fight sequence at the end where there are no real injuries (which is exactly what pissed me off about GI Joe cartoons... when I was 10... by now I tend to demand more realism)... obviously a movie so sanitized that even Ralph Reed would take his kids to it...
Basically, to dumb MI-2 down to this level is to a) assume that the public is too stupid to understand a movie with background, purpose, and coherent plot, and b) would be like doing The Usual Suspects all over again, but this time tell you who Keyser Soze is in the first two minutes of the film... and end with two men prancing around and exhaling their egos at each other like two kids shouting "my dad can beat up your dad!" If you want to see a brain-dead action flick, by all means go ahead... but don't expect this film to have any sort of intrigue or anything else that would resemble even the worst planned out episode of the A-Team.
Lastly, let me leave you with three things to chew on...
First, one has to wonder just how horrible a film has to be when Anthony Hopkins, a major actor, deliberately asks to have his name removed from the film as a supporting actor even though he WAS in Freejack for less than half an hour and still had his name attached to that piece of shit.
Second...ok, so Paramount and not John Woo is to blame for making huge compromises on this film... but doesn't that say something about the artistic ability of John Woo when this supposedly great director never has final cut on any of his films? Even James Cameron (Mr. "I'm the king of the world") has final cut... perhaps not so deserving of it as Ridley Scott... but nonetheless... it makes one wonder...
Third, let's not rule out the possibility that Tom Cruise was OBLIGATED by contract to do MI-2... most franchise deals on films go something like that. He had no choice, didn't have final cut... and this piece of shit eventually got made and unfortunately had Tom Cruise's name attached to it. I've seen Cruise do better. Woo...maybe... although there is that perpetual slow-motion thing he keeps defaulting to... there is an industry term for the majority of what this film became... folks, it's called "filler". -
I kept asking myself why they made the movie, other than the obvious-the first one made a butt-load of money. I totally agree with Harry's review. The movie had Tom Cruise and Ving Rhames(?) in it, but why call it MI? It didn't have the feel or atmosphere of the first movie. It didn't have the lingo such as "disavowed", "in pocket", "out of pocket", whatever. This movie was just missing so much that made me love the first movie. I'd like to forget that it happened.
-
Sometimes after 5 years of studying film and pop-culture formally I feel kinda far removed from my non-scholarly geek movie-buff friends. But my faith in our common geekness is restored today as I read the review and comments. This movie did suck, and it started with the script. The direction would have worked with a better script. Though I could have done with a few less head shots personally, it was kinda visually monotonous after awhile. The script was awful. Really, really bad, though to be honest I've seen worse. It reduced the characters to beat moments in the progress of the action. Heck the best part was the moments when Hopkins was reading the lines. When the trailer soundbite words are put into context you begin to appreciate what he was working with. And don't go telling me it's an action flick, therefore it's OK to treat characters like cardboard accessories. That doesn't make a fun sustainable flick, at least for me. Gotta scram, peace all!
-
1) Fun John Woo action; 2) better than the first one; 3) shows off Thandie quite nicely!-)
-
I have to say up front that I'm not a big John Woo fan and I say that only Sam Pekinpah had the slo-mo action sequence routine down pat but John Woo uses it only to justify the massive film stock portion of any film he directs (can you say Kodak 'kickback'?). Inexplicable slo-mo's, Ninja motorcycles out of nowhere, pistols that don't run out of bullets, slow turning femme fatale, a two man crew that doesn't do anything, are but a few reasons why this film sucks.
Brian DePalma's direction of M:I1 was much much better and the plot twists were very nice indeed, including the little spoke-of scene where Cruise and Voigt converse (after Voigt was supposedly killed) and thru a beautifully edited sequence we see Ethan Hunt thinking/visualizing the actual chain of events while we listen to Jim's lies...probably one of the best edited scenes ever put to film.
M:I2 has an extremely sloppy plot line that's so full of holes I got hungry for Swiss Cheese.
Bob the Nailer -
This is a special message from a special Crazy Cranking Mad Pumping Old Slapper- listen up, fucks!! Those of you who didn't ENJOY MI:2 on the level it was supposed to be appreciated at- i.e. popcorn action movie, not Tom's Epiphany- are really just a bunch of Jar-Jar fuckers! I mean, Jesus H. Christ... did you SEE Dougray Scott?
Just remember these immortal words, fellow MI:2 lovers, each and every time someone puts Tom and Crew down-
'DOUGRAY SCOTT WILL FUCK YOU NOW!!'
And you know what? If y'all are good little Geeks, he JUST MIGHT!!!
-
STOP F***ING DISSING THE SLO-MO SHOTS,OR THE DOVES(WHICH ARE A SYMBOL YOU RETARDS). WOO JUST DID WHAT HE DOES BEST.
I DID NOT FIND THE FIRST HOUR TEN MINUTES BORING OR DULL. (MAYBE LOW IQ FREAKS LIKE U COULD NOT COMPREHEND)
AND STOP FRIGGIN COMPARING IT TO SHANHAI NOON. SHANGAI IS A COMEDY MOVIE (A BAD ONE AT THAT) AND MISSION IMPOSSIBLE-2 IS ACTION. U CANNOT COMPARE.
-
I have seen the greatest piece of rechid filth ever ported onto the big-screen and it's name is Mission Impossible II. This movie blows from start to finish. NO appealing scenes at all!! John Woo is the biggest disgrace to the Mission Impossible legacy. He isn't even a passable director. Leave these movies to the greats who know better then to try and wow audiences with explosions and car chases(which are sooooo overdone it hurts)and all the other cliched tripe that directors of his infancy spew at us. Maybe this works overseas, but not in North America. But not all blame can be drilled at Woo, this was another poor effort for Mr. Cruise, who proves to us yet again, the same character can work in each and every film you do. Well if you hated this movie as much as I did, good stuff. If not, watch it again. Lata.
-
Boy was I fooled by the trailers into thinking this was going to be a good movie. First off let me say I really enjoyed the first MI movie unlike most people. It contained great characters (Jon voigt was cool also) and they all worked as a team with 'Q' like gadgets with some defection thrown in for good plot. This movie had some obvious CHEESY flaws. The most notable, the motorcycle scene. Gosh. UGH. In the 'street' beginning chase boht the sport bikes had street tires, but RIGHT OFF in the beach scene they had knobby ass motocross madness front and rear tires. What's that Ethan? Had time for a pitstop you failed to show the audience for a TIRE change???? UGH! How many times can the helicopter be shot at and not crash?!? 400 mask changes got very cheesy as well. How did tiny 5 foot tall Ethan get suddenly 6 foot tall to be disguised as the bad guys friend? High heels?
I could go on and on. barf. -
I liked it. A glossy 2-hours of good fun. No thought required. Loud. Colourful. It did plod a litle for the first half, the action was nicely played, though every single action scene I think gets a look-in during the trailer (no surprises), but I still found it entertaining. A lot lighter than the first movie. Tom seemed to be enjoying his role this time. In 1996 he seemed very brooding and pensive (understandable considering the first movie's plot). This one is also virtually plot-free (or at least very very basic), which I also didnt mind because I was expecting it to be just what it was: 2-hours of bubblegum, popcorn fare. My only major qualm, which sort of hangs over since the last film, is that I would love to see MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE 3 be more of a team effort. Yes, Tom Cruise can act cool in his own way, but this one and the first one did suffer a little from Kevin Costner syndrome, the camera lingered a lot on our MAIN hero. I always thought Mission: Impossible was a group thing. Each member having a cool skill to be used. Hopefully someone at Paramount will read this a say: "Oh yeah, lets make the next one still feature Tom, but also make up the team with other cool stars like John Cusack, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Cuba Gooding Jr. and Kevin Spacey as some power-crazed South American Dictator. Isn't that what Mission: Impossible was all about??? (But I did like the flick from a purely simple, no-brains angle!! LOL)
-
1. The plot was crap. They must have taken all the criticism of the "complicated" plot from the first movie to heart, because this piece of junk was written by a four year old in kindergarten. No complexity at all, you knew what the bad guy was doing and what the good guy had to do to stop it almost from the beginning. No twists or turns at all, no characters that you knew or cared about.
2. Cruise looks like a dink with long hair.
3. The plot requires that we believe Cruise and the chick are in love. The love story goes like this: they meet, she tries to run him off the road and down a cliff (for no reason other than apparently that is what she does for fun), they sleep together. From this, we are supposed to believe he actually cares for her. Crap. She is also the dumbest career criminal in movie history, she makes at least two mistakes that you could see coming from a mile away. Also, her conscience plays a big role in the plot. She is a criminal, yet she is willing to sacrifice her life for the good of humanity? Could happen, I guess, but in this case I didn't believe it.
4. The actions scenes are all filmed in slow-mo, but unlike in the Matrix where they make it work with cool special effects and camera work, these suck. Totally disorientating so you can't quite follow where each car/actor/motorcycle is with regard to the other. Movies like the Matrix have taken otherwise generic action scenes to the next level with cool special effects. Apparently John Woo decided he doesn't need special effects, because there aren't any. I didn't believe Cruise and the chick were driving those cars for one second. Also, I can suspend disbelief with the best of them, but you've got to give me some reason to. This movie didn't. I sat there going "that could never happen" over and over.
5. The action scenes were so friggin' generic, not one second of thought went into any of them. Car chase, motorcycle chase, gun fight and hand to hand fight. It was like they were checking off what they needed. In a good action scene, it has you on the edge of your seat, and you don't want it to end. During the final fight, I was looking at my watch. The fighting scenes were so old and worn out, I thought I was watching an old crappy western.
6. If one more person ripped off his "fake skin" mask, I was going to be ill. -
In the middle of some of those action scenes in MI2, I kept expecting Keanu to show up and tell everyone that they just entered the Matrix. I love John Woo action scenes, but he seem to forget in MI2 that they were not in the Matrix and could not defy the normal laws of gravity... And how did both of the "street" motorcycles suddenly get dirt bike tires??
-
I thought the earth destroying virus was hilarious. If someone who catches it is dead within 30 hours then it couldn't possibly get far enough to wipe out very much. Diseases that show that quickly are easily contained, and the biotech company could never make any money at it because they could NEVER get it produced and distributed in time. How the hell could they ship it to the US, for example, with a 15 hour flight time? People wouldn't even know they were sick until they had a couple of hours before it was too late to save them. HELLO! They stole this idea from Tom Clancy but they forgot to do any research.
-
COME ON!
If you take away the bland McGuffin as an excuse for ripping off James Bond and the Matrix, you have nothing but tom cruise in slo-mo. Tom, if you ever check out this site... PLEASE... stick to what you do best. CHICK FLICKS! I think you are actually very talented, but something happened after Born on the Fourth of July. You pulled a stallone and went for the lowest common denominator. If you really get what Michael Caine was saying, "you can't have both. You either want to be a serious actor or a movie star with empty movies. If you want a "golden boy" you can't BE a golden boy. shit or get off the pot of gold." Mission Impossible is just another example of cruise and execs raping the minds of a public who are starving for good entertainment. -
They just got the movies mixed up they made a James Bond movie instead of a Mission Impossible movie. I mean think about it in the show they always had a plan worked out to get the bad guy and back up plans and never did they have to come up with something on the spot. Also there wasn't any sex. Now in James Bond movies they always have big action scenes and sex and everything along those lines. So all in all the movie was pretty good if you want to go see an action flick but if not don't go see it.
-
If memory serves correctly, and I could be wrong on this, Ebola is a virus that spreads very quickly, has an incubation time of less than 30 hours, and can kill an entire village off as quickly as it kills the first infected... plus, it's possible that airborne viruses, particularly, don't just die with the victim... Ebola, being airborne, can spread even after the host is killed... providing the virus reaches new hosts before it dies off. There are other viruses out there that surely have the power to kill quickly and yet spread because of their variety of mechanisms of transmission.
Nonetheless, there were plenty of OTHER reasons why MI-2 sucked hairy donkey balls... (see my above post to find out what I REALLY think... :) -
To answer a couple of questions u asked: 1. Scott never left IMF until the first scene. He also left for the purest of reasons, the same one Voight used in MI1, greed. Also from the first-scene, it's obvious that Scott's specialty is the same as Cruise's; a point man, a front-line soldier who goes in and gets the job done. I admit the rest of the backstory seems a bit empty, but stop whining about it and enkoy the damned movie, you cynical ass.
-
HEY ETERNAL--EVERYONE'S ENTITLED TO THEIR OWN OPINIONS, BUT THE KILLER'S AN OVERRATED PIECE OF SHIT? THE FIRST TIME I SAW THAT MOVIE,I WAS LITERALLY SPEECHLESS.AS FAR AS ACTION MOVIES GO,IT'S A FUCKING CLASSIC.BRUCKHEIMER ON HIS BEST DAY WISHES HE CAN COME EVEN CLOSE-I DON'T CARE HOW BIG HIS BUDGETS GET! WOO AND FAT ARE FUCKING GODS!!!!
-
Are some of you people brain dead? Sure I like Tom Cruise, but this movie is absolutely crap.
First of all, there is no real plot. Why? Because morons like you complained about the 'confusing' plot in the first movie. Hello? This is Mission: Impossible. It is supposed to be a movie about spies and espionage - not guns and martial arts.
M:I-2 was NOT a mission impossible movie. It is a John Woo - Tom Cruise movie.
John Woo, for one, is a shitty choice for a spy movie. All his movies are the same - guns and martial arts and a fuck load of slow-motion scenes that get annoying after a while. The whole purpose of M:I-2 was to show off its star, Mr Cruise and his new 'hardcore' image.
Furthermore, the movie was SO unrealisitc its not funny. Gee, don't you reckon the bad guys would've noticed a helicopter flying above their chemical laboratory? And that 20 minute fight scene at the end - give me a break.
In the first movie, Ethan never even used a gun and hardly used physical force.
M:I-2 was also VERY predicatable. The scoobydoo thing with the masks went a bit out of hand, and not once was I surprised. M:I-2, apart from the name, is not even remotely similar to M:I-1. They are two different movies. The first one sucked, and the second one sucked even more.
M:I-2 was simply intended to be a summer blockbuster. It was made to make money. What the writers of this movie don't understand, is that people want to see good movies - not just any old unoriginal piece of shit. Pardon my fucking french, but someone had to tell the truth.
I suspect many of you dickheads were simply fooled by the huge amount of advertising. As to the director, producers, and writers - give me the job of writing M:I-3 and I guarantee I will set new standards in the Mission Impossible movie series. If I was given the job of writing M:I-3, mark my words - I would give the people what they desire, a smart, sexy, intelligent, unpredictable spy movie. -
Hey Folks. Come on Harry it wasn't that bad. It wasn't great but it wasn't that bad. I think it was sort of like the Japanese animation cartoon equal to a movie. It had less than great dialog and maybe some more charcter info would have been nice but the action shots were amazing. Sure they were unrealistic but thats just part of the films charm. Giving this movie the same rating as Boys and Girls is just a crime. Harry learn to losen up just look at stuff blowing up (and blow up it does) and ignore anything else.
-
Just seen a vid of the movie!
Pile of shit!Can anyone tell me how the fuck no-one noticed,in the scene when the "dead" Ethan is revealed to be ,in fact,one of the bad guys,no-one noticed that Ethan was in fact about 2 ft shorter??? -
It seems as though nowadays all directors/producers/screnwriters do is assemble a series of MTV-like high-action sequences, story board and choreograph the hell out of them, and then, try to build a story around those sequences. It's formulaic and so predictable that my 17-year old niece was accurately predicting pretty much every lame plot twist this chunk of cinematic feces dished out. This film used the exact same method of filmmaking that was used in Mission Impossible #1. The prevailing attitude seems to be that if the story doesn't make sense or is light in character development, it's no big deal. Just get those 3-4 really dramatic scenes in there. Couldn't Tom Cruise see that this script had the same basic problems the first movie had? Oh, he knew. The man is not stupid. He went for the $$, honey. I loved Cruise in Rain Man, Jerry McGuire and Risky Business. He has done some shit roles too -- like that sensual thriller he did with his wife that put me and half of the planet unfortunate to see it to sleep. I don't care enough about the film to even remember its name. Hey, the director died, and his camera angles were kinda cool, but I'm not a film student on a field trip, so it did little for me. (In now way do I want to besmirch the name of Stnaley Kubrick, a great diretcor). My point in a rambling nutshell is this: Shame on You Tom Cruise. Shame! Shame! Shame! Just because you can take a dump and make big bucks doesn't mean you should. Go to the well too many times, and your audience will snap back on you so quick you'll wish you were back in the forest with those silly puppets. Look what happened to Stallone and Van Damme. They doled out the crap too many times, and now they can't get a date with Judge Judy, let alone be given any viable projects. For this offense, this piece of gunao, you should be forced to do 5 "Days of Thunder: sequels, rivaling Rocky and Police Academy as the two most well-known movies that wouldn't go away.
Running & Rambling,
el largo -
There were some points I thought could be made about this movie, and M:I movies in general.
Firstly, too much Tom Cruise isn't a good thing. It was good that he came back (from a marketing point of view anyway) but M:I2 was far, far to Cruise-centric. The first movie revolved around him, but at least it included other team members contributing to the story. As a result I came away feeling I had seen another Bond movie, rather than an Mission Impossible movie. It was just far to centered on one person, and his expolits and stunts. It even followed the basic outline for Bond movies.
As for where to from here, if someone does decide to make a third M:I movie, it deffinitly needs to be without Cruise. It needs to be done with actors more capable of working in a 'team' environment. I suspect the best way to do this would be with less big name actors taking the co-star roles. I really dont want to see this movie end what could be a very cool movie franchise, with the possibility of different casts eash time. -
The only thing could to come out of this movie is Limp Bizkit's "Take A Look Around" and its video...."Life is a lesson, you'll learn it when it's thru!".
Fred Durst and Carson Dailey kicks so serious ass, and Metallica, well, they're jerks. -
Just saw this in the UK. What a disappointment.
1) My dog could write a better script.
2) The main female character acts like shes a shy 16 year old, and yet she is supposed to be an internationally imfamous cat burglar! DOESNT MAKE SENSE.
3)These rubbers masks that let anyone look like anyone else, even if you are a different height/build! DOESNT MAKE SENSE
3)Very slow and tedious.
4) No team work. Its just Tom on his own. ie absolutely no connection to 'Mission Impossible'. DOESNT MAKE SENSE
5) No reason for Anthony Hopkins being there. He has no character! He talks exactly his embarrassing UK adverts for Barclays bank! ie he is playing himself. We get no clue as to what he does, or his relationship to Tom. DOESNT MAKE SENSE
6)Absurd cartoon action, like Tom diving from a helicopter into CLOSED air vents! DOESNT MAKE SENSE
7)Rock climbing scene no relation to anything else in film. DOESNT MAKE SENSE
8)Absolutely no reason for it to be set in Australia, except that it was actually made there. DOESNT MAKE SENSE
9)We know little about main bad buy and his motives. He is a completely bland character with a baffling Scottish accent. We care nothing about him.
10) The slow motion doves. Enough said.
etc ,etc
-
This film is the textbook example of what happens when you have a dull, boring and uninteresting script and a very good, very talented and seasoned director.
John Woo must have owed someone a favor or something.
I'll quote a friend of mine, "Although many have tried, you can't make chicken salad out of chicken shit." -
Y'know Harry, today was my first visit to your site, and I gotta say I never thought a review would have a better story than a movie. I mean POOF! Story! I'm speechless. John Woo's still the man, though.
-
Harry, bash on MI:2 all you want. My friend and I laughed hysterically through it, it was the best $5.00 we ever spent.
BUT, don't bash on Dougray Scott. Not only is the man drop-dead gorgeous--I can only hope Tom Cruise realized that he'd been upstaged 5 minutes into the film when his greasy facade was ripped away to reveal Scott--but he's very talented. I can't believe that you'd be so petty as to belittle him like you did in your review. (Calling him Dork Boy and Mr. Ever After.)
And why not cast an unknown? Unknowns have to start somewhere, even if it is only to take a backseat to Cruise.
Dougray Scott is not Ever After.
Rent Twin Town if you want to see his darker side. Dougray was horribly misused in this film and unfortunately it's a film he'll look back and cringe in the years to come.
-
Not enough action?
When the Matrix was released, everyone was talking about :
"the action movie revolution"
But it only contained about fifteen
minutes of (great) action at the end of the movie.
How about that? -
Did anyone notice the major Bava influence in the "lab break-in" sequence? Hunt uses a device that operates alot like Diabolik's wall climbing suction cups from DANGER: DIABOLIK (although for a different purpose). This entire sequence is bathed in the vivid, beautiful red, green and blue gel lighting that was Bava's trademark. I've read Bava used this effect to symbolize death. Even the Chimera virus and the Bellerophon antidote were colored green and red. If someone's mentioned this previously, I apologize.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 419 total posts 209 posts
- WTF HOLLYWOOD: SOLARBABIES -- 131 total posts 129 posts
- Herc’s Seen Tonight’s Return Of THE WALKING DEAD!! Discuss Also DOWNTON ABBEY, FEAR FACTOR, PAN AM, ONCE, SIMPSONS, DYNAMITE, LUCK, SHAMELESS, BAIT CAR, THE GRAMMYS And More!! Sunday Is Sweeps Day 11!! -- 123 total posts 122 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 124 total posts 58 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 191 total posts 47 posts
- Avid Comic Reader Hercules Does Battle With Tedium During Kevin Smith’s COMIC BOOK MEN! -- 43 total posts 43 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 60 total posts 42 posts
- I am The Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day! No, I’m the Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day! -- 27 total posts 27 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 506 total posts 26 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 77 total posts 24 posts