Cool News
Harry has more to say about MISSION IMPOSSIBLE 2
It really is amazing how some people react to a
review.
“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?”
My response: That first hour? No, it’s called BAD
PLOT! You are so right, I don’t need to know the
backstory for every character. I NEED A BACK
STORY FOR AT LEAST.... AT LEAST ONE
CHARACTER. Two would be really really nice.
THE ROCK? Well, let’s see. In THE ROCK, we
have Nicholas Cage’s character. We know that he
isn’t really prepared for in the field combat. We
know that he doesn’t tend to handle tense situations
all that well. We know that he has a girlfriend that is
pregnant with his child. We know that she is in the
city that will be bombarded with POISONOUS
GAS/BIOCHEMICAL WEAPONRY! There is a
MINOR personal stake in the situation. Then there is
ED HARRIS’ character, who by the way... we know
was a black ops mission specialist who lost many of
his men in various operations. A man who was sick
of his country not acknowledging their deaths, not
giving benefits to their families and not giving closure
for the sacrifice these men made. Oh.... then there is
SEAN CONNERY. Well, he was a British Spy, on a
mission to steal some American secrets to benefit her
Majesty’s kingdom. He was caught, but not before he
had hidden the microfilm. He was being held for life
till he gave up the secret location of this film. He
escaped once 20 years or so before, had a quick
romance, fathered a child he had never seen. We
know that she lives in San Francisco... Also the city
being targeted by the terrorists. NOW.... While
these plotlines are not fully explored, I know at
LEAST BASIC MOTIVATIONS FOR WHY
CHARACTERS ARE DOING WHAT THEY ARE
DOING.
Sure, there are holes in logic. I understand that. But
at no point does the movie STOP and do NOTHING
for an HOUR other than have pretty shots that do not
move the story along.
Ok... let’s take ID4. Will Smith’s character. We
know he has a girlfriend, who has a little boy that he
loves. We know that he has lost every single friend
he has ever cared about. We know that his best friend
died before his eyes, along with every last one of his
fellow pilots. Jeff Goldblum? He’s a genius slacker
type that works at a low level cable station, that picks
up something weird and figures it out. He learns that
it is a countdown. He has someone he loves and
cares for, that isn’t really interested in him. He wants
to convince her, .... yadda yadda yadda. While you
might not like the character development.... they at
least ATTEMPT some. There are BASIC
MOTIVATIONS and histories to the MAIN
characters. Not all characters, but some.
There was one fella in Talk Back that thought that the
NOTORIOUS plotline was done wonderfully.
What? Ahem... Excuse me? Is that a joke? Heh, I’m
not laughing. NOTORIOUS was a masterpiece. I
never condemn a film for borrowing story elements.
Hell, in my review, I wasn’t even going to bring up
NOTORIOUS because... for one it was the
OBVIOUS connection. BUT, since it has been
offered up.... By all means let’s discuss it.
Cary Grant / Tom Cruise... let’s do this. I find the
idea of this comparison fun. Ok. When Cary Grant is
FORCED to make Ingrid Bergman be a whore for the
United States Government. He knows that she will
not be willing to do this. He secretly does not want
her to do this, but frankly the mission takes
precedence over his own personal emotions. He must
be callous, he must be hard with her. He plays it
insulting. Playing down whatever attraction he might
have. Play up the fact that he knows she is a Nazi
Slut. The film then becomes all about keeping up this
deception. To keep her motivated to stay there, to
find out the secrets of this Nazi group that dreams of
reestablishing the Reich. They (Grant and his boss)
want to be able to take down a vast conspiracy.
Tom Cruise’s character grits his teeth, says all the
obvious, I don’t want you to do this crap and leaves it
at that.
MEANWHILE....
Ingrid Bergman / Thandie Newton. Alright, after the
pure BABE factor... let’s get into CHARACTERS.
In NOTORIOUS, Ingrid Bergman is a woman tired of
the weight of what her father did during WWII. She
has no family, but the Nazis that escape adore her.
She drinks to forget the past, parties down because it
helps her to forget. She meets this man, this nice guy.
He takes her home. He offers her up a chance to
make amends. She sees in him a way of making up
for a lifetime of bad karma. With every word of spite
she hears, she redoubles her efforts... Wanting to
prove to him that she is worthy of his attention. She
so wants to just live a normal life, she wants a life
with a moral person. And in her confused messed up
mind, being Mata Hari for the USA just seems the
only right thing she has ever done. She also finds in
the man who adores her, Claude Rains, a truly likable
guy. She sees no death surrounding him. He truly
does love her. It’s not just a sex thing. There are
emotional connections. When she is discovered, it is
not about suicide... she doesn’t even know she is
being poisoned. And when she finds out, it is simply
too late. She is too weak to even walk the few steps
out of the house to recover and escape. Thandie
Newton’s character? She’s a thief. She has no
remorse or conscience for what it is she does. She is
being blackmailed into serving this spy organization.
She amazingly has emotions for Ethan Hunt because
of some good dicking we suppose. Her character is
made up of flirty eyes and smiles. No drama, no real
emotion. Just a pretty girl.
OH... but wait... there’s more!
Dougray Scott / CLAUDE FUCKING RAINS!!!
Claude Rains is a proud aristocrat of Germanic
background. He had helped financed the Reich at the
behest of his mother. He is a member of the Nazi
party, but he is also just a regular guy. He isn’t the
man that ever shot anyone. He was just a man with
money, and never fully grasped the horror of what his
money did. But he does know that he’s an older man.
That has no heirs, no legacy. His family line stops
with him. In Ingrid Bergman, he sees a dream. A
woman that could give his life a personal resonance.
A chance to have a family. She seems to be genuine
in her affection for him. Her manners and grace are
perfect for the world of aristocracy. She is his dream
come true. He is fooled HOOK LINE AND
SINKER! Dougray Scott’s character? Well he
doesn’t buy her for a second. He’s pompous and
bloated with evilness. No woman can bring him
down. He is a hardened super spy/terrorist, that just
wants to fuck her till he kills her. Hmmmm.... wow,
that’s great. NOW, I can hear ya. “That’s not how I
saw it.” Ok, he has a scene where he’s having some
sort of stroke. Shaking like he’d been holding his
breath for 2 minutes and turning all red in the face.
But right after this... awwww, everything is groovy
for him. He’ll just be the bang bang bad guy. No
history or emotion for his character.
Now, I want you people screaming at me below to
understand something real clear here. I tried to go
see this film tonight, to take a second look at it, but...
alas it was sold out. I was going to go with a friend
who hasn’t read any online reports. He is 100%
jazzed to see the movie. Fine. Cool. That’s who I
want to see it with. I am willing to give all movies
except BELOVED and I DREAM OF AFRICA a
second chance. I do not, under any circumstances
feel that MISSION IMPOSSIBLE 2 is a piece of shit.
Woo’s style is far too good to be a mere log of
excrement.
I can not in good conscience blame John Woo for the
shortcomings of this movie. I can’t blame the
miscellaneous assortment of screenwriters that wrote
on this film. Why? Because throughout production,
we have heard reports of two films being made. The
one that John Woo set out to make and the film that
the studio wanted to make.
MISSION IMPOSSIBLE 2 is a car crash between
these two ideals. The studio wanted safe summer
entertainment palpable for the masses. John Woo
wanted to make a John Woo movie, which is a form
of violent opera and ballet. Throughout the shoot of
this film we heard rumors of conflicts between star
and director. Studio and star. And lastly studio and
director.
Of course, the publicity machine is in full swing now.
You see Cruise smiling and talking about how it was
a religious experience. Woo seems strangely missing
from the interviews and soundbytes. The studio talks
about how everything went smoothly. The same
cover story was used on HARD TARGET, when the
film John Woo made was heavily tampered with, and
for folks who have been lucky enough to locate
bootleg tapes of this legendary cut.... who learned that
Van Damme was not the focus, but Lance
Henriksen’s villain... well, they saw the beginnings of
the real Woo movie.
Imagine if you will had a studio toyed with Peckinpah
like this. That is the scary part of this. In the USA,
land of the free, Woo has been anything but free. In
Hong Kong, well that was a different story.
As for the film, I wholeheartedly recommend you see
it. When Woo kicks in about an hour or so in... You
will be completely entertained, so long as you are not
thinking of Woo’s earlier Hong Kong works.
Cruise and Thandie have never looked better. Woo
and the camera love both of them. Worship them.
Creates all the aura that they should have. However,
the characters don’t have any of the involvement or
weight that they should have. This is either a
scripting problem or an editing one, where those
scenes might have been snipped.
This is a matinee movie recommendation. In Austin
that equals $3.50-$4.50. Where you live... that could
be more. When the super special DVD comes out...
And god willing a Director’s Cut.... I’ll buy it. I’ll
buy it just for those last 45 minutes. They rock. But
the rest of this film was stillborn for me.
As for people that say, all of Woo’s Hong Kong films
don’t have character development.... You are so full
of shit.
Chow Yun Fat playing a clarinet, showing that his
character wishes to create rather than destroy. His
friends die. His friends bleed. He’s been crippled,
turned from being a tough as nails hitman, into one of
those squeegee guys awaiting his friend’s release
from prison. He becomes friends with the guy
wanting to kill him. He performs Hits in order to
afford money for an operation for a girl blinded by
the flash of his gun. His previous films are filled with
background and character development.
As rocking cool as the MI theme is.... musically, it
never fully becomes mythic or epic for me. Now
there are MOMENTS, GLANCES, brief glimpses of
mythic greatness. Roadsigns that read “COOL” that
flash by your window at 55 miles per hour.
For me the film has major flaws. Today, I read a
review of MISSION IMPOSSIBLE 2 in the local
paper that gave the film 4 Stars, then admits that the
film is far from perfect. That there are 45 minutes of
the film that slam to a grinding halt. If in a two hour
and five minute film. If one/third of the film is a
consecutive grinding halt... I can not in good
conscience give the film a 4 star rating. For me, this
is a two and a half star film. Which basically means
that it has major flaws that I could not overcome, but
was not a painful experience and had moments that I
really dug.
Personally, I’ve never understood how some movie
fans seem to believe 100% in the thumbs up/thumbs
down nature of film. Mediocre is middle of the road.
It’s that wavy hand, that phrase that is “so-so”. For
me, film going is made up of multiple colors. Not
just black and white... not even just adding shades of
grey. Film sometimes can be tacky, which is more
like Purple and Green. MISSION IMPOSSIBLE 2 is
a red and blue film. It runs hot and cold. For the first
half of the film, I felt like I was sitting in a very cold
pool of water that shrunk my ballsack into Sumo
mode, and then gradually as the hot water poured in...
my testicles began to feel filled with testosterone.
This was not a perfect sauna experience, complete
with massages and wraps and jet streams that made
you coo and make awe noises.
And that is my further thoughts on the film.
Ultimately, nothing I say or any other critic says is
meaningful in regards to this film. This is a summer
hype film. The screens locally were sold out. There
are those that will love this film and those that hate
the film. And both will say that the other is on crack,
and really... no argument that either side makes will
ever convince the otherside that the crackpipe is not
being toked upon. The real deciding vote will be box
office. Not for this weekend, but next weekend.
What will the percentage drop be? Because that
number is determined by the number of people like
you that in turn goes home and calls their friends and
family and either says, “Dude that MI2 fucking
sucks!” or “Dude that MI2 fucking rocks!” My bet is
on a 44% drop in the second week. Which basically
is what so-so movies drop in their second week.
Now go on, scream, yell names, piss all over the
comments, that’s how and why I feel about this
movie. But I really do hope you had a good time with
the film. I never wish bad filmgoing experiences
upon anyone.
P.S. Oh... and as for the Palm Pilot comment.... I
don’t even own a Palm Pilot. That was a specific
recommendation to those that live in that culture that
does use them.
-
+ Expand All
-
Excellent rebutal Mr. Knowles.
-
To quote GrendelKahn's friend Andy, this movie had matrix envy. Hunt doing spastic kung fu moves is NOT a john woo idea, i'm fairly certain. that's all matrix, baby. I don't remember when john woo was anounced, but i wouldn't be surprised if it didn't coincide with the success of the matrix. I don't remember Ethan Hunt doing caporeia in the FIRST movie... or using two guns at once... that seemed a little over the top. And while that is a woo conceit, i can just HEAR some shill saying "yeah, john, and this time cruise will carry two guns and kick some ass, just like in Full Contact!" John shakes his head, opens his mouth, says nothing, thinking of all the zeroes on the check paramount handed over... not to pay the man any disrespect--get every red cent out of them you can. Where was the continuity with Mission Impossible's history? or with the first movie? the exclusion of Kittridge was kinda sad. no explanation of how luther's doing or WHAT he's been doing was kind of odd. it just seemed, to me, that lots of unnecessary exposition was left floating around whilst character development was left on the floor. my complaint isn't that there wasn't any action before the hour and fifteen minute mark, it's that there wasn't anything terribly interesting going on. well i didn't fall asleep like in gladiator (saw it twice my opinion is valid) and I didn't laugh aloud and hearty as in BE (which I also saw twice, once for free, proving my valour in the face of adversity) but it's just not what mission impossible brings to mind when I think of the title. Shouldn't missions what are impossible be taken on by people who have some sort of skill? until the third act--hell, I could do the stuff they were doing.
-
I'm fully aware of this, and said that instead of an actual john woo film to get the ignorance by most hollywood people about the intracacy of john woo's work is all about. they just understand that college kids dig it and it has something to do with guns.
-
I own a Palm. What is the problem?
Sounds like another flick to avoid. What is the score for 2000--how many flicks that are worth it compared to how many are not? -
I will get my ticket, get a seat, get back up, go play Tekken in the theater arcade for an hour, return to my seat and enjoy the movie...Simple solutions for simple problems.
-
Harry, I do understand where you're coming from with your points but the utter truth of it is that the Devlin/Emmerich films that you openly attest to enjoying are just horrid to the sensibilities of a *great* many filmgoers, hence the seeming "fun, escapist film" duality people are gauging in your original review. The first MI film was seen in a similar light: plodding story with moments of suspense and action peppered too far apart. The Jim Phelps turncoat routine was and is tantamount to Greedo shooting first: an obvious abomination. At least John "mother-squibber" Woo got results that were pleasant to watch and not a chore. My two centavos. I enjoyed it thoroughly and the last half hour is quite reminiscent of the last half hour of TPM: it's all worth it.
-
...it's all down to X-Men this summer?
-
Was this a parody of John Woo movies? It sure felt like one. This movie opened promising and then crapped out within the first twenty minuets, turning into one of the funniest movies I've seen this year! From a badly filmed car chase to hero and villian charging each other atop erect penises (oops, I mean motorcycles), this movie reached new levels on the 'What the hell does that have to do with anything' meter! And just who the hell choreographed the fight scenes? James Tiberius Kirk? Hunt (Cruise) jump kicks, axe handles and body slams gaurds like a Starfleet trained wrestler. Wasn't he an information gathering, in over his head type in the first M:I? Oh well, that would call for continuity. Very little plot, little or no characterization, plenty of pointless stunts to cover up lack of story, and a rocking soundtrack can only mean one thing: The Summer movie season has arrived...God help us...
-
OK, now i understand more where you're coming from. Personally, i went to a theater that is merciful enough to have their matinee showings up to 6 pm, so i saw it with almost that huge night crowd....i've already given my views, but from what i could see from the audience, response was positive overall...however, as people have stated, the movie grinds to a halt sometime in the 15-20 minute mark, and that caused one of the bolder theater goers to yell out "GET ON WITH IT!!", and hell yes, we did laugh.The only other complaints i saw were these: Apparently while some of the older guys there thought the fight scenes were cool, the younger ones(while they thought it kicked ass too) groaned like hell when they saw Tom doing all those obvious cable-assisted super kicks.
Second of all, one of the funniest things i ever saw was a group of 60/70-something old ladies who came in, whispering "I hope it really lives up to the 60's series." "Yeah, i remember watching that, and 'The Man From UNCLE' when i was younger." I just sat back and grinned like the Joker when about 5 minutes into the Bike fight, all three old ladies quietly stepped out in disgust.
I think i've said all that needs to be said. Oh, just one last thing....am I the only one that noticed the great abundance of wrestling moves Tom and Dougray used in the final scene? It was mad cool, but theres nothing like the deafness you get in your left ear when 3/4 of the theater yells "OH SHIT, IT'S THE ROCK BOTTOM!!! TOM CRUISE DID THE ROCK BOTTOM!"
"Revolution is my name"
-
not seen the movie but surely the fact that a virus is about to wipe out the world is a good motivation
and the reason we dont know much about each charater is that is the mistique of MI ,that is why the organisation "disavowes all knowledge" of agents -they are doing a job but they cant expect glory or any thing like that ,just their pay
-
I too think the movie sucks, but not because of the first half, it's because of the second half. That's when it turns into your typical overblown, melodramatic, pretentious John Woo movie - complete with doves and childish religious imagery. Don't get me wrong, I had a good time, but I liked it for the same reasons I've liked all of Woo's American films. It's just so bad I can't help but laugh. Most of the audience I saw it with seemed to feel the same way, as we were all laughing at the scenes I'm sure we weren't supposed to laugh at.
My only other big complaint is the big climax. Boooring and small. This is Mission Impossible, we want a helicopter chase through the chunnel, not a fistfight. It saddens me to think what might have been had Oliver Stone made the sequel as intended.
John Woo is finished, and good riddence. -
Great little section on MI2.
Intelligently worded and as always just your opinion. I'm glad you keep encouraging others to make their own minds up.
Any chance you could maintain a permanent link to the guy who does the animations.
I took a look at his site a while back, but I'm constantly impressed with the quality and topicality of the animations.
Now I've lost the link and want to revisit his site.
On another note, are you likely to review DVD content since some of the director's commentaries and extras really do warrant review by someone whose style we can relate to.
Cheers from England
Paul -
...has become clear for the studio..."Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to produce a *good* Mission: Impossible film, using any screenwriters necessary. As always, if the movie sucks, the people will disavow any association with the film. Good luck!" McFly<--
-
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 -
Saw M:I2 last night and my GOD that movie was goofy. The cinematography was great, the acting was good, but the EDITING. MY LORD IN HEAVEN the EDITING was CRAP!
If the entire film was played at normal speed it would have been 18 minutes long. I know John Woo films, but c'mon, that was WAY TOO much slow motion!
And the plot was very formulaic.
A very goofy movie.
Sam -
Wow. Just saw this last night here in D.C. and was really disappointed. I didn't expect all that much. Just a fun, no-brainer summer action flick. But Woo and Cruise and company couldn't even get that straight! It seemed very rushed and in need of a lot more editing. The dialogue was horrible and the plot was almost non-existent. Yes, Thandie Newton is gorgeous, but she isn't given much to do. Then again, neither are Ving Rhames or Cruise's Aussie sidekick. People laughed with derision at all the "serious" moments and there was virtually no action at all until the final 30 minutes or so, and much of that was so overblown as to be almost unwatchable. And it certainlywasn't enough to save the film from a fate worse than death. My God, this makes even an OK film like U-571 look like a masterpiece.
-
Harry, you quoted the local matinee prices as $3.50 - $4.50, but 3 weekends ago, I paid FIVE DOLLARS for a matinee showing of GLADIATOR at the Metropolitan. (You must've paid the same, because you were at that showing, sitting about 4 seats down from me). Anyway, I really enjoyed your review and above comments on MI2. Definitely a matinee movie - let's just hope the price hasn't creeped up to $5.25 in the next few weeks.
-
Harry, I agree with almost everything you say, however, I am one of those who does not understand a mediocre film. I know, of course there are great films, lousy films, and ok films. But even the ok films either work, or don't work. Every movie, leaves you with a taste that says, 'yea, that was good, or no, that sucked.' I confess to wanting to see reviews that answare to this. 2 stars means it was flawed, and wasn't very good. Parts were, parts weren't, overall, it didn't work. 3 stars means it was good. Not great, but I liked it. This film gets 2 stars from me. You sound like maybe it gets 2 in your book as well.
-
It's even clearer to me on reading your second set of comments, Harry, that it's even harder to gauge what makes a good "entertainment movie" than what makes a good "art movie." Inevitably, we chuck some of the criteria for the latter when we judge the former, but which criteria each of us chucks is highly variable. And after fifteen years of trite exposition in action movies (e.g., Last Boy Scout, Aramgeddon), I have come to prefer no exposition to formulaic exposition. But it's cool that you feel differently--that's why Talk Back is such a good thing.
One further thought: I'm surprised nobody's mentioned the screenplay that, for me, lingers much more strongly in back of this this than all the Hitchcock references--Towne's Tequila Sunrise. My guess would be that Braga and Moore gave them the Bellerephon/Chimera setup, but Towne built up the triangle angle. Ultimately, I think I prefer this one to the one in TR, if only because the characters in that were so emblematic. Once again, a matter of taste. -
Did Mission Impossible 2 remind anyone of a Miami Vice Episode? I started thinking when Thandie Newton walked towards Dougray when she got off the boat. There was this crash of Jan Hammerish music and she walked slowly as Dougray's white jacket flapped in the wind. Gratuitous shots of the beachfront. Everpresent electronic music. A distant and serious hero, who's a little too sappy. A guy from Crockett's past threatens a girl that he's fallen in love with after screwing her once. A really slow first 2/3rds with a kick ass final 1/3rd. Omigod, it was a MIAMI VICE EPISODE! Fuck, I think I liked it now.
-
Reel's Jeffrey Wells reported late last year that the original running time of the movie was three hours long and that Woo and his editors were working around the clock to edit the monster down to two hours. After delivering an R-rated 132 minute cut, Paramount wanted Woo to cut it down further so that the film could obtain a PG-13 rating and be slotted for as many screening as possible.
-
May 25, 2000 8:31:28 AM CDT
"Woo seems strangely missing from the interviews and soundbytes.
by bfink91
"Woo seems strangely missing from the interviews and soundbytes."
Harry - maybe you missed Woo on MTV or in Premiere? And I've heard soundbytes on the Stern show the past few days. You won't see him on LEno but he's definitely not in hiding. This will have absolutely no averse effect on his career. If anything, it's brought him to the mass PG13 summer audience he would never have had before. -
OK, I'll start by saying I loved this movie. That right there probably invalidates my opinion for half this board, but oh well here goes. Hunt's reason for doing this was two-fold, revenge for the doctor and because it was his mission. The former alone is enough. He is a goverernment operative, and when they say jump he says "how high?". All his posturing aside, he was assigned a mission, once he accepted it thats it. Nyah, she is shown as a competant thief, and thats sets up why she does it, for the "get out of jail free card" of having her record wiped clean. Then the secondary motivation becomes their feeling for each other. Yeah they might have been a bit rushed, but its not like they had time to do a proper courtship, so we have to accept some things. Hell you people thought the middle was too slow as is....did you want to sit through the Ethan/Nyah date scenes? Ambrose...setup as an unfavored (by Hunt atleast) agent, yeah this was kind of weak...we could have used more about his motivation for being a turn-coat, but I guess money becomes the great equalizer. For 37 million pounds I'd sell out everyone here in my office, hell I'd do it for 37 dollars =) All the people that complain its not enough like the TV show...that was the middle...all the setting up of the mission...collecting information so they could make their move. I enjoyed the "slow" parts. They did the spy thing, complete with gadgets, lurking, and ummm...spying. As for Woo, well I think its obviuous this was a Woo/Cruise movie, not solely a Woo movie, which I DON'T see as a completely bad thing. Yes I love Woo flicks, but sometimes enough is enough. We got his ballet gun fighting, we got the trademark camera work, we got the doves...but we never got them in amounts so as to induce nausea. Yes Hunt did things he didn't in the first, but we already saw that he took risks and liked acrobatic stunts to pull his missions off. Is it that far of a stretch to consider that IMF trained him in martial arts/self-defense at some point? That a guy this physically-able knows how to ride a bike? He didn't do these in the first because that was a DePalma movie, and it wasn't taken in that direction. If you were expecting that same "vibe" in a Woo/Cruise movie you have only yourself to blame for making false assumptions. Well that went longer than I wanted, sorry about that. My 2 cents.
-
The same person who is running Star Trek into the ground ran this movie into the ground. So bad even John Woo couldn't save it. Way to go, Brannon! Quit Star Trek so you can devote all your 'talent' to writing bad summer blockbusters!
-
This movie has it all. To my mind, it does the Deer Hunter one better, while paying homage to it in moments. I don't think Woo will achieve this level of brilliance again for a long time.
-
Here's a few things:
The first part of the movie, before the action sequences, oh my, they actually developed a plot. It wasn't an overly deep plot, but the movie actually took some time to set up the action scenes.
No character development? I beg to differ. The gal was set up, by her actions, to be a fairly decent theif, a tad reckless, and, by having a serious relationship, to be loyal. Also, when Cruise saves her from falling, she shows some honor by joining him after that (and looseness by shagging him right after that, too. Good for her that she did that!)
Why did the bad guy leave IMF? This movie is why he left IMF, to get the virus and sell it for mucho dinero and that company. It didn't happen a year ago, or six months ago, Sean left IMF when he karate-chopped the old dude on the flight. His motives were money, money, money, which is why he was going to sell the virus-even let an outbreak out. That would make him money! Everyone wants money, and money supposidly corrupts people. It worked here.
Luthor is MI's version of Q, it's only not a gadgets man, but a computer man. I like his character alot, even though he had a rough time of it in the helicopter.
Many movies just go from action scene to action scene, and many movie fans expect things to be explained to them through words. People expet the villain's monologue where he explains everything, or a character saying "Oh, I just couldn't stay with him, because, well, when we're together, I guess it's always cold out because his..." Characters are built by their actions as well as their words, and Woo is seemingly a director who favors actions over words, because we, the audience, learn evry single thing we need to know about these characters from how they act.
It could have been a silent movie, we could have watched their interaction with each other and determined at least who they were and what they were about.
And, I hardly heard the Limp Bizcut song in the movie, at least the words from it. Thank God for small favors. -
I have to say that I am severly disappointed with this movie. I loved the first one. I am a big fan of John Woo. I even like Cruise to some extent. And this should have been the best film of the summer. At $100 million, it certainly had the funds.
What makes this a bad film, well Harry you have already pointed it out (even the Notorious bent). There was no script.
How do I know there was no script - I asked myself: "What was the plot - and where did it go?"
It went out with the worry that Cruise cannot be shown shooting people, breaking people's necks, or being a real bad bad ass spy.
It went with the worry from the studio that Mr. Woo was making a Mr. Woo Film. They pulled back on him and it is no wonder that he is not giving press statements.
I think that Dugray Scott's character summed it up best.
He comments on Ethan Hunt's desire to perform "acrobatic insanity" in order not to have to harm a "hair on the security guard's head." This is the basis for the MI films. However, ten minutes after this is said there is an all out gun battle.
So at this point you have to ask yourself - a gun battle belongs in a Woo movie - a smart escape plan belongs in an MI movie. We have a conflict here.
And when vision's collide - someone has to step in and guide the project. Cruise guiding Cruise is like Manson determing his own fitness for release - there is a definite conflict.
Who was in charge??? Was it Woo?? I doubt it. Woo's films (not Hollywood) are distinct. They are consistent with energy, direction and tone. This was all over the place.
I got excited at the scene where Cruise is running out of the compound at the end ripping off the mask of the henchmen and the music turns up to MI theme and Scott realizes he has been duped. That moment, if Woo had been in charge, would have been echoed throughout the film. The energy and excitement that I had been waiting for was too late.
Let Woo be Woo. Send Cruise back to pilot school and don't have a movie filmed in Australia where it serves no purpose other than to allow Cruise to see Ms. Kidman on weekends.
Thanks for allowing me to rant Harry.
I am off to see Shanghi Noon - at least I hope I can count on Mr. Chan to take away this bad taste in my mouth. -
I think John Woo let it be known a couple of times that he wasn't happy. Know why? Doves. Yeah, okay, there was that very, I don't know, sentimental almost, shot of the dove flying thru the door right after Ethan blew it off the hinges, but did you see where the damn thing was before that? Standing in the middle of a group of pigeons, outclassing them all the way. Not sure if the dove would be Mr. Woo's alter ego or Cruise's, but neither would surprise me. He definitely seems to enjoy filming Tom Cruise, and considering how graceful it turns out the man is, I really don't mind. But I'd really love to see a John Woo film, produced solely by the Grand Master of Hong Kong producers (go look at what, half the Hong Kong epics we all know and love -- his name is on all of 'em) Terrence Chang, with a hired-gun actor, paid only to do what the director says, and willing to trust his director to make a movie, named Tom Cruise.
And Harry, you're right. The first half of that movie was maybe not quite execrable, but Lordy, it wasn't good. Any Hallmark After-School Special schmuck could have shot that. But it did feel like there was something missing, like John shot maybe a half-hour of really cool stuff that went in the crapper. I'm with you, man. A director's Cut of that sucker comes out, I'll be first in line to buy it.
Take it easy. -
good points Harry, but you can't have it both ways. You can't complain about being bored and still ask for more backstory? The above poster was right when he pointed out that IMF's assignment is enough motivation for Ethan. What kind of backstory does James Bond have? They introduced LITTLE bits of info over the course of the whole series. Still don't really feel I know Bond THAT well. How many Bond movies had a "this time it's personal" angle to it? Only a few. Bond would have had even less reservation about using a girl for bait than Ethan Hunt did; he's done it before. As for the unbelieveable attraction between Nya and Hunt, sorry that you've never seen sparks fly before Harry. It does happen. But I'll go one further and suggest that the motorcycle scene was the "courtship", but it a was portrayed as an animal kingdom courtship. Very well done. Two people who do dangerous work are going to be turned on by someone who is as daring as they are. So it's not too hard to believe. I thought the pre0credit sequence of the film (and the credit sequence, for that matter) was pretty weak and awkward, but after that I reall enjoyed it. Again, in terms of pacing, I don't want wall-to-wall action like some Michael Bay crap. I like a little intrigue. I like sneaking into buildings and hiding in the shadows. Harry, the main point here is that this film was much more successful than The World is Not Enough, which was coasting on so much previous Bond inertia it reminded me of the flailing Saturday Night Live. I would have much higher expectations on M:I 3 than the next Bond film.
-
A lot of earlier reports mentioned that there was a twist at the climax of MI2. Can somebody explain to me what this twist was ? The movie I watched last night had NO twists whatsoever.
-
A good movie can provide a character with a background and/or motivation without most people noticing. See:
Blade Runner (Deckard)
Blade
Three Kings
Conan 1
Mallrats
etc.etc.etc.
Adios -
I'd give it that extra .5 star more. I really enjoyed this film and I can't remember the last time that I actually felt my pulse race in a theatre. Plot, shmot. I study wars, economics and why nothing good will ever come out of anything that we do to make the world a better place. I need these movies to make me forget that for a while and to preserve me sanity..... and I love Tom Cruise. -
After the hot and mostly cold film that was Gladiator I can't believe that this film is shite as well..........
Oh well I guess the only hope now is High Fidelity, John Cusack will never let us down, well except for Pushing Tin which made me fall asleep.
By the way have any of you Yank boys seen Stir of Echoes???? -
I stopped hoping for any character development in ANY american action-productions for the last couple of years. There is a complete lack of heart in most of this films. I've lost all hope in John Woo to. I loved that special "Hard Target"-directors-cut-thingie, I love "A better Tomorrow", "Bullet in the Head", "Once a thief", "Hard boiled", "God of gamblers" and i completely worship "The Killer" and place it in my top-10 of all times. But since Mr.Woo moved to the states... ...he sucks. Or the power-suits above him sucks. One exception is "Face/off" which was one of the best films that year. I'm really tired of new action flicks. My hopes for upcoming movies stops at "hope they'll be a good laugh". Especially "gone in 60 seconds" looks like it gonna be the worst kind of crap I ever laughed at. I wonder why things are this way. Especially the endings are bad "stupid-test-audience-endings" that often are so predictable and dissapointing that they almost single-handedly destroys the movie. Ok, I'm gonna stop whining now, it's time to go home from work. I'm sorry I completely lost focus on MI2. Its nice to be bitter sometimes ;)
-
This movie was so terrible that I had to take a shower when I got home to get the dirty feeling out. I also had to read a book to make sure I didn't fry my brains watching that shit. Damn, that really, really sucked. Garbage dialogue, ridiculous action such as the motorcycle leap, and every cliche in the book equals the pile of shit that is M.I.2
-
my first thought is that people are reading to much into the movie, it is just a movie for pete's sake...you know, meant to entertain? this is going sound riduculous next to what i'm about to say. do you suppose that john woo saw the matrix and said "my god, that is what I have been trying to do all my life"? I think we are going to see a lot more movies like this, so get use to it. whether they have a plot or not. I was a little dissapointed that there was so much gun-play, Mission: Impossible has always been more intellegent than that, any shmoe can pick up a gun. but what would a john woo movie be without the doublefistedslomogunaction? this movie really appealed to me, i'm not quite sure why yet, i'll have to see it again. Sorry Harry, I don't agree with you on the 44% drop, I think women are going to love this movie. Tom Cruise and Thandy Newton have an intensity that I have never seen before with him, not even when he was acting with Nicole! maybe I'm reading too much into it.
-
is if Harry can acually go a whole review or report without referring to shit of any kind, or to the anatomy of himself, others and/or animals (ie. such as the classic flea infested donkey balls).
-
Harry, you shouldn't succumb to the riff raff of Talkback by responding to their single-minded rants. Your review should stand on its own. Articles like these give them more fuel for their fire. Let them do what they want to--the beauty of Talkback is that no one listens to each other, so what they say is irrelevent. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with your review (I've yet to see the film), but I respect it as a REVIEW, an OPINION. To everyone out there: What Harry says is not gospel, so don't scream at the top of your lungs the opposite and call him a moron. Reviews cannot be DISPROVEN, as they are OPINION. RESPECT THAT. Let's have a civil forum where movies can be discussed like adults and a comprehensive, free exchange of ideas (respectfully) can occur. I'll now get off my soapbox.
-
It surprises me how much the Woo fans are disapointed with his American films, yes they are problably tampered with, but if it was a problem for him why hasn't he gone back to his own country? Because his intent the whole time was to make American style films. Come on the gangster films are just are from a pulp standpoint, glorifying American films.
As far as too much plot in the film, come on people complained last time there was not enough plot. So the screenwriter put as much in as possible. -
Regardless of whether or not Mission:Impossible 2 is any good, the simple fact is you're the one who sang the praises of Godzilla!! Now every movie has fans -- that's a fact, so someone's gonna like movies that others don't (Siskel & Ebert for Speed 2, Joel Siegel for Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III, Steve Rhodes for Friday the 13th VIII, and those freak "critics" who enjoyed the likes of Body Shots, Idle Hands, and Big Daddy) -- but with you the positive "reviews" for the bad movies keep piling on and on and on, so what is all comes down to is why should anyone bother reading your reviews, regardless of positive or negative?
-
The most important information anyone could get from the MI:2 review and these supplemental comments is the realization that Harry is finally learning how to write. Now, IF he could JUST STOP putting every OTHER word in CAPITAL letters for no REASON, this website would take a SMALL leap toward the horizon of PROFESSIONALISM.
-
Plot/Character development are about as necessary in an Action film as they are in a porno film. In the industry they are called time-fillers, basically; When the director says, "Well, I don't have the budget left to blow anything up, so I guess we'll do 15 minutes on the girlfriend and her inner struggles." No need for that; these mind-numbing segments, or as Harry calls them "background", are useless and simply take away from the smooth rhythm any good director tries to develop. In this case that's what I liked about MI2: plane crash, virus, villain, car chase, explosion, fight, the end. Recipe for success in my book. What do I need know about the character motivations for? The bad guy is bad, works for me; Do I need to know anything more about Nenah Cherry, or whoever she is? No, I don't even need to know her real name. And nobody should need any background on Ethan Hunt either, it's a sequel. Let me ask you, Where any of the villains in any James Bond film properly developed? Where we told what happened to them in their formative years to make them all want to blow up the world? No, we weren't told, and if they spent time doing that it would only serve to make those movies suck even more. MI2 didn't mess around, and I give it credit for that. The only thing I didn't like was every time they did a close-up on that girl, we hear some acoustic classico guitar strumming as the camera moves in. Corny, however, it was done throughout so the movie gets points for consistency. Conclusion: None of the first hour of the movie dragged at all, it's purpose was not to introduce everybody like some wine and cheese social, it was artfully crafted to be like the water drifting away from the beach just before a tidal wave slams back in it's place. And another thing, Harry, no more references to your sack either; What's wrong with you?
-
You know, I should've listened to Harry. I read the local paper reviews of MI:2 and even the USAToday. They all loved the latest Woo-hoo flick and said it was better than the original. Harry's review called it 'mediocre'. I followed the media. BIG MISTAKE! I sat there the first hour wondering "What the hell does this have to do with Mission Impossible"? The movie then builds to an amazing action sequence. For that, I'll credit in favor of the film. But does that make a great flick? And what about continuity? When you make a sequel, you are somewhat at the mercy of the precedence that has been laid in the previous flick. So what happened to the Ethan Hunt in the first film? And where did he learn martial arts? And what the hell happened to his hair? What we end up with is a Hollywood fashion show with Tom Cruise on the Versace runway. At the end of the movie I could only breathe a sigh when this tired old dog was finally done.
In the future, when it comes to movie reviews, I'll remember that there will never be a bad Tom Cruise flick in the eyes of the media. He is their favorite son. Fortunately, Harry isn't in bed with the media. He's their pimp-daddy. -
Now that's the Harry of old coming out! WHOOHOOOO!
-
May 25, 2000 11:16:20 AM CDT
Are backgrounds extremely necessary if you already know the back
by el duderino
food for thought
-
I just wanna point out that I'm able to enjoy a movie without much of a plot or backgrounds. But on the other hand, just ten minutes of character development spread through the first half of a movie makes a HUGE difference to me. If it's used the right way to command the pace of the movie, making it slow down sometimes and add some kind of meaning to the action sequences, it's a must. Look at "A better tomorrow", what would it be without the background story and the moral dilemmas of the three major characters. Nothing! It would be one of those direct-to-vhs flicks that you wouldn't rent with a gun pointed at your head. I had my hopes for Mission Impossible 2 but this is horrible...
-
and I somewhat agree with Harry. The movie is cool. However, I liked the stuff that happened before the final chase sequence. I liked the espionage. And wow, I really wish women would just hop into bed with me that fast (Note to Chicks: if you like a guy, do him fast) and I liked the survalience(sp)and the fact that IMF doesn't know what's going on and needs to find out. BUT - it was PG-13. I hate middle america, I hate parents and I hate the MPAA. Talk about made for TV violence!!!! My lust for blood was not satisfied at all. Watching this movie is like looking at a hot chick at a party, and getting the nerve to approach her, you talk to her, she talks back, you have a drink with her, the music is on everyone is dancing, you hate to dance but you ask her to dance and she does, and the two of you are having a good time and she lets you grind her some and there you are rock hard and ready, she's shaking her butt up against you and then her beeper goes off, she makes a call and tells you she has to go because her boyfriend needs to talk to her. So there you are worked up, ready to go and she's nothing but a fucking tease - you had a good time, but would've been better had she had not deceived you. And that's what the M:I-2 poster does, there's TC, long hair, dressed in leather, bathed in fire with a bloody cut on his face - freaking hard core. But when you see the movie, it's mostly soft core.... like those pornos where you know what the people are doing, but you don't quite see anything....
-
While I agree with Harry that character motivation is necessary, I don't agree with his examples. There is such a thing as BAD or formulatic motivation. Notice how everybody had a girlfriend? I also think that you could have an ambiguous motivation if it's done right. Obviously, this movie didn't do it right and depends too much on the first one for its motivation for Hunt. I have little hope for this movie and if I go see it, it will only be to see if it's really as bad as y'all say it is.
-
I love action. Really enjoy blazing firearms, exploding glass bottles, feathers from destroyed pillows floating in the air, and the writhing of bullet riddled people. Yes, Woo has made some visually stunning fight scenes involving guns. But that is where Woo's skills end. Any Woo action not involving weaponry falls flat. Any request of Woo to add any subtle character exposition or themes is like asking an elephant to walk softly through a room filled with china. His idea of character: he plays the clarinet...he's a soft guy undernearth all the easy killing or he massages the faces off the poor people he loves. Blech! After sitting through Bullet in the Head, Hard Boiled, Face/Off, Hard Target, The Killer, a Better Tomorrow and Once a Thief I can safely say I have seen all Woo has to offer. Cool gun fights that grow stale and melodramatic tripe that he tries to pass off as story and character development. Blind girl helped by hitman who blinded her? I want to puke every time I think about how corny that set up is, then laugh when I consider how Woo tried to bring it to screen. Keep the white doves, the hokey religious overtones and constant slow-mo...I want something more and Woo NEVER delivers. MI:2 will not get a dollar of mine. God, I hope X-Men doesn't suck...I wasn't even looking forward to it before, but now it's my last hope for the summer.
-
Regarding the review that Harry read giving the movie 4 stars. I have seen reviews like this as well. Give it 4 stars and than spend a page addressing all the problems it has. How can they do that. I guess they don't understand what the ratings mean. I see the same thing when I see a play. Everything gets a standing ovation whether it deserves one or not. It's like they don't want to hurt the actors feelings. Anyway that said, I enjoyed the movie. I enjoyed the action. I think it's worth seeing and I agree the matinee is the way to do it. Or better yet if you have a dollar theater in your area. I will say this, this is not a movie I feel the need to see again unless they release a director's cut. Yes it is a case of style without substance but that's better than no style, no substance.
-
Woo says in Premiere he loved working with Tom Cruise and shooting him, finding him elegant in his movements, which is why he shot a lot of slow motion with him (He also says Chow Yun-Fat is great at any speed). He also said he found the Hunt character too cold, he wanted to beef up the emotion, the humanity of the character so naturally he was excited when he heard the second film involved a love triangle (too bad he didn't get what he thought he would). He said it was Tom who wanted Woo to tone down the violence for the sake of the rating (more "calm," he says.) He also says Towne's a great storyteller. He gave Tom and Robert ideas for the script and they accepted them, BUT "they own the script." Still, despite the nice things he says about MI:2 you can't help but think how much he liked Face/Off (and Cage and Travolta) and it's experience better, especially after seeing the film. Oh, well. By the way, when did Dr. Clayton Forrester join the IMF?
-
Hey, Harry, where's that promised review for this Memorial Day weekend alternative to M:I-2, Shanghai Noon?
-
Where can we read the grandmaster's views on Gladiator?
-
MI:2 ain't Woo's, it's Cruise's. Has anyone heard what Woo wants to do with Windtalker? He wants to make it like Bullet in the Head! NOT PG-13! So, MI:BLEW will be a smash, and Woo can do what he does best. I look at MI:2 as if Woo was directing a shampoo commercial. Total fluff that will allow him the control to do his next project HIS WAY. Woo will be vindicated.
-
I read your site everyday and find it the most cosistently entertaining site on the web. I have been following the MI2 talks and I haven't seen the film yet,but I trust you on tis Harry. I just had to comment on your second words. I truly LOVE the fact that you answered the negative comments with such precise and clear details. It is all about being understood and you are clearly heard. Thank you for starting my morning off great!
-
... everything you said in your review and this follow-up has been dead on, except one thing: SOME of the blame must lie with John Woo. I think the problem was that he was too busy making a JOHN WOO film and not a MISSION IMPOSSIBLE film. M:I is supposed to be filled with lots of high tech gadgets, intelligent plot twists, and smart action, not the brutal bone crushing that we see in M:I-2.
-
Somebody needs to hire de-programmers to kidnap Woo and get him back to Hong Kong. This movie SUCKED! What a horrible film that isnt worth the conversation. We should be talking about how to fix Woo. Hollywood is turning his work into a joke...hopefully this is all just a bad dream...diediedie!!!!!!!!!
-
I really wanted to love this movie. I was one of the few that really liked the first one, and thought that Woo would make this one great. Not quite. Tony Hopkins was an absolute waste. There wasnt the ending where Cruise should get another mission (should he choose to accept it). Cruise seemed more grungy than classy in this one and that really brought down the whole spy vs. spy element. Even Woo's action style seems weaker here than before (even face off was better). I know they stole the woo style and all, but I want the Wasckyskievski Bros to do MI:3!!!
-
Damn did this movie suck. Tom Cruise really loves image too much, and the whole movie had the feel of a bad student project I saw a couple of days ago. It doesn`t even begin to look like a John Woo movie, except for the last half hour. Harry`s review is dead on, so I will not repeat everything he wrote. And Tom Cruise definetly jumps too much when he fights...
-
Guess I'm one of the few folks who actually liked the movie. I wasn't expecting too much out of it, just some goofy action movie. I enjoyed the first hour for what it was, I enjoyed the last hour for what it was. It maybe that I was looking at in terms of a John Woo film as opposed to a Mission: Impossible film (even then, it's not as good as what I've seen of Woo's foreign stuff). By the way, has Woo's penchant for vehicular mayhem arisen solely in the states? I don't seem to recall any massive vehicular chases in his foreign work, at least none in as grand a scale. Anyways, laters. If this shadow has offended, think but this and all is mended... if you don't like this, there's always Shanghai Noon (which was great).
-
I really enjoyed this film (dispite it's major plotholes). It's not going to win any awards, but then again, it wasn't made for that purpose. It's nothing more then the typical summer movie. Fun, but it ends there. One thing that did bother me was the lack of Anthony Hopkins screen time. I mean, he's all over the trailers and if you blink you miss him. That just seems rediculus. Maybe I missed it, but I never even heard what his name was. He's just some guy who works at IMF. I didn't see him in the credits either - was he there??
-
Am i the only one who can see that John Woo is an idiot. Who in the world would want to hire him to make a movie. For some retarded reason Face off and Broken arrow were big hits. All the scenes in his movie are close ups and slow motions. His ass needs to go back to Hong Kong and stay there. If he doesnt use so much slow motion i doubt it his movies are gonna be more than 30 mins long. -
he is an OUTRAGE. stop him, don't buy any of his albums - if you liked his gladiator music buy HOlt 'The Planets', etc - just make sure this utter fraud gets no work. there are SOME talented musicians out there...
-
We all know how he and DePalma got along so well on the first MISSION IMPOSSIBLE and I have a feeling that Cruise exerted his star power to get what he wanted on screen in this too. DePalma made it clear how Cruise meddled in his film but Woo is too polite to say anything. Numerous delays weren't just due to weather but rampaging star ego. Cruise obviously wouldn't have done that with Kubrick in EYES WIDE SHUT but when he is producing as well as starring this gives him the opportunity to run roughshod over Woo. Just what I think anyway.
-
May 25, 2000 1:43:35 PM CDT
Bring me the head of Sam Peckinpah: or how Harry needs a lesson
by exone
Harry, when you commented on how it would be if the studios screwed ith Peckinpah you missed something. Sam Peckinpah was probably fucked around more by studios and producers than any other writer/director I can think of. But he ain't no saint. The man thrived on controversy and chaos. That was a key to his creativity. Animosity. That and about a quart of booze a day. There aren't any Peckinpah's left in this world. Nobody has the balls to stand up to the fucking MBA's like he did. He made some mesmerizing movies and he made some real shit bombs. But he didn't take guff from anybody no matter who cut the paychecks. Making movies for him was life, but that life involved constant and ongoing battles with anybody standing within his goddamn eyeline. As good as Woo is, he ain't no Peckinpah. Woo should have either thrown his weight around or backed the fuck off. It's not worth it. He can do better without that hassle. Just look at his filmography. MI:2 isn't going to do shit for his resume. If you want to know more about Peckinpah, you should watch the Mysteries & Scandals show I did on Sam Peckinpah recently. The man was large.
-
Let's get one thing straight... Hans Zimmer is no fraud.
He doesn't compose catchy themes a la Elfman. But on the otherhand, he doesn't mimic himself countless times or resort to plagiarism like that damn Horner. Zimmer is reliable, dependable and trusted because his music doesn't interfere with the film. In most cases his music strengthens the movie - emphasising the message or emotion on-screen. His contribution is usually integral to the film's success.
Several standout scores: Regarding Henry, Rain Man, A league of their own... But finally, and this is the cruncher, THE THIN RED LINE! Best score of 99.
All hail Hans Zimmer. Newly-declared ...GOD. -
Is there a bigger idiot out there than Tom Cruise who hired John Woo the slow motion obsessed idiot do do MI2. Didnt Tom Cruise see Hard Target or Face Off. They are just over exaggerated thrillers that dont even look good with alotof slow mo. Watchin MI2 was like one of those Van DAmme movies except Van damme fights better. The reason why John Woo was so popular in Hong Kong was cuz every1 else there sucked so bad and he just sucked a bit less. If Tom Cruise wante dto use a lotof slow motion scenes in his movie, why the hell did he not hire Michael Bay.
-
The chief gripe I had about the first MI is turning Jim Phelps into a bad guy. That''s what sucked for me.
Cruise has taken the MI franchise hostage. I like John Wood's style and I hope it works, but if it ain't got Jim Phelps, it ain't M.I. -
Shaft!
-
seen MI:2 (gosh even the title's
stupid!)...and it was truly full
of crap, and you can sense the
people's negative reaction in the
theatre. It looks a lot like Tom Cruise got jealous with Keanu Reeves's The Matrix. -
I am really proud of the advertising campaign that has been done for Chicken Run. I don't know if you've seen any posters, but you've probably seen the Mission Impossible Parody... It was hilarious. It's kinda amazing that they are actually drumming up some sort of INTEREST in a movie about clay chickens.
Don't get me wrong, I love claymation, and Nick Park's stuff is great. I will just be amazed if the creative team that has been bringing us such great ads, teasers, and trailers, manages to convince my mom -- a diehard cartoon-hater -- into seeing Chicken Run. -
I just got home from the theaters and I had a lot of fun. M:I-2 was one fo the best movies that I've seen in the theaters for a while. When Harry says that he needs a backstory for the characters, then why did he enjoy Pitch Black so much? They don't do any better of a job explaining the characters backstory than M:I-2 did. I loved M:I-2 and I am going to buy it as soon as it comes out on DVD.
-
Sure, it was too long(so was Gladiator), and Dougray Scott wasn't much of a villain(but at least this time the choice of villain didn't betray the old show), but come on, MI2 delivers what any open-minded viewer could want. The action is totally preposterous, but it is so in a good way(and shit, if Keanu Reeves can do karate and have everyone cream in their skivvies, then so can Cruise). And jesus h. christ, Thandie Newton is amazing. I just sat there in a daze whenever she was on screen, and lord knows she's a giant step up from the original's female lead. I do wish Ving Rhames had more to do than just sit at computer screens, and hopkins hasn't there enough either, but if anyone wants to say Gladiator(good film too) was SO much better than this, I want a drink out of your glass.You're drunk.
-
Harry's right, the film is full of holes, but if you go in to this with absolutely no good expectations after the Brian DePalma smorgasborg(maybe a typo) of crap in the first flick, one might actually enjoy it. The movie does seem like Woo was tampered with again in yet another big studio flick(they should leave the man alone).
-
Don't get me wrong, I love Woo, and some of the slo-mo was kewl, but overall, the movie would have been 15 minutes long witout it. And what is up with the single figure body count? If it ain't three figures, it ain't Woo. And where is the traditional stylized Woo two gun standoff? This movie could use Tom Servo. "He picks up drycleaning! Da da, DA DAAAA!!!
-
The score to this film was just awful, putrid shit. In fact, at times it almost seemed like a porno movie soundtrack. The music just added to the overall dishearening tone of the film. Granted, the Limp Bizkit song is pretty kickass, but why in a million years would Limp Bizkit be performing on a MISSION IMPOSSIBLE soundtrack anyways? It makes no sense at all.
I just cant believe that this film is in any way related to its 1996 predecessor. The two films had NOTHING in common. Hate it or love it, the first film was much more on track with what M:I is all about. Its not gun ballets and ridiculous kungfu sequences- its espionage, and whodunnits, and gum that explodes when pressed together. This should have been a continuation of the first film. I loved FACE/OFF, and i HATED HATED HATED SNAKE EYES, and MISSION TO MARS, but DePalma's M:I was a far cry better than Woo's. Good lord, not one thing had me in suspense in M:I-2. NOTHING. I knew from five minutes in how this film would end, and I'm glad Harry addressed the mask issue. Wasn't it convenient that Tom Cruise just happened to have an incredibally detailed mask of a hired gun he'd never seen before in his back pocket? Stupid, stupid, stupid. Some good action does not a good movie make. M:I-2 is in a way equivalent to Battlefield Earth. Like Travolta, Cruise used his power to have the movie filmed in a way that desperately tries to pawn him off as a big time badass. Unfortunately, 75% of the audience laughed at the look of odd twisted intenseness of Cruise's face as he performed the first of many slowmotion roundhouse kicks that defied logic. Utterly embarassing for the guy. Oh well, hopefully M:I3 attempts to redeem some of the qualities of the first film when it is inevitably sped into production sometime in the near future. Bring on THE PATRIOT!! -
"don't use crack; its a ghetto drug" -Bob Roberts
-
The trailer, which was, at first, met with enthusiasm, got booed in NEW YORK CITY, no less. This does *not* bode well for Paramount.
-
Great this film was, except for one major flaw: THERE WAS NO CHARACTER/CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT AT ALL. Imagine if this had been true in THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK because "we know Luke from the first one." Yeah Yeah, Tom Cruise is cool, the action sequences are neat, maybe even fun to watch, but ultimately, who cares?
-
It's not Face/Off, it's not Hard-Boiled, but it's entertaining enough to keep your palms sweating and the popcorn down.
-
Seriously.
-
You want motivation. What about a tight twat, that's motivation. The only reason Hunt cared about Newton's character was because she was good in bed. And the reason Hunt took the assignment was because his boss told him too. Jesus, if Harry had ever been fucked before he would know that a pair of brests and a tight pussy are enough motivation to kill double handed style.
-
Let me first say, I had low low expectations of this movie before hand. MI 2 exceeded in going much lower than my low expectations. A complete mess. I found nothing redeeming about this movie, nothing. It was a torcherous 2 hours. Boring. The action was awful. I dont care if it is his "style". It was boring. There was not one moment of excitment in this movie for me. It was a confused, messy piece of shit. Why did Cruise treat Hopkins with such disrespect in the begining? Like Slim said, no character dev. But nothing in this movie made up for that lack. the music was awful, both Hanz and the soundtrack. Pure Crapulence. And Yes, Gladiator was a far far more superior movie in every aspect. HAIL MAXIMUS!
-
May 25, 2000 4:12:33 PM CDT
i pretty much agree with harry, but i think i liked the movie a
by johnmurdoch
well harry i agree with you in most respects about the movie. Not enough character development, or none at all, no motives for anything, and a really slow first 1/3-1/2. but once you get past that little hump in the beginning which isnt god awful bad, just really meanders and doesnt do anything. it sets up the story sure but that coulda been done in 20 minutes not an hour. also, anthony hopkins' entire role is in the trailer. he was so underused its not funny. i know it was only a cameo but come the fuck on he was in the movie for a second. i think there has got to be some great stuff on the cutting room floor because it just felt like there was something missing. not the action or anything, which was also cut a little, but i mean stuff that the studio saw as trite and meaningless but was probably the character development we all wanted to see. i think the first hour could have been sped up with just one more quick action sequence to whet your tastes a little. overall, i think that tom cruise did a great job as well did thandie newton who is so fuckable its not funny, and dougray scott did good i guess but his role really didnt call for much. at least from what we saw. and what the fuck was ving rhames doing there??????? if not for comic relief, why bring the funny guy from the first movie back?? oh well, the last hour kicks major booty and this movie was a lot better than the last bond movie. after you see this though, go see gladiator again. thats where i am, goin now. this will be number 3 for me. good job harry and go(o)d speed (a little THE ROCK reference)
-
May 25, 2000 4:13:26 PM CDT
i pretty much agree with harry, but i think i liked the movie a
by johnmurdoch
well harry i agree with you in most respects about the movie. Not enough character development, or none at all, no motives for anything, and a really slow first 1/3-1/2. but once you get past that little hump in the beginning which isnt god awful bad, just really meanders and doesnt do anything. it sets up the story sure but that coulda been done in 20 minutes not an hour. also, anthony hopkins' entire role is in the trailer. he was so underused its not funny. i know it was only a cameo but come the fuck on he was in the movie for a second. i think there has got to be some great stuff on the cutting room floor because it just felt like there was something missing. not the action or anything, which was also cut a little, but i mean stuff that the studio saw as trite and meaningless but was probably the character development we all wanted to see. i think the first hour could have been sped up with just one more quick action sequence to whet your tastes a little. overall, i think that tom cruise did a great job as well did thandie newton who is so fuckable its not funny, and dougray scott did good i guess but his role really didnt call for much. at least from what we saw. and what the fuck was ving rhames doing there??????? if not for comic relief, why bring the funny guy from the first movie back?? oh well, the last hour kicks major booty and this movie was a lot better than the last bond movie. after you see this though, go see gladiator again. thats where i am, goin now. this will be number 3 for me. good job harry and go(o)d speed (a little THE ROCK reference)
-
May 25, 2000 4:16:37 PM CDT
MOST OF THESE REVIEWS FLOW OVER WITH THE PREDICTABLE BAGGAGE
by tyler_durden74
That's right. BAGGAGE. Replace Tom Cruise with Chow Yun Fat. Replace "AMERICAN SUMMER BLOCKBUSTER" with "HONG KONG ACTION CULT FLICK THAT ONLY YOU AND A FEW SWEATY DORKS THAT WORK AT THE COMIC BOOK STORE IN THE STRIP MALL KNOW ABOUT" and replace "2000" with "1992" and you fanboys would be cream your pants over this film. But unfortunately all these TBs are becoming far too predictable. THE MATRIX!!!!????!!!!! YOU HAVE GOT TO BE FUCKING KIDDING. The Matrix starts out promising: interesting, original story. And then degenerates into some 14 year-old boys study hall daydream. And you fuckers bought it. Characters that looked, dressed and acted like some 45-year old advertising executive's idea of HIP and GEN-X. Interesting effects, but a bunch of meaningless action. The idea that Ethan Hunt never had enough back story to merit his KUNG-FU moves, and this is HARD TO BELIEVE!?! About as hard to believe that the helicopter that blasts out an entire floor of an office building in MATRIX somehow manages to avoid each and every principle hero on that floor. No wait, maybe it's not THAT hard to believe. Jeezus! For the record: yes, I do enjoy "Film." I went to MI:2 last night expecting more FUN than FILM, and I got waaaay more of each than I expected. It's just such an easy target, guys. I mean c'mon. You can't judge every film from a different set of standards. And yes, I did enjoy MATRIX (at least until it became like watching someone else play a PS fighting game for an hour in the 2nd half) This emperor's new clothes crap is beneath the people who author this site, and it should be beneath the people who patronize it. Thanks.
-
Harry, I agree with most of your comments. But "The Rock" was a brainless film, and I didn't buy the character development at all! Stealing those chemical weapons was just an excuse to bring in a "chemical weapons expert," (Nic Cage). Like a nuclear warhead wouldn't have killed everyone in SF just as well! And Ed Harris talking to a tomb stone to fill us in on his past is unforgivable. Why would a man of his cause threaten an innocent population of a city? (even if he didn't do it in the end, it's still a ridiculous idea.) Believably, he might kidnap some army personnel, threaten them, and demand ransom, but we're in Michael Bay's universe, where nothing credible happens.
-
I've always admired the sincerity and passion with which you view movies. See, I value your opinion, but I can't understand how you can be so fond of a movie like Starship Troopers (ugh) but feel this way about MI2.
As I read this review, I wonder if you saw the same film that I did . . . I sat through this movie and frankly if they would have included all of that background information you feel is necesary, I owuld have been bored out of my mind. At no point, did I want to to know past relationships; simple explanations were given and we didn't need long, drawn out scene about each of the characters past. Dougray Scott left IMF for $30 million - enough said, how could you miss this? He goes bad for money. Thandie Newton is probaly a thief because she can make a lot of money stealing things, she can still have a record with the law for being a thief even though she has not been caught, and although she steals she can still be morally opposed to other rotten things like killing millions with a virus. Ethan's two additonal agents provide plenty of support for him, did you not see the part where they blow a car off the bridge and provide cover for his escape? Did the movements of the bad guys take place without IMF's knowledge? If I recall, they plant Thandie in with the bad guys with a transmitter and they can watch from satellite. Yes, they can call in marines, but isn't IMF super secret? Isn't it more suspenseful that way?
The mask thing - yes, a convenient plot point, but not as absurd as the plot conventions in movies such as The Rock, Independance Day, and Amrmageddon. You ask if there was bond between anyone in this movie - WHAT? Did you miss the entire love story between Ethan and Thandie shot in all its melodramatic glory? How much more of bond do you want? This was the focus; I could care less about Ethan's relationship to the bad guy; he is the bad guy trying to kill millions and must be stopped. Simple enough. And so the film is PG-13, the action scenes weren't as good? Is blood what makes an action scene good? The action in this movie is unbelievable and if anything it shows that intense, beautifully choreographed fights can be done in a PG-13 movie. They were certainly just as exciting as the scenes in the Matrix. Incidentally, I read an interview with Woo, he said the studio left him alone and it was the intention from the beginning to make a PG-13 film.
He was happy with the film. Rumours of conflict were just that - rumours. Honestly, Harry, I though the movie moved well, (but I'm a sucker for a melodramatic love story). We see a character ready to jeopardize the entire world for the women he loves, but duty always calls. Isn't that characterization enough? The notion that ID4 and The Rock have characterization borders on preposterous. I wanted everyone to die in ID4. Everyone. Was the first hour really that bad? The scene where Ethan and Thandie's first see each other was beautifully shot and edited, and the love story was developed, with emotion I haven't seen since Titanic, as the virus plot unfolded in the backgound. The fact that Ethan has someone to love and care about is shown a hundred times stronger than any of the superficial characterization in The Rock or ID4. MI2 was very good movie and I hope your second viewing softens your view of it . . . -
If it ain't Mission: Impossible without Jim Phelps, what the hell do you call the first season of the show??????
-
I have not had time to read through all the talkbacs but heres my two cents. I agree with Harry and GLADIATOR was a hundred times better than MI2. That is all. Now I must go to work and shake my head in pity as I watch countless people stroll in and out of three not so good movies:MI2, DINOSAUR, and BATTLE FIELD EARTH. Oh and if anybody thought Dinosaur was good, it was good when it was called THE LAND BEFORE TIME.
-
The more we line up to see the sludge that these marketing boys call a "summer movie", the more they will serve it up hot. Apparently scripts these days are created by taking marketing data from focus groups and plugging it into a formula. The point of MI:2 was supposed to be pure entertainment. It bored the hell out of me *yawn*. If you're going to make a summer movie, at least make it entertaining, instead of of sugar-coating a piece of shit and calling it candy.
-
Ok, the reason i didn't like this movie is the fact that the first thing a remake should do is make sure it follows what the original did. Mission: Impossible is about spies, espionage, and double-crosses: not action. And there's not a lot in this new installment, at least not a lot of good action. What John Woo is known for his "operatic action ballets." Please. When i saw Cruise run at the one guard and do a backflip-kick thing, i burst out laughing at the stunt. When did Ethan Hunt learn to do that. I don't recall Castor Troy or Sean Archer do that in Face/Off. Sure there was a few cool flips, especially in the chrurch scene. But nothing so off the wall as what Woo gives us here. By the time that Cruise kicked the gun to himself to end the movie i was pleased to here the crowd all say "yah right" and then some chuckles. At least i wasn't the only one who thought this was getting comical. And that's exactly what it turned out in the end, comical. Although, i did like the motorcycle chase a bit, up until Cruise skated on the road to the side of the bike, i prefer the cycle chase in "Tommorrow Never Dies" to the one here. And the infiltration scene simialar to the Noc List theft in the first M:I started nicely and Woo screwed it up again by botching the mission and ending it in a firefight. I'm still waiting for a true spy film, Bond has turned action, M:I has turned action, and that pile of shit Ronin was just retarded. I don't think Hollywood is capable of making a good spy film. Especially not John Woo. Multiply M:I 2 by about 7 and you'll get something that Woo should be proud of, his most recent action masterpiece (and by judging the Replacement Killers, and this one maybe his last), Face/Off.
-
John Woo caught the world's attention with his amazing shootouts. But it was more than the slo-mo, two-gun, choreographed ballet style, A John Woo shootout was amazing because we cared about the people involved, and because Woo had the balls to kill off any character at any time no matter how cool he or she was for no reason other than to add some true fear in any given shootout.
The PG-13 Shootouts felt like your favorite spicy dish made bland. It's still kung pao chicken, just less pepper. But the script lacked the emotional resonance to make you hungry for it, spicy or not. It's a big summer movie, no one's going to die. (Unlike MI1 which killed off 3/4's of the cast in the first five minutes).
The "Last 30 minutes" everyone keeps praising left me empty. It was technically brilliant, but I felt no fear or tension. My favorite part was the shootout in the lab after Nya (PLOT SPOILER) injected herself. He saves her - but only for a second before she realizes he cannot escape without leaving her. They try to comfort each other while the world is being shot apart around them. We don't even hear the gunfire. It's secondary to the moment between these characters. Indeed, it makes their moment that much more precious and poingant. This is Vintage Woo. And then the moment was gone.
Woo has been directing here in hollywood since 1993, but he hasn't directed Chow Yun Fat or one of his own screenplays here yet. I'll be first in line when that happens. -
I enjoyed this movie thoroughly despite the slow beginning. The Wooisms were what I came to see, and I got what I paid for. But Harry, you are wrong about Chow Yun-Fat in "Hard-Boiled" as the clarinet player. That was a weak attempt to make the character a fun guy. Do I care that Yun-Fat's character plays jazz? No. Did it show me anything about his character? No, other than the fact that he loves to drink and blow into a tube. But, do I care that Yun-Fat kicks ass with thousands of bullets? Abso-fuckin-lutely! Watch Woo films for what they are: Displays of balletic violence. Shakespeare, it ain't.
-
I's gotta talk. My friends and I are teen, Woo obsessed messes. At 12, I saw The Killer. Then about a year later, I let my friends borrow my Woo collection. They thoroughly freaked out, lemme tell ya. My one friend seems to have made a shrine to Woo, but that's another story. See, I found out a year ago Woo was directing MI2, and alerted the fellows it could rock. After their Woo entrance, they agreed. In the last week, we realized the day was nearing. This was bigger than Phantom Menace for us, our first Woo film. We loaded into the theater, all eyes glowing at the point "A film by John Woo" was on the screen. And that burning Christ thing, well, that was Woo-ie. And we sat in awe. Granted, the next 30 minutes were slow, but we kept on going, and when those guns came out, lemme tell you, jaws dropped. Just knowing we had finally seen a Woo film on the big screen was enough. We sorta pictured Cruise as just a John Woo hero for a sec, no different from Mark Gor or Tequila Yuen. We left the theater breathless. Sure, ranting occasionally about it's stupid parts, but it didn't matter. We were new members of the high church of Woo. Even if it was minor Woo. But, I'll just say this, that I'd rather watch minor Woo than the Matrix. Just cause of the upbringing. Now my story is told. Thank you.
-
Hey why is everyone ripping this movie to shreds? I thought it was a fantastic flick! Sure the begging was a little slow, but the last 45 minutes more than made up for that!!!! Jeez its a summer action flick! What do you guys want?!? My buddy and I, along with our chicks had a great time. From the audience reaction it sounded like everyone was having a great time watching Ethan Hunt make James Bond look like a pansy. Sure the fight scenes along with the motorcycle chase are unrealisitic but who cares!! I thought the effects were straight up incredible! Gladiator, The Patriot, and M:I 2 will be the champs at the box-office this summer. X-men will have a strong opening weekend and than it will disapear off the face of the earth. I thought the trailor was one of the most boring things I've ever seen.
-
Rant:
Im so sick and tired of the excuses so many purport of how the big bad evil studio "ruined" the movie. This incessant fanboy ideal that all directors are these visionaries of pure art whom are enslaved to the evil dominating corporation. Guess what. You play the game, you live with it. No one forces a director to take a job. They arent enslaved. Put yourself into the shoes of the studio, or any investor for that manner. The director is the HIRED help whose job is to put the movie together, as envisioned by the producers. Thats his job. Should the producers want the director to change it up, its completely up to them. Its not about the directors "vision". If the director isnt clear about this, then they shouldnt accept the job. A studio who FUNDS the movie, has every right to dictate changes to the director, its their buck. There have been numerous cases of a studio forcing a certain cut against the will of the director, which IMO made for a much better movie. Look at Terminator 2, have you seen the ending where they show Connor becoming a senator?
Anyhow if you want Pure art, read a book, *usually* in that medium, its relatively unhindered by the writer/editor combination.
I dont believe in this inherent genius so many see in woo, the fact is he has had many movies and they just dont hold up for me. If ballet is slow mo shots of lots of guns shooting and shell casings flying to the floor so be it. His work from HK is good, but way overhyped. MI:2 was a disappointment. Too many glaring plot holes already pointed out by others. I really liked the original, despite the very ending action sequence. This seemed like the love child of face off and goldeneye. Also, since when is showing dove's flying in ridiculously out of place locations considered "artistic". Its just silly.
-
Zimmers work on Gladiator was the one weak spot for me. As far as borrowing themes? Soundtrack for Gladiator = Wagner: Siegfrieds Funeral March / Holst : Mars (I mean cmon, its just SO blatant) /
Pendericki : symphony #3 (also incredibly blatant). Why not just use the ORIGINAL pieces? They Sound Much better, and buying the rights to use a recording of them is probably less costly then hiring an entire orchestra and Zimmer. I bet ridley scott sat down with zimmer and said i want this piece, this piece, and this in the movie. -
you're lookin too much into this movie
you are a total freak
just pay 5.25 for the movie and enjoy it
you only got one life to live
you gotta sit at your st00pid computer and type away for an hour about how bad it is?
it was entertaining and fun.
leave it at that.
gimme a break
OMG
-
Remember the complexity of the first M:I? The party, with all the team members doing something significant: where was that here? When did Ethan Hunt learn karate? There was a lot less brains, and a lot more guns. Now I love Woo films, but he simply didn't have enough to work with. The action felt forced. It's a Woo movie, and you want action, but M:I is more of a thinking movie than a shoot-em up - not here, however. I swear though, it would have been perfect if during that motorcycle scene a rain of frogs would have started. Damn happy endings and conventions. BTW ... I did like some of the Woo action, so it wasn't as bad as "Supernova" - shudder.
-
May 25, 2000 8:49:55 PM CDT
I wholeheartedly agree. This is one of Harry's best reviews.
by lenny nero
You address the issue at hand and discuss it stating your point, not willing to budge, citing informative aspects from other movies (although I'm not that big of a fan of THE ROCK). This is how your reviews should be. However, I must reiterate. Not giving a second chance to BELOVED? That's just not fair. Now, I saw BELOVED, and I saw I DREAMED OF AFRICA. One is an influential film about culture and second chances. The other is a piece of shit. Guess which one's which? BELOVED is an incredible movie! Now, I can see why you'd hate it, but not that much. That movie deserves a second chance to be completely enjoyed and understood. Was your hatred of it due to the fact that it was Jonathan Demme and you were expecting something else, something more? Tough! I see movies w/out thinking too highly of anything before I see it, which is a deadly thing. Thandie Newton, although seemingly a horrible actress in it, works perfectly (have you even read the book?). Oprah is the bad feature, I confess, but it is a very important film of the 90s. Not in my top 10, top 20, oh no. But it's important. Please, I beg you, see BELOVED with an OPEN MIND, before I travel halfway across the country to Austin, tie you up, clamp open your eyes a la Clockwork Orange, and force you to watch it and enjoy it. You have a right to your opinion, but this is something I cannot let happen, especially not with a super film geek like you.
-
I like John Woo's products when he has control of the reins.
This was a bollywood film with flashes of Woo. I do not need the US film industry making this type of movie.
Obviously Mr Cruise & Ms Wagner thought they could produce a vacuous "Matrix"-style film set in the present. I hared it.
Do screenwriters today think the public are stupid? Obvious, simplistic plots makes me think they do pitch to below the common denominator.
This, like the last film, is an insult to the drama and intrigue contained in the tv series.
-
Thats what MI2 was. I'm sorry Harry but Woo shot his wad with the Killer and has continued to make the same movie over and over again. The last 45min of the movie was the worst part of the movie, I almost walked out when I saw the 3rd fucking dove scene! Woo is so damn text-book in his scenes (Cruise on a bike - Bad guy on a bike) Retarded. It's movie's like this (On the Renny Harlin level) that keep giving Action movies a bad name.
Oh and Harry, character development. Uh lets see I put on glasses, Hopkins gives me a job to get girl, I go get girl, I fuck girl, then put my team together for said mission. Makes sense to me.
Lastly, Fuck all the creative shit, just make a good movie. Why is that so hard for Hollywood to figure out.
-Jamie -
Did anyone else notice the blatant rip off of Two Step every time Nyah appeared on screen? It really messed with my head every time I heard the guitar start up.
-
It is about time that some one saw the same movie I did. You truly are THE MAN.
-
I enjoyed Mission Impossible II. There. I didn't see any need for boring back story. This is Mission Impossible. I don't need to see Ethan Hunt's geneaology traced back a dozen generations. I need to see him almost die a few dozen times. Plot holes? You bet. More than have been mentioned. Why is this flu not communicable? Ethan Hunt's fighting skills and motorcyle daredevilry are not plot holes. He's a secret agent dude. Everybody knows that secret agent dudes are trained to do just about everything. He can probably fly planes, speak at least two other languages, draw/paint reasonably well, sew, and a hundred other things that I don't want to watch him being trained to do. He can probably take a wad of gum, a cotton swab, and a match and build you a space station. As a secret agent, however, he does not have Hollywood sensitivities about killing people who are trying to murder an entire contintent... even a little continent. Ethan Hunt would kill the bad guy. He would not throw the knife in the sand, but through the villain's heart. He would not turn his back on the vaguely unconcious villain without popping a cap between his eyes and making sure he was dead. "You should have killed me, Hunt." Ya think? And then the gun he needs is at his feet? And he kicks it up before the villain can fire? Is this villain a trained renegade agent or what? Did he take HeroKilling 101 from Dr. Evil? We go to slow mo to make us ignore it. And, yes, the first one was better. More intelligent plot (I found it very easy to follow. Everyone complained that it was too difficult to follow and then they whine that Hollywood caters to idiots). No one complained that the rotor blade at Ethan's throat was sharpened to a steel point. Helicopter rotors are, of course, not made of solid steel, but are sandwiched fibreglass honeycomb. The first swipe would have shattered it. That's Hollywood for you. The style and tone of the first was beautiful. The style and tone of this one was raw. And I liked both. I can watch the first one at home whenever I want. I hoped for something different. I wanted more intrigue, but oh well. In spite of all these shortcomings, I enjoyed the film because I got what I payed for. When I left the theatre and walked out to my car, I was jacked up, adrenalized, and ready to hunt down the bad guys. I felt great. I got my fix. I'm a 33 year old writer/artist and MI 2 gave me the same parking lot high that I got from Superman and James Bond years and years ago. If the plot had been flawless and the story had been everything I wanted, I would be high still. A better screenplay would have solved my complaints. I could say it is a shame to see Cruise and Woo so much at the peak of their action/adventure powers... spend all that money... risk life and limb for perfect shots... and have the final product be flawed. I could say that if I'd written it (isn't that what we all think would have saved any movie we were disappointed with?) the thing would have soared and become the first sequel in the genre to sweep the Oscars. It wasn't perfect. I had a good time. It was FUN! And that's why I went. I've seen most of Tom Cruise's work and I have never felt the slightest urge to ask him for a refund. Can't wait for his next movie.
-
Well, where do I start....aside from Tom Cruise's long hair and that Scooby Doo shit they pulled with the different masks and stuff, there was WAY TOO MUCH SLOW-MOTION and this wasn't a Mission: Impossible movie. It was more like a "Tom Cruise Shooting Movie." The first one was suspenseful, and this one was just a near-parody of the kind of films that John Woo has made since coming to the U.S. The plot is wack, the actors are okay, but the acting was stupid, too. Too many dumb lines and plot devices does not make a cool ending. Yeah, the motorcycle stuff was all right, but how many times did they have to do the slow-motion crap during the final fight? And there was this crappy music being played when that chick was supposed to kill herself, which doesn't make sense, because I thought she was in the city. What'd she do, walk to the damn cliff? It's like 50 miles from there. Anyway, that's all I got to say about that. E-mail me at amcdave@aol.com if ya wanna chat up this crap.
-
I just saw Mission Impossible 2, and after reading all the reviewers saying it pretty well blew, it was suprisingly good. It seems like everybody (and by everybody I mean Harry) thinks this should be some huge epic work of art, not to mention John Woo's greatest movie ever, when it wasn't meant to be either. The MI movies both seemed to be ripoffs of the James Bond movies, except both Mission movies were better than any recent Bond flick. As for the John Woo business, I kind of agree with Harry. It seemed like a watered down taste of his other work. It's like punk rock. The message gets watered down when you sell 1 million records. As for Harry's first review, it's wrong to pick apart every single aspect of a SUMMER ACTION MOVIE, which certainly aren't bastions of believability. I didn't expect MI2 to touch my soul, just entertain. And it did a much better job of than anyone gives it credit for.
-
can someone answer how luther can get ethan hunt into the soundproof, motion proof, fart proof, everything proof room in the first mission impossible so he can steal the noc list yet "not even he can" get around the alarm at a pharmecutical company?? anyone? well then and what ever happened to the I.M.F. TTTTEEEEAAAAAMMMMMM it was a TEAM not a man it wasnt mission:ethanhunt. there was a team its not james bond. but that last hour kicks major ass and i love john woo. but was a majorly flawed movie that turned out of an incredibly promising movie. well thats all for me
-
May 26, 2000 12:19:20 AM CDT
*hmmm* Could the audience you saw it with have any bearing on yo
by flickchick
I'm just wondering, because I know it does for me... Let me break it down for ya'...*ahem* I saw The Matrix three times in the theatre...The first time I saw it on opening night, in a packed theater with an enthusiastic audience...The movie had my adrenalin pumping so much...I wlaked out of the theater a little shaky, like I just got off a roller coaster. Then I saw it the next day, at an early show... Couldn't be more than fifty, bored looking people in there...That time the movie, was boring...I fell asleep, during the first part. I haven't seen this film yet, but I have a feeling, that when I do (this weekend), my reaction will depend on the audiences enthusiasm....
-
This film was a misguided "vanity-pic" for Tom Cruise. This film was the perfect James Bond movie...So it is THE WORST Mission: Impossible movie! Where's the team? Who knows? Mr.Cruise doesn't want to be upstaged, I guess. Not too hard...Of course that's just my opinion
-
Look man, this movie has nothing to do with the original. It was awful. It was a very cheezy plot, there was no real spy work, they turned Ethan into a God damn ninja!?! To me it was like watching another James Bond movie. Everything, including the silly car ride at the begining and ending with the stupidest motorcycle ride ever. Come on man, when I saw the main bad guy on a motorcycle all of the sudden, that about made me leave the damned movie. Harry, you say you liked the ending? The ending was just Face off all over again. There was 45 minutes wasted on one fight. Those could of been valuable plot minutes. I was cringing in my seat five minutes into the "Big Fight". Horrible, hey it makes for a good summer movie, but please God, someone take off the Mission Impossibe name. Eat shit Mr. Woo, you fucked over a great movie!!!!
-
May 26, 2000 1:08:57 AM CDT
If u think shit is typical of John Woo, why did you go see it??
by wesley snipes
What's with these whiners who say they just *knew* John Woo would screw it up, yet see his film anyway and complain at how disappointed they were!? Why didn't you stay the fuck away then? It's a given that John Woo's visual touches will show through in any film that he directs. If you have such a problem with his work, why not just ignore the film? It's just stupid to complain about something you willingly and knowingly went to get. Oh well, at least you guys are still one step ahead of Eternal's idiotic and uninformed rantings.
-
the dave matthew's band rip off was annoying as hell! just glad some one else noticed it. overall the movie was well, mostly crap. gladiator has been over rated and don't get me started on battle field earth. is it july 14th yet cause i need X-MEN in the worst way right about now. Harry, i agree with most of your review but next time don't compare bad movies to even worse movies (i.e. any thing made by bruckheimer) as for id4 take the fist hour of that movie and the last hour of mi:2 and you have a good action movie. cause lord knows the last hour of that movie was even worse then the first hour of this one! if there is an mi:3, consider me MIA!
-
I believe it was the Samurai that could suck their balls up into their body, not the Sumo. But just so I won't sound like a total know-it-all, I'll admit that I was also one of the many that believed that heli blades were made of steel, and not sandwiched honeycomb fiberglass. Also, I'll tell you what's really wrong with the M:I movies... It wasn't the direction at all, it was the screenplay. Just like a bad foundation, if it has faults, then it doesn't matter how pretty the mansion is that is built on top of it. You're still going to end up with a bad final product. Here's what they should've done with M:I. They should have cultivated Mission: Impossible's core appeal: espionage and special ops. I'm talking about infra red/night-vision goggles, silenced weapons, free-repelling, specialist TEAM members, weapons experts, electronics experts hacking into security systems, field men that blend with the shadows and take a man out with their bare hands in a fraction of a second and leave no trace. Lots of awesome gadgets, and I don't mean some lame scooby-doo pull-off mask. Stunts and motorcycles are cool, too, but at least make it a spy movie. And for character depth and motivation, they should have brought in Scorsesi. He's the king of creating deep, interesting, believable, interesting, understandable, and INTERESTING characters. You think he couldn't do an action film? I'm convinced he could do anything, when given the challenge. **** And to ziranova, daytime price for a movie in Austin is still under $5. The Metropolitan charged me about $3.70 for Gladiator on opening day.
-
its his emotion and his mouth that makes woo's movie works.
-
...and "The Matrix" is a good example for me too. I caught it opening night on a whim, expecting very little other than some F/X I hoped might one day be developed for a good superhero flick. Keanu's presence lowered my expectations still more. And then...the lights went down, the theater cranked up the sound, the audience went apeshit for the movie, and I left thinking that when "Phantom Menace" came out, it'd have a hard time topping what I'd just seen. Now I freely admit "The Matrix" is no masterpiece, just a fun sci-fi/kung-fu hybrid with some nifty plot hooks, but audience enthusiasm really boosted my enjoyment of it. Now my enthusiasm didn't dwindle so much on subsequent viewings, like FlickChick's did, but I recognize that the audience had a lot to do with how much I liked it in the first place. For the record, though, my best audience experience was seeing "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly" for the first time when it was showing at a revival theater a few years ago. The audience was pumped, the laughs and the applause came in all the right places, and oh yeah, the movie itself is the manliest asskicking epic I've ever seen. That was a good time. Now what were we talking about? Oh yeah, "Mission: Impossible 2". Yeah, I'll give it a shot this weekend, take one more chance on Woo's Americanized style. Getting a good audience is always a gamble, but here's hopin'...
-
Check out Johnny To's recent output in HK. Really cool stuff. 1999/2000 has been a banner year for HK flicks.
Anybody know if the uncut Bullet In The Head will see the light of day? -
May 26, 2000 8:41:03 AM CDT
Mission,,,whats a word for sucks that rhymes with impossible?
by zaphods2ndhead
Oh I wished I had of listened to you Harry. Last night I paid full price to see this steaming pile (obligitory fecal referance, and the last one I promise). You know what? I enjoyed myself. We gave it the full MST 3K treatment and it was richly deserved. When are they going to learn that if you are going to spend 100 million on a picture then big stars, big effects (mediocre actually) and long fight scenes just don't cut it? Story people! Plot! Character development! Dialogue! Make me care! This was a vanity piece pure and simple, a "oh I see Tom Cruise hasn't lost it after all" piece. How about those plot holes? Did they think we wouldn't notice? Quick question- if the girl (sorry, Thandie Newton, best thing about the movie) was going to be a Typhoid Mary, and she was walking around Sidney spreading the virus, and they only had one shot of antivirus, didn't they doom Australia by giving it to her? I might have missed something but who really cares? I also am not a John Woo fan. I mean I get really tired of all those inappropriate slow motion scenes, the religous references that do nothing to further what passes for a plot, the cable assisted jump kicks, mass gunfire, and I just about fell asleep during that never ending climactic fight scene. The best thing about it was the audience was laughing out loud at the scene. The horror, the horror.
-
it's funny, reading reviews for all the action gun movies in the past 2-3 years or so, how they are compared using John Woo's techniques and styles (for example, MATRIX) and these directors do the movie right and make it look good...while the master himself John Woo does NOT make a John Woo film. what's going on here?
-
Saw MI:2 last night and all I've got to say is....(imagine a shrug of the shoulders here). Not really committed one way or the other. I think it was pretty fun for a movie with VERY two dimensional characters, but come on what are people expecting after the first one.
The one thing I did notice was the everyone involved with the X-men should be hugging anyone involved with this movie. Dougray Scott would have been HORRIBLE as Wolverine! I was laughing at him through most of this movie. The only time his character was even a little menacing was when (SPOILER)he was played by Tom Cruise (END SPOILER). Now I don't know if Jackman will be any better, but I seriously doubt he could be any worse. -
Why is this thread so long? What's to argue about? The facts are plain:
John Woo sucks ass.
MI:2 sucks ass.
People who are entertained by John Woo flicks are simple minded, easily entertained idiots less capable of self-awareness than chimps.
End of story.
Get over it and move on! -
I think the big reason that the story is so weak is that after all the hubbub about how confusing the last film was from the critics, they figured they needed to dumb it down for the summer movie going people.The first MI was exactly what MI should be, suspense, twists and turns in plots, no over use of "gadgets". The thinking mans Bond. John Woo, as great a director as he is, could NOT direct this kind of movie. However, with this script, Woo is a master. Just as you are watching and thinking that you have seen all of his tricks, he comes up with something new. All in all, this is a great summer movie, not a great movie like the first! And for Harry's comment about the second week box office, usually it requires a big film to draw the audiences away, to offer them a better choice than MI2. And which film next week will do that Harry, BIG MOMMAS HOUSE? I don't think so!! MI2 will be one of the top 3 movies of the year!!
-
... who make talkback as pathetic as it is. Is there no place online where inarticulate, inbred, pointless hacks-of-human beings feel the need to rant and rave about everything by saying nothing in a failed attempt to make up for their pathetic lives? If you have an opinion, why don't you actually state it instead of swearing off ramblings that go nowhere?
-
Hmmm ... It had it's moments, but in the end, I realized all the best parts were shown in the preview. This wasn't John Woo at his best. Too bad.
I'm going to go rent "Hard Boiled" again.
-
I can't stress this more. Saw it last night, and it was great, cheezy fun -- like MOST Woo films. There may be moments where you say, "That's awfully convenient," but it is all explainable if you take two seconds to think about it! 1) Thandie Newton is set up as a thief, but they never use this to great effect. One of the first things Anthony Hopkins' character says to Cruise when he is asked why he recruited her in the first place is that they DIDN'T HIRE HER FOR HER SKILLS AS A THIEF! She's supposed to bed the bad guy and get information -- period. The whole thief thing is added bonus. 2) Dougray Scott uses Cruise's likeness to committ crimes, get information, etc. It is mentioned TWICE in the film that Scott knows all of Cruise's moves -- he has even played him before in other jobs when Ethan wasn't available. This basically sets up Scott as the kind of character who knows Ethan Hunt inside and out. 3) No explanation for Cruise rock climbing in the beginning other than to show what a bad@$$ he is. Again -- HELLO??! He says he's on Holiday -- that means vacation. What is the problem? People go rock climbing all the time for a vacation...sheesh...AND, he didn't want to be found on top of that. What do you want an opening scroll explaining it? Heheh... 4) Why does Cruise fall for Newton? Well, if you watch their meeting, she's very confident and she's extremely sexy. Did BOND need a reason? Not to mention that she can MATCH him, as she shows during the car chase sequence. He's totally turned on by this woman because she's his equal......As to the characterization, stunts, etc...I felt Tom Cruise was the weak link here, but Woo still managed to make him look cool. Dougray Scott was great. He was this flawed villain who thought he knew it all, and ends up screwing himself over because he's too damn cocky and he was obsessed with getting his old girlfriend back (aka p-whipped). I couldn't have loved the part more where he tells the head of the pharmaceutical company that he wants stock options and that basically he's going to own the company. Now THAT is a modern villain -- something Bond failed to have in the last two films. Ving Rhames was great -- he had pretty much all the funny lines, and was very involved in the mission. The stunts were totally over the top, but when are they not in a Woo film? There was lots of slo-mo, but it didn't detract from the film for me at all. Again, it was cheezy, but it was fun as hell.
-
Yea. Someone said a few days ago in another talkback that it was "laughable". Hit the nail right on the head. Last night at the Chinese 10:30 show, the entire theater laughed for 2.5 straight hours as if it were a Jackie Chan movie. I won't even go into the problems, but I'll just say this: The reason it sucked SO bad: JOHN WOO. The only saving grace: Thandie Newton's fine ass.
-
May 26, 2000 11:48:37 AM CDT
kpaterson...She wasn't a Typhoid Mary yet because she hadn't pas
by superninja
And therefore, wasn't contagious. It was mentioned several times in the story, like, "I only have 20 hours to make it to Atlanta"...
-
It's that we can all thank JEEBUZZ that Dougray Scott was tied to this film so long that he lost the Wolverine role. Scott was awful, and doesn't even look half the part Jackman does.
-
read my review on http://www.inever.net
-
Read my review at: http://www.inever.net
-
To start off I'd like to say I've seen this movie twice (once on opening night, and once last night with some friends who had not seen it yet.) Unfortunately the movie wasn't as good as I hoped it would be. Althought It was a little better the second time. Now the movie wasn't terrible mind you, just dissapointing. I think the thing that burned me the most was that I was under the impression that Sean Ambrose (Dougray Scott) was going to be the anti- Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise). I remember hearing Anthony Hopkins' character saying in the trailer- "the mother of all nightmares is on the loose" (which, I believe, was not in the film.) And I took as meaning Sean Ambrose (or was at least hoping, while knowing it was probably chimera.) They really should have made Sean Ambrose Hunt's equal in every way. Ambrose should have been Venom to Hunt's Spiderman. Instead we get a few little hints of it, Hunt walks by the exploded door mockingly- the chorus strikes up- we see the fire in Ambrose's eyes, or when Ambrose predicts Hunt's biocyte break in, but that's it. No real follow through. Sure he puts up a bit of a fight at the end, but nothing Hunt can't handle. And Hunt needs an equal after taking down... John Voight. Damn that trailer, seeing them leap off the motorcycles at each other I thought "wow a villain rising to the occasion!", but nope- still flawed, still cocky, and still his downfall. Ah well... more later when it comes to me.
-
May 26, 2000 1:49:57 PM CDT
My god Tom Cruise needs to rot in a pool full of my bile
by invinciblegirl
It was a hot, hazy Wednesday, and I had missed the damn exit on I-35 4 times to get to that crappy Tinseltown over by the Wal-Mart near William Cannon (for those of you who don't live in Austin, just pretend you do). I'm sweating because my AC is out of freon, and I'm stoked about MI:2. Well, stoked about air conditioning anyhow.
Oh, how I wanted this movie to be good. It was not. It was terrible. I love John Woo. I love Hard Boiled and I love the shootiness that he is famous for. He needs to stay out of hollywood and keep making decent movies. Start a fruit fly colony instead of paying for this crapfest.
Anyone notice the dramatic pause as Tom Cruise tries to escape the evil drug-storage underground lair and he pauses (UNDER FIRE!!!!) to put on his SUNGLASSES!!!!!!
He should kill himself.
I hate that man.
-
CHUD PARNK will never stop. Maybe you have not been in your own chatroom enough to know CHUD PARNK. We are many people. CHUD PARNK are the furies who will call you on you blunders. If you can talk about your being fat, so will we, and then we'll talk of you fat head. Critics can only make you stronger, Harry. CHUD PARNK will continue to hound you. One person may tire of this, but the group will not. We will continue.
CHUD PARNK laughs and laughs and laugh. -
CHUD PARNK will never stop. Maybe you have not been in your own chatroom enough to know CHUD PARNK. We are many people. CHUD PARNK are the furies who will call you on you blunders. If you can talk about your being fat, so will we, and then we'll talk of you fat head. Critics can only make you stronger, Harry. CHUD PARNK will continue to hound you. One person may tire of this, but the group will not. We will continue.
CHUD PARNK laughs and laughs and laugh. -
CHUD PARNK will never stop. Maybe you have not been in your own chatroom enough to know CHUD PARNK. We are many people. CHUD PARNK are the furies who will call you on you blunders. If you can talk about your being fat, so will we, and then we'll talk of you fat head. Critics can only make you stronger, Harry. CHUD PARNK will continue to hound you. One person may tire of this, but the group will not. We will continue.
CHUD PARNK laughs and laughs and laugh. -
May 26, 2000 2:01:11 PM CDT
CHUD PARNK says sorry about the repeats, Talk Back software is a
by chud parnk
CHUD PARNK repeats "Thats why you're living here, and I'm just passing through."
-
One more thing: Did anybody catch that complete rip-off of 'The Last of the Mohicans' in M:I-2? SPOILER: That scene with Cruise and Newton on the 42nd floor of the high security complex and he says "Stay alive! I'll find you!" and then he runs and jumps out of the hole in the side of the building was a complete heist from the Daniel-Day Lewis flick of many years ago. My friends and I looked at each other in disbelief on that one. But then, I agree with the poster above: I knew we were in trouble with that absurd racing scene in the beginning with Cruise and Newton staring longingly at one another as their sports cars spun in tandem out of control on the mountainside. They brought down the house with that one. Right then and there I knew we were in for a looooooong evening. Shit.
-
Just got back from seeing MI-2. I tried to keep an open mind about the film in light of what I had read so far on this site. The local film critics here were all pretty excited about the movie- 3 1/2 and 4 stars out of 5! They believed that the thin plot a good thing compared with the original film, which many people thought was too complex. But isn't that the whole purpose of a film about spies and espionage!!! Have we all become so addicted to bullets and explosions that we can't sit still for even 5 minutes and let the story unfold? Unlike many people, it seems, I liked the first part of MI-2, before all of the high testosterone bullshit kicked in. Come on, people, the spy game is all about deception, intrigue, not body counts! I hope that if there is another film, they find another director who understands this- Woo was clearly the wrong choice here.
-
It's a real shame that most of the arguments are about if john woo is/is not a great director.
i personally think mr woo stinks as a director(something about slow motion scenes dragging a 30 minute movie out over 2 hrs). what people should be concerned about it whether or not it was true to the concept of mission impossible as represented in the original tv series. i feel that MI is about espionage and not about guns blazing. it's also about complex plots and not mind numbing action sequences. the first movie was very faithful to the concept of plot over action (including plot twists, ie:
mr phelps turning bad)the point is... when did it become about dumbing down action movies such as MI2? why was it ok to have complex plots in the 60's tv series that was a top rated show for years (meaning lots of people actually watched it and understood it) to it not being ok to have a movie in 1996 that was as faithful or complex as it's source material? folks it's because the audience has been dumbed down over the years, and we will continue to be subjected to this mindless crap until we demand better as an audience. I saw the first one in theatres thinking that tom cruise was going to screw up this franchise that he claimed he loved so much. having low expectations i ended up being surprised at how good the orginal movie was. it had all the elements that i felt MI should have, but low and behold it was deemed too complicated by today standards, so i felt we were going to be subjected to a dumbed down, gun blazing action fest with no plot for MI2. I had reservations about the sequel. I was proven wrong again! sure it was more like a james bond movie than MI but it was neither as dumb or as boring as 007's latest outings. the plot doesn't have as many holes as one would think. if one pays attention to the dialog the story plays out quite nicely. even the dreaded john woo slow-mo scenes were relegated to the action sequences for the most part. overall i enjoyed the film even though it was not what i considered to be what mission impossible is all about. i hope that the next movie will be plot oriented and not as action oriented as this installment was. just remember that movies are a TEAM effort and the credit and/or blame should not rest completely on one person for the success or failure of a film. END OF RANT!!! -
I agree with your review and think John Woo, when he's allowed to be John Woo, is a god. But the character problems with MI2 are much worse because its a sequel. You should know and like the characters before you step into the theater but I dont know or like anything about anyone in this movie.
-
Considering the meandering and pointless half-assed "statement" you just made about free speech, do you honestly think that your type of "dialogue" would make AICN talk back great? It's morons like you that ruins the whole concept of the talk back and de-evolve discussions about films,etc. into juvenile flame wars that only go around in circles without rhyme or reason! Just take ONE LOOK at what you just wrote!
-
OK Harry....you are supposed to be this incredible source for movies and critique and all that crap....of course you did give a good review to Viva Rock Vegas, but that's fine. Most of the time, movies are subjective. I understand that. I just got through seeing the film, and I had the same feeling you did. Nothing spectacular....wish there was some sort of motivation instead of a Bond retread. But here is the difference....when I began to watch the film, I saw the credit for the screenplay go to Robert Towne....Robert "Chinatown" Towne. I was so excited because I was ready for a smart action film for a change. But alas, I didn't get one. So I come back here, and all I get is John Woo this and Tom Cruise that and Hans freakin Zimmer. THAT WAS NOT THE PROBLEM! You complain about backstory and characters, and you do not once mention Robert Towne's name? It's not like he is some obscure writer....and he got sole credit for the screenplay, not four or five guys writing and rewriting. The reason the film did not meet your expectations, Harry, was because the screenplay was weak...or because John Woo took out all of the back story. I don't know, but we need to stop treating directors that don't write like gods because if the screenplay is not there, the film will not be worth crap. Next time pay attention, Harry.
-
Yes you have a right to speak--I guess. (Last time I checked Bill of Rights restricted the public not the private sector.) But what makes you think anyone would care? This is not Russia in 1917; it's not even Dublin in 1916. It's a chatroom about a silly Tom Cruise movie.
No wait let me try to get into the spirit of things: DEATH TO VIDEODROME1 LONG LIVE THE NEW FLESH!
How was that? -
Here you are, whinging and whining about how Woo is a crap director, when we all know you are first in line at every single one of his films. You are merely slagging him off so you look like you are some smart film buff who hasn't bought into the Woo hype. Wake up and smell the shit you spew, arseholes! Woo is a fantastic director, who has been handicapped, not by a lack of vision or talent, but by the bland, puritan executives of Hollywood, and the fact the Cruise thinks about himself during sex. This was Cruise's film about himself. Woo was merely forced to hold the camera while Cruise wanked off about how good he looks in shades. Give Woo even a half-assed plot, a decent script and an actor who doesn't spend the film with his head up his own arse, and the man will make movie magic. Thanks for reading, sorry about the language.
-
Why the hell would anyone cast Tom Cruise to play the punisher. I think they should have changed the title and put a real bad ass in there if all Woo wanted to do was blow shit up and and kick people in the face. Especially the scene where Cruise blows up a wall and walks by with that dumb-ass look on his face. Give me a break...ciao..Viva
-
To a certain degree I agree with you on the character development, it was weak. But I also have to tell you I thought the movie rocked and I didn't find the first half boring. The story transition was a little hard to follow at times but it wasn't so bad that you didn't understand the movie. The action was incredible and despite the PG-13 rating I think it was done well and it would have had the same impact if it were R rated. All in All I think that is definately worth seeing on a big screen late at night.
PS: who needs explanation, just use your imagination. -
The movie was exactly as described, including a very Last of the Mohicans moment--the execution of which made me guffaw. Out loud. Glad to know it wasn't just me who noticed.
-
MI2 was better than TWINE? You're outta' your fucking mind, friend. MI2 sucks so bad, it's pathetic. I actually felt sorry for Cruise. I'm sure he worked hard on this, but it just plain sucks. It looks good, thirty seconds of cool rock climbing, ten seconds of amped up theme music towards the end that got my pulse up...and that's all, folks. When it's not boring, it's stupid--all that slo-mo shit at the end was just lame. TWINE was ten times more entertaining. Now the first MI was excellent, better than GoldenEye I thought, and one of the best spy movies ever. But Bond is coming up on #20 and MI couldn't even get it right for 2 measely films!!! I doubt there will be a #3.
-
I agree with you for the most part Harry... Pathetic characterization. BUT, I'm not gonna bow down and kiss John Woo's ass either... I thought his direction was lacking a lot! Other than the motorcycle stunts I was very disappointed by the fight scenes, gunplay ect. Nothing new original or even that fun to watch. Woo was very lazy in his direction. Lastly, Tom Cruise and that hot chick had NO chemistry whatsoever... I didn't believe their romance for one minute. Oh, one last thing... I think if they just took out half of the UNNECESSARY and distracting slow motion shots that the film could have been an hour shorter! Just because you set the film to run at 64 fps doesn't always make it ballet-like Woo... sometimes it just makes the actors look like they are really constipated with those laughable grimaces on their faces.
-
May 26, 2000 8:51:00 PM CDT
Why you need to stop whining & realize how BRILLIANT this franch
by wesley snipes
As Woo and Cruise have mentioned, Tom wants a different director for each movie. Not just some pushover drone like in the Bond movies, but a director with vision. Tom specifically said (during the MI premiere) that the last film was "Brian DePalma's Mission Impossible" and this one is "John Woo's Mission Impossible". It's pretty obvious what that implies, yes?
Sorry, MI TV fans, but the Mission Impossible name is clearly just that: A named used for the vague recognition factor that accompanies it. Otherwise, the films are NOT meant to celebrate and update the old series in any meaningful way. The MI world is merely a springboard for each director to show off their take on the superspy genre. It's a brilliant move: The Bond films are the exact opposite and so stagnant because the director has to bend to the Bond conventions in every film. With MI, the director (and writers) decides what MI will and will not be like - as it should be.
That's why it's ridiculous to complain that this installment doesn't resemble the espionage intrigue of the first, or has too much action, or doesn't have enough of the team, or just doesn't resemble the series - It's NOT SUPPOSED TO!!
Don't you see how fantastic the possibilites are when it's not limited to rigid conventions? The opportunities are so ripe! And it means everyone will eventually get what they want. Hate the crazed action romance melodrama of part 2? Then watch the austere and tight Hitchcock-lite stylings of part 1! Hate both of them? Maybe Quentin Tarantino will do the next one as a dirty dozen spy team flick! Loved both of them? Maybe James Cameron will combine the crazed action and tight thrills of 2 & 1 into a technoir action masterpiece! Are you starting to see why MI deserves to kick Bond's ass?
So if you want to critique MI2 for its plot or action or whatever as you would any other film, then go for it. But whining that the film sucks because it doesn't fit the "MI mold" is just stupid!
-
Okay, I'd read Harry's review, followed by Hallenbecks, so my expectations were WAY low. But I was hungover and figured I didn't want to think too hard, just wanted easy entertainment. I wish someone could give me the two hours I wasted watching this miserable pile of crap. This movie only exists for two reasons. To stroke Tom Cruise's ego and to make some easy hype money for Paramount. I haven't been so disgusted by a film since Phantom Fucking Menace. How long will we let ourselves be insulted by Hollywood suits' idea of entertainment? MI2 is lazy, boring, predictable, laughably acted, and painful to anyone who loves movies. It deserves to be a flop, and in a world with any justice, it would be. Avoid it like the fucking plague.
-
I can't believe that so many people use Talk Back as a peronal vengence tool against Harry's opinions. To not agree with him is one thing. To insult him, and insist he changes his taste in movies is another.
-
May 26, 2000 9:43:28 PM CDT
Tom Cruise can lick Russell Crowe's sweating ass as he departs
by henry fool
This movie was as flat and devoid of substance and life as a dead anorexic girlfriend. This proves that even the mighty Woo can make a piece of poo. This weekend, I think I'll get myself really, really lit until my eye whites are so RED they look as though they'll burst and then watch Hard Target.
-
We here in the UK, including myself, have yet to see the film that you speak of. I am however have the good fortune of being a cinema manager, and am going to see a managers preview in London on the 7th of June. I've read you're review, and am interested in seeing what you speak of. I only hope that it does as well over here as it's doing over there, as we need the business!!! Thanks for a great site, witch I read constantly. In fact, you are the inspiration for my own site - http://mikie.web.com which is not a patch on your site, but merely a piss-take on a few films that me and a few mates want to display on the web... that wasn't a plug by the way. I'm merely an amateur by your standards. FUCK-EM!!!!!
-
Haven't read much of the TB here but don't really need to - just had to say what an abysmal mess this movie is. Some very nice Woo touches, especially in the second half of the film but it's not enough. Not even close. One of the worst films of the year so far. Any of the recent Bond films (particularly TWINE) are better than this. They may not have the stylistic flourishes that Woo brings to M:I 2 but at least the plots are just-this-side of being sensible and the dialouge isn't enough to produce unintentional guffaws. And what is the deal with all the goddamn masks in M:I 2? When Tom Cruise is able to bring in a mask of himself (complete with appropriate sweat and grime, no less) into Scott's lair/fortess to put on Scott's henchman as well as a mask of the same henchman to disguise himself with, this movie is way past the point of self-destruction (at least the use of masks in the first M:I played in the ballpark of plausibility). But I could still forgive a lot of nonsense if I gave the least bit of a damn about the characters. I felt nothing towards either Cruise or Newton and their romance which was so crucial to the plot never moved me for a second. Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to help bury this turkey with seriously bad word of mouth. Let's hope Woo never hooks up with Cruise EVER AGAIN. Damn!!
-
Just got back from the 8:10 showing of Mission: Impossible 2 and I gotta say, this is what summer is all about. Contrary to what 95% of this page thinks, M:I-2 is a super-charged John Woo film, complete with balistic action, griping suspense, and beautiful photography. Every shot of the movie was complete with grace and ever so sweet ballet movement. The plot(listen up Harry),is clear and consice, providing character motivation and engaging twists. If anybody (like Harry) fell asleep during this awesome display you...well, you suck! You must also have an attention span of a dead dog. Okay, no more ranting.
-
A different director each time. So the next one in the series will SUCK IN A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WAY than this one did! Good idea! Wow, I can't wait. There has to BE A SERIES before you can start riffing on it. The quality control is just not there, Wesley. You're defending a piece of crap.
-
Overall this flick was a perfect popcorn summer flick. I had a couple things that bugged me. Personally thought they used that damn Rip the face off gag too much. It got to be predictable easily...By the end of the film if you even suspected that the character might be wearing a mask, he was. I also didn't follow the whole virus thing too well as I was confused as to whether or not it was contagious. They had the fat guy put under plastic cause supposedly he was infected and that was sooner than 20 hours. As I understood the Twenty hour limit was only the point of no return in which the vaccine would do the host no good, but when the turn the girl loose, Dougray Scott says there, we just created the demand and now you make the vaccine. So if nobody was contagious until 20 hours, why was the fat dude under plastic??? You gotta love the scene when the bad dude has Cruise and says Ah ah ah, raise your hands slowly...Its a true Austin powers moment when he could have just put one in him and end of movie...but oh no, we evil people must play with the hero before killing him. Same as later when Cruise is poretending to be the henchmen and he clearly has the drop on everyone in the room, but oh no...He runs away. HAhaha.
-
Look over the past reviews for Buena Vista movies, like craptacular films Armageddon and the 13th Warrior, and you'll find that Harry thought they were "action packed thrillfests." And notice how he directs you to see "Shanghai Noon" instead of that bad, bad stranger with candy type, Mission Impossible 2. Disney's goons also write Talkbacks saying the same thing. "MI suck poo poo! Me likey Shanghai Noon." After years of coming to this site as a loyal follower, I've come to this conclusion; Harry is the world's most manipulative sellout critic.
-
I just saw MI:@ and I got my fix Just fine,thank you.Sure it was a bit slow going at first, but give me big-budget,slicked-up Woo over a lot of the summertime dreck ANY DAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
John Woo's brain must work at half the speed of his audiences...It's pretty and all, but in my HO his work sucks for action films. We want to see the Hong-Kong style kung-fu, like Jackie Chan does, not this slow-mo SHIT. I'll never see another WOO film again, cause he takes an hour of footage and slows it down to twice it's length. So between all the slow-mo's and action scenes, no wonder there wasn't any plot. Now if Hollywood would realize this. MI-2 sucked and hopefully we as fans of film can send a message to them. Stop the BS!!!
-
May 27, 2000 3:20:16 AM CDT
MI2 was entertaining, but not as entertaining as the rantings of
by dands
Get a life people, and make sure my french fries are fresh.
-
May 27, 2000 3:42:46 AM CDT
Hmmm, how should I start my extremist review? Worst ever? Lamest
by dands
Go get laid people. There are other things to do besides posturing on an internet site. I take it back, maybe there isn't for you. Go ahead and declare movies the worst ever, or "sucks ass" or tell us what great film people you are. Its better to have you locked in your rooms than out on the streets.
-
Intitially we had intended to be among the first in Austin to watch MI2. I mean, really, despite the PG-13 rating, it looked promising. But (damn it all) we had the opportunity to hit the lake Wednesday and Thursday, so it wasn't until tonight we were able to partake of the latest Cruise/Woo flick. I've been reading the various posts regarding the flick for the last couple of days, so I decided it was best to go to the flick prepared. We hit Chuy's north about 8:00. Margarita races ensued. After finally closing out our tab, we decided it would be wise to pick up backup on the way to the theater. By the 10:55 showing @ good ol' TTN, we were well on our way to enjoying a rather mediocre flick. You see, I took a page from the guy who advised playing Tekken for the first hour of the film. Don't take it too seriously. Drink. Be merry. It's not all bad, it's not all good. But with enough alcohol, it's all funny. Especially with the sound of beer bottles rolling down the stadium seating to center stage. Clink, clink. Seriously, there were moments of the flick I could appreciate. Cruise and Newton actually seemed to have some chemistry. As a chick, I enjoy that shit. The villains were kinda sexy even. I really enjoy that. (See American Psycho despite the BS the world has been spewing. Christian Bale is one fine speciman of a man.) John Woo is still a poet--even though he pretty much sold out on this one. And truth be told, between this and Magnolia, I actually respect Tommy boy. He knows good and goddamn well it's not going to go over for the masses, but he looks sooooo earnest. I'll take that over a lameass "whoa" anyday.
-
Here's my review of MI2. I am in the middle of a 6-day weekend and got kicked out of the VIP section at the Loew's theater during the previews (hey, it didn't say VIP anywhere). I had just eaten a ham sandwich and a Mountain Dew and was wondering what an 11:00 a.m. screening would feel like. Now I know. I wish I'd seen something else. ANYTHING else.
-
Some observations about this talkback:
1.) It seems to me that too many people forget the reason that movies continue to get made in Hollywood. Profit Margin. It doesn -
Hey Dands, you are SO cool. I wish I could be as God-like as you are up there on your throne. I am not worthy to lick your boots. Please spare us, as we are scum. I long for the day that I could have a life as fulfilling and rewarding as yours obviously is.
...dolt... -
Now that I've got your attention, let me say that anyone who spends their precious time debating the validity of M:I-2 needs to direct their efforts towards something useful, like finding a cure for cancer or inventing a longer lasting light bulb. This movie is a meaningless, pandering exercise in consumer manipulation. They hook us in with kick ass trailers and the promise of a superior sequel and then we get a routine, boring piece of crap that kicks a moderate amount of ass in the last fifteen minutes. I think serious film debate should be reserved for works that will be remembered in twenty years, but that's just me. Don't run the risk of getting Carpal (sp?) Tunnel Syndrome! Stop typing now! It's not worth it!
-
John Woo: "Well, Dougray, we think that M:I-2 needs a character as intelligible and as shallow as you to portray the villan. WE need you in this roll, will you take it?"
Dougray Scott: "I'll think I'll pass and take X-men..." -
There's a scene in Darkman where one bad guy mistakenly kills another because he wears a face mask. Also, the villian in Darkman has a great scene at the start of the movie where he tortures another bad guy with a cigar chomper. I thought both were done better in Darkman.
-
May 27, 2000 1:24:23 PM CDT
Chinchillachump is just the sort of windbag that brings these ta
by dands
Hollywood is there to make money. Wow, such insight. I think that's what you were saying. It took you so long to spit it out I got bored.
-
I was really hyped for this film--even more than I was for Gladiator, I have to admit--but I was let down by it. It's not horrible, but it lacked the kind of drama that John Woo likes to bulid between his characters, which then intensifies the action scenes. It's not Mr. Woo's fault, cause I wouldn't say this is a John Film. This is more of a Mission: Impossible film directed by John Woo. . .
So basically. . . Yeah, Harry, I see your point. -
I do agree that it felt like a James Bond film done right, because the last James Bond in particular felt...how do I put this, too by the numbers, or stilted. I will say that the people who hated it must not be huge action film fans like myself, or really think ID4, Armageddon, or The Rock are some of the best action films in existence (see the first Die Hard, Predator, T2, and other non "The Rock" type films to see what you are missing!!). I DID want more action...BUT I like the fact that certain characters that I thought would not live to see the end of the movie, avoided the fate I thought they were headed towards (I will not go further into this, as it would constitute spoiling some of the movie). I give the film a 7 or 7.5 (upon repeated viewings, it becomes apparent Face Off is still John Woos best American film, with MI2 a worthy addition to the list of movies he has directed). I think I will get my John Woo mega action fix soon enough...Windwalkers takes place during WWII, so I will probable see enough "John Woo" style gunplay in that film to satisfy me for a lifetime.
Movie Trailers- Yikes, I had to endure Shaft, the mediocre Gone in 60 seconds trailer and the Titan A.E trailer. The latter two look good, but having seen the trailers ad nausem on the net...I find myself dissapointed that the latest x-men trailer was not attached to MI2 (refuse to see Bigga Mommas house just to see the x-men trailer). Missed opportunity to get comic fans and non-comic fans pumped up about X-Men, but hopefully the new trailer will be available in a full screen version, in time for me to see it while I still have broadband access in college. Back to the movie, like I said...a 7-7.5 rating, not GREAT...but not CRAP either. -
May 27, 2000 8:35:28 PM CDT
I saw MI2 and enjoyed it Besides, you guys got to see the cool t
by uncapie
Okay, total popcorn, have-fun movie. The scene with Cruise creeping around Biocyte looked like Bond movie. Woo uses the camera to draw in the audience and utilizes lots of camera movement to keep the momentum of the film going. The focus of the story was for Ethan Hunt to get the Chimera virus and the Bellephon antidote which the mission changes as it switches gear towards a payback scenario and rescue the damels in distress. Renegade agent steals virus for his own benefit...money. No different than what Goldfinger
had in mind when he wanted to destroy Fort Knox with an atomic bomb. Hey, I went to the matinee and got my $5.50's worth. On another note...THIS REGUARDS THE MOVIE "PATRIOT". WHAT THE HELL IS UP WITH COLUMBIA?! THEY WON'T LET ANY ONE BUY OR SELL "PATRIOT" POSTERS, MOVIE MATERIAL OR MERCHANDISE THAT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE MOVIE! WOW, TALK ABOUT CORPORATE GREED! -
Well, you're wrong about one thing Harry. John Woo's stylistic diarrhea does not save the movie from being total shit, it helps drive it deeper into the crapper. Woo's movies used to be about something. Hard Boiled, The Killer and A Better Tomorrow had themes and dimensional characters and used stylized action as an extension of those things. Breaking down the action and giving it meaner within the context of the story's backbone. Now before anyone crucifies me for being a pretentious bastard who doesn't know how to enjoy a summer movie, let me point out the real pretentious bastard has become John Woo. M:I-2 is packed full of so many gratuitous slow mo shots and lovingly drawn out acrobatics that the whole thing feels like a numbing 2 hr and 10 minute Mountain Dew commercial.
-
OKay frist time i am here, well god damn crap, i am here in japan living here where the damn MI2 will not ocme out for another month. Been reading all this crap, really fuck with my head before watching this movie. Of course maybe i shouldnt read it but guess what i love reviews and fucking spolier, i am werdi so sue me. Anyways just for everyone, to every movie there is the lover, the hater, the "eh, is okay", there is the "i dont fucking get it" etc, people. And those are perfectly displayed in this forum. Shit, "i hate john woo, slow motion sucks" well gee, why the hell did matrix get fucking oscar? ask them. "i love it but character...." who give a rats ass.....3-7 dollars, for guys, i want action or sex, i get some, i have no complains. I enjoy movies as much as the next person, for example i am a death batman fan, but i know that batman 4 suck ass crap shit, but is still a movie, samething for star wars 1. Of course when it sucks, you feel a littel werid coming out of the theather. Fuck it man, try not to analyse it with logic, blame all that shit ot the writers who sucks but still have jobs. dudes, look at it from a big point of view, how much is the budget, star, who the director, hype, shit i mean you are there in theather wathcing the damn thing, who cares. i see one expolsion, i say "damn there goes my dollar" I am a MI original series fan, but for people who say MI is espionage and not gun shooting, what the fuck? just look at all the remake of TV series, shit alway changes, there disappointment,i agree, better than not have it, because there is too many fights about should we stick with the show or change it. The only thing here is does the sequel kick the originals ass, in this MI2 case, i guess everyone raise hands, (other than those espoinage fans)
shit dont worry about this, i am more worry aobut teh new A-Team movie with mel and ving, shit i already have feel no Mr. T there is no A-fucking team. let it go, i am pretty sure people dog die hard one and two when it came out, but still is damn good hollywood movie. Relax, dont ask question, whether Tom Cruise and a fag looking stud, who cares, you are bored and want to watch a summer movie. And there youa re entertained, job accomplished, go home and wait for the next one baby, sayonara people. -
Woo has not had an original idea in 15 years. Has anyone of his recent movies been worth watching more than once? The old ones were cool, but now the 2 gun, doves, slow-mo, flash back to 15 mins before, twirling gunman thing is all played out. It was played out By Mr. Fat, and Mr. Cruise does not need to be wasting his time with it either.
-
May 28, 2000 12:37:07 AM CDT
Luckiest folks will be those who can't get MI2 tix, go to Shangh
by ck dexter haven
Just saw SN and it was great! The theater wasn't packed to the gills the way the MI2 theaters were last night, and that's a real shame. SN was so killer. We just screamed laughing. The drinking game scene must be witnessed to be believed. It's a complete side-splitter.
-
Although MI:2 is not one of the John Woo's best, I think you guys have all overlooked one thing: John Woo has added some elements from those Chinese martial arts novels into the plot of MI:2...However, he just failed to do so properly and the result is a bit awkward...There is not enough room to explain all this to you here...go to my homepage:
www.globility.com/~janchik and click "long movie review" and you'll see what I meant by that
(Or go to Yahoo Search Engine and type "jan chik") -
This film is a total waste of time. They said they how many rewrites!!! I'd like to have read the original script! Don't they understand that Tom Cruise is NOT supposed to be like Bruce Lee. What is with that final fight scene That was so fuckin lame!!
John Woo is the master of directing UNREALISTIC fight scenes
Huge Dissapointment.
-
Thank God...some reality in commentary. All the other reviewers are so in love with Woo that they don't notice that NOTHING HAPPENS during most of the gorgeous slow-motion sequences. No offense, Harry, but by the time the real Woo kicked in we were so disenchanted that the whole crowd actually burst out laughing at key points in the action sequence. It's like the boy who cries "wolf"... waste something urgent like slo-mo too many times, and no one will take it seriously. At all. The fellows next to me tried to put some meaning into the $7 they spent by pulling out their cell phones and calling their friends to warn them not to see this glossy, pretty WASTE OF CELLULOID. May the Force be with you.
-
Thank you Harry for mentioning the name of an actor who, from his beginnings in films like "The 39 Steps" and "The Invisible Man" all the way to his last one, a somewhat forgettable spaghetti sci-fi flick, was a class act from beginning to end. In these days where movie stars are made by "Q" ratings of hyperactive teenage girls bombed out of their skulls on sugar rushes fueled by Shocktarts in a mini-mall cineplex, Rains would be a pearl among swine. As for Palm Pilots, save yourself some money and buy a Handspring Visor. Made by the same guy who created the Palms, then got screwed over by 3Com, it has all the power, the same operating system and costs half as much as the leaches at 3Com would have you buy one of their Palm Pilots for.
-
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.
-
First off I am ardent Mission Impossible fan. I have played the on-line game, and finished in the 5000, which I never did get that damn disk, did anyone else? I loved the first one, because it actually made you think. It had a complex plot. I like it when a movie doesn't give you everything at face value. M:I-2 on the other hand is exactly like Harry said, "No plot." And I know I'm going to get a lot of flack from this, but maybe Woo should get out of the US film industry. I have never seen any of his earlier work from Hong Kong, but if he can't or is prevented from making a fully developed action movie, then maybe he shouldn't be here. I mean look at flops like The Big Hit and Broken Arrow. Interesting fight scenes but know freaking plot or character development. The only Woo film I feel had any development was Face/Off.
As for M:I-2 it sucks all around. I was so damn jazzed to see this film....but let's face it, most of the good action we see is in the trailer. And the scene where Cruise is in the middle of a fire-fight and stops to put on his fucking sunglasses. Hmmm....I have bulletts flying all around, oops I need my Oakleys? Nobody would do that in a million years. Also, those were pretty fucking amazing shoes he was wearing on the motorcycle, weren't they? And I really don't like the classical/operatic music played in the background during the action sequences, nor did I like him cutting to Thandie every 2 minutes to see if she was going to jump or not, because we all know she wasn't.
Finally, this is more scripting than anything, but the use of the M:I-2 masks. First time, cool invention, it fooled me, I had no idea that it was Dougray Scott, second time with Cruise impersonating the Dr., another good use, but by the fiftieth time they used it in the second lab, it was so easy to see what was coming. I just think Hollywood is repeating the cycle where movies don't need a plot. Hey Tinsel Town here's a wake-up call, we all haven't forgotten what a piece of crap Godzilla was so don't fucking repeat the mistake!!!!! -
Here's my calculations: 35% of MI:2 is copied from "Notorious" which Harry or any reviewer NEEDS to mention. 30% of the film is cobbled together from "Outbreak" --- which all reviewers WOULD have mentioned if MI:2 were actually involving in the slightest. 3% of the "I will fiiinnndd youuu" scene lifted, cut and pasted from "Last of the Mohicans". Another 3%, the sexy car chase scene lifted whole from, I dunno, about 1000 movies I guess ... my favorite of this type may have been Jeff Bridges and James Woods in "Against All Odds" a decent remake of the awesome "Out of the Past" (a must rent). 20% the action scenes were watered down versions of past Woo classics, mostly "The Killer" and "Hard-Boiled" - hell, if I was a big Hollywood star, I would wish I had been in those films TOO - The only scene, though completely IMPROBABLE but who cares, that had ANY original juice was the moto chase at the end, because Hunt's hiding behind the motorcycle to fire -- it was like a blast of cold water to the chest to see something that original after so long. But it would've been better if the motorcycle had had no key in it and Hunt couldn't get it started. ANd even there, the director so wanted to do the cool airfight shot from the Matrix that he faked it with the motorcycles --- talk about an HOMAGE! The movie only came out last year, dude! OKAY SO HERE'S THE RULE - You can have your cocaine and your Cristal and your meaningless sex to help you forget that death is comimg for you, Hollywood, but you HAVE to DO some CREATIVE work of your own to DESERVE those little Habitrail distractions. Don't just cobble your project together out of the three movies atop your VCR. FINAL THOUGHT - Mask technology is not where these guys think it is. And Cruise just happening to have a henchman mask on him without explanation is the FUCKING LAZIEST THING I BELIEVE I HAVE EVER SEEN IN A FILM - Hollywood, stop snorting SO MUCH COCAINE and do your WORK!
-
...but MI:2 sucked anyway.
-
MI2 was a seriously fun popcorn summer movie that had a decent plot and fantastic action sequences.
I totally disagree with Harry on this review and also don't feel that the plot was "a bad plot." It wasn't original, it wasn't deep and didn't have lots of twists and turns... The characters were not deep in any fashion but then again this IS a popcorn movie correct?
I am sorry Harry and you may not give a damn since you are a "star" now but you just lost one fan. I used to love coming to this site to see your reviews because I thought you knew how to have fun. Now you jump on the bandwagon with all these other film critique cronies this TalkBack site spawns.
MI2 was seriously fun and enjoyable entertainment for 2 hours. The effects, fight scenes and pure fun deserve the viewing on a big screen.
Maybe Harry really is a bloated sell-out after all. Of course the bashers of MI2 would say this bad review redeems him but the fun loving movie-goers are now going to look at his reviews with speculation. I know I sure am from this point forward. He's just like any other critic to me now... Instead of a movie fan. =(
King Rap of Kransegar -
Here's my short opinion without much ranting.
-MI was better than MI2. MI's plot was not hard to follow, but more difficult than the normal action flick. Still, it was not impossible(no pun)to follow)
-Anthony Hopkins rules in MI2. The credits should have read:
A Cruise/Whoever Production
A John Woo Film
Anthony Hopkins
Tom Cruise
Mission Impossible 2
-The music for MI2 WAS ABSOLUTLEY HORRIBLE!!!!!! The people in my theater laughed more at the epic sounding orcastrasions with that dumb lady singer than the impossible karate moves.
-The fact that it contained so much impossible stunt work reminded me of Romeo Must Die. Jet Li should have replaced Tom Cruise.
-Ving Ryams still rocks
-I bought MI, wont buy MI2.
-THe very day I hard John Woo was directing MI2(I guess one day in 1998), dispite the fact that the screenwriter has control, I knew that it would be total action/no plot. I had these expectations so the movie wasn't a total loss.
-
I have to say that Harry you hit the nail on the head. I missed the Notrious referance and I am a huge Hitchcock mark so good call man.
-
May 28, 2000 6:43:57 PM CDT
How to enjoy MI2: Read the negative reviews here & go in thinkin
by wesley snipes
Then you'll be amazed by how much better the film is than the spazzes here would have you believe. Read the very negative reviews here and you'd think the film had slow-mo every 3 seconds, a boring love story that lasts for 40 minutes, no espionage bits whatsoever and action scenes that were boring and slow. What BS! I was truly surprised by how little of the running time was devoted to the love story, especially after the complaints here. It's like 10 minutes, tops. They meet for 5 minutes, court & fuck in 5 minutes, and the story moves on. Serves its purpose. The rest of that running time is devoted to spying and plot! The race track scene was a better tense spying/slight-of-hand scene than anything in MI1 or the last dozen Bonds! Those who complain that it's plodding and slow in the middle must have the attention span of baby chimpanzees. It's interesting and moves at just the right clip. There were a lot of nice little scenes and I like how the characters were delineated quickly and effectively, especially Dougray's character with his cigar scene. It tells you how he really feels about Nyah and just what kind of guy he is. There's a spare brutality to it that's unlike what Woo usually does. In fact, I'd say that the entire film was DIFFERENT from the usual Woo film. The slow-mo? It's here, but it's almost all used at the very beginning and a little at the end. How the hell can anyone complain that there's too much slow-mo? It feels like there's less here than in Face/Off. Very restrained for Woo, actually. And the action scenes. Dear Lord, the ACTION SCENES! You are flat-out LYING if you claim that they're too much like his old work. It's like Woo has been studying the current "faster, harder" trend in Hollywood flicks. I found the feel of the shootout & bike chase to be quite unlike anything he's done before, except perhaps bits of the opening of Face/Off. They're fast-paced with INTENSE camera angles & movement. Slow-mo is limited and the general feel is one of awesome intensity with brief pauses for coolness. The shootouts in his previous films were downright relaxed in comparison. Those stretched the coolness bits out and lowered the intensity. In the end, only two things bothered me: 1) The final hand-to-hand fight wasn't exciting enough due to the choreography, though there was one cool part that had the whole theatering wincing "ooh" (the short tussle before Ambrose tells Hunt to finish him off). 2) Though the doves only make a brief appearance, the slow-mo shot of a dove passing by the door followed by Cruise was admittedly cheesy. However, they recovered quickly by lightly mocking the presence of the doves in the proceeding scene. Overall, I really enjoyed it and I think anybody who tends to like most Hollywood summer movies will enjoy it, too. The plot and dialogue are miles ahead of Armageddon and Godzilla, and a bit ahead of Bond. Despite the trademark doves & slow-mo, anybody who isn't determined to write off Woo should DEFINITELY see that he's playing with his style, particularly in the action scenes. But even the way he shoots regular scenes has evolved compared to his HK work. Anyone who's only mildly interested in Woo's work should watch this and see if they find it a different kind of film for him.
-
John Woo didn't direct The Big Hit, you friggin moron. It was Che Kirk Wong, John Woo's director buddy from Hong Kong.
-
Checklist ready...here we go...John Woo: Kinetic, exciting director. Tom Cruise: Fine actor, loved him in Magnolia. Robert Towne: Wrote Chinatown, fer Pete's sake. MI:II? Oy. I only ask that a filmmaker and his/her actors respect the filmgoer. I just got the feeling that everyone's transmission was set on Neutral. I have to blame both Cruise and Towne for this. Woo? Please, with that script, sweet Jesus Christ Himself with a Heaven-built Arriflex and final cut couldn't have made a good film outta that script. Why? Beyond the utter lack of characterizations? How about those instantaneous full-head masks? Why not just have Ving Rhames BEAM Dougray Scott onto the 'copter then, for as real as this shite had become? How about the scene where Hunt infiltrates the chemical building...he gets past security by clever means then gets involved in a hugeass firefight with the bad guys for, oh, ten minutes. At the climax of this firefight, the alarm finally goes off...and THEN the guards come hut-hutting up the stairs. Are these guys new? I blame Towne for a horrid, first-draft script and I blame Cruise for not knowing that the script wasn't any damn good. DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE! Peace.
-
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 loathe 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 can't believe that you recommended SHANGHAI NOON whole-heartedly and shot down MISSION IMPOSSIBLE 2. Let me just say this...I think you know shit, next to nothing about movies.
SHANGHAI NOON is probably one of the worst film to come out of cinema. Full of cliches and lines like ' The sun rise in the east...sets in the west...' blah blah blah. I mean, who develop that fucking script must have a brain of a fifteen year old. Seriously, I'm even too embarrass to call myself a chinese after seeing this movie. The best part of the movie is the last few minutes of outtakes in the closing credits. Apart from that, I can't even laugh at Jackie's age anymore. He looks like a red indian who can't speak English properly. And the whole fight-first-buddy-buddy-later movie is such a bore in the pants that it should go straight to video hell without releasing as a summer movie. This is one chop-socky movie that deserves a turkey rating.
Mission Impossible 2 on the other hand, that's what I call a topnotch action flick. Superbly filmed by Woo, this is in fact, a lot better than FACE-OFF. Given the height of Cruise and still come out looking like Chow Yun-Fat, that is brilliant. The action scenes were incredible, makes you wanna jump out and cheer for Hunt as he outwits the evil. I don't see why characters need to be established at all. Who needs character development in a Mission Impossible plot? Do we seriously care to know how that gorgeous looking Thandie becomes a thief and why she was with Dougray's character? I would have fallen asleep if they ever put that in the plot. Who cares why Sean turns evil in the first place? Let your own damn imagination run wild...or do you have any imagination to begin with? Perhaps he wants the 30 Million? Can't you even think of that? Geez! And if you did snore through a remarkable film like this for the first hour, I have to doubt the capabilities of your reviews in the future. Please, stick to your daytime job...stay in bed.
The sequences are so incredibly filmed, I think Woo is nothing short of being a genius. This sequel is so much better than the original where the IMForce is basically Cruise and Cruise alone.
By far one of the definite summer blockbuster movie as oppose to Shanghai Noon which I think will probably lay to rest in a showdown.
Lord Kay
He Who Knows Movies Better. -
THERE MAY BE SPOILERS IN THIS MESSAGE
This movie's plot really sucked. The sad thing is that it could have been fixed pretty easily by making only a few changes.
1) "Dimitri" should have been Dougray Scott all along. No reason for him to use the Tom Cruise mask ever.
2) Dougray Scott should have known that the disease was in the scientists blood during the plane scene but the scientist could thwart him by jumping out of the plane or blowing himself up. This would improve the rather pointless plane crash scene and will still allow the premise for the rest of the movie that Scott has the cure and needs to get the disease. Tom Cruise will still have to find him and figure out what exactly is going on.
2) The love interest/triangle stuff should be eliminated. Thandie Newton really is not necessary in this movie after they use her to find Dougray Scott's hideout
3) I think it would have been a cool scene to show how Dougray Scott got Thandie Newton out of jail. That scene could have replaced the stupid attempted theft and car chase scenes between Tom & Thandie.
3) Tom Cruise's team should be thwarting Dougray Scott's attempt to get the Chimera from Biotech, not the other way around.
4) If Tom Cruise is going to do the switch with Dougray Scott's number 1 guy it should be done the night before at the end of the battle scene at Biotech. This would be a much better and more realistic surprise than the way it happened in the movie. It also might have made sense for somebody to switch with him during the horse track scene.
5) The company should have been a terrorist organization and not a publicly traded company.
-
Jun 03, 2000 3:42:56 AM CDT
i agree with mephisto666. you guys are just winging about nothi
by muntedman
woo is a great action director and there is nothing wrong with his slow-mo shots. you guys seemed to be expecting a movie that would change history and enlighten all of our souls. its a friggin summer movie and just leave it at that.
cruise just sucks as an action hero. cruise just cant compare with the leap-and-fire,or somersalt-and-fire shots that nick cage and john travolta pulled off in FACE-OFF. compared to the FACE-OFF stunts cruise looks like a handsome dweeb jumping about with a gun and pathetic smile. in my opinion nicholas cage would have done a much better job of playing lead role.
-
Huge kudos from this fellow Austinite on your unbelievabley right-on MI2 review. Sometimes I suspect that we both go to all the same screenings and you read my thoughts. I would take a stab at being a film reviewer but I know I would end up being ridiculed for always sounding just like Harry, just not as clever. My friends w/whom I saw this movie said that if they didn't live in Austin and see yu around a lot that they would have suspected that I write your reviews under a pysdonym. What can I say we just know our movies.
You rock! Keep it up.
WWCurtis
Empire Production Co.
Bee Cave
P.S. Is it OK for local fans to introduce themselves when you are out & about? I see you around a lot and not just at SxSW. Never having been famous I have no feel for what is appropriate. -
From what I read in a Creative Screenwriting interview with Towne, Cruise and Woo had already blocked out the action scenes before he was even brought in on the picture. BEFORE HE WAS EVEN BROUGHT IN TO WORK ON THE PICTURE. He had to construct an action movie around the scenes that they had already set up, carved in stone. That's a backwards way to write the movie; the action should come out of the story, not the story coming out of the action.
Mission Impossible 2 was nothing more than a Tom Cruise vanity piece... Ethan Hunt has neither the charm nor the fun of James Bond. You can criticize the Bond movies for being over the top, but I'd watch five of them rather than seeing this movie again once. -
went to see it last night on the biggest screen possible. everyone was just laughing at it. the 'climactic' fist fight was so ridiculous and boring that people were just leaning over and talking to each other. zimmer did a good job of making the moview even workse - whenever there was a stupid bit (the cars wheeling round, the bit when Tom jumps out of the building) zimmer scored really quiet serious music, so you could always hear the audience laughing. pure rubbish - and can he just stop with the damn doves? they've got nothing to do with anything. bring back Broken Arrow...
-
Harry - did you REALLY expect this to be a good movie? IF answer==YES ==> ? Hello? M:I-2? Maybe if the Wachovski brothers and some really kickass script writer did it, it could be good.. IF anser==NO, exactly, no one in their right mind could have expected this film to be any better than the first Mission Impossible. And even that film wasn't really good. It was edible, no more.
John Woo + a load of good music + a load of excellent shots&scenes, is OK for me.. don't go so hard on it. -
Hello? Harry? When you look at The Phantom Menace with the same objective scrutiny, that flick sucked real big time too..
-
The thing I cannot understand is how people think that the action is good. Harry's review basically said that the film was crap apart from the action at the end. Yes everything up until the action was godawful, but SO WAS THE ACTION!!
I understand that the action was more PG-13 friendly than Woo's Hong Kong work, but that is no excuse for the shoddy, uninventive and frankly BORING stuff that is contained in this film.
For a start it was clear that what action there was was there to make Cruise look good i.e. the focus of EVERYTHING was Cruise. This is one of the major reasons for it not working. Woo is so good because it is the action, the setup, what the individual does to kill/avoid getting killed that makes his films so amazing. If that takes a back seat to making the individual themselves LOOK good, then it fails.
The set-pieces were chronic. Chronically performed, choreographed and located........
The more I think about it more fucking angry I get at how they fucked John Woo over on this movie. It's an insult not only to the general publics intelligence but also to Woo's fans. I heard that Cruise asked Woo, when he came onto the project, to "..just Woo it." I think that says it all.
I seriously felt that the trailer was better edited and more excitingenjoyable than the whole stinking pile of shit. -
BOOOOOOOOOO! I remember back in 2000 when I saw M:I-2 opening weekend, my best friend and our girlfriends went, at about 1/2 hour in they fell asleep and I stuck it out by myself. Biggest disappointment of the 2000, the action didn't even start until the end. It always helps too when after one hour of nothing your girlfriend turns and looks at you and says "this is boring", total crap they should all be ashamed for turning out this turd of a film, just awful.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 439 total posts 159 posts
- WTF HOLLYWOOD: SOLARBABIES -- 144 total posts 142 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!! -- 155 total posts 140 posts
- Avid Comic Reader Hercules Does Battle With Tedium During Kevin Smith’s COMIC BOOK MEN! -- 55 total posts 45 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 196 total posts 45 posts
- I am The Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day! No, I’m the Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day! -- 35 total posts 35 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 34 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 127 total posts 32 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 513 total posts 29 posts
- The Sensorties Revisit The Friday Docback (And Still Smell)!! DOCTOR WHO Story #7 Again, The Coming Of Season/Series 7, And More!! -- 118 total posts 27 posts