Rating: 
Summary: TERRIBLE
Review: I just saw this movie. Terrible, horrible. Embarrassingly bad. An obvious exploitation flick that sells Cruise's pretty face and the girl's pretty chest. Technically slick and well photographed. The worst of the now hackneyed spy tricks.
Rating: 
Summary: DIsapointment is an understatement
Review: Oh, how the mighty have fallen! Mission: Impossible 2 is penned by none other than Robert Towne. Yes, the very same man who wrote one of the best flickers of the last century, Chinatown. I mean, come on! We expected so much from this line up: Towne to deliver the story; Woo to deliver the action. Unfortunately, only Woo delivers.
But surely it is not all his fault? Re-writes up until 2 weeks before release! The action scenes already decided upon before he got to pen the story!
But what an action, er, scene! Yes, there are more than one, though only one is standout. For the last 15 minutes Woo goes all out. Motorcycles have never done such things on this planet. This finale is quite simply stunning. If I were told that the delays in releasing the film (from its original December release date) were just so they could get this sequence in the can, I would not be at all surprised. And the great thing is that we can see Cruise on the bike! And that I could only see one digital effect in the entire sequence! Who would have thought a motorbike doing a forward-wheelie across a busy intersection could be thing of beauty?
The plot...erm, not worth bothering about really. Some bad guy has something that Cruise wants to get back is the long and the short of it. And that this Scottish villain (Dougerie Scott) is a real disappointment. Come on, Cruise! If we've seen Alan Rickman (Die Hard) or James Mason (North by Northwest) in action you don't think you could palm this sub-standard tough off on us, did you?
Bottom line is: I preferred De Palma's original; I really liked the grande finale (Cruise doing his own stuff really pays off - just check out the fight on the beach); screenplay was poor, as were a lot of the dialogue (last line from the villain - oh, come on, you thought he would 'win'? - "You should have killed me when you had the chance, Hunt"); this kind of talent should have delivered more.
If Superman's tag line was: 'You'll believe a man can fly'. Then M:I-2's should be: 'Who gives a flying fig about the story, just check out all this cool motorbike daring-do'.
Rating: 
Summary: Mission: Face/Off again (spoilers)
Review: This is a hard, hard film to review. Five stars is actually a bit high, especially when you consider the films' obvious flaws. Yet this is still great entertainment, and a bit underrated by many. The film kicks off, like Face/Off, with a pair of action scenes. However, MI2 is rather less impressive than its predecessor, substituting a plane crash and a bit of rockclimbing. But it's still got cool bits; Dougray Scott's villain pulling off his disguise to Hans Zimmer's excellent score, and Cruise jumping from rock to rock in slo-mo. Then the plot kicks in for about 75 minutes, which is long enough to point out some good and bad stuff about the film. What MI2 proves is that Woo can take pretty mediocre material, and make it interesting. For instance, there's a scene when Thandie Newton goes to meet Scott on his island hideaway (very James Bond). As she walks, her scarf billows in slow motion, until Scott seizes it, tying it behind her. Such a trivial scene is directed in a lavishly OTT fashion. For me, that is Woo's genius; to elevate film to the level of Baroque opera (contradiction in terms perhaps). Certainly, Face/Off and The Killer both have this theme, and MI2 does also. Yet this slow section also enables the film's flaws to come out. Newton is not at all bad in a thankless part, but Robert Towne mucks up the duality issue of all Woo's work in Scott's villain. Rather than a suave mastermind, he comes across as an aggressive thug, whose primary motivation for trusting Newton is that he is 'gagging for it'. Hell, if Woo wanted to have Liam Gallagher as a villain, why didn't he ask? It does spoil the meticulous theme of good versus evil; certainly, there is no scene of such simple brilliance as the 'standoff in a mirror' scene in Face/Off. Actually, the absence of Mexican standoffs does hurt the film slightly in its final third; there is little pause for reflection. But, hell, the final third. Woo arguably exceeds even Face/Off and The Matrix in the sheer kineticism of the action. Cruise engages in slo-mo two handed gunplay, skydives from helicopters, engages in shoot-outs while riding a bike on one wheel, dives from buildings after blowing out the walls, and, in one brilliant moment, blows up a wall......and a dove flies through it, followed by Cruise. Cooooool! Yeah, it's a five star film for the final scenes alone. I hope the DVD is up to scratch; if it is, I can see this one selling a lot of copies. It's good fun, with a strong performance by Cruise, and it's certainly Woo's third best film to date. Had it had a bullet-time standoff......
Rating:
Summary: Difficult is a walk in the park for you
Review: I've seen this movie in the cinema yesterday, and it's the best action movie ever made! It's by far the best work of John Woo! I've read from others that the slow-motion scenes will get boring after a while, but that's not true. They where beautifull to see! The action is so much better than the first "Mission: Impossible" movie (not that I didn't like that one, part one was also pretty good)
Another improvement from the first movie is that this story isn't so hard to follow. With the first one you realy had to keep looking to understand everything, while this movie has a good plot but is not difficult at all. It is very easy to follow. Like Sean Ambrose would say: 'Is it that easy? Yeah, why not?' After all is it a summer movie, which needs great stunts, romance and humor. And "M:I-2" has it all! The story is also not bad at all, it even has some very surprising things! I think I can even say that this is the best movie this year!
Rating: 
Summary: M:I-2 is Solid and Entertaining if not Groundbreaking
Review: I went and saw this movie and came out happy (except for the fact that the theater sound was too loud). It was an enjoyable movie that was visually impressive if a little mentally numbing. I think the movie lost something when Woo and Cruise were forced to trim it from its original 3 hour length to 2 hours. Sometimes the story seemed to jump to suddenly. This is one DVD I hope gets the extra footage added and is presented the way the director originally envisioned it. With those comments said, I still can't wait to buy this movie. It is exciting and has its own visual style that, to me, seemed more international than the first. If you're looking for an intriguing plot you should probably look somewhere else. However, this movie has enough style and action to keep most viewers happy.
Rating:
Summary: Good action, but bad plot
Review: I knew going into this movie that it was going to be easy viewing, but I thought it would have more of a plot. Sure, the action scenes are great in that classic John Woo, ultra-choreographed way, but the plot isn't original or have much to it. Dougray Scott tries as the villain, but he's not scary at all, just sort of mildly irritable. After all, this is a villain who demands stock options as part of his bounty. (Truly, a sign of the times, and the audience laughed at that one.) Thandie Newton, who I had never seen before, is certainly beautiful, but she carries two expressions on her face through the entire movie, and resembles Ally McBeal in a tighter T-shirt. And then there's Tom. His character is more of a James Bond clone than the character is the original movie; I admire his guts and fearlessness for doing several scenes (especially the opening one), and the truth is, he's not bad. This just could have been much more. I did like Anthony Hopkins, though. He brings class to whatever he appears in.
Rating:
Summary: Worst movie so far this summer!
Review: John Woo hits an all time low with this idiotic sequal to the very intelligent original. The best thing about this movie is its' soundtrack and even the soundtrack isn't all that good.
Rating:
Summary: Wow, i forgot to eat my popcorn because of the intensity
Review: I recently saw this movie, and actually i was tricked to see it, i thought, ok it's probably ok but nothing like Gladiator, but oh how wrong i was, not that it was better but it sure wasn't worse, and i can surely say that it's one of two best action movies i've ever seen, and compared to this my reaction to the next Bond movie would sound like, GO TO HELL, it's a John Woo class film, lot's of action, The Best stunts i can see, and the only thing bad about this movie is that it wasn't long enough, i loved it all the way through, see it and you'll know what i'm saying, besides great stunts, exellent sound, and very good music, all special effects are perfect! i give you my word i'll buy this movie when it's released on DVD, so if you like action or just like a good story, you'll probably like Mission Impossible 2, it has action, humor, and a good story line! Thanks for reading! btw this is the first MOVIE i review, but i intend to review more, so the reviews will get better!
Rating:
Summary: VIRUS STRIKES - BUT ARE WE PAYING ATTENTION?
Review: This is unparalleled rubbish. It is, aptly, about a virus - aptly, because it may well stand as the ultimate symbol for the virus that has contaminated modern action cinema and cheapened dramatic narrative - at which American cinema excels - into phony son et lumiere. There is so much amiss with this film that it's hard to know where to start. John Woo is symptomatic of the latest breed of quasi-Barnum dollar-chasers and here, metaphorically and literally, tops himself. The current "hit tricks" are (a) rack the soundtrack volume up a dozen decibels, (b) keep the plotline moron-simple and (c) make sure the "star" only sits still to take key info and kiss the token bimbo - i.e., edit like a maniac. The cutting style of this film, to begin with, is insultingly MTV. The flash cuts are so obviously used to paste over inferior action set-ups and lousy kung-fu that, at the screening I attended, the audience laughed derisively. At the movie's start, where Cruise is mountaineering and hanging like a stretch doll from ridiculously impossible precipice ledges someone at this screening called out - "Hey, It's Tom ... Tom and Jerry!" - which was right on the money. Jokes aside, Cruise himself turns in a rotten performance that shows the strain of too much work crammed into recent years. In Magnolia he overshot himself by miles and here he impacts like Rock Hudson in his later years: Pinocchio-wooden. Cruise, if he cares about his acting (he is a fine player) needs to step back, take time out, and realign with a decent, capacity-testing, substantial work. Otherwise he will fill his pockets and fade like Hudson. But the greater grievance is the dilemma of where all this frantic-action bunk is taking us. Throughout this money-wasting disaster I kept thinking of the great storytelling of the early Bond movies, and the subtle genius of their casting, dressing and stylish crises sequences. They demanded some intellectual input from their audience and repaid in diamonds. This is paste. Surely we, the audience, aren't so dumb as to keep buying again and again into plots so thin as to burn their full arc in the first fifteen minutes, car/truck/helicopter/motorbike chases that resolve identically and villains that die in the last five minutes only to rise from the grave ONE MORE TIME for the hero to shoot them ONE MORE TIME, WITH FEELING? Paste. Fluff. Garbage. The worst aftertaste? They could build a hospital for the cost of pap like this. Think about it.
Rating:
Summary: Radioactive doves!
Review: Sequels, it is commonly known, are never as good as the original (with the possible exception of Austin Powers 2, or, if I tried to phrase it "John Woo style", AP:2). So why did I expect MI:2 to be different? I'm a regular cinema visitor, I should have seen the signs. But no. I paid to see the tripe that was a Tom Cruise vanity project (actually, I didn't pay, but I still owe my friend the money and I blame Mr. Cruise for that). You're probably wondering about the plot. Don't. Common knowledge is that action sequences were filmed first, then the plot developed. It really shows. Ethan Hunt (Cruise) is after a rival agent Ambrose (Dougary Scott who is convincingly evil and the only reason to see this film) who plans to do very bad things with the ultimate virus, blackmailing the world as he has the only cure. Enter Thandie Newton as Nyah, a professional thief (as convincing as Catherine Zeta Jones was in "Entrapment") who was once involved with Ambrose. Of course, Hunt falls for her (who knows why - she SITS on him in a bathtub, yet there is no sexual tension!), Ambrose wants her too and Nyah wants to get better training as a pickpocket. This triangle is supposed to be similar to the plotline of Hitchcock's "Notorious", but shows none of the intelligence or depth of that classic movie. However, it is an action movie. Too much cannot be expected of it and John Woo should be a safe bet. But, MI:2 is so full of slow-mo sequences and ridiculous symbolism (Woo's trademark doves, especially - a glowing, almost uranium-covered dove flys through a fiery doorway as Hunt walks past) do not increase the tension. The action scenes are well done and beautifully executed. However, they are so empty and the outcome so predicatble, it is hard to look at anything but Cruise's flowing locks, which remain immaculate and salon-styled throughout. Also, the rubber-mask twists are done to death so much that the idea is placed firmly in the viewer's mind that the pulling-off-of-your-face bits are expected. There isn't really a team as the rest of the cast are given little to do except gape at the wonder that is Ethan and dodge bombs (try playing "Who's going to die" when you're bored in the cinema, which enlivens even "Titanic"). Please don't see this movie. Brian De Palma can be a patchy director, but his MI was full of paranoia and darkness. It may have been labelled confusing, but this is what makes it superior to MI:2's style of characters halting every 5 minutes to say, "Hang on, you mean...?" to explain the plot. Woo has said in many interviews that he wanted to make a love story in this movie; he succeeded. However, with the continual shots gazing lovingly at Cruise's handsome face, this is really a film about Woo's love for Tom Cruise.
|
