Mission:
Impossible 2
(2000)
Rated: PG-13
Runtime: 2 Hours and 3 Minutes
Reviewer: Jones
Grade: AWhen I first heard about this film I didn't know what to make of it. I didn't care too much for the first film, which led to my having reservations about the second installment in the series.
But I have grown into quite a fan of Tom Cruise's work over the past year and I found John Woo's film, "Face/Off" to be a breath of fresh air in the world of action films. With M:I-2 he once again breathes new life into a stagnant era of action films.
The film begins with the theft of the antidote for an incredibly lethal virus known as Chimera. This is done by one of Ethan Hunt's (Tom Cruise) allies: Sean Ambrose (Dougray Scott).
Now he wants to steal the virus so he can make some money out of the whole deal. Can IMF not find trustworthy agents? This seems to be a recurring theme. Maybe they need a new human resources person to take care of this nagging problem. Anyway. After the theft, Hunt is sent to enlist the services of a beautfiful thief, Nyah Nordhoff-Hall (Thandie Newton), who he needs to round out his team of agents for the forthcoming mission. After he has retained her services they, along with Luther (Ving Rhames), head for Australia to track down Ambrose and find out exactly what his intentions are. At first it is unclear as to why the thief is needed for the mission, but, as the film progresses, it becomes painfully clear to Hunt.
What follows is the sort of action that, in most directors hands, would be done in a woefully average manner, but John Woo manages to keep things fresh at every turn, or flip as it may be.
Tom Cruise gives a performance as Ethan Hunt that he would have been unable to deliver just a few short years ago. He is torn between love and the job at hand. He has to maintain his aloofness while still being down to earth. After his great performances in "Eyes Wide Shut" and "Magnolia", I was somewhat concerned about his return to action films, but he cast all of those fears aside in triplicate. I don't recall ever seeing Dougray Scott in anything, but when I first saw him onscreen in this film he had this aura of evil about him that I could not ignore. He gives a great performance as the corrupt IMF agent who has many conflicting thoughts that cloud his thinking and eventually, of course, lead to his undoing. Thandie Newton gives an exceptional performance as the thief/love interest in the film. I had never heard of her before, but I look forward to seeing what she chooses to do next. Ving Rhames and Anthony Hopkins give their usual exquisite performances. As a whole, the cast gives a superb effort.
As for the direction of the film, John Woo seems to have been the perfect choice for this film.
His presence is apparent in almost every shot. The broad sweeps around cliffs and shorelines. He makes an action film beautiful in a way that only Bond films have in the past.
He uses camera speed changes in interesting ways, and seems to know just when to use them. Take note Ridley Scott. He uses these changes to allow the viewer to catch up to what's going on in the film while, at the same time, accenting important points in the film. I must say that I did enjoy the fact that Woo chose to get rid of the fragmented plot that plagued the first film and chose a plot that is more akin to a Bond film than anything else.
Minus the megalomaniacal tendencies of course.
One minor complaint I have about the film, that invariably comes from Woo's background, is that Ethan Hunt does way too many flips. There were only maybe one or two times where it felt as if a flip was reasonable for the given situation. I must say that it did get a little old when Hunt couldn't lay waste to anyone without doing a flip somewhere in the fray.
One other thing that wasn't terribly troubling, but actually somewhat humorous to me, was how ridiculously unbelievable some of the stunts were. There are many moments in this film that make James Bond's work believable in comparison. I found myself thinking that as I watched many of the scenes, but I also had my jaw on the floor a great deal of the time in response to many of the stunts. The chase sequence towards the end is worth the price of admission all by itself. You would think that John Frankenheimer ("Ronin") had a hand in this film, as masterfully crafted as this sequence is.
In the end these are piddling complaints and in no way detract from the film's visual beauty and execution. "Mission: Impossible II" is the type of film that can define a genre for years to come. It is what action films are meant to be. It is beautiful, frenetic, and carried by a solid plot. It also has a heart, which is something that few action films possess. Actually few films, regardless of genre, have the sort of heart and desire that this film exudes.
Your mission. Should you choose to accept it. Is to go to your nearest theater, as soon as possible, and take part in the thrill ride that is "Mission: Impossible II. This message will self destruct in five seconds.
Reviewer: Dale
Grade: D
As this film was just starting, Tom Cruise was scaling a rocky wall. He is climbing up the side of a truly impossible rock face and suddenly my friend cries out: "Oh no, it begins just like Star Trek 5!!!!"
In retrospect, that should have been an omen.
The first "Mission: Impossible" was no great masterpiece, but it was fun and it had some wonderful visuals and Tom Cruise gave a very restrained and human performance. At the very least, it was leaps and bounds better than this sorry mess. I don't really need to see movies like this. If I want to see shit, I own a toilet. I don't need to pay seven bucks for the privilege...if you can really call it that.
Let's get right down to it, shall we? This movie is very dull and quite average. Tom is climbing a rock. So what? Does it accomplish anything? Does it mean anything? Is this talent put to use later in the movie? No, no, and no. It would have been cool if they had at least paged him or something while he was in the middle of climbing and caused him nearly to fall, but even that possibility is not explored. Tom gets a master thief woman to join his crew. Does she get to steal anything during the entire movie? No. So why make her an expert thief, huh? The rest of the movie is like that: a lot of missed opportunities.
The plot is easy to follow, and it actually sounds interesting. A double agent in the Impossible Mission force steals the antidote to a virus and then wants the virus so that he can make some money off of the whole thing. It's not a bad villainous plot, as far as plots go. Alas, it is not really developed or exploited to its true potential. To call the characters paper thin would be something of an insult to paper. I simply cannot believe that the man who wrote this movie once won an Oscar (Robert Towne, "Chinatown"). The characters are so bland that we would not care if a truckload of them were wiped out. The whole world is in jeopardy at one point during this movie. If the rest of the human race is as boring as the ones we are watching, they needn't bother saving them. I have loved Tom Cruise in many other movies and, generally, I think he is an underrated actor. People give him credit for being handsome most of the time, but they hardly ever give him credit for his work and his range. Here, however, Tom just walks around smiling and smirking and then looking fierce every so often. He returns in this movie to the vapid pretty boy that I didn't care for in movies like "Top Gun" or "Cocktail". The woman in the piece is given little to do aside from stand around looking pretty. She's good at that, but I would have cared whether she lived or died a little more had she actually had any dimension to her at all. And Sir Anthony Hopkins? He's good, as always, but given nothing to do. At one point, I think you can actually see him mentally counting the zeroes on his check.
The action in this movie takes a while to arrive and, when it does, it certainly is not worth the wait. John Woo has always tended to draw things out with slow motion for dramatic purposes. Things are drawn out in this movie, but there is no drama and little in the way of suspense. There were a couple cool stunts, but for the most part I thought it was all a little overblown. The stunts in this movie are simply too preposterous to be believed. That may work in a movie like "The Matrix", but this is supposed to be taking place in the real world. It was all a bit too much, really. It's one of those annoying action movies where a guy on a motorcycle can balance and shoot through the gas cap into the tank and blow up the whole car while doing all sorts of outlandish (and they are outlandish) stunts, but a bad guy in a car with a machine gun not only can't hit the motorcycle, but also cannot keep the car on the road.
And what the hell is with the symbolism? It was all too heavy-handed for my taste. Tom has a dove hovering in front of him? Thanks, Woo, I get it: Tom is the good guy. I rolled my eyes.
Oy. And many moments of the film seem to be lifted wholesale from other movies in a way that reminded me of "Independence Day". We saw the whole face mask wearing thing in "Darkman", thanks. Not to mention the torture with the cigar cutter. I noticed ripoffs of: "Thunderball", "True Lies", "Eraser", "The Matrix", "Goldeneye" and "Darkman". And those are just the ones I can remember.
Another little pet peeve: the love interest, or lack thereof. I am so tired of movies where people fall in love after one scene, and with no real reason except that it was what they were hired to do. That always annoys me. Give them a good motivation to be in love. the fact that they screwed will not cut it.
Don't get me wrong. I like John Woo. In fact, I have liked about every other John Woo movie I have seen. I just didn't like this one. I really didn't like it. The mission wasn't even all that impossible. And the music sounded like the intro to a Dave Matthews song that I really like. It didn't establish the mood, it just made me want to listen to some Dave Matthews.
Mission: Disposable.