30 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

Is it me, or is MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE II generally considered an absolute stinker? For the life of me, I can't see why so many people seem to loathe it so much.

Sure, it's hardly a masterpiece, and it's very silly, but I do think it works brilliantly as superior action-packed escapism. The cinematography is excellent, the stunts amazing, and Thandie Newton's in it - what more could one want? It owes several debts to GOLDENEYE, as well as other pictures, but I'd say it's a much better movie than TOMORROW NEVER DIES or THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH.

Maybe people expected much more from director John Woo. I'd love to see his final cut, which according to the IMDb clocks in at three-and-a-half hours, although I'm not holding my breath for it to be made available on DVD.

Any other CBners prepared to admit to liking M:I-2? I'm also a fan of Brian De Palma's MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE, and I'm looking forward to M:I-3.

[Tanger]

The only part of the movie I enjoy is the cliff scaling at the beginning. Once you get to the end of the title sequence with the heavy metal version of the theme though it's pointless watching the rest.

Give me the Tv series anyday!

[Blue Eyes]

I Don't loathe the film. But I loathe the angle it takes with the character. That rough thing that we're meant to believe is sexy? Sure, some women out there probably do. But I'd slap them if I knew them.

[ShockTroop22]

My only complaint is that it's nothing like the original movie. However, Mr Cruise, and Ms Wagner, have clearly stated they want each film to be completley different, something new each time. Hence the first film was a kind of who dunnit?, number two was mindless action

So with number three will be a new angle on the franchise yet again, comedy? or sum-type of phychological-thriller? the director did do "Panic Room". I dont think this will become very apparent until they've made a dozen or so, but like Tom said; with Mission Impossible "it would be fun to make sequels!"

[Loomis]

Originally posted by ShockTroop22

So with number three will be a new angle on the franchise yet again, comedy? or sum-type of phychological-thriller? the director did do "Panic Room".  

David Fincher is no longer slated to direct M:I-3. I read an interview a while back in which he made comments to the effect that he was planning to make it a very dark and violent movie, but he has now withdrawn from the project. Reportedly, M:I-3 is now set to be directed by Joe (NARC) Carnahan.

[ShockTroop22]

Ah, see what i mean though violent and dark, new style yet again. Thanks for the news on Carnahan, i hadn't head about that.

[superracer0022]

yeah, each director is supposed to bring their own "style" to the movie that they create, kind of like what lee thamori did with james bond

[Robinson]

Originally posted by superracer0022
yeah, each director is supposed to bring their own "style" to the movie that they create, kind of like what lee thamori did with james bond

Yeah, but Tamahori- like the other Bond directors of the Brosnan era are still working under a producer's medium. There's only but soooo much they can do concerning the film.

As for MI:2. Outside of the rock climbing, the 2 tangoes in Spain and Thandie Newton, this film was weak!

It was cool to see Cruise/Hunt after a rogue agent but I thought the film was lacking in so many areas. It was so far away from the first M:I film that seemed to be M:I in name only. The most endearing thing about the original series was that these IMF team members were just that, a "team." By M:I2, you could just call it Cruise and the two sidekicks. It's a vanity project that didn't deliver IMO.

Woo's style appeared to be a cliche by this time. All the slow-mo shots and two handguns in action were tired and rather uninspiring. After watching M:I2, you actually begin to appreciate the first M:I movie. They've been rerunning it on cable and it's relatively sophisticated compared to the sequel.

If they want my $$$ the next time around they'll really have to come up with something special. Personally, I just don't see it happening.

[JmesBond2001]

I'd agree that the action stunts were excellent and I'll give it a good soundtrack rating. I like it as a fun movie, but as for a spy thriller, it doesn't match up.

[1q2w3e4r]

Its not really the same character that appeared in the first film. That's what earked me. The first film used a character that used his brain and never fired a gun MI2 is basically Cruise doing Arnie.

[JimmyBond]

See, when I go to a movie called "Mission: Impossible" which in essence is supposed to be based on the tv show My expectations get just a wee bit high, cause I expect it to be like the TV SHOW!!!! Ok, so the first movie kind of took the concept of the show and turned it on its head, it still stayed true to the concept in some respects.

The second movie just spat on the show IMO, MI the show was about a group of agents who pulled off missons in a cunning manner, they basically slipped in, and slipped out. Barely any violence, and hardly any shooting with the guns, this is what I expect of MI, and I didnt get that with part 2. If I wanted a lame Bond rip off I'd go watch XXX or Tomb Raider, when I watch MI, I want to see MI.

[homerjbond]

Rather enjoyed M:I-1 but marginally like M:I-2...

Tell me, these days, what movie-based-on-a-TV-show has any semblance to its predecessor? It's like the producers are afraid of making it a retread of the TV show and try to change it, by adding violence, sex, etc.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by ShockTroop22

Mr Cruise, and Ms Wagner, have clearly stated they want each film to be completley different, something new each time. Hence the first film was a kind of who dunnit?, number two was mindless action ... Ah, see what i mean though violent and dark, new style yet again.  

That's right. Cruise has declared a policy of hiring a different, respected director for each new MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE film and giving him or her creative control (although Woo's experience with M:I-2 suggests that the degree of creative control may not have been quite as great as he had been led to expect), the apparent aim being to create a constantly-fresh-and-surprising franchise of "quality" popcorn movies made by auteurs (Oliver Stone was slated to direct M:I-2 at one point).

Originally posted by ShockTroop22

So with number three will be a new angle on the franchise yet again, comedy? or sum-type of phychological-thriller?  

Excellent question. The Cruise Doctrine (let's-hire-serious-artists-and-give-them-FREEDOM!) seems to have taken a bit of a battering with the Woo episode (it is also said that Cruise and De Palma clashed repeatedly). For all the high-minded talk of respected directors and free creative reins, it's clear that one man controls the MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE flicks, and here's a clue to his identity: he used to be married to Nicole Kidman.

Perhaps Fincher left the M:I-3 project because he realized that he would be kept on a shorter leash than he'd bargained for. Possibly The Powers That Be didn't like the idea of a film as dark and violent as the one he is said to have been planning. Given the enormous commercial success of M:I-2, I feel it's not on the cards that TPTB would wish to depart from the action-packed fun-for-all-the-family formula. Therefore, I doubt that M:I-3 will be too gritty, too lightweight, or indeed too anything unlikely to make the bucks come rolling in the way they did last time. Is Joe Carnahan considered an auteur? Is he felt to be easier to control than Fincher? Whatever, I'm still looking forward to M:I-3.

[JackChase007]

Better than TOMORROW NEVER DIES and THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH???

I really don't think so...

[Loomis]

No, me neither, come to think of it. I exaggerated. Bond still reigns supreme, and TND is clearly superior to M:I-2 (I don't know what came over me when writing that earlier post), although I wouldn't say that TWINE is more than ever-so-slightly better than M:I-2.

Was wondering how long it would take for someone to call me on that.

[Tarl_Cabot]

The Rock climbing sequence was designed to massage the ego of Mr. Cruise: "Look at me and my scientological magnificance!" It added nothing to the plot and didn't develop the characters or lend any expository info about the hero or villian.I loathe MI2 because it's basically another of 'Days Of thunder' which was just a vanity project that felt like a 2 hr beer commercial and that's why it's the worst movie of all time for me. It's like "Days" because Tom has long hair and the cinematogragher seem only interesed in making Tom look even prettier. MI2 is Tom Cruise's love letter to himself along with Days of thunder. I hope I never even see a trailor to a MI3.

[Tarl_Cabot]

This a great review of MI2 by Harry Knowles of AICN and it pretty much sums up my exact feelings about the film. He also takes a shot at Goldeneye and TWINE which I believe is justified. Here it is:

http://www.aintitcoo...lay.cgi?id=6044

[Mister Asterix]

Originally posted by ShockTroop22 (edited)
My only complaint is that it's nothing like the original movie.

There was an original movie? I don’t remember an original movie. I remember an original television program, and then a very good new television program in 1988, then there were those two Tom Cruise movies with the same title that seemed to want to kick the original show as hard as it could in the crotch. But I don’t remember an original movie. Oh wait! You must be talking about Mission Impossible Versus the Mob, the 1968 film starring Peter Graves, Martin Landau, Barbara Bain, and Greg Morris. That must be what you are talking about. Sorry for my confusion.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Tarl_Cabot

This a great review of MI2 by Harry Knowles of AICN and it pretty much sums up my exact feelings about the film. He also takes a shot at Goldeneye and TWINE which I believe is justified. Here it is:

http://www.aintitcoo...lay.cgi?id=6044  

I agree with many of Knowles' observations, as well as with yours, Tarl_Cabot, although I do think that there are good things about M:I-2, chiefly the cinematography (often stunning when Jeffrey Kimball doesn't seem to have making Cruise look beautiful as his top priority) and action scenes. And, I'm sorry, I know it's shallow, but Thandie Newton is just.... wow.

Like I say, I'd love to see Woo's fabled three-and-a-half-hour cut. There may well be a much better version of the film sitting in a vault somewhere, although for some reason I doubt that it will ever be released.

Even Knowles finds some good things to say about M:I-2 (admittedly, not many). In his "Further Comments" (http://www.aint-it-c...lay.cgi?id=6056), he writes: "When the super special DVD comes out... And god willing a Director

[Tarl_Cabot]

I was also dissapointed for 007 that MI beat Bond to using Australia as a location.

[killkenny kid]

Why?.....Tom Who thats why.

[ShockTroop22]

Originally posted by Mister Asterix


There was an original movie?

Mission Impossible 1

[Turn]

Originally posted by Loomis


I agree with many of Knowles' observations, as well as with yours, Tarl_Cabot, although I do think that there are good things about M:I-2, chiefly the cinematography (often stunning when Jeffrey Kimball doesn't seem to have making Cruise look beautiful as his top priority) and action scenes. And, I'm sorry, I know it's shallow, but Thandie Newton is just.... wow.  

Like I say, I'd love to see Woo's fabled three-and-a-half-hour cut. There may well be a much better version of the film sitting in a vault somewhere, although for some reason I doubt that it will ever be released.

I'll give you that there may be better stuff that could have rounded out the film but was cut. It's just sad, as Mr. * said, that they would take something original, the TV series, something that was built on teamwork, and make it a vanity project. This series has had two movies and both have to do with IMF traitors. A lot of creativity there.

I liked Woo's Face/Off because there was fun action, good actors involved and no expectations despite being asked to believe you could peel off somebody's face and turn into them. I'm good about defending suspension of disbelief, but MI:2 was beyond help.

I really liked the first MI because it was about pulling off something and there was some teamwork, but this just went for the shoot-em up and was goofy about it. Cruise and his endless supply of bullets against a bunch of guys who can't shoot straight? Toss in other endless cliches (the dead bad guy who isn't really dead, enough masks to fill a season of Scooby Doo, etc) and you've got a pretty movie, but a dull one.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Yeah the MI show was a spy show that was very different than Bond because it was all about a TEAM; the fun was watching all the players do their role in whatever mission.They called it 'Mission Impossible' because there's no way 'One Man' can pull it off.

MI2 is Cruise doing a wanna be Bond film. It's a piss poor attempt at him becoming an action hero. He's a small guy and very pretty with a winy voice. Not very threatening. He should stick to non action material if he doesn't want to be laughed off the screen.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Turn

I liked Woo's Face/Off because there was fun action, good actors involved and no expectations despite being asked to believe you could peel off somebody's face and turn into them. I'm good about defending suspension of disbelief, but MI:2 was beyond help.

Originally posted by Tarl_Cabot

the MI show was a spy show that was very different than Bond because it was all about a TEAM; the fun was watching all the players do their role in whatever mission.They called it 'Mission Impossible' because there's no way 'One Man' can pull it off.

I'm beginning to wonder whether I'm overrating M:I-2. Certainly, FACE/OFF is a much better film.

And talking of suspension of disbelief, how are Cruise and Dougray Scott able to get hold of incredibly realistic masks of anyone at all in order to pull off impersonations at a moment's notice?

As for the team concept, I really hope Cruise will be smart enough to insist on a group of charismatic characters and actors for M:I-3 and won't decide to hog the whole show again.

[THEQUESTFORPEAC]

I really like Mission Impossible II, its is a very visual film, great action and great special effects. However the plot is a liitle weak, however the slow motion more than makes up for it.

[Turn]

Originally posted by Loomis




I'm beginning to wonder whether I'm overrating M:I-2. Certainly, FACE/OFF is a much better film.

If you think it's a good film, I don't have a problem with it and hope I didn't sound too harsh in my criticisms. My opinion is it's bad, but there are probably some films I like that you and others would think I'm crazy for liking, so it all evens out.

I actually look forward an MI3 if they do it right with teamwork, suspense and less focus on gunplay.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Turn

If you think it's a good film, I don't have a problem with it and hope I didn't sound too harsh in my criticisms. My opinion is it's bad, but there are probably some films I like that you and others would think I'm crazy for liking, so it all evens out.  

Hey, absolutely no offence taken whatsoever, Turn. I didn't think you came across as harsh (and even if you had done, I'm often harsh myself on these forums - most of us are from time to time). The fact is, I really am wondering whether I've overrated M:I-2. I haven't seen it in a couple of years (I thought of starting this thread to read CBners' opinions after checking its details on the IMDb the other day and being surprised by how many very negative user reviews of it there seemed to be). I do remember enjoying it, but perhaps I'm looking back on it through rose-coloured spectacles.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Loomis

The fact is, I really am wondering whether I've overrated M:I-2. I haven't seen it in a couple of years (I thought of starting this thread to read CBners' opinions after checking its details on the IMDb the other day and being surprised by how many very negative user reviews of it there seemed to be). I do remember enjoying it, but perhaps I'm looking back on it through rose-coloured spectacles.  

Well, I've dusted off my M:I-2 DVD and sat through it again, and feel more or less the same way about it. For the first time I really noticed how atrocious the script is, how intelligence-insulting the dialogue (Anthony Hopkins informs Cruise that Thandie Newton's criminal record has been "expunged", and then adds, by way of explanation to the presumably thick audience, "wiped out"), and how choppy and nonsensical the narrative. I'd also never before noticed that Dougray Scott sounds unintentionally and hilariously like Fat Bastard from the Austin Powers movies. I don't just mean his Scottish accent (although it's often so impenetrable that I wonder just how he managed to land the role) - his delivery of lines is pure Fat Bastard.

Still, I find it hard to dislike M:I-2. It's entertaining fluff, and Woo manages, IMO, to rise above the decidedly dodgy material. The visuals are terrific, and I've said it before but Thandie Newton is.... sensational. I really don't think the film deserves the merciless slamming it gets. Now would the good people at Paramount please prepare the DVD release of Woo's full-length version?

[JimmyBond]

Hey, if the film wasn't part of the Mission: Impossible franchise I'd like it ok. I like Woo, and I like mindless shoot em ups, but this film just took the Mi concept and shat upon it. Another aspect of the series I liked was that they always looked for the least violent way to pull off a mission, less casualities, meant it was easier to slip away undetected. The first film had this (well, except for the ending), MI:2 did not.