Slashdot Mirror
Movie Reviews:Mission Impossible 2
The last one was kinda James Bond for Dummies and this one sorta follows suit. The plot is pretty cheesy: evil biotech corporation creates killer bio disease and a cure... controlling the virus makes the cure valuable... its more complicated then that, but if you can't figure it out before the movie tediously explains it (complete with ridiculous comments about stock options that are so stupid that they make MI 1's scene about the new artificially intelligent risc chips seem like grad school level CS) then you probably should just wait for the next Pokemon movie or something 'cuz this ain't rocket science (hell, it isn't biotech either ;) There's an evil corporation complete with an evil CEO, an evil terrorist group complete with a lunatic leader and a suffering sidekick or 2.
Anyway the "Plot" is really just an excuse to show us lots of explosions, car/motercycle/helecoptor chases etc etc, along with gratuitous cleavage shots from the hot co-star (which is worth the price of admission assuming you go to a matinee), and Tom Cruise performing stupid backflip karate kicks that might work if they were in Cowboy BeBop, but don't even come close when actual human actors pretend to perform them in slow motion.
So its the roller coaster hollywood film and if you like the genre, you'll probably enjoy this one. It starts off fast and furious, but by the end I was yawning... like so many movies these days, it blows its wad in the first half hour: it just can't sustain the heat for the full 2 hours to keep you interested.
If you like your action fast and your plots brainless, you'll like this movie. If you just want to go for a good ride, you'll enjoy it. But if you gotta choose between Gladiator and MI2, grab your battle axe.
One of my friend dragged me to the premier of this Movie. I had high hopes for it specially when I saw John Woo's name in the credits. But sadly I'd have to say that the action was slightly offbase, MI-2 seem lack the heart pounding Bang-bang that I expected out of Woo. There does seem to be a higher concentration of action at the end of the movie but this does not go well with the melodrama in the rest of the movie. Yes it's a great movie to take a girl to (since I can see several reasons as to why a girl would like this love story over the rest of this summer attractions (even over dino)). The plot in this movie seem to be weak, a virus (ok close your ears if you have not seen it) that could kill all of mankind has been made at a biotech firm (they also made an antidote). The bad guys want the virus or the antidote (cause if they spread the virus and then sold the antidote they'd make tons of $$'s) and the good guys try to stop the bad guys. This movie has a similar tone as some of the later James Bond offerings (specially the one where they send a nuclear submarine off the cost of Turkey -- suposdely to vanquish the 'i kiss you' virii). Overall I give it a low 3 out of 10 and point people to other great summer attractions (Gladiator) and hope the rest of the Summer action movies has more action than B-rated love lines. I have high hopes for X-men and Titan AE
--
It was true to its roots: it had an actual team of people doing all sorts of cool secret agenty stuff the whole time.
You obviously didn't see the same movie I saw. In the first Mission Impossible I saw, the team was killed in the first fifteen minutes. Seeing Emilio Estevez get killed was cool mind you. The rest of the movie was the Ethan Hunt show. It was not about teamwork, it was about Tom Cruise.
MI2 tries too hard to be James Bond. Too much leg, too little plot. I'm currently blaming the movies big faults on John Woo's lack of english skills, the dialogue just does not work on a grand scale. I felt that the team worked much better than in the first one though. The action was cool just not sustainable.
BTW it was Versacchi not Armani.
So far I've gotten all my Karma from telling people they are wrong... :)
The thing you have to keep in mind about this movie is that it is an action flick. Even more then that it is a John Woo action flick. The plot is not going to be impecible, and the action scenes are going to show his style.
You have to keep in mind that the target audience for a movie like this is not 18-35 geek crowd, its the 13-24 testosterone crowd. They don't care if the plot has a few holes in it, so long as 1)The explosions are cool. 2)The fight scenes are cool. 3)They get to see something to titilate them.
Take a look at the Bond films, they follow a very similar formula, and have been wildly succesful. They say imitation is the sincerist form of flatery and I think that it shows true for the Mission Impossible movies.
"You can't fight in here! This is the war room" --Dr. Stra
Yeah, sure. Whatever.
I stopped going to movies a *long* time ago because I would be "in" the movie when the an actor said a particularly dumb line and *bam* I'm sitting in a dark room surrounded by a bunch of slackjawed droolers. That's why I ROTFL'ing during Keanu's "wake-up" sequence in _Matrix_ -- I've been there!
If the "error" is critical to the plot I'm able to live with it. (E.g., who monitored & unplugged the traitor in _Matrix_? Obviously the meeting occured while he was sitting in the chair & Neo approached, but if he could interact like that then why did anyone need to get plugged in?)
But a lot of these errors are totally pointless oversights. E.g., the Star Trek: Borg movie (which may be the last movie I saw in a theater) had people casually walk around as an ICBM launched a few feet away. I've been a few *miles* away from a Shuttle launch, and seen plenty of footage of actual silo launches. People will *not* casually notice a launch a few hundred feet away... and that 2-second sequence left me sitting in a dark room. How hard would it be for them to put the launch silo a few hundred yards out of town? Did this missile base have a *single* silo?!
Maybe I'm being "unreasonable," but I don't have the same problem suspending disbelief when watching older movies. To be fair, that might be a "selection effect" where only the best 5% of movies from the 30's through 60's are aired, vs. *all* contemporary movies. Somehow I doubt _Battlefield Earth_ will be aired on the classic movies channel in 2035.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Sadly I've never liked Woo's "lets make that kick just a little cooler/wilder than the last one" style. Nor his "every action sequence must involve explosions or slow-mo no matter what it is".
But that's just me :)
Also, I don't think the bad guy was really a lunatic. That's cliche, and I think that they tried to keep that from happening. I think that part of the reason for the love triangle in the movie is so that we get a good idea of why he hates Ethan Hunt so much. In that light, he's just an extraordinarily greedy, jealous human being. But I don't think he's just a cliche movie villain.
This didn't really strike me as a true "Mission: Impossible" story. Rather, as Taco mentioned, it was more of a creative outlet for John Woo. The stunts are _great_ - but after awhile there's only so many ways you can kill a guy. This movie started wearing on me at about the 1:15 mark, and never came around after that.
If you ask me, the first M:I was a lot better. For starters, it was true to its roots: it had an actual team of people doing all sorts of cool secret agenty stuff the whole time. There was a mission. It was impossible. And so on.
MI2 really wasn't like this at all. There are three competing strands or directions in which this movie meanders: Woo's fetish with windy slo-mos and 2x Berettas, Cruise's totally incongruous, undying love for Thandie Newton (more on that later), and same vague, yarn about diseases and Greek gods. They take precedence in that order.
Now, if you ask me, that is just stupid. The original MI never dealt with sex in the manner this film does. Nor did it have such incomprehensible plots. I don't deny the directors a little creative freedom here, but through the whole movie I kept thinking about how they were trying to turn Ethan Hunt into a James Bond, minus the smarm. Cruise literally gets smitten (in the span of three minutes, another hiccup in the plot), and from there out his whole motivation is to get this girl back and screw the pants off of her. There are a few cool gadgets, but nothing like the first movie.
The final straw was the portrayal of Ving Rhames. Now, I thought he really stole the show in the first movie. His swagger was the perfect foil to Cruise's cold, calculating, "Kittridge - you have never seen me upset" demeanor. Compare that to this movie, and he is reduced to an annoying caricature of himself, kind of an amalgam of John Shaft and a corner street pimp. He utters lines like "That bastard put a hole in my Armani" with total seriousness. Ugh.. I found myself yearning for the much cooler, much geekier Rhames in M:I, the guy who drooled over kickass hardware and didn't seem to worry too much about his suit.
--
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
Roman Legion was using Mongol recurve bows
What you saw were Syrian auxiliaries with their typical bows. These exact archers are depicted on Trajan's (beginning of 2nd century AD) column. Shorter bows (the ones that you mistakenly call Mongol) were in use at least in the 6th century BC (that's right, almost a millennium earlier) by the Scythians.
This is roughly equivalent to Mel Gibson using a machinegun in Braveheart.
I wanted to let this comment stand in all its singular glory. Feeling good about yourself yet?
The Roman Legions used javelins.
During the Roman empire (as opposed to republic), soldiers became less dependable and therefore less likely to use the sword to good effect. The spaces between cohorts lessened and the battle line again evolved to a phalanx. Pila (which is what you are thinking of) evolved to longer and sturdier spears, appropriate in a phalanx type formation.
12th century ballistas in the 3rd century AD.
The same evolution required more artillery for the defense of camps and for softening up the enemy's line of battle. This is perfectly illustrated in Gladiator. What you assume to be 12th century was in fact in widespread use in the 4th century BC.
The stirrup, allowing effective cavalry, also had not been invented.
I did not notice stirrups. OTOH, I was not looking for them, as you were with your expert eye for such things. I was amused, however, by your implication that effective cavalry did not exist since there were no stirrups. Go tell Alexander's Companions, or Attila.
an EMPEROR challenging a SLAVE to a duel?!?!?
Commodus, Caligula and a couple of others fought in the arena while emperor. Sue your history teacher.
Doesn't anyone go to the movies for just fun anymore? Do you always have to be intellectually stimulated by every movie you go to? Geez, people, lighten up. Have some fun, relax, blow some steam. If you thought it sucked, you probably went expecting a deep flick.
-- Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him? --
Overall, I am disappointed that John Woo decided to direct this movie, because even "Ethan Hunt" isn't the same "Ethan Hunt" anymore. Shame shame. Go see Gladiator instead.
Go get your free Palm V (25 referrals needed only!)
But you're geeks! Is that even allowed?
(runs off to check rulebook)
As far as the plot went, I did think it was a nice touch that the bad guy was obviously smarter than the good guy, and anticipated his every move.
Anyone going to this movie for intellectual stimulation deserves to be disappointed. It was exactly what one should expect - lots of stunts, very well directed and filmed - the car and motorcycle chases were very well done. (i know there are cries about killing the porsche and audi, but if you really want to cry, there is also the hidden: victim a ferrari 308gts, the original gone in 60 seconds: victim tons of valuable muscle cars, including a hemi cuda tboned by a semi, and others)
in fairness, i didn't have to pay to see it - not having to shell out $9 for a movie helps (what does silicon valley think it is? - midtown manhattan?!).
anyway go to have fun, if you want intellectual stimulation - go to something else.
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part 2, Act 4, Scene 2
Why is it that apologists for really bad movies always pull out the same tired cliche about ``intellectual stimulation?'' I may be pretty dense at times, but I assure you I wasn't thick enough to walk into MI2 expecting to see some sort of european art film or anything like that. Nevertheless, I don't think it is asking too much for the holes in the plot to be smaller than the helicopter our heroes were flying around in. I mean, the bad guy's master plan made no sense whatsoever, on any level (as if he's going to just walk in and take his seat on the board of directors after having released a super-flu on the world. Hello, McFly?). Add to that a love story between two characters that had no chemistry whatsoever, mix in some glaring continuity errors, add a dash of fight scenes that would make an anime director blush, stir, and simmer for two hours, and you have a recipe for a seriously mediocre film.
I'm not saying I hated it; it had its good points. Some of the stunts were cool, and the soundtrack was pretty good, but a film can get a hell of a lot better than this without venturing into ``deep flick'' territory. If you haven't seen it already, wait for it to come out in the $2 theatre.
-rpl
Aren't you people boycotting The Man's movies? I know I am, unless and until the DeCSS suit is dropped. There are plenty of fine independent films that don't make you fund a witch hunt against a computer programmer.
I just have one question for the script writers: if the biotech scientiest could "look at" the DNA sequence of the virus to confirm that it was actually it, then why the hell would they need the virus anyway? If you know the DNA, you have the virus....DUH!
Lets see what else...
There's the mandatory self destruct button...
The movie goes for at least an hour without any action happening or anything the least bit interesting going on to keep you from walking out...
I love the way they combined the matrix and outbreak...
I love the way the laws of physics are defied on a regular basis...
I'm sure there's more but I'm tired of bitching
Character development? He's never heard of it.
Even the first MI movie had that going for it.
Take out all the slo-mo and the movie would be 15 minutes long, too
Seriously, though, if you want to laugh, go see it. It's the most incredibly bad movie I've see this year. So many editing/continuity errors that I stopped counting. This movie was made for a 6th grade level audience because of the overly-cliche and explanatory script and framing. Hey, there's a zoom-up on that cigar cutter! I wonder if it'll play an important part of the next shot?
Hey John: pick a frame rate and go with it!
And never, never destroy a piece of artwork like a new 911 Carrera Cabriolet just for the sake of spending the money! Ouch. That ridiculous scene hurt my eyes moreso than the others.
--- witty signature
Okay I've been wondering since the first M:I and seeing the second one brought the question back. How do they make those "fake high tech" operating systems that Hunt uses on the Powermacs. You know what I'm talking about - the sweet looking window manager and apps that he uses to do things like interface with the satellite, etc. It has tons of beeps and clicking and lots of cool features - 3D rotating heads, etc. etc. Any ideas?
--
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
In regards to all of you who have said the fighting style used by Cruise in this movie is "bogus" or "unrealistic", need to try learning a little about the subject before you go blasting your mouths off. To quote a few: "...and Tom Cruise performing stupid backflip karate kicks that might work if they were in Cowboy BeBop, but don't even come close when actual human actors pretend to perform them in slow motion." "And don't even get me started about all the laws-of-physics-out-the-window stuff that happened during the fight scenes. It was all way too much like the Matrix, but wait! We aren't in a computer-generated world here! This is supposedly real!" "And I'm sorry, I don't think that doing flip-kicks are going to be that effective." Many/most of the moves used by cruise in this movie are from a brazilian martial art known as Capoeira, which I myself am a student of, and find it to be incredibly effective as a fighting style. Granted, the bad guy would never have been able to take the kind of punishment Cruise dished out, as several of the kicks used would cripple any normal human being, but the kicks themselves weren't unrealistic in any way whatsoever. Just thought I'd throw in my two cents.
I think the thing that started Gladiator off on the wrong foot for me was the fact that the Roman Legion was using Mongol recurve bows and 12th century ballistas in the 3rd century AD. This is roughly equivalent to Mel Gibson using a machinegun in Braveheart. Never mind that longbows (the first large European bows used heavily for combat) were invented by the Welsh a noticable while later. The Roman Legions used javelins. The javelins were made with soft metal heads that would bend if they hit a shield, so that the user was stuck with dead weight instead of a useful shield. The time and place references did not get better as the movie went on, either. The stirrup, allowing effective cavalry, also had not been invented.
As far as plot goes, it was at least as predictable as MI:2, if not more so. The only three-dimensional character in the film was the former gladiator who owned Maximus. All the rest of the characters were lucky to get one dimension. The plot was painful and the ending simply absurd. Which is more unlikely, Cruise's nutty aerobatic fighting style, or an EMPEROR challenging a SLAVE to a duel?!?!?
I'm sorry. If you want a brainless plot with some good action and entertainment, go see either. If you want a good plot, respectable dialogue, etc. don't see either. I am just astounded that Gladiator can be held up as a better movie than MI:2, when the first is a poor rehash of old gladiator movies and the second is an occaisionally inventive action flick in the spy motif. The only possible reasons I can come up with is that people have seen more spy movies recently, or that they just want to see people dismembered.
Argh. Anyway, if you like John Woo movies, as I do, you will be entertained by MI:2. If you are a medieval weaponry buff, as I am, you will like the fight scenes in Gladiator. If you like to laugh, as I do, you might just like Jackie Chan's mockery of the old west in Shanghai Noon better than either one. The script is witty and the action is good. Plus, it probably cost about a tenth of what either of the other two did.
B. Elgin
B. Elgin
"Read at your own risk; feel free to ignore."
http://fox.mit.edu/skunk/soft/fsv/
Lars -