MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE 2 A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2000 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): **
It is rare when the sequel, GODFATHER PART II being perhaps the most popular example, is better that the original. Regardless of the hype surrounding the change of directors in MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE 2, with famed action director John Woo (BROKEN ARROW and FACE/OFF) replacing sagging director Brian De Palma (SNAKE EYES and MISSION TO MARS), the sequel doesn't even measure up to the mediocre standards set by the first.
Having more flat, dead spots than Death Valley, MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE 2 drags whenever Woo isn't blowing something up, switching to slow motion or staging a kickboxing extravaganza. And when, on those rare occasions, he does get the action in gear, he comes up with only a few ideas, which he uses ad nauseam. Like in FACE/OFF, his characters wear false faces. This is a cute idea that Woo and writer Robert Towne, who co-wrote the original, abuse by having people conveniently packing a host of masks for the right occasion. As soon as a character starts acting strange, you can be sure that he will shortly rip his fake face off.
Again starring Tom Cruise as IMF(Impossible Mission Force) agent Ethan Hunt, the movie certainly hopes to bank on his star power to make megabucks. Some of the money the studio spent for him and the expensive stunts might have been better saved until the script was worth shooting. And with such a paucity of ideas, why was the movie allowed to expand into over two hours?
An underutilized Ving Rhames returns as Luther Stickell, Ethan's beefy computer geek. As Ethan's romantic interest, a fetchingly beautiful Thandie Newton (BESIEGED) plays thief and IMF recruit, Nyah Nordoff-Hall. With mesmerizing eyes that penetrate like lasers and flowing jet-black hair, Nyah is undeniably gorgeous, but she isn't a worthy action companion for Ethan.
The plot involves a stolen substance whose purpose is unknown to the thief, played by the numbers by Dougray Scott. This parallels the uncertainty of director Woo over what to do with the murky plot, which he turns into James Bond-lite. The mysterious matter turns out to be a powerful virus -- no, not a computer one -- and a corresponding anti-virus. Knowing this alone makes it easy to predict a key "twist" late in the story. Don't hold your breath for any scene as imaginative as the computer room break-in from the original, since there aren't any.
The leaden dialog ("I confess. I, John C. McCloy, am in business to make money.") only makes the movie's long, slow sections more difficult to sit through. You feel like yelling at the screen for them to blow up something, which inevitably picks up the pace for a while.
A few nice moments does not a movie make. Even if Woo demonstrates, on occasion, his gift for setting up vibrant action sequences, this isn't enough to forgive him for wasting our time through most of the movie. Almost all of the picture's best footage occurs in the last 15 minutes, so Woo does send off his audiences with a big adrenaline rush. The question is whether it was worth the one and three quarter hour wait. I, for one, expect more than a 15 minute short from a big-budget action picture. Other viewers may feel similarly cheated.
MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE 2 runs a long 2:06. It is rated PG-13 for action violence and some sexuality and would be acceptable for kids around 10 and up.
My son Jeffrey, age 11, gave it *** 1/2 and was very positive on the film, the plot and the stars. He liked it a lot better than the original, which we watched on DVD last week, since he thought that the sequel had more action. He particularly liked the big motorcycle chase.
Email: Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com Web: http://www.InternetReviews.com
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews